text:
Attribution bias

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

Attributions are the judgments and assumptions people make about why others behave a certain way. However, these judgments may not always reflect the true situation. Instead of being completely objective, people often make errors in perception that lead to skewed interpretations of social situations. Attribution biases are present in everyday life. For example, when a driver cuts someone off, the person who has been cut off is often more likely to attribute blame to the reckless driver's inherent personality traits (e.g., "That driver is rude and incompetent") rather than situational circumstances (e.g., "That driver may have been late to work and was not paying attention").

Additionally, there are many different types of attribution biases, such as the ultimate attribution error, fundamental attribution error, actor-observer bias, and hostile attribution bias. Each of these biases describes a specific tendency that people exhibit when reasoning about the cause of different behaviors.

This field of study helps to understand how people make sense of their own and others' actions. It also shows us how our preconceptions and mental shortcuts can impact our decision-making. Researchers have delved deeper into these biases and explored how they influence emotions and actions.

Attribution theory
Research on attribution biases is founded in attribution theory, which was proposed to explain why and how people create meaning about others' and their own behavior. This theory focuses on identifying how an observer uses information in his/her social environment in order to create a causal explanation for events. Attribution theory also provides explanations for why different people can interpret the same event in different ways and what factors contribute to attribution biases.

Psychologist Fritz Heider first discussed attributions in his 1958 book, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Heider made several contributions that laid the foundation for further research on attribution theory and attribution biases. He noted that people tend to make distinctions between behaviors that are caused by personal disposition versus environmental or situational conditions. He also predicted that people are more likely to explain others' behavior in terms of dispositional factors (i.e., caused by a given person's personality), while ignoring the surrounding situational demands.

Correspondent inference theory
Building on Heider's early work, other psychologists in the 1960s and 1970s extended work on attributions by offering additional related theories. In 1965, social psychologists Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis proposed an explanation for patterns of attribution termed correspondent inference theory. A correspondent inference assumes that a person's behavior reflects a stable disposition or personality characteristic instead of a situational factor. They explained that certain conditions make us more likely to make a correspondent inference about someone's behavior:

 * Intention: People are more likely to make a correspondent inference when they interpret someone's behavior as intentional, rather than unintentional.
 * Social desirability: People are more likely to make a correspondent inference when an actor's behavior is socially undesirable than when it is conventional.
 * Effects of behavior: People are more likely to make a correspondent, or dispositional, inference when someone else's actions yield outcomes that are rare or not yielded by other actions.

Covariation model
Soon after Jones and Davis first proposed their correspondent inference theory, Harold Kelley, a social psychologist famous for his work on interdependence theory as well as attribution theory, proposed a covariation model in 1973 to explain the way people make attributions. This model helped to explain how people choose to attribute a behavior to an internal disposition versus an environmental factor. Kelley used the term 'covariation' to convey that when making attributions, people have access to information from many observations, across different situations, and at many time points; therefore, people can observe the way a behavior varies under these different conditions and draw conclusions based on that context. He proposed three factors that influence the way individuals explain behavior:
 * Consensus: The extent to which other people behave in the same way. There is high consensus when most people behave consistent with a given action/actor. Low consensus is when not many people behave in this way.
 * Consistency: The extent to which a person usually behaves in a given way. There is high consistency when a person almost always behaves in a specific way. Low consistency is when a person almost never behaves like this.
 * Distinctiveness: The extent to which an actor's behavior in one situation is different from his/her behavior in other situations. There is high distinctiveness when an actor does not behave this way in most situations. Low distinctiveness is when an actor usually behaves in a particular way in most situations.

Kelley proposed that people are more likely to make dispositional attributions when consensus is low (most other people do not behave in the same way), consistency is high (a person behaves this way across most situations), and distinctiveness is low (a person's behavior is not unique to this situation). Alternatively, situational attributions are more likely reached when consensus is high, consistency is low, and distinctiveness is high. His research helped to reveal the specific mechanisms underlying the process of making attributions.

