Talk:False consensus effect

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  pizza 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  theory of evolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural Learning Theory