From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Economics example[edit]

Currently the section "Rational and irrational decision making" says:

In economics, it is thought that if humans are rational and free to make their own decisions, then they would behave according to rational choice theory.[ref name=Schacter]]Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner (2011). Psychology. Worth. pp. 368–370.  ] This theory states that people make decisions by determining the likelihood of a potential outcome, the value of the outcome, multiplying the two, and then choosing the more positive of the two outcomes. For example, with a 50% chance of winning $20 or a 90% chance of winning $10, people are thought to be more likely to choose the first option (.50 X $20 = $10 : .90 X $10 = $9 :: $10 > $9).[ref name=Schacter/]

Sorry, but that's just a ridiculous misstatement of rational choice theory. See for example Expected utility theory. If the cited psychology textbook actually says this, then it's not a reliable source, at least not for statements about rational choice theory. That's why I'm removing the example from the article. Loraof (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but next it says

In reality, however, there are some factors that affect decision-making abilities and cause people to make irrational decisions, one of them being availability bias. Availability bias is the tendency for some items that are more readily available in memory to be judged as more frequently occurring.[1] For example, someone who watches a lot of movies about terrorist attacks may think the frequency of terrorism to be higher than it actually is.

Well, in rational decision theory that's not considered irrational, since subjective probability can differ from objective probability, and rational behavior is rational given one's perceptions. So I'll change this too. Loraof (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schacter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Partnoy book[edit]

I recently attempted to add a "Further reading" section with this book:

Frank Partnoy (2013). Wait: The Art and Science of Delay. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610392471. 

User:Biogeographist reverted this addition with the edit summary "appears similar to Janis & Mann's Decision Making (1977); if not, add info from book to article body". Wikipedia is supposed to be the first source that people turn to for information on a topic, not the last one. The point of the "Further reading" section is to give readers sources that contain more detail than the article can have, or which have content which is of interest but not appropriate for the article (partisan opinions, official homepages, how-to advice, atlases, galleries, etc.) In this case, the book takes a different and specific angle on the topic than the Wikipedia article, which I thought would make interesting reading. I don't know how similar it is to the cited 1977 book, but even if that is the case, I don't see that as a reason not to list it (or the 1977 book, if that has better information despite being 36 years older) in "Further reading". I don't have any particular claims I wish to add to the article; I'm just hoping to restore this section. -- Beland (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point about the Portnoy book providing more recent information than Janis & Mann's classic book. I don't have any objection to a "Further reading" section in principle, but my other concern is that such a section with only one book in it could give the impression that the book is authoritative on the topic. In fact, I recently added a "Further reading" section with only one item to another article but in that case I think the item truly is authoritative: it is on the same topic as the article, with the same title as the article, in another (but more specialized) encyclopedia, by an expert in the field, published last year. I could find nothing comparable to it. In contrast, popular/trade books on decision making are numerous, and often cover the same ideas already covered in more highly-cited books already mentioned in this article, such as Irving Janis & Leon Mann's Decision Making (5,343 citations on Google Scholar) or Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (9,618 citations on Google Scholar). In contrast, Portnoy's book is cited a mere 18 times on Google Scholar. So it doesn't seem to me that Portnoy's book deserves a section to itself compared to these other giants. However, if you gather a few other books that are notable in the psychology of decision making (and not already cited in this article) and mix Portnoy's book in with them in a "Further reading" section, I see no reasons to object. Biogeographist (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


