Cognitive Metabiases

Biases about biases themselves. These are systematic errors in how we perceive, judge, and attempt to correct for cognitive biases in ourselves and others. A key example is the Bias Blind Spot—the meta-bias of believing you are less biased than other people. Cognitive metabiases are why "knowing about biases" doesn't cure them; it often just gives you more sophisticated tools for self-deception.

Example: A CEO reads about groupthink and then vigilantly points it out in every team meeting, seeing dissent as healthy. However, they are blind to their own Cognitive Metabiases: their overconfidence bias in their ability to detect bias, and their reactance to any criticism, which they now dismiss as just "the team avoiding groupthink."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Cognitive Metabiases of Wiki

Biases in how the Wikipedia community collectively thinks about the cognitive biases present in the wiki system. These are flawed assumptions or beliefs regarding the nature and remediation of bias on the platform. A prime example is the Bias Neutralization Fallacy: the belief that the collective, consensus-driven editing process inherently cancels out individual cognitive biases, akin to a "wisdom of the crowd" effect for truth. This metabias ignores how systemic biases (like contributor demographics) can be reinforced, not mitigated, by group consensus. Another is the Source Fetishism Metabias, where the community believes that any statement backed by a "reliable source" is therefore free from cognitive bias, ignoring the biases embedded within the media and academic publishing industries themselves.

Cognitive Metabiases of Wiki Example: When faced with criticism that Wikipedia's coverage of feminist theory is skewed, a longtime administrator responds, "Our NPOV policy and reliance on peer-reviewed journals correct for any individual editor's bias." This reflects a Cognitive Metabias of Wiki. They assume the process (policy + academic sourcing) is a perfect antidote to bias, failing to see that the pool of academic sources itself may have a systemic bias, and that the consensus of a homogenous editor pool can amplify, not correct, that skew.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026

Cognitive Metabiases of Encyclopedia

Collective, cultural biases about the nature and authority of encyclopedias as a format. The dominant metabias is the Codification Equals Truth Heuristic: the deep-seated belief that information which has undergone the formal, editorial process of encyclopedic publication is more valid, significant, and "real" than knowledge found elsewhere. This leads to the Static Knowledge Fallacy—the assumption that because encyclopedias are updated slowly, the knowledge they contain is stable and perennial, rather than a snapshot of a specific scholarly moment. These metabiases grant encyclopedias an unwarranted epistemological privilege, shaping how society defines what "counts" as legitimate knowledge.

Cognitive Metabiases of Encyclopedia Example: In a debate, someone declares, "It must be true—I read it in the Encyclopedia Britannica!" This statement is powered by a Cognitive Metabias of Encyclopedia. The speaker is not just citing a source; they are invoking the cultural authority of the format itself. They believe the encyclopedia's editorial gatekeeping makes it a more reliable arbiter of truth than a dynamic, contested academic database or primary source, privileging institutional vetting over content verifiability.

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 4, 2026