User:Mamaluke78/sandbox

'''Week 14``` First, visit our course Wikipedia Dashboard (Links to an external site.). Orient yourself to the tasks you and your team must do for the week. As our Wikipedia Dashboard suggests, "Continue to expand and improve your work, and format your article to match Wikipedia's tone and standards. Remember to contact your Wikipedia Expert at any time if you need further help!" Make sure your team dedicates time to these processes.

Second, read Editing Wikipedia (Links to an external site.) page 15 to review a final check-list before completing your assignment.

Third, use everything you've learned from all the trainings and work you've done thus far to really polish the article you are working on. You have two weeks from the last assignment to really dig in and make this stellar! As a team, go through all the steps we've done thus far to identify what still needs to be improved to make this great! Divide the responsibilities among team members and document completion of those in your Weekly Memos.

Fourth, if you haven't already checked in with your Wikipedia Expert, do so.``` ''' ``` Polished up on Motivated reasoning Cognitive Strategy this is how I changed my suggested opening paragraph as well as Accuracy of motivated reasoning```

```

Simply put motivated reasoning is seen in cognitive science and social psychology as a mechanism people use that is emotion-driven to come to a conclusion that is most favorable. People use motivated reasoning as a mechanism to evaluate arguments, conversations and asses data in order to quickly reach a conclusion they wish for rather than accept the evidence of the most logical explanation. Motivated Reasoning can play a part in daily activities. An example of this may be watching a close ending of a ball game. One might assume a biased outcome quickly on what is the most favorable conclusion for them if perhaps the referee makes a hard judgment call on the winning point.````` added links to Accuracy part of Motivated Reasoning

Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with [Bayesian probability], in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations. More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational or affective processes to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning "was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation". However, current research refutes that conclusion. “Banks and Hope (2014) early conflict sensitivity findings indicate that logical reasoning --- a process that is traditionally believed to require slow System 2 computations ---can literally be accomplished in a split second.” That is according to Bago, et al. EEG study which shows that elementary logical reasoning happens in the same neurocircuitry as the emotional fast reasoning. )```

'''Week 13``` We are supposed to review the Final Checklist and assign work from the checklist to each team member. I just went ahead and assigned things based on the roles that we have...I tried to make it fair :)

Is the title short and simple? LUCRETIA Is the first sentence direct and useful? CALEB Is the lead section a clear summary? MARCI Did you write in your own words? EVERYONE Is the article clear to a non-expert? MATT Does the article let the reader decide for themselves? CALEB Did you proofread your article? TALBOT Is your formatting consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? TALBOT Are the pictures in your article shared on Wikimedia Commons? ...MATT... Is every claim cited to a reliable source? LUCRETIA /CALEB Did you make links between Wikipedia articles? MARCI Did you thank people who helped you? MATT Did you try searching for your topic online? MARCI

I like the first Sentence so I would say yes.

And the article links and cited one I have looked over so far seem good.``` '''

'' ``` 'Week 12``` Put this in my sandbox. Revision of Mechanisms to update to current research. Kept all down to the last two sentences. Separated them out and added my part. Left the reference at the end. OK?


 * Revision of Mechanisms Section. Separate the last two sentences and add the updated material. Lucretia Park, 8 November 2019

Mechanisms Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability (Links to an external site.), in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations. More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational or affective processes to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning "was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation". However, current research refutes that conclusion. “Banks and Hope (2014) early conflict sensitivity findings indicate that logical reasoning --- a process that is traditionally believed to require slow System 2 computations ---can literally be accomplished in a split second.” That is according to Bago, et al. EEG study which shows that elementary logical reasoning happens in the same neurocircuitry as the emotional fast reasoning. (Ref. # here for Bago, et al. article)

The next section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

Bago, B, et al., (2018) Fast and Slow Thinking: Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Conflict Sensitivity, Neuropsychologia, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 117: 483-490 Found at: http://doi.org/10.1016/J.neurophyschologia.2018.07.017

Lucretia Park, 8 November 2019``` ''' ```

'''Week 11``` First, visit our course Wikipedia Dashboard (Links to an external site.). Orient yourself to the tasks you and your team must do for the week. Make sure to read Editing Wikipedia (Links to an external site.), pages 13 and 15 before you being working this week.