As agreed to in other discussions, this may not have enough notoriety for it's own wikipage, but as a subsection of this page, it is certainly meritorious.GESICC (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The big problem here is that the steps are not verifiable (WP:OR) and User:GESICC, who added the steps, has a close connection to RiskAoA. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RiskAoA. I've added Template:Original research section rather than delete it again. Biogeographist (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The steps are inherent in use of the program, easily covered in the verifiable descriptions from the validated source. Elaboration by someone who can put it in context and format of the page is not a crime. GESICC (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"Elaboration" is original research. And when it is done by someone who was involved in creating the item being described, it raises the issues described at WP:PROMOTION: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you." Biogeographist (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, then review the article yourself, and write down the steps yourself. It's all there: Used to discriminate between alternatives, criteria, inputs, etc.. No original research required, and you could probably improve on this desription. GESICC (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing even close to the steps listed here in any of the available sources on RiskAoA. There is no way I could synthesize steps like the ones listed here from the article in Defense AT&L magazine, for example. The information is just not there. I think you may be experiencing the curse of knowledge. The other subsections here simply report steps that are explicitly listed in the sources. Biogeographist (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
From the Defense AT&L article: the article states what it is for, -step 1. It needs alternatives, step 2, defining what is important to the study, "Critical-etc", for weights, cites "dependent risk" how to, Categories for intrinsic and environmental variables, I just added the Universal based on reviewing the citation, the entries of High medium, low... in short, all the steps are there in the AT&L article. GESICC (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
In the Defense AT&L article there's nothing even close to the steps listed here. The article says: "High, Medium, Low, or Negligible inputs are entered into the Catastrophic, Critical, Moderate, and Negligible columns. Note that quantitative assessments can also be entered. The final input—Universal Risk—is the ability of the risk to impact the entire program." These statements are not summarized as steps, and do not correspond to the steps listed in the Wikipedia article. It's not clear that it is necessary to follow a fixed set of steps when using RiskAoA. The decision-making steps listed in the Wikipedia article are original research, just as they would be if I tried to synthesize a completely different set of, say, seven or twelve steps. Biogeographist (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
And yet you read it well enough to contradict the entry, and if you desired to, correct it! (Though Crit-etc, are just generic entries, part of the textual and user defined data). Obviously there is good matter there that someone interested could reiterate sans bias. GESICC (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever steps are prescribed by RiskAoA are far from "obvious" in the Defense AT&L article. I consider RiskAoA to be out of place in Decision-making § Steps; all the other subsections contain prescriptive steps that are explicitly listed in the sources, whereas such explicit steps are not available for RiskAoA, and can only (with some imagination) be synthesized through an editor's original research. I have no interest in "correcting" (although it would not be a correction, since it would be my own original research!) a section that should not even exist. Biogeographist (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You were able to correct or provide input to it by reading the journal. Explicit is not required. Closed.GESICC (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
RiskAoA is out of place here for the reasons given above. I am removing the section on RiskAoA because it is original research and promotion of a software package by the software's creator, whereas this article is supposed to be about the psychology of decision making. Biogeographist (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why you're removing it. However, it does me no good to promote it, and it does not contain original research. You seem to be dodging and weaving for any reason to remove it, when you demonstrated quite clearly you yourself could extrapolate the process, and you seem unable to accept @MrOllie views on the subject. GESICC (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've provided plenty of reasons above why this section is unacceptable. I absolutely cannot extract the steps that you claim to have extracted from your own published article. From my point of view, you are the one who is "dodging and weaving for any reason" to cite your own work. You have openly admitted at Talk:RiskAoA that you are motivated by "pride" for this software. You seem narrowly focused on using this article to cite your own publication, your own ideas, and the product you helped produce, rather than trying to take a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly, encyclopedic approach. There are so many excellent sources on the psychology of decision making; if you are serious about improving this article, why don't you cite one of the numerous books available on decision making, instead of proudly citing your own work? Choose a solid text or two written by somebody else that clearly and explicitly prescribes a set of decision-making steps that you find helpful and useful, and write about it. Prove that you can add a contribution that does not involve any conflict of interest or original research, and on which we can reach consensus, by writing about an approach that you hold in high regard but to which you have no personal connection. Put on your scholar's hat and take some time to think about how you could accomplish this. Biogeographist (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that Biogeographist is 'unable to accept' my views on the subject. I fully support his removals here: I do not think that section should be on this article, it has no independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't require independent sources if it is not an actual article. This contradicts what you said immediately below, as far as waiting for whether or not it will be deleted. But that IS consensus. Peace. As far as sources, one was found on Headlights as you recall, and that is one cited here. Highbeam isn't an acceptable? GESICC (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
3 days ago I wasn't sure if independent sources would be found. Today, I am convinced that they won't be. And they are required, per WP:WEIGHT. Even if some are found, we still don't have any independent sources here, on this article. The timing doesn't really bother me either way, we're not working on a deadline here. But if Biogeographist wants to remove it now, that is fine, and as someone with a conflict of interest you should not be edit warring to keep it in. Highbeam is a search engine, not a source. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If the AFD closes as delete due to the lack of independent sources, the references on this page should be removed as well per the policy on due and undue weight. - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Undue weight maybe a elsewhere, but doesn't apply here, it is not the primary topic and references are sufficient. Please review the article for context, especially in light of the other approaches, which are present to rival undue weight. GESICC (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision making should not have a hyphen in the title[edit]