Later development
As early researchers explored the way people make causal attributions, they also recognized that attributions do not necessarily reflect reality and can be colored by a person's own perspective. Certain conditions can prompt people to exhibit attribution bias, or draw inaccurate conclusions about the cause of a given behavior or outcome. In his work on attribution theory, Fritz Heider noted that in ambiguous situations, people make attributions based on their own wants and needs, which are therefore often skewed. He also explained that this tendency was rooted in a need to maintain a positive self-concept, later termed the self-serving bias.

Kelley's covariation model also led to the acknowledgment of attribution biases. The model explained the conditions under which people will make informed dispositional versus situational attributions. But, it assumed that people had access to such information (i.e., the consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness of a person's behavior). When one does not have access to such information, like when they interact with a stranger, it will result in a tendency to take cognitive shortcuts, resulting in different types of attribution biases, such as the actor-observer bias.

Cognitive explanation
Although psychologists agreed that people are prone to these cognitive biases, there existed disagreement concerning the cause of such biases. On one hand, supporters of a "cognitive model" argued that biases were a product of human information processing constraints. One major proponent of this view was Yale psychologist Michael Storms, who proposed this cognitive explanation following his 1973 study of social perception. In his experiment, participants viewed a conversation between two individuals, dubbed Actor One and Actor Two. Some participants viewed the conversation while facing Actor One, such that they were unable to see the front of Actor Two, while other participants viewed the conversation while facing Actor Two, obstructed from the front of Actor One.

Following the conversation, participants were asked to make attributions about the conversationalists. Storms found that participants ascribed more causal influence to the person they were looking at. Thus, participants made different attributions about people depending on the information they had access to. Storms used these results to bolster his theory of cognitively-driven attribution biases; because people have no access to the world except through their own eyes, they are inevitably constrained and consequently prone to biases. Similarly, social psychologist Anthony Greenwald described humans as possessing a totalitarian ego, meaning that people view the world through their own personal selves. Therefore, different people may interpret the world differently and in turn reach different conclusions.

Motivational explanation
Some researchers criticized the view that attributional biases are a sole product of information processing constraints, arguing that humans do not passively interpret their world and make attributions; rather, they are active and goal-driven beings. Building on this criticism, research began to focus on the role of motives in driving attribution biases. Researchers such as Ziva Kunda drew attention to the motivated aspects of attributions and attribution biases. Kunda in particular argued that certain biases only appear when people are presented with motivational pressures; therefore, they cannot be exclusively explained by an objective cognitive process. More specifically, people are more likely to construct biased social judgments when they are motivated to arrive at a particular conclusion, so long as they can justify this conclusion.

Current theory
Early researchers explained attribution biases as cognitively driven and a product of information processing errors. In the early 1980s, studies demonstrated that there may also be a motivational component to attribution biases, such that their own desires and emotions affect how one interprets social information. Current research continues to explore the validity of both of these explanations by examining the function of specific types of attribution biases and their behavioral correlates through a variety of methods (e.g., research with children or using brain imaging techniques).

Recent research on attribution biases has focused on identifying specific types of these biases and their effect on people's behavior. Additionally, some psychologists have taken an applied approach and demonstrated how these biases can be understood in real-world contexts (e.g., the workplace or school). Researchers have also used the theoretical framework of attributions and attribution biases in order to modify the way people interpret social information. For example, studies have implemented attributional retraining to help students have more positive perceptions of their own academic abilities (see below for more details).

Mental health
Studies on attribution bias and mental health suggest that people who have mental illnesses are more likely to hold attribution biases. People who have mental illness tend to have a lower self-esteem, experience social avoidance, and do not commit to improving their overall quality of life, often as a result of lack of motivation. People with these problems tend to feel strongly about their attribution biases and will quickly make their biases known. These problems are called social cognition biases and are even present in those with less severe mental problems. There are many kinds of cognitive biases that affect people in different ways, but all may lead to irrational thinking, judgment, and decision-making.

Aggression
Extensive research in both social and developmental psychology has examined the relationship between aggressive behavior and attribution biases, with a specific focus on the hostile attribution bias.

In particular, researchers have consistently found that children who exhibit a hostile attribution bias (tendency to perceive others' intent as hostile, as opposed to benign) are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors. More specifically, hostile attribution bias has been associated with reactive aggression, as opposed to proactive aggression, as well as victimization. Whereas proactive aggression is unprovoked and goal-driven, reactive aggression is an angry, retaliatory response to some sort of perceived provocation. Therefore, children who are victims of aggression may develop views of peers as hostile, leading them to be more likely to engage in retaliatory (or reactive) aggression.