Second, keep working on refining and revising your content.

Third, complete the moving group work live training individually by Wednesday.

Third, as a team, review the talk page of the article you are working on. Make sure that no one has already addressed the changes that you are making. Review recent edits to make sure you are working in harmony with the Wikipedia community. Make any changes to your article that are required to make it fit. Following the instructions from the training, move your work to the main space. '''

Lucretia’s Reference:

Bago, B, et al., (2018) Fast and Slow Thinking: Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Conflict Sensitivity, Neuropsychologia, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 117: 483-490 Found at: http://doi.org/10.1016/J.neurophyschologia.2018.07.017

(Lucretia): Possible change in our document write-up. The article about Fast & Slow Thinking points out that these two categories are no-longer totally separate as they are presented in the original article on "Motivated Reasoning."

( Lucretia): The second reference for the regular article before working on it, is from Newsweek US. August 25, 2009. "Lies of Mass Destruction". This is not a good quality source as it is a magazine & has been put on the Internet. Therefore, it is not a peer-reviewed, academic article as we have been instructed should be used. Also, #15 is a newspaper article (New York Times). Lucretia Park```

'``` ''Week 10 ``` Peer review checklist: Motivated Reasoning in Wikipedia.

Your goal with a peer review is to identify specific ways the article could be improved, and note any major problems that ought to be fixed. Consider these questions: 1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? "It appears to have only relevant sub-topics to explain the lead paragraph. It is distracting when something isn't explained better. This applies to 'cognitive strategy. Perhaps an example would help clarify it." 2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "The article is very neutral without making claims or trying to convince the reader in one way or another. They use the word 'bias' a lot and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps it could be said in other ways." 3. Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? "It refers to reference #3 many times and does not refer evenly to the article references. I suggest that as a team we need to update the research and fine-tune it's use." 4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? "First, the links do work. The sources appear to support the claims made in the articles. There is the exception of poor references that came from magazines or newspapers, etc." 5. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? No, many but not all facts are supported by an appropriate, reliable reference. This should be gone over carefully by the team to make sure either the new or old references work well. Where does the information come from? "Most of the references are from peer-reviewed journal articles. They just need to be updated where needed." Are these neutral sources? The journal articles are neutral, but magazine, newspaper and lesson plan sources are usually biased plus do not fulfill the Wikipedia definition of good sources. If biased, is that bias noted? No, it isn't noted that it is a biased source. 6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? "It is true that some information needs to be brought up to date. It would be good to add a little section on how researchers now believe that the two separate types of motivated reasoning are not so separate in the brain." Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an article that I peer reviewed about sleep deprivation:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? "There has been some updates." Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? "No, it does not define sleep deprivation well enough or Cognitive Performance." Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? "No, it doesn't." Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? "Yes, it talks about brain lesions." Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? "No, it is not concise. How does brain lesions relate to sleep deprivation?" Lead evaluation Content "Needs to be rewritten."

Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? "Not all of it." Is the content added up-to-date? "No." Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? "Content needs to stick to the topic of sleep deprivation." Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? "Yes, the content is neutral." Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? "I cannot see where the article has new content." Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? "Out of 56 sources used, only two are after 2009. So, this articles sources need to be updated." Are the sources current? "No." Check a few links. Do they work? The links are working. Sources and references evaluation Organization "Some. Needs more."

Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? "There looks like some copy and pasting from an article has occurred." Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "Just quotation marks possibly." Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media? "Yes." Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? "Yes, it does a good job of that, I think." Are images well-captioned? "Yes." Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? "Yes," Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? "Yes." Images and media evaluation "Ok" Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC) ```

'''Week 9``` (Lucretia) I reviewed 3 articles on 12 Oct 2019. For one about Attention, I left this comment: "My question is: Why did the history of the study of "Attention" stop in 1974? What about since then? 12 Oct 2019Mamaluke78 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)" I also made an editorial comment in an article about Forgetting. Lastly, I suggested that there are two references in our article we are working on "Motivated Reasoning" that do not come up to the level of sources being peer-reviewed journals or books. Those two sources were: Newsweek Magazine and the other was a newspaper, The New York Times. Lucretia Park```

Talk: Motivated Reasoning
The title is short and simple. It doesn’t look like a question. "Yes, the title is short and simple. It is not a question." The first sentence is direct and useful; it clearly defines the subject, with the topic of the article in bold. "Yes, the first sentence is direct and useful; it clearly defines the subject. The topic is in bold." The lead section is a clear summary, not an introduction or argument. A reader could stop at the end of the lead and have a good overview of the most important aspects of the topic. "The lead section is a clear summary. It isn't an introduction or argument. A reader could stop at the end of the lead and have a clear understanding of the topic. Also, it introduces the rest of the article." It doesn’t contain excessive quotations, or copy any sources (even if you’ve given them credit). "There's a lot of quoting under the cognitive strategy section. Credit is given for the source but this needs to be put in the contributor's own words. The rest of the article seems okay when it comes to quoting." The writing is clear to a non-expert; you’ve explained acronyms and jargon in simple English the first time you use them. "Much of the writing is clear, however there are a couple of things to explain. Under the Mechanisms part, it talks about the neural circuity without explaining what it is. Under Results for an article, it is not explained in simple English. Also, at the beginning please explain 'emotion bias', since the word 'bias' is used a lot in this article." It lets readers decide for themselves, without any persuasive language that aims to sway a reader to a conclusion. You've proof-read it all the way through. Grammar and spelling are correct, sentences are complete sentences, and there is no first-person (“I/we”) or second-person (“you”) writing. "There are not first or second person referrals, nor is there persuasive language. Grammar & spelling are alright too." The formatting is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, without too many headings. Bulleted lists are used sparingly or not at all. "The formatting is consistent with Wikipedia and there are not too many headings. It does have a couple of small lists." Every claim is cited to a reliable source — like a textbook or academic journal — and it doesn't cite any blog posts. "Every claim does have a source, but the references need to be updated. The first reference is from an American Psychology Association lesson plan on HIV & AIDS. This is an inappropriate source. The second source is a News Week Article. The article can't be reviewed without subscribing to News Week Magazine.  Number 15 is a newspaper article from The New York Times. All references must be from peer-viewed journal articles or textbooks." The text includes links to other Wikipedia articles the first time each relevant topic is mentioned. "There are some, but there needs to be more. I already mentioned 'emotion bias'." At least one related Wikipedia article links back to this one. "There are 8 Wikipedia articles linked back to this one -- Motivated Reasoning." You've thanked people who helped you. Check your User Talk page, and the Talk page of your article. If anyone offered help or feedback, say thanks! A big thank you to everyone who contributed to this article as it is and to all who are working to update and clarify it. Mamaluke78 Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)``````

I reviewed 3 articles on 12 Oct 2019. For one about Attention, I left this comment: "My question is: Why did the history of the study of "Attention" stop in 1974? What about since then? 12 Oct 2019Mamaluke78 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)" I also made an editorial comment in an article about Forgetting. Lastly, I suggested that there are two references in our article we are working on "Motivated Reasoning" that do not come up to the level of sources being peer-reviewed journals or books. Those two sources were: Newsweek Magazine and the other was a newspaper, The New York Times. Lucretia Park ```

 Week 8``` 5 References for Motivated Reasoning:

They are also in my sandbox and I will put on the end of memo 8. The polisher can keep or take them off of that if they wish.

Dusso, A., &amp;amp; Kennedy, S.S., (2015) Does Ignorance Matter? The Relative Importance of Civic

Knowledge and the Human Tendency to Engage in Motivated Reasoning, Journal of Public &amp;amp;

Nonprofit Affairs. 1 (1): p.59-72 DOI 10.20899/jpna.1.1.59-72. Found at:

http://doaj.org/article/0409eac8ae96498497c3f2a279b3bca9 (Links to an external site.)

Jilke, S., (2018) Citizen Satisfaction under changing Political Leadership: The role of Partisan

Motivated Reasoning, Governance, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey. 31(3) p.515-533.

Located ar: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&amp;amp ;...

