Talk:List of psychological effects

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of psychological effects article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

False consensus effect missing

Any reason that False consensus effect is not listed? Jdmumma (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this page gets big enough suggestion

When this page gets big enough I suggest each topic be segregated into different categories of sociological effects, fallacies and etc rather than any sort of alphabetical order Bobisland (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a name for the provided phenomenon

A frequently occuring sociological effect is a specific permutation of where a statement is correct for the wrong reason. The specific circumstances are that there are three groups, which believe different things about a statement. The first group, which shall be crudely accepted for the sake of the explanation as the group containing the people with least knowledge, believes the statement. The second group is smaller, more knowledgeable and believes that the statement is false, because of some usually quite widely available information or incomplex logic. The third group is almost always the smallest, and contains the people that happen to know that the information or logic behind the belief of the second group is wrong. The third group will often acknowledge the fact that the second group's decision was right, given the available information, to disbelieve the statement, and that the first group should have made the most of the information the second group used.

An example is the story of the novel Frankenstein. The majority of people (the first group) believe that 'Frankenstein is the monster'. Less people (the second group) know that Dr Frankenstein is in fact the scientist who creates the 'monster'. Less still people (the third group) see that, although Frankenstein is the scientist, he is more evil and monstrous than the amalgamation he created. The first group happen to be correct in believing the statement but shouldn't have been.

Is there a name for this? (I'm sorry that took so much space to explain, but it has to have been to preserve the meaning) 195.99.43.168 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]