Talk:Illusory superiority/Archives/2012

Merge proposal

I suggest that Lake Wobegon Effect be merged into Illusory superiority. There are arguments both for and against having "Illusory superiority" as the favoured term, but I think the for- arguments win out.

• There are many different terms used in academic literature to name the effect, so this is a bit of a confused area. "Better-than-average effect" is a synonym for "Lake Wobegon effect" (Lake Wobegon being the place where all the kids are above average). The Hoorens (1993) ref states that "better-than-average effect" is a synonym for "illusory superiority", which is her favoured term.
• The article and talk page of Lake Wobegon Effect are plagued by an ongoing discussion about the differences between the mean and the median: people are quibbling about the phrase "above average", which misses the point that this is a psychological effect, well-established in experiments by people who are entirely clear about the difference. Calling it "illusory superiority" does not lead to this sidetracking.
• Lake Wobegon is a culturally specific name; people in North America can be expected to get that it's a reference to Garrison Keillor, but it has to be explained to people in other English-speaking cultures. "Illusory superiority" needs no unpacking: it is what it says.
• On the other hand, "Lake Wobegon effect" produces more than 6 times as many hits on Google Scholar as "Illusory superiority", although not all of these are about the psychological bias.
• Full disclosure: I created the Illusory superiority article.

MartinPoulter (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, both with the merge and with the preference for the technical rather than the popular title. The popular title could be left as a redirect. Mirafra (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "Lake Wobegon effect" with a link to Illusory Superiority. Lake Wobegon is culturally specific; however, the term "Twinkie Defense" was also culturally specific at one time. Due to widespread usage, it became almost generic. "Lake Wobegone effect" has the advantage of being more evocative and carrying richer nuances of meaning than the dry, academic technical terms. For ultimate clarity, though, it is hard to beat "better-than-average effect." Babycondor (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think "Twinkie Defense" is no longer culturally specific? How many people outside North America do you think understand the term? As for "Lake Wobegon effect" being an evocative phrase, the point of it being culturally specific is that it isn't evocative outside North America. "Better-than-average effect" is a strong contender, but does it really mark out the cognitive bias, as opposed to the competition for schools to report their marks as better than average, or the tendency for companies to reward their CEOs as better than average (which is what a lot of the Google Scholar hits for Lake Wobegon Effect are about). MartinPoulter (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the decisive argument, I think. Imagine a Kruger-and-Dunning-type experiment but where the people who are worst say that they are just slightly worse than average. This would be an example of the effect that this article is about (a self enhancement; an illusory superiority with respect to other people). However, it wouldn't be a better-than-average effect. Hence "better-than-average effect" is slightly too specific. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In summary, there seems to be consensus for the merge, although not consensus about the final name. I will go ahead with the merge (which is nearly finished anyway) and other editors are welcome to propose a renaming of the merged article. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Dunning–Kruger effect into this article

I propose merging Dunning–Kruger effect into this article, for these reasons:

• The title of that article counts as original research, as discussed here and here and so is actively misleading.
• As far as I'm aware, the academic literature treats the D-K experiments as a detailed study of superiority bias/illusory superiority, not as demonstrating a separately notable phenomenon.

MartinPoulter (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Support merging for reasons cited above. --L I C 03:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 DoneMartinPoulter (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2009 (UTCy

Oppose one vote for does not sound like an overwhelming consensus, especially since there was no discussion on the D-K effect talk page.

The merge reasone cited above are not valid. We have already established that the title is not original research, and that that the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a synonym for illusory superiority, which refutes both the two reasons given for the merge. The merge should be backed out. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I welcome re-opening this debate in light of the sources Michael C. Price has brought to light. It seems that the title was original research when first added, but isn't now because it's used by some academic sources, so yes, that argument falls down (although it sets a worrying precedent). The other argument for reversing the merge seems to be predicated on the idea that articles are merged because their subjects are identical: Wikipedia:Merging seems to argue against this.

As a procedural point, the discussion was opened on the Talk page of the destination article, not the source article, in line with the recommendation at Help:Merging so that procedural reason doesn't seem valid.

I suppose the operative question is what would be in a fully-developed D-K effect article that would not be in a fully-developed Illusory superiority article? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I-S and D-K are not the same they would clearly spawn different articles.

On the procedural issue, I note that, according to Help:Merging, contributors to the source article should be notified. Were they? It doesn't look like it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No they weren't, and to be fair, the page says "may", not "should".

