Scientific Biases

The broad range of systemic and cognitive prejudices that distort the practice of science. These include publication bias, funding bias, cultural bias in peer review, and theory-ladenness of observation. They ensure that science is not a perfectly objective mirror of nature, but a human institution whose outputs are shaped by social, economic, and psychological forces.

Scientific Biases Example: For decades, Scientific Bias against female physiology meant that heart disease was studied almost exclusively in male subjects, leading to diagnostic criteria and treatments that were less effective for women. The bias was embedded in what was considered a "standard" research subject.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Academic Biases

The prejudices inherent to the university and research institution ecosystem. These include disciplinary bias (dismissing questions from outside your field), prestige bias (favoring work from elite institutions), citation cartels, and the tyranny of trendy theory. They govern what knowledge is produced, who gets to produce it, and what gets recognized as legitimate scholarship.

Academic Biases Example: A brilliant paper using unconventional methods is rejected from a top journal. One reviewer's comment reads: "This is not how research is done in this field." This is pure Academic Bias—enforcing methodological conformity not because it's wrong, but because it's unfamiliar, protecting the paradigm and its gatekeepers.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Political Biases

The full spectrum of unconscious and conscious prejudices that shape how individuals and groups perceive political information, actors, and policies. This includes partisan bias (favoring your party), ideological bias (filtering facts through a left/right lens), outgroup bias (distrusting the opposing side), and politician bias (assuming all politicians are corrupt). These biases ensure we are not rational political actors, but tribal, emotional ones.

Political Biases Example: A voter dismisses a glowing jobs report because it was released by an administration from the opposing party, accusing them of "cooking the books." The same voter would hail an identical report from their own party as proof of economic genius. This is raw Political Bias in action—the same fact is judged not on its merit, but on its source.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Biases of Wiki

The systematic editorial skews inherent to Wikipedia and similar wikis, stemming not from malicious intent but from the inherent characteristics of its volunteer base and collaborative process. Key biases include: systemic bias (over-representation of topics popular among young, tech-savvy, English-speaking Western males), citation bias (over-reliance on sources that are digital and in English), conflict-of-interest bias (covert editing by PR firms and political operatives), and consensus bias (controversial truths that challenge established narratives are often edited out in favor of bland, "settled" accounts that won't provoke edit wars). Wikipedia's biases are the map of the world, drawn by a specific, non-representative cartographers' guild.

Example: The Wikipedia article for a major video game franchise is detailed, meticulously sourced, and updated hourly. The article for a crucial Indigenous agricultural technique, equally significant to human culture, is a stub or non-existent. This reflects the Biases of Wiki: the contributor base writes passionately about its hobbies, while crucial indigenous knowledge languishes due to a lack of editors from that community.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Cognitive Biases of Encyclopedia

The subconscious prejudices of the individual experts, editors, and fact-checkers who compile traditional encyclopedias. These include professional domain bias (a historian might over-emphasize political history over social history), cultural blind spots, and unconscious allegiance to disciplinary paradigms. These personal biases are harder to spot and challenge than on a wiki, as they are buried under the veneer of singular, anonymous authority.

Cognitive Biases of Encyclopedia Example: The editor overseeing the "Psychology" section of an encyclopedia, trained in strict behaviorism, minimizes the contributions of psychoanalysis or humanistic psychology, framing them as historical curiosities. This Cognitive Bias of Encyclopedia shapes the reader's entire understanding of the field, presenting one school of thought as the definitive narrative.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Metacognitive Biases of Wiki

Flaws in Wikipedia editors' and readers' self-awareness about their own knowledge and judgment while using the platform. These biases distort how contributors assess their expertise, gauge the reliability of their edits, and monitor their comprehension of policies. Key examples include the Wikipedia Illusion of Explanatory Depth (believing you understand a topic fully after editing its article, when you've only mastered its presentation), and Procedural Overconfidence (thinking that strictly following citation and NPOV rules guarantees you've produced a "true" article, mistaking process-compliance for substantive understanding). These biases turn the wiki-editing experience into a metacognitive trap, where the act of curation is mistaken for mastery.

Metacognitive Biases of Wiki Example: A Wikipedia editor spends weeks polishing the article on "Quantum Entanglement," meticulously sourcing every claim. They develop a strong Metacognitive Bias of Wiki: the "feeling of knowing." They now believe they deeply understand quantum physics, confusing their hard-won skill in encyclopedic summarization with actual expertise in theoretical physics, and may start arguing authoritatively on physics forums, leading to embarrassing corrections.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Metacognitive Biases of Encyclopedia

Errors in self-awareness that readers (and to a lesser extent, editors) experience when engaging with a traditional, authoritative encyclopedia. The central bias is the Encyclopedia Illusion of Finality: the belief that because knowledge is presented in a finished, bound, and vetted volume, one's own understanding of the topic is also complete and settled. This stunts intellectual curiosity and critical thinking, as the reader's metacognitive signal shifts from "I am learning" to "I have learned." Another is the Deference to Canon Bias, where readers unconsciously outsource their judgment of importance and truth to the encyclopedia's editorial choices, mistaking the curated map of knowledge for the actual territory.

Metacognitive Biases of Encyclopedia Example: A student reads the encyclopedia entry on the "Causes of World War I" and then feels a strong sense of closure on the topic. This Metacognitive Bias of Encyclopedia leads them to dismiss a professor's lecture on newer historiographical debates as "overcomplicating" a settled issue. Their internal gauge of "knowing" has been prematurely maxed out by the authoritative format, impairing their ability to engage with evolving knowledge.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026