思考与写作en.wikipedia.org
认知偏误列表
List of Cognitive Biases
2012 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是维基百科的“认知偏误列表”页面，按类别汇总了人类判断与决策中大量系统性偏差（如确认偏误、锚定效应、邓宁-克鲁格效应等），每条都附有简要说明和延伸链接。它更像一份可随时查阅的索引，而非深入讲解。
为什么经久不衰：一页之内就能浏览上百种思维陷阱，方便对照自查；尽管“复制危机”让部分条目的可靠性受到质疑，它仍是认知心理学领域被引用最多的入口之一。
HN 评论精选
偏误无法当场识别或靠意志纠正，延迟重要决策是最实用的应对方式。
我曾是认知心理学和偏误的狂热爱好者，尽量多读这方面的书，还做过已完成和待读书目的思维导图。我认为最实用的材料是查理·芒格的演讲，尤其是《人类误判心理学》和《穷查理宝典》。我读完这些书和演讲的主要结论是：你只能知道这些偏误存在，却无法察觉此刻是哪一个在起作用，也无法靠认知努力“修正”它。所以我找到的最实用的缓解办法，就是对重要决策“睡一觉再说”、推迟决定。
buybackoff查看英文原文
I was a big fan of cognitive psychology and biases and tried to read as much books as possible on the subject. Even had a mind-map on finished and TODO books (https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/buybackoff/8746464/10862/10862_original.gif upper-right corner). I think the best practical material on the subject is Charlie Munger talks. Particularly his talk "On the psychology of human misjudgement" (https://buffettmungerwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/mungerspeech_june_95.pdf) and "Poor Charlie's Almanack: The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T. Munger", which is an edited collectoin of his many talks. My main conclusion from reading all the books/talks is that you could only be aware of the existence of the biases, but cannot realize which one(s) is(are) at play now in your brain and cannot "fix" a bias with any cognitive effort. So "sleeping on"/delaying an important decision is the best practical way I have found to mitigate the always present pervasive biases.
在复制危机背景下，这份清单里哪些条目经得起重复验证值得追问。
我想知道这些偏误里哪些“站得住脚”、值得认真对待？之所以问，是因为“复制危机”也波及了卡尼曼等人的研究。我是真心想了解，因为知道哪些可靠才能据此改变自己的行为。
baxtr查看英文原文
I am wondering which of these are "solid" enough to be considered? I am asking because of the "replication crisis" which affected also Kahneman et. al. EDIT: I am genuinely interested in knowing, since it would be helpful to know which of these are reliable - in order to change my behavior accordingly. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/ https://replicationindex.com/category/kahneman/
社会心理学出身的许多偏误因统计实践不佳而难以经受检验。
其中一些或许能被复现。我差点要给自己点踩，因为这话有点阴阳怪气；但我在心理研究领域工作，也许是我的偏见——许多来自社会心理学研究的认知偏误经不起推敲，太常见的原因是糟糕的统计实践……至少二十年前就是如此。
SubiculumCode查看英文原文
Some of which may be replicated. I'd be tempted to down-vote myself for snarky trolling except that I work in the field of psychological research, and perhaps it is my bias, but many of the cognitive biases that came from social-psychology research do not stand up to scrutiny, too frequently resulting from bad statistical practice...at least two decades ago.
好奇强 AI 是否会自然继承人类认知偏误，并看好机器学习辅助定理证明。
这些偏误中有多少会自然出现在强大的 AI 系统里？也许很多！或许当我们试图模仿人脑时，最终也会复制它的缺陷。我对深度学习用于符号化、逻辑化推理（如定理证明）的进展很兴奋：验证定理容易且可处理，证明则不然。我们可以让启发式算法提出可证明正确的算法，这有点类似人类写程序再证明其正确，会很有用。
etaioinshrdlu查看英文原文
How many of these will appear naturally in powerful AI systems? Perhaps many! Maybe by trying to emulate a human brain we will end up recreating its flaws. I am very excited in the progress of deep learning applied to symbolic, logical reasoning, like theorem proving. Theorem verification is easy and tractable, proving is not. We can have heuristic algorithms come up with provably correct algorithms! That is vaguely analogous to a human writing a program then proving it correct. Now that will be useful.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选