Talk:Extension neglect

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Poorly-written article[edit]

This article is incomprehensible. Here's what it currently says:

Extension neglect is a category of cognitive bias defined as appearing when "unless attention is specifically directed to it, the size of the set has little or no influence on its valuation"[1]

However, if attention is drawn to set size in an easily interpretable way, an additive extension effect is reported, according to which the valuation of a set is a function of the valuation of a prototypical member of the set added to set size, rather than multiplied [2].

Could someone please rewrite this in English rather than gibberish? Hanxu9 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User talk:Taak to consider fixing it. There's not much info online and I suspect this phrase is due to a single individual and not commonly used. I'm alright with Wikipedia being overly expansive, but as it stands the article is not helpful and should be deleted unless someone can explain this better. Kevin Saff (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If attention is drawn to set size in an easily interpretable way, an additive extension effect is reported, according to which the valuation of a set is a function of the valuation of a prototypical member of the set added to set size, rather than multiplied.

Here in 2023 I still can't tell what this means.

What is "the valuation of a set"? Is it:

a) Its weight or significance for the statistical validity of inferences drawn from it? In that case, what units are used? "Additive" makes no sense unless the valuation is expressed as a real number.

b) The total value or worth of the set?

In the latter case, does the sentence mean that people would value a million dollars at

1,000,000 (the size of the set) plus f($1)?

This is ludicrous on its face -- it really requires more explanation.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope error in introduction[edit]

The first sentence of the introduction commits us to sample size as the size or rate (extension) that is being ignored. The introduction continues with an example that only involves sample size.

Yet later we are given 6 different kinds of extension neglect, only one of which is sample size.

It seems that the correct abstraction is not being captured by the first sentence of the introduction.

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:C9E4:9F6:5E99:526E (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]