Talk:False consensus effect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False consensus effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section "Relation to Personality Psychology" =[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This section is somebody's speculative ramblings and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.135.150 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Why is "List of famous Minnesotans" under "Overconfidence effect" in the "See Also" section?

I have heard both pro-life activists and pro-choice activists refer to their side as the "silent majority". This seems like a perfect example of the false consensus effect, as obviously both sides cannot be correct. I have no sources for either side referring to themself as such, so I'm hesitant to add this information to the article, but I want to at least put it out there in case other people know of examples that could be used as sources. --Icarus 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a research I know of in the beginning of the eighties in the Netherlands on nuclear power. First, people had to indicate if they were in favor, or against, nuclear energy, and in what amount. After that, they had to estimate the percentage of dutch people and the percentage of members of parliament who were in favor of nuclear energy. People against nuclear energy judged the amount of public support less then people in favour of nuclear energy. The number of MP's was estimated in a smaller range, and the researches guessed that this was because MP's express their opinon in the media, and therefore people had a more accurate idea of the postitions (Source Van der Linden, J., Ester, P., & Van der Pligt, J. (198X). Kernenergie en publieke opinie: een onderzoek naar achtergronden van houdingen ten aanzien van kernenergie en de invloed hierop van het wonen bij een kerncentrale. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Instituut voor milieuvraagstukken.)

But I'm wondering, isnt this an issue of the end seventi4es, early eighties, can't we fund more recent applications? --137.120.3.220 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

	EIGEN MENING
	sterk voor	voor	neutraal	tegen	sterk tegen
geschatte percentage van de Nederlandse bevolking dat vóór uitbreiding van het aantal kerncentrales is.	58%	48%	41%	34%	29%
geschatte percentage van de Tweede Kamerleden dat vóór uitbreiding van het aantal kerncentrales is.	56%	50%	46%	46%	43%

pizza[edit]

what is that sentence doing in there about pizza? even if it does make sense it's written horribly --98.169.245.233 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Really great to see this article being expanded and developed, using quality academic sources. One change I'd like to see is a removal of the "Conclusion" section. Essays have conclusions, but encyclopedia articles don't. An encyclopedia article should leave the reader to draw their own conclusions from a balanced presentation of the facts. MartinPoulter (talk)

Yes, an interesting (and well-presented) article, but as MartinPoulter says, the "conclusion" section looks out of place. I'd suggest that the "applications" and "uncertainties" sections are perhaps a little unencyclopaedic too. Remember, the article is intended to tell the general reader what 'false consensus effect' is, according to the sources, not to assess it's validity according to Wikipedia - that isn't our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applications[edit]

The "Applications" section has a lot of original research/essay speculation. Anyone know of some more good peer-reviewd applications of this theory? David Delony (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Delony I fail to see the speculation, can you (or others) please provide specific examples? This wording appears to be at an consensus point. Endercase (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: David Delony is correct. It is indeed filled with WP:OR. It's possible some or all of that can be found in WP:RS. If not, it could all be deleted. I will tag it appropriately. I see this a lot in legal articles. Some of them have NO WP:RS. However, I know enough about to law to know that the articles are correct, and depending on time, I add RS. If you know of WP:RS, you can always provide the citations. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Instead of just saying "David Delony is correct." could you provide specific examples on how this essay is incorrect or how it could be made better? My understanding of WP:OR is that it is harmful to the encylopedia only because it often provide incorrect information. If the information is correct there are no harms. Endercase (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I didn't say it is incorrect, I said it has no citations. The way to improve it is to provide citations to WP:RS.

Also, I decided not to tag the section since so much of the article is well-sourced, but a tag is completely warranted.

The proper tag is {{refimprove section}}. which would create this:

Anyway, if you know of some good sources, provide the citations. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim How's that? Endercase (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: This edit seems a bit extreme, since the problem seems to be with just that one section. I thought the original tag {{Essay|section|date=September 2011}} was appropriate, but so would the one I stated above. The tags you added now cover the entire article. I suggest you open up a separate talk page section to explain the tag and the numerous problems you see in the article and how they might be corrected so that the tag can be removed. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False consensus effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117094105/http://www.psychologycampus.com:80/social-psychology/false-consensus.html to http://www.psychologycampus.com/social-psychology/false-consensus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

theory of evolution[edit]

Is there any discussion in the literature about the evolutionary aspects? It must have some positive effects on fitness or else it wouldn’t be so prevalent, and this might explain the various results which are otherwise just a set of observations. PAR (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)PAR[reply]

I second this question. And I wonder why the article doesn't present a caveat about why "assuming others think like me" is sometimes or often (?) evolutionary NOT wrong (i.e. the consensus is NOT false). Statistically speaking, it would be wrong to assume that I'm far from the center of the bell curve, wouldn't it? I think the entry should elaborate on the circumstances of the "falseness" of the consensus. Because currently it reads like "assuming that others think like me" is generally more wrong that assuming "others think like me". And while the article presents many theories about "why this assumption happens", it doesn't present any reasons or research about "why this assumption is false". 1.145.80.163 (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Learning Theory[edit]

People learn from their environment but to say people form a bias based on the group could be called group think. 2603:7000:B901:8500:1811:897:E432:3A19 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]