I personally don't buy that there's a case for a separate article, and you do. Can we have a third perspective? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Having thought more about this, I'm more receptive to the idea that there should be a D-K effect article, but the case still needs to be spelled out.

• The argument for is that there is some academic literature that uses the term, even though it seems to have originated on Wikipedia, and that it is a subset of, but not identical to, Illusory superiority/superiority bias.
• The argument against is that since the effect is a subset of Illusory superiority, and the key experiments are described in some literature as core examples of Illusory superiority. Hence there's no content that would belong in a D-K article that would not also belong in a fully developed I-S article.

So I think it's legitimate to ask what would be in a new article.

• Such an article must avoid original research. It would have to refer explicitly to the academic sources mentioning the effect. (I don't think the previous article did: am I wrong?)
• It would be good to have editors involved with this process who apply WP policy, not their own misconceptions about the policy ("If it's not a synonym then it shouldn't have been merged in."- Michael C. Price below), and who understand the terms the article is about and how they relate to each other (not editing in misconceptions to the article; not insisting that illusions are pathological).

I'm going to be travelling for the next few days but I will return to this issue. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

1. You say that my position on synonyms is a misconception yet the example that policy quotes is of flammable and non-flammable, which hardly refutes my position that non-synonyms require separate articles. (I mentioned this earlier but there was no response.)
2. The D-K effect is not a subset of I-S, since the highly skilled underrated their abilities (see the original paper).

--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

PS please do not misrepresent me w.r.t. pathological illusions. I said that illusory beliefs were delusions, you were the one to introduce "pathological" into the discussion.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Point 2 above demonstrates that the merge was OR; clearly the D-K effect involves illusory inferiority and so can't be a subset of I-S. The name I-S is simply inaccurate and misleading, as well as being less notable.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Demerged as per above. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like my silence has been taken as agreement, so to set the record straight: "Illusory inferiority" above looks like a WP:NEO. The redefinition of the D-K effect looks like a clear example of original research. It would help your case if you could cite sources supporting your interpretation. Above I write "Such an article must avoid original research." and I've given you months to address this issue. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Illusory inferiority" is just a two-word description, no more. I suggest you read the part of WP:OR that mentions rephrasing. (Hint: rephrasing is permitted) --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Delusion, not illusion

The belief is delusional, not illusional. I suggest a further name change to reflect this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What academic sources use the term "Delusion of superiority"? I haven't found any. "Illusion" seems to be correct. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a crucial difference of meaning between "delusion" and "illusion", in that "delusion" implies something pathological, e.g. Delusions of grandeur, whereas an illusion is something normal that anyone can be subject to, which more closely fits a cognitive bias. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely this condition is akin to delusions of grandeur? Which is not called illusions of grandeur, I note. I don't know why you say that a pathological condition can't be common. Or why a cognitive bias isn't pathological. Surely it is? Any illusory belief is delusional, by definition. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me the sources and I'll change my mind. There's plenty of literature on cognitive biases, and what I've seen describes cognitive biases as a normal part of how cognition works, not as pathological. What specific academic sources are you thinking of? MartinPoulter (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

8 hits from gscholar--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's genuinely surprising: there was only one the last time this came up. So the term belongs in the article, but it's a mistake to use it as a synonym for Illusory superiority. I'll correct that. Where's the sources for "Delusion of superiority", or that state cognitive biases are pathological? MartinPoulter (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whooa. If it's not a synonym then it shouldn't have been merged in. That the merge was done means that it must appear as an AKA. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I would appreciate it if you actually waited for a response before reverting my changes or implementing your dictacts. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't find a policy that says that the only reason to merge is because terms are synonymous. Wikipedia:Merging suggests four reasons to merge, and numbers 2 and 4 seem to apply. Sorry for the earlier revert: my most recent change was necessary because without it the article was actively misleading. MartinPoulter (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason #2 is not valid -- just look at their example, flammmable and non-flammable. That just leaves #4, background, which can be provided by a link to illusory superiority.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Margin of Error

This is so much piffle. The masses are poorly educated, susceptible to various false beliefs and defects of poorly developed minds of which this article and its underlying subject make far too much ado. Note that the result on the sex difference in self-estimation of IQ while it does confirm the sex differential, essentially contradicts what that section asserts because it implies that people guess their IQs within 5 points, one third sigma, which is pretty good, the statistic is itself no more accurate than that, possibly less. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Individual differences of judge ?

was that supposed to be judgment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.157.242 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Illusory superiority in parenting

• Positive Illusions in Parenting: Every Child Is Above Average MartinPoulter (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And how good it is! Lova Falk talk 07:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)