Talk:Hindsight
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindsight article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| WikiProject Psychology | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Philosophy | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is written in American English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from British English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 |
This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment. |
Contents |
[edit] September 2006
This is my first serious attempt at growing the knowledge contained in Wikipedia. I've tried my best to conform to the formating and content standards of this sphere, but if you see any problems with my work, I would appreciate feedback. Thanks. My edit was of implications/classic studies from the Myers textbook.
(Contributed by User:Irimi)
I have a problem with the section listing phrases describing them as "illustrative of this fallacy":
Phrases The following common phrases are illustrative of this fallacy: With the wisdom of hindsight. Retrospective foresight. Hindsight is 20/20. Hindsight is a wonderful thing
I don't think the common use of these phrases is so much an illustration (nor example) of this fallacy, but something slightly different, which I might almost call a joke (I don't know what to call it).
When someone (or I) say something like "hindsight is 20/20" I'm not trying to say (or imply) that someone has a false recollection that their prediction of outcome was correct, but instead saying that, now that the result is known, anybody could "predict" this (ex poste facto).
At least I don't think so. I haven't changed anything on the page because I'm not 100% sure of myself or of how I might change that section if I were 100% sure.
209.60.102.231 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Classic studies
What exactly does either of the "classic studies" cited have to do with hindsight bias? I haven't removed them because I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something, but they both seem to be about a totally unrelated subject. 81.86.133.45 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If they seem to be unrelated, they probably are, this is Wikipedia. Classic studies should refer to seminal articles. These should include the first empirical tests of the hindsight bias done by Fischhoff, B. (1975), also one should discuss the 2 meta-analyses and the single narrative review that has been done on the hindsight bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.58.192 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that they seem to be irrelevant to this article.MartinPoulter (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone get an Oxford Dictionary of the English Language based citation for the pronunciation comment? In addition, I think the pronunciation guide more properly belongs in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.74.31 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
Could we please have some examples on this page? Without them it's quite hard to work out what the article is talking about. 58.165.109.255 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
How is Pavlov's dog exhibiting hindsight bias... ? That's just not what that bias is about. I haven't looked up the citation given, but it doesn't seem initially plausibel that such an encyclopedia would make that claim. - 79.92.46.10 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Popular Culture
I think the section on popular culture should be dropped. Most of the examples provide therein are either inaccurate (e.g., they refer to overconfidence or simple egoism) or they are colloquial and improperly cited (e.g., weather and sports examples).
I'm not sure if the popular culture section was added to address the 'examples' issue noted above, but for a psychological phenomenon which is related but distinct form other phenomena, precision is important. I believe it should be relatively easy to pull examples from actual papers (e.g., medical malpractice). 128.237.247.173 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
