Talk:Confirmation bias

Merger with Subjective validation

Merge - I think that Subjective validation should be merged into this article because it is very short and is essentially another name for the same thing. The merge wouldn't be much, probably just a mention of the information or an AKA. JoshBM16 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• JoshBM16, I'd say "no" to a merge based on the explanation at Talk:Barnum effect#Something's wrong.... FYI - Talk:Subjective validation has a section with someone wondering about subjective validation vs. synchronicity and another suggesting that it be merged with Forer effect (which redirects to Barnum effect).

I saw that the subjective validation article mentions it is closely related to the Forer effect and so checked the confirmation bias article and discovered it never mentions the words "Forer", "Barnum", nor "synchronicity". Also, the Barnum effect article has a definition for subjective validation that's quite different than the one provided in the subjective validation article. While digging into that I found that the term "subjective validation" came from a 1980 book and so added that to the SV article. Subjective validation, Forer effect, Barnum effect, synchronicity, and confirmation bias, may well all be blind men's descriptions of the same elephant but I suspect it'll be hard to get them in the same room. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I also oppose this because I disagree strongly that "subjective validation" "is essentially another name for the same thing" as confirmation bias. I don't see any sign of them being treated as synonyms in the literature. They're part of the same topic, sure, but I can't see why they'd be seen as the same thing. It at least needs some argument. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose the merger because confirmation bias predates subjective validation and was established by scientific testing. I see no particular need to admix these different concepts, and a good reason not to. That is, subjective validation is defined rather subjectively with vague definitions, and by comparison, confirmation bias is crisply defined and mechanistic.CarlWesolowski (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Related to "Power corrupts"?

Seems to me that it would be much easier for the powerful to succumb to confirmation bias, since without disproportionate power, one is more likely to to need to examine one's justifications for choices. -lifeform (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confirmation bias. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://psychsystems.net/lab/06_Westen_fmri.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Dawson.Gilo.Regan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)