User talk:Mamaluke78/sandbox

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``` 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)

A new article for the motivated reasoning 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 Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

'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

5 References for Motivated Reasoning: 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)

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)

Talk: Motivated Reasoning
The title is short and simple. It doesn’t look like a question. "Yes, the title is short and simple." 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) 02:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)