Talk:List of common misconceptions

Side effects of medication

This was explained in such a concise fashion as to be baffling, so I have reworded it more explicitly.

Morality

[1] "People everywhere are convinced that morality is declining – but people everywhere are wrong." Benjamin (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Flamin' Hot Cheetos were not invented by a janitor at Frito-Lay

• Flamin' Hot Cheetos were not invented by a janitor at a Frito-Lay plant, Richard Montañez, in the early 1990s. According to Frito-Lay records, Flamin' Hot Cheetos were developed at the company's headquarters in Texas starting in 1989, as part of a project led by Lynne Greenfeld, and introduced to test markets in 1990, before Richard Montañez joined the company.

I used to believe this for a long time, it is a rumor often circulated on social media. A quick google search for "janitor invented hot cheetos" gives several news articles saying this is a common misconception and that it's not true, though I'm not sure which sources to use. I got reverted when I tried to add this. Michael7604 (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:

1. The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.

For this item, the topic article would be Cheetos, and while that article treats the claims of the former employee, it does not say that it is a common misconception (or words to that effect). While that factual content (i.e. Flaming Hot Cheetos were not invented by a former janitor) is clearly established, it is not clear that anyone other than the person (falsely) making that claim believes it to be true. We'd need sources for that, and for the editors at the topic article to describe the erroneous belief as "common"

When I do a Google search on "janitor invented hot cheetos", it only returns eight articles, only one of which would be a reliable source : https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2023/06/10/flamin-hot-cheetos-movie-fact-check-how-accurate/70302709007/

That article links to this one: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-16/flamin-hot-cheetos-richard-montanez

And apparently there is a recent movie that treats the misconception as fact, so perhaps there's an argument to be made in favor of including the item i.e. it may not be common yet, but might become common if the movie is sufficiently successful. I'm not seeing it, but will defer to the consensus of my fellow editors here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Do You Become an Angel When You Die?

A common misconception that can go under Arts and Culture > Religion > Christianity, or really just under Religion - as it is a subject common to monotheistic religions - is that we become angels when we die. [2] With the exception of at least one sect in Christianity who claim otherwise (see Angel article) this viewpoint is not held among followers of Jesus. 2601:84:8802:FB0:710A:3F7B:93F7:B122 (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Fails the criteria "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Waterproof

[3] "However, one common misconception regarding weatherproofing is that items intended for prolonged outdoor use require the highest numerical IP ratings for moisture resistance." Benjamin (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Attention Span

Note: The PDFs are hosted on my site, but are published journal articles.

There is a 2015 study saying that attention spans have fallen from 12-8 seconds (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/attention_spans_gausby_et_al_2015.pdf). This is unfounded (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790). Despite this, the claim is widely cited (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/social_media_impact_on_attention_span_carstens_et_al_2018.pdf, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JWAM-10-2020-0044/full/html, https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/11/health/short-attention-span-wellness/index.html, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/02/report-shows-that-attention-spans-are-shortening.html).

The number is probably just the average time people spend on websites (http://niplav.site/doc/psychology/attention_span/attention_span_during_lectures_8_seconds_10_minutes_or_more_bradbury_2016.pdf).

I believe this qualifies as a common misconception.

Niplav (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it treated as a common misconception in the topic article? If not, then it fails the inclusion criteria. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Some more misconceptions

1. Sugar makes dogs/cats/pets blind (there's no evidence to back thisup.) 2. Beavers eat wood (they don't, they only eat the soft part that's inside.) 3. Capybaras are the chillest animals (partially true, but not all of the time they are chill as they sometimes attack people.) 4. Hair dye can cause brain damage (Partially true, as some chemicals in many hair dye products may damage the head, but I think this assuming ALL hair dyes do this, which is wrong.) 2800:2145:B400:7C7:5801:61CF:9BE8:3F75 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Any WP:SOURCEs?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of three of these misconceptions, and the remaining one, #2, seems to not really be a misconception in that one could reasonably refer to "the soft part that's inside" as "wood" as well. Are you able to show that these items satisfy the four inclusion criteria given at the top of this talk page? Edderiofer (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

> 2. Beavers eat wood

"Angry Beavers" cartoon depicts beavers treating wood like food, though. And that cartoon was popular in many countries. 109.252.65.192 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Nazis did not call themselves Nazis