Research has also indicated that children can develop hostile attribution bias by engaging in aggression in the context of a video game. In a 1998 study, participants played either a violent or non-violent video game and were then asked to read several hypothetical stories where a peer's intent was ambiguous. For example, participants may have read about their peer hitting someone in the head with a ball, but it was unclear whether or not the peer did this intentionally. Participants then responded to questions about their peer's intent. The children who played the violent video game were more likely to say that their peer harmed someone on purpose than the participants who played the nonviolent game. This finding provided evidence that exposure to violence and aggression could cause children to develop a short-term hostile attribution bias.

Intergroup relations
Research has found that humans often exhibit attribution biases when interpreting the behavior of others, and specifically when explaining the behavior of in-group versus out-group members. A review of the literature on intergroup attribution biases noted that people generally favor dispositional explanations of an in-group member's positive behavior and situational explanations for an in-group's negative behavior. Alternatively, people are more likely to do the opposite when explaining the behavior of an out-group member (i.e., attribute positive behavior to situational factors and negative behavior to disposition). Essentially, group members' attributions tend to favor the in-group. This finding has implications for understanding other social psychological topics, such as the development and persistence of out-group stereotypes.

Attribution biases in intergroup relations are observed as early as childhood. In particular, elementary school students are more likely to make dispositional attributions when their friends perform positive behaviors, but situational attributions when disliked peers perform positive behaviors. Similarly, children are more likely to attribute friends' negative behaviors to situational factors, whereas they attribute disliked peers' negative behaviors to dispositional factors. These findings provide evidence that attribution biases emerge very early on.

Academic achievement
Although certain attribution biases are associated with maladaptive behaviors, such as aggression, some research has also indicated that these biases are flexible and can be altered to produce positive outcomes. Much of this work falls within the domain of improving academic achievement through attributional retraining. For example, one study found that students who were taught to modify their attributions actually performed better on homework assignments and lecture materials. The retraining process specifically targeted students who tended to attribute poor academic performance to external factors. It taught these students that poor performance was often attributable to internal and unstable factors, such as effort and ability. Therefore, the retraining helped students perceive greater control over their own academic success by altering their attributional process.

More recent research has extended these findings and examined the value of attributional retraining for helping students adjust to an unfamiliar and competitive setting. In one study, first year college students went through attributional retraining following their first exam in a two-semester course. Similar to the previous study, they were taught to make more controllable attributions (e.g., "I can improve my test grade by studying more") and less uncontrollable attributions (e.g., "No matter what I do, I'll fail"). For students who performed low or average on their first exam, attributional retraining resulted in higher in-class test grades and GPA in the second semester. Students who performed well on the first exam were found to have more positive emotions in the second semester following attributional retraining. Taken together, these studies provide evidence for the flexibility and modifiability of attributional biases.

Limitations of the theory
There is inconsistency in the claims made by scientists and researchers that attempt to prove or disprove attribution theories and the concept of attributional biases. The theory was formed as a comprehensive explanation of the way people interpret the basis of behaviors in human interactions; however, there have been studies that indicate cultural differences in the attribution biases between people of Eastern, collectivistic societies and Western, individualistic societies. A study done by Thomas Miller shows that when dealing with conflict created by other people, individualistic cultures tend to blame the individual for how people behave (dispositional attributions), whereas collectivist cultures blame the overall situation on how people behave (situational attributions).

These same findings were replicated in a study done by Michael Morris where an American group and a Chinese group were asked their opinions about the killings perpetrated by Gang Lu at the University of Iowa. The American group focused on the killer's own internal problems. The Chinese group focused more on the social conditions surrounding the killing. This reinforces the notion that individualistic and collectivistic cultures tend to focus on different aspects of a situation when making attributions.

Additionally, some scientists believe that attributional biases are only exhibited in certain contexts of interaction, where possible outcomes or expectations make the forming of attributions necessary. These criticisms of the attribution model reveal that the theory may not be a general, universal principle.