No one ever writes "decision-making" in American. We should change the title to "decision making", like normal. "Making" is not a suffix, it is a separate, distinct word. Ace Frahm (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This article used to be Decision making (unhyphenated) but it was moved to Decision-making (hyphenated) by User:Prof. Squirrel at 21:02, 31 October 2013 ‎(UTC). I tend to think of the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a phrasal adjective, however my New Oxford American Dictionary lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun, and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. Therefore the hyphenated form seems correct, although I can see why User:Ace Frahm finds it to be counterintuitive, as the unhyphenated form is widely used (as can be seen in a search on Google Books, for example). Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica has it under "decision making". I think it should be moved on the basis that "decision-making" looks wrong to some people, so the more intuitive and widely accepted version is better. John V John (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus DrStrauss talk 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Decision-makingDecision making – "Decision-making" looks like a mistake to some people (see above), and "Decision making" seems to have a majority on Google Scholar John V John (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose: That it "looks like a mistake to some people" is insufficient rationale for renaming the article, and Google Scholar searches do not distinguish between "decision-making" and "decision making" so I don't see how Google Scholar is relevant. As I noted above in my comment above from 14 September 2016, my New Oxford American Dictionary lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun, and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. As can be seen at Special:WhatLinksHere/Decision-making, within Wikipedia mainspace, currently 395 articles link to the unhyphenated form and 427 articles link to the hyphenated form, so there is no clear preference for the unhyphenated form; in fact, the majority of articles link to the hyphenated form. My opposition does not imply that I personally prefer the hyphenated form, only that insufficient rationale has been presented for the requested move. Biogeographist (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Regarding Google Scholar, I just counted occurrences of "decision-making" not "decision making" in a search for that term, and came up with about 15 of the first 50. John V John (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Does that include uses as an adjective? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I have just struck my opposing vote, based on the additional evidence provided. See my comment below. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Good point about adjectival uses, I make it 12 out of 43 with the hyphen, discounting those. John V John (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Per WP:NOUN. Hyphenation is ordinarily used to create compound modifiers, not compound gerunds (see MOS:HYPHEN). The current form appears to be an adjective (e.g., part of the phrase "decision-making process"). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: I don't see anything in WP:NOUN and MOS:HYPHEN that would justify renaming the article. In fact, MOS:HYPHEN says: "Consult a good dictionary", and as I noted above, the New Oxford American Dictionary lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. Biogeographist (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
To explain my comment, the reason I cited MOS:HYPHEN is to show that it says that hyphenation is typically done to create a compound modifier (rather than a compound noun), and the reason I cited WP:NOUN was to assert that since the hyphenated term appears to be a modifier rather than a noun, the article should be renamed with a form that is (at least more clearly) indicating usage as a noun. I do not dispute that knowledgeable people sometimes use hyphenation to form compound nouns, although that seems to be a practice that is generally avoided.
I note that the above comment about the number of Wikipedia articles that link to the hyphenated-vs.-unhyphenated form fails to distinguish between when the link is from an adjective usage and when it is from a noun usage (and when it is from a mere listing of related articles). Checking the first few such links, I find that many of the hyphenated links are due to the title being linked in Template:Systems engineering, Template:Management, and "See also" sections, rather than reflecting actual usage in running text. In such uses, the link may just indicate inertia from the form of the current title. Where the hyphenated link appears in running text, I see that the links in Benjamin Franklin, Alcohol intoxication, and Higher education are from adjective uses (whereas Cognitive science, Evidence-based medicine, Garbage in, garbage out, Herbert A. Simon, and Nervous system are using the term as a noun).
From this, I conclude that many of the links to the hyphenated form cannot be interpreted as evidence that the phrase is hyphenated nearly as often on Wikipedia (when used as a noun in running text) as the prior remark would appear to indicate. In fact, since the unhyphenated form would very seldom be used as an adjective, it appears to me that the vast majority of noun links in running text on Wikipedia do not use a hyphen.
BarrelProof (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@BarrelProof: Thanks for the additional information. My personal preference is for the unhyphenated form (as a noun), and the additional evidence and argumentation does begin to provide better support for renaming the article to that form, but there is still the troubling fact that the dictionary I regularly use, the New Oxford American Dictionary, lists the hyphenated form of "decision-making" as a noun, and has no entry for the unhyphenated form. However, the dictionary wouldn't convince me to use the hyphenated form in my own writing, so why should I use it as justification for not changing the title of this article? I've just convinced myself to strike my vote. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having closed the RM, moved the page, and performing post-move cleanup, I'm starting to have second thoughts about this RM: first, the article uniformly used the hyphenated form, as well as many references therein. Second, now we have a WP:CONSISTENCY issue with Group decision-making, Category:Decision-making and several articles therein. Perhaps this should have required a broader input, and perhaps a note at WP:PSYCHOLOGY. It seems the scope of this change has not been foreseen well, and I'm reluctant to carry it on; in hindsight, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. So, I'm reverting my close and move, and I'll relist the discussion. No such user (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps User:John V John, who requested the move, would like to consider invoking a requested move of "Group decision-making, Category:Decision-making and several articles therein", following up on the previous comment by User:No such user? If not, the inaction would seem to implicitly support the status quo, per WP:CONSISTENCY. Biogeographist (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The rationale makes little sense to me. Also, the argument that the version with a hyphen 'looks less intuitive' is just absurd. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Looks like a mistake to some people is not a rationale. The current wording is grammatically accurate. Some things are just correct and others are dumbing down. This proposal is unfortunately in the latter category. Mere weighing of numbers of usages on google (scholar) doesn't make the argument. That's apart from the massive knock-on dumbings-down that will be required for consistency. .Zymurgy (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

wikipedia article chart[edit]

i dont understand why there should be a chart on creating an article in wikipedia in an article about decision making — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck1609 (talkcontribs) 12:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)