Talk:Decision-making/Archives/2016

Economics example
Currently the section "Rational and irrational decision making" says:


 * In economics, it is thought that if humans are rational and free to make their own decisions, then they would behave according to rational choice theory.[ref name=Schacter]]] This theory states that people make decisions by determining the likelihood of a potential outcome, the value of the outcome, multiplying the two, and then choosing the more positive of the two outcomes. For example, with a 50% chance of winning $20 or a 90% chance of winning $10, people are thought to be more likely to choose the first option (.50 X $20 = $10 : .90 X $10 = $9 :: $10 > $9).[ref name=Schacter/]

Sorry, but that's just a ridiculous misstatement of rational choice theory. See for example Expected utility theory. If the cited psychology textbook actually says this, then it's not a reliable source, at least not for statements about rational choice theory. That's why I'm removing the example from the article. Loraof (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but next it says


 * In reality, however, there are some factors that affect decision-making abilities and cause people to make irrational decisions, one of them being availability bias. Availability bias is the tendency for some items that are more readily available in memory to be judged as more frequently occurring. For example, someone who watches a lot of movies about terrorist attacks may think the frequency of terrorism to be higher than it actually is.

Well, in rational decision theory that's not considered irrational, since subjective probability can differ from objective probability, and rational behavior is rational given one's perceptions. So I'll change this too. Loraof (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Partnoy book
I recently attempted to add a "Further reading" section with this book:



User:Biogeographist reverted this addition with the edit summary "appears similar to Janis & Mann's Decision Making (1977); if not, add info from book to article body". Wikipedia is supposed to be the first source that people turn to for information on a topic, not the last one. The point of the "Further reading" section is to give readers sources that contain more detail than the article can have, or which have content which is of interest but not appropriate for the article (partisan opinions, official homepages, how-to advice, atlases, galleries, etc.) In this case, the book takes a different and specific angle on the topic than the Wikipedia article, which I thought would make interesting reading. I don't know how similar it is to the cited 1977 book, but even if that is the case, I don't see that as a reason not to list it (or the 1977 book, if that has better information despite being 36 years older) in "Further reading". I don't have any particular claims I wish to add to the article; I'm just hoping to restore this section. -- Beland (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the Portnoy book providing more recent information than Janis & Mann's classic book. I don't have any objection to a "Further reading" section in principle, but my other concern is that such a section with only one book in it could give the impression that the book is authoritative on the topic. In fact, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-Piagetian_theories_of_cognitive_development&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=732556407&oldid=716203361 I recently added a "Further reading" section with only one item to another article] but in that case I think the item truly is authoritative: it is on the same topic as the article, with the same title as the article, in another (but more specialized) encyclopedia, by an expert in the field, published last year. I could find nothing comparable to it. In contrast, popular/trade books on decision making are numerous, and often cover the same ideas already covered in more highly-cited books already mentioned in this article, such as Irving Janis & Leon Mann's Decision Making (5,343 citations on Google Scholar) or Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (9,618 citations on Google Scholar). In contrast, Portnoy's book is cited a mere 18 times on Google Scholar. So it doesn't seem to me that Portnoy's book deserves a section to itself compared to these other giants. However, if you gather a few other books that are notable in the psychology of decision making (and not already cited in this article) and mix Portnoy's book in with them in a "Further reading" section, I see no reasons to object. Biogeographist (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA
As agreed to in other discussions, this may not have enough notoriety for it's own wikipage, but as a subsection of this page, it is certainly meritorious.GESICC (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The big problem here is that the steps are not verifiable (WP:OR) and User:GESICC, who added the steps, has a close connection to RiskAoA. See Articles for deletion/RiskAoA. I've added Template:Original research section rather than delete it again. Biogeographist (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The steps are inherent in use of the program, easily covered in the verifiable descriptions from the validated source. Elaboration by someone who can put it in context and format of the page is not a crime. GESICC (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Elaboration" is original research. And when it is done by someone who was involved in creating the item being described, it raises the issues described at WP:PROMOTION: "It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you." Biogeographist (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, then review the article yourself, and write down the steps yourself. It's all there:  Used to discriminate between alternatives, criteria, inputs, etc.. No original research required, and you could probably improve on this desription.  GESICC (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing even close to the steps listed here in any of the available sources on RiskAoA. There is no way I could synthesize steps like the ones listed here from the article in Defense AT&L magazine, for example. The information is just not there. I think you may be experiencing the curse of knowledge. The other subsections here simply report steps that are explicitly listed in the sources. Biogeographist (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Defense AT&L article: the article states what it is for, -step 1. It needs alternatives, step 2, defining what is important to the study, "Critical-etc", for weights, cites "dependent risk" how to, Categories for intrinsic and environmental variables, I just added the Universal based on reviewing the citation, the entries of High medium, low... in short, all the steps are there in the AT&L article. GESICC (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Defense AT&L article there's nothing even close to the steps listed here. The article says: "High, Medium, Low, or Negligible inputs are entered into the Catastrophic, Critical, Moderate, and Negligible columns. Note that quantitative assessments can also be entered. The final input—Universal Risk—is the ability of the risk to impact the entire program." These statements are not summarized as steps, and do not correspond to the steps listed in the Wikipedia article. It's not clear that it is necessary to follow a fixed set of steps when using RiskAoA. The decision-making steps listed in the Wikipedia article are original research, just as they would be if I tried to synthesize a completely different set of, say, seven or twelve steps. Biogeographist (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet you read it well enough to contradict the entry, and if you desired to, correct it! (Though Crit-etc, are just generic entries, part of the textual and user defined data).  Obviously there is good matter there that someone interested could reiterate sans bias.  GESICC (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever steps are prescribed by RiskAoA are far from "obvious" in the Defense AT&L article. I consider RiskAoA to be out of place in ; all the other subsections contain prescriptive steps that are explicitly listed in the sources, whereas such explicit steps are not available for RiskAoA, and can only (with some imagination) be synthesized through an editor's original research. I have no interest in "correcting" (although it would not be a correction, since it would be my own original research!) a section that should not even exist. Biogeographist (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You were able to correct or provide input to it by reading the journal. Explicit is not required.  Closed.GESICC (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RiskAoA is out of place here for the reasons given above. I am removing the section on RiskAoA because it is original research and promotion of a software package by the software's creator, whereas this article is supposed to be about the psychology of decision making. Biogeographist (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're removing it. However, it does me no good to promote it, and it does not contain original research. You seem to be dodging and weaving for any reason to remove it, when you demonstrated quite clearly you yourself could extrapolate the process, and you seem unable to accept @MrOllie views on the subject. GESICC (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided plenty of reasons above why this section is unacceptable. I absolutely cannot extract the steps that you claim to have extracted from your own published article. From my point of view, you are the one who is "dodging and weaving for any reason" to cite your own work. You have openly admitted at Talk:RiskAoA that you are motivated by "pride" for this software. You seem narrowly focused on using this article to cite your own publication, your own ideas, and the product you helped produce, rather than trying to take a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly, encyclopedic approach. There are so many excellent sources on the psychology of decision making; if you are serious about improving this article, why don't you cite one of the numerous books available on decision making, instead of proudly citing your own work? Choose a solid text or two written by somebody else that clearly and explicitly prescribes a set of decision-making steps that you find helpful and useful, and write about it. Prove that you can add a contribution that does not involve any conflict of interest or original research, and on which we can reach consensus, by writing about an approach that you hold in high regard but to which you have no personal connection. Put on your scholar's hat and take some time to think about how you could accomplish this. Biogeographist (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that Biogeographist is 'unable to accept' my views on the subject. I fully support his removals here: I do not think that section should be on this article, it has no independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require independent sources if it is not an actual article. This contradicts what you said immediately below, as far as waiting for whether or not it will be deleted.  But that IS consensus.  Peace.  As far as sources, one was found on Headlights as you recall, and that is one cited here.  Highbeam isn't an acceptable?  GESICC (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 days ago I wasn't sure if independent sources would be found. Today, I am convinced that they won't be. And they are required, per WP:WEIGHT. Even if some are found, we still don't have any independent sources here, on this article. The timing doesn't really bother me either way, we're not working on a deadline here. But if Biogeographist wants to remove it now, that is fine, and as someone with a conflict of interest you should not be edit warring to keep it in. Highbeam is a search engine, not a source. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If the AFD closes as delete due to the lack of independent sources, the references on this page should be removed as well per the policy on due and undue weight. - MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue weight maybe a elsewhere, but doesn't apply here, it is not the primary topic and references are sufficient. Please review the article for context, especially in light of the other approaches, which are present to rival undue weight.  GESICC (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)