Major attribution biases
Researchers have identified many different specific types of attribution biases, all of which describe ways in which people exhibit biased interpretations of information. Note that this is not an exhaustive list (see List of attribution biases for more).

Fundamental attribution error
The fundamental attribution error refers to a bias in explaining others' behaviors. According to this error, when someone makes attributions about another person's actions, they are likely to overemphasize the role of dispositional factors while minimizing the influence of situational factors. For example, if a person sees a coworker bump into someone on his way to a meeting, that person is more likely to explain this behavior in terms of the coworker's carelessness or hastiness rather than considering that he was running late to a meeting.

This term was first proposed in the early 1970s by psychologist Lee Ross following an experiment he conducted with Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris in 1967. In this study, participants were instructed to read two essays; one expressed pro-Castro views, and the other expressed anti-Castro views. Participants were then asked to report their attitudes towards the writers under two separate conditions. When participants were informed that the writers voluntarily chose their position towards Castro, participants predictably expressed more positive attitudes towards the anti-Castro writer. However, when participants were told that the writers' positions were determined by a coin toss rather than their own free will, participants unpredictably continued to express more positive attitudes towards the anti-Castro writer. These results demonstrated that participants did not take situational factors into account when evaluating a third party, thus providing evidence for the fundamental attribution error.

Actor-observer bias
The actor-observer bias (also called actor–observer asymmetry) can be thought of as an extension of the fundamental attribution error. According to the actor-observer bias, in addition to over-valuing dispositional explanations of others' behaviors, people tend to under-value dispositional explanations and over-value situational explanations of their own behavior. For example, a student who studies may explain her behavior by referencing situational factors (e.g., "I have an exam coming up"), whereas others will explain her studying by referencing dispositional factors (e.g., "She's ambitious and hard-working"). This bias was first proposed by Edward E. Jones and Richard E. Nisbett in 1971, who explained that "actors tend to attribute the causes of their behavior to stimuli inherent in the situation, while observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor."

There has been some controversy over the theoretical foundation of the actor-observer bias. In a 2006 meta-analysis of all published studies of the bias since 1971, the author found that Jones' and Nisbett's original explanation did not hold. Whereas Jones and Nisbett proposed that actors and observers explain behaviors as attributions to either dispositions or situational factors, examining past studies revealed that this assumption may be flawed. Rather, the theoretical reformulation posits that the way people explain behavior depends on whether or not it is intentional, among other things. For more information on this theoretical reformulation, see actor-observer asymmetry, or refer to Malle's meta-analysis in.

Self-serving bias
A self-serving bias refers to people's tendency to attribute their successes to internal factors but attribute their failures to external factors. This bias helps to explain why individuals tend to take credit for their own successes while often denying responsibility for failures. For example, a tennis player who wins his match might say, "I won because I'm a good athlete," whereas the loser might say, "I lost because the referee was unfair."

The self-serving bias has been thought of as a means of self-esteem maintenance. A person will feel better about themselves by taking credit for successes and creating external blames for failure. This is further reinforced by research showing that as self-threat increases, people are more likely to exhibit a self-serving bias. For example, participants who received negative feedback on a laboratory task were more likely to attribute their task performance to external, rather than internal, factors. The self-serving bias seems to function as an ego-protection mechanism, helping people to better cope with personal failures.

Hostile attribution bias
Hostile attribution bias (HAB) has been defined as an interpretive bias wherein individuals exhibit a tendency to interpret others' ambiguous behaviors as hostile, rather than benign. For example, if a child witnesses two other children whispering, they may assume that the children are talking negatively about them. In this case, the child made an attribution of hostile intent, even though the other children's behavior was potentially benign. Research has indicated that there is an association between hostile attribution bias and aggression, such that people who are more likely to interpret someone else's behavior as hostile are also more likely to engage in aggressive behavior. See the previous section on aggression for more details on this association.

List of attribution biases

 * Actor–observer asymmetry
 * Defensive attribution hypothesis
 * Egocentric bias
 * False-consensus effect
 * Fundamental attribution error
 * Group attribution error
 * In-group favoritism
 * Negativity effect
 * Positivity effect
 * Psychological projection
 * Self-serving bias
 * Trait ascription bias
 * Ultimate attribution error
 * Unrealistic optimism

title: Attribution bias


text:
Let's Go Bang

Let's Go Bang is the second studio album by American actress and singer Jennifer Love Hewitt.

