In other words, that is a very good and very in-depth display of cognitive biases and yet not one serious reply that is worth a damn. This is a typical reaction to people who are leery and frightened about something but don't have sufficient self-honesty, guts and strength of character to come out and admit it and deal with it.
It's a list of well-known cognitive biases presented in a particularly useless form. Even says at the bottom it's from Wikipedia.
1)There's no logic to where the lines run on the brain drawing, so that's a mere distraction. Makes me initially skeptical, but the biases seem legit. But when a presentation on biases uses a bias, that's never good. I'd say this is maybe "Visually-striking things stick out more" and "picture superiority effect" maybe.
2) The grouping in colored sections is useful, but the circular format means some must be read at a steep angle. It's probably useless for the vision-impaired (I don't know how good those text-to-speech machine readers are, but why put them to the test?). Don't know how it shows up on a smaller screen than mine--probably useless.
3) As a jpg, it can't be copy-pasted. For example, I'm on a tablet because I'm handicapped and can't use a regular computer at a desk, so I can't have two windows open, so when I wanted to talk seriously about the useful categories in #1 up there, I had to memorize the words on the jpg, deliberately shortening them, and hand-type them on a little keyboard. With copy-paste, I could do a much better job discussing the issues.
4) "Codex" is an odd word. It has supernatural connotations, which I assume we're meant to ignore (one definition is "ancient classic or the Scriptures") but the other meaning, of "An official list of medicines, chemicals, etc." immediately makes me skeptical that someone is claiming to have a list of exactly all--no more, no less--of the cognitive biases. Though it's dated. Perhaps more or fewer will appear in 2017.
I'd suggest: Lose all the self-importance and just call it a list. Put it in a functional format with heads, lists and sublists, machine-readable and pastable, in darker colors or, heaven forbid, black. Make it a collection that people can stick in favorites/bookmark, refer back to and use regularly, rather than a pretty poster they thumbtack somewhere and ignore. Edied to add: Even better, hyperlink the biases to their Wikipedia listing or some useful definition, so if someone isn't sure what a bias is, they can immediately look it up. I was intrigued by the Lake Wobegone effect--is that a belief that everyone a person knows is above average? Or did Garrison Keillor come up with something new? Would be cool to have one click to the best explanation, rather than me having to go muddle around with google.
How's that for a serious reply? Normally, I'd ignore it, unless I could think up something funny, because I doubt Buster Benson or John Manoogian III would see or care what I said. I sure can't think anybody would be scared of it. Wonder if I missed an inside joke there?