Noval, L., The Unwitting Accomplice: How Organizations Enable Motivated Reasoning and

Self-Serving Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 157 (3) p.699-713. Found at:

http://eds.a.egscohost.com. ezproxy.uvu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=20…```

'''Week 7```` As for writing the article on Motivated Reasoning I am atill trying to figure it all out but posted this for my team. (Mamaluke78 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)) What do you think of this as a possible way to explain Motivated Reasoning for our article? "Motivated Reasoning is seen in cognitive science and social psychology as a mechanism people use that is emotion-driven to come to a conclusion that is most favorable. This comes about by the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. People use motivated reasoning as a mechanism to evaluate arguments, conversations and asses data in order to quickly reach a conclusion they wish for rather than accept the evidence of the most logical explanation. Motivated Reasoning can play a part in daily activities. An example of this may be watching a close ending of a ball game. One might assume a biased outcome quickly on what is the most favorable conclusion to them if the referee makes a hard to tell call on the winning point. However, on the contrary, one might easily except the evidence and not call to question the final judgment made." (Mamaluke78 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC))

This is my article for the week I think would be a good one to support our  topic assigned of Motivated Reasoning. Bago, B, et al., (2018) Fast and Slow Thinking: Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Conflict Sensitivity, Neuropsychologia, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 117: 483-490 Found at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluke78 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ```

 Week 6```

References 26 September 2019 pley, N. & Gilovich, T., (2016) The Mechanics of Motivated Reasoning, Journal of Economic     Perspectives. 30 (3), 133-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.3.133 (Links to an external site.) doi:10.1257/jep.30.3.133

Kahan, D., (2011) What is Motivated Reasoning? How does it Work? Discover Magazine. 5 May 2011., Located at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/22011/05/05/what-is- (Links to an external site.)...

Luo, J., et al. (2013) Cognitive control in belief-laden reasoning during conclusion processing: an ERP study. International Journal of Psychology. 48, 224-231. DOI:10.1080/00207594.2012.677539

Papo, D., (2015) How can we Study Reasoning in the Brain? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 9(222). Located at: www.frontiersin.org (Links to an external site.) doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00222

Roser, M.E., et al., (2015) Investigating Reasoning with Multiple Integrated Neuroscientific Methods. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 9(41). Located at: www.frontiersin.org (Links to an external site.) doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00041

Psychology Research & Reference, (n.d.), Motivated Reasoning, IResearchNet Located at: https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/attitudes/motivated-reasoning (Links to an external site.)

Yip, J.A., & Cote, S. (2013) The Emotionally Intelligent Decision Maker: Emotion-Understanding Ability Reduces the Effect of Incidental Anxiety on Risk Taking. Psychology Science. 24(1) 48-55. Sage Publishing. University of Toronto, Canada. http://pss.sagepub.com (Links to an external site.) DOI: 10.1177/0956797612450031````

Module 5''' '''

Here is the link I think would be a great article for Motivated Reasoning, check it out if you would like.

For goal-oriented reasoning area of wiki article? Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K., (2015) Emotion and Decision Making, Annual Review of Psychology. 66:799-823. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev/-psch-010213-115043 Psychology Research & Reference, (n.d.), Motivated Reasoning, IResearchNet Located at: https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/attitudes/motivated-reasoning (Links to an external site.)

Yip, J.A., & Cote, S. (2013) The Emotionally Intelligent Decision Maker: Emotion-Understanding Ability Reduces the Effect of Incidental Anxiety on Risk Taking. Psychology Science. 24(1) 48-55. Sage Publishing. University of Toronto, Canada. http://pss.sagepub.com (Links to an external site.) DOI: 10.1177/0956797612450031```` ````

Week 4```''' REFERENCES for MOTIVATED REASONING ARTICLE IN WIKI by LUCRETIA PARK (Source: UVU Library) Dieckmann, N.F., Gregory, R., Peters, E., & Hartman, R., (2017), Seeing What You Want to See: How imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning, Risk Analysis, 37(3): 471-486. doi: 10.1111/risa. Epub 2016 Sep 26.

Kahan, D.M. (2013), Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgement and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.

Klaczynski, P.A., (2000) Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: a two-process approach to adolescent cognition, Child Development, 71(5): 1347-1366.

McEachan R., et al., (2016), Meta-Analysis of the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to Understanding Health Behaviors., Ann Behavior Medicine, 50(4): 592-612. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9798-4.

Tappin, B.M., & Gadsby, S., (2019), Biased belief in the Bayesian brain: A deeper look at the evidence, Conscious Cognition, 68: 107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.concog. 2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Jan 19. Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)''' '' 'Week 3``` Possible Topics:''' 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning (Links to an external site.) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation (Links to an external site.) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_memory (Links to an external site.) 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony (Links to an external site.) 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_flexibility'''