Talk:Hindsight bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Philosophy	(Rated Mid-importance)	PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Logic

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)

[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)