There seems to be a misconception that the term "Nazi" was officially used by the Nazis to describe themselves but this is untrue as it was actually a derogatory term used by their opponents. JSAH42 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Here are a few more misconceptions

einstein invented gunpowder (he didnt) teeth are bones (they're not, they're an unique organ) hearts/arteries and veins are red (they are actually white and transparent/colorless respectively, it's just the blood that makes them look red in color) mosquitos bite people intentionally (female mosquitoes just bite to eat) wheels are a prehistoric invention (they never existed in prehistory at all) male (non-human) animals can get in heat (they cant) 2800:2145:B400:7C7:9C8A:7066:DADD:B5F6 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

According to "was ist was" cyclopedias, men have 212 bones. Hmmmm... 109.252.65.192 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you able to show that these items satisfy the four inclusion criteria given at the top of this talk page? (For instance, I am not convinced that "Einstein invented gunpowder" is a common misconception.) Edderiofer (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Likert Scale

The following entry was recently removed:

• The Likert scale is not a single survey question where responses are scored along a range; this falls under the broader category of a rating scale. Instead, a Likert scale is a psychometric measurement tool in which a set of items are used to analyze the strength of respondent opinions by analyzing the sum or mean of responses across questions. A single instance of a ranged survey item when formatted within a set of questions may be referred to as a Likert item .

It was removed because it is "Not treated as a common misconception in the topic article." However, the topic article specifically mentions this misconception in at least two places:

1. "Likert distinguished between a scale proper, which emerges from collective responses to a set of items (usually eight or more), and the format in which responses are scored along a range. Technically speaking, a Likert scale refers only to the former." This juxtaposition of two methods and then specifically identifying only one of the methods as a Likert scale demonstrates that the label is commonly misapplied to other methods.
2. "[T]he term... is often used interchangeably with rating scale, although there are other types of rating scales." In this section, rating scales and Likert scales are introduced as two separate methods, and it is textually evident that the Likert scale is often misconceived as a rating scale.

I believe that these mentions meet the criteria for inclusion. If this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, I'd be interested to hear what changes could be made to the language in the topic article to be more specific, as this particular misconception has become the subject of several academic articles in fields where survey-based methodologies are common. Ja Godfrey (talk) 16 July 2023

As the topic article states, there is a strict definition of the term, but the term is also often used to refer to scales that do not meet the strict definition. i.e. there's a vernacular definition and a strict definition. That does not make using the vernacular definition a "misconception".

For an analogy, there's no such thing as a seagull - there are some fifty something species of birds that could be called gulls, but they do not form a clade; careful writers will refer to specific species or genus or family, but if somebody at the shore points to a bird and calls it a seagull they are not exhibiting a misconception, they're just using common language instead of precise scientific terms. Similarly, there is no lava inside a volcano - technically the molten rock is called magma when it's underground and lava when it reaches he surface. Gasoline is not a gas. Sea horses are not horses. We could go on and on, but this article is not the place for such semantic nit-picking. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Inflation

[4] People think raising interest rates will increase inflation. Benjamin (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance

Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. Lactose intolerance is caused by the lack of the protein lactase, which aids the digestion of lactose, and generally only results in mild gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain and diarrhea, whereas a milk allergy is an immune response triggered by proteins in milk, such as casein and whey (but not lactose, which is a sugar), which can have more severe and possibly fatal symptoms.

I was originally going to propose an entry about the misconception of cheese containing lactose and that lactose intolerant people must avoid it, but during my research it seems that this one is much more well-documented and pervasive. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance and milk allergy are well established as different things, but it is not clear to me how common it is to think that they are the same thing. This section of the topic article states that it was once a misconception among researchers, but does not claim it is current or that it is or was common among the broader population. Other than that, I'm not seeing that it is presented as a common misconception in the topic article.

Also, people often use the term "allergic" in the non-scientific sense to mean that they don't like something or that they experience adverse effects, so this may be an example of people using imprecise common definitions instead of a scientific definition. My experience, for what it's worth, is that everyone I've met who claims to be lactose intolerant says it that way instead of saying they are allergic to dairy.

So, I'm not convinced that this entry meets the inclusion criteria. OTOH, a simple one-sentence entry of "Lactose intolerance is not the same thing as milk allergy." would be fairly harmless. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)