It was released by Atlantic Records on September 12, 1995. It is also the first Hewitt album distributed by Atlantic. The producer, Angelo Montrone, had noticed her musical talents and brought her to the attention of then CEO of Atlantic Records, Doug Morris who then signed her. The album was received with enthusiasm by several program directors at pop radio, however, with the departure of Doug Morris from Atlantic in 1995 the plans for promotion were canceled which led to the album's commercial failure, failing to chart on the US Billboard 200.

The album features contributions from Pino Palladino, Steve Ferrone, John Robinson, and Harvey Mason.

One of the album's tracks, "Free to Be a Woman", written by Hewitt and Angelo Montrone, would go on to become the theme song for the series The Modern Girl, that aired on the Style Network.

The album has been praised since its release mostly because of the LP's rich infusion of new jack swing, house, quiet storm, disco, spoken word, jazz, acoustic and new age into Hewitt's musical input.

Personnel

 * Jennifer Love Hewitt – lead vocals, backing vocals
 * Angelo Montrone – synthesizer, piano
 * Additional musicians
 * Hugh McCracken – electric guitar
 * Paul Pesco – electric guitar
 * Michael Thompson – electric guitar
 * Paul Jackson Jr. – acoustic guitar
 * Dean Parks – acoustic guitar
 * Peter Bliss – guitar
 * John Robinson – drums, hi-hat
 * Harvey Mason – drums, snare drums
 * Steve Ferrone – drums
 * Ricky Lawson – drums
 * Pino Palladino – bass
 * Freddie Washington – bass
 * Danny Wilensky – saxophone
 * Carol Steele – percussion, handclapping, cowbell
 * Sheila E. – percussion
 * Ben Wittman – percussion
 * Diva Gray – backing vocals
 * Rosa Russ – backing vocals
 * Vaneese Thomas – backing vocals
 * Bill Meyers – conductor
 * Steve Richards – cello
 * Larry Corbett – cello
 * Paula Hochhalter – cello
 * Suzie Katayama – cello
 * Armen Ksadjikian – cello
 * Daniel Smith – cello
 * Karen Jones – violin
 * Peter Kent – violin
 * Endre Granat – violin
 * Denyse Buffum – viola
 * Bruce Dukov – violin
 * Berj Garabedian – violin
 * Harris Goldman – violin
 * Sheldon Sanov – violin
 * Mark Sazer – violin
 * Haim Shtrum – violin
 * Robert Peterson – violin
 * Rachel Robinson – violin
 * Valerie Vigoda - violin

Legacy
For many years, audiences misinterpreted the meaning of going to “bang” and mistook it as a sexual innuendo.

In a 2005 interview with Maxim, Hewitt was asked to elaborate on the meaning of the song: “It was supposed to be this dance called the “Bang”, and the song never hit so we never came up with the dance. Everybody just thought I was a really dirty 16-year-old.”

Production

 * Producer: Angelo Montrone
 * Executive producer: Doug Morris
 * Engineers: Michael O'Reilly, Al Schmitt, Steve Sykes, Steve Boyer, Matt Curry, Joe Ferla, Dan Gellert, Michael Wallace
 * Vocals engineered by: Scott Sebring
 * Assistant engineers: Scott Austin, John Hendrickson, Alvaro Alencar, Jerome Chaulin, Peter Doell, Tony Gonzales, Jay Militscher, Rory Romano, Michael Wallace
 * Mixing: Ray Bardani, Michael O'Reilly, Al Schmitt
 * Mixing assistant: Matt Curry
 * Mastering: Ted Jensen
 * Keyboard programming: Angelo Montrone
 * Rhythm programming: Angelo Montrone
 * String arrangements: Bill Meyers
 * Bass arrangement: Angelo Montrone, Michael O'Reilly
 * Production coordination: Jill Dell'Abate
 * Art direction: Liz Barrett
 * Photography: Albert Sanchez

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Let's Go Bang


text:
Media Player Classic

Media Player Classic (MPC), Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (MPC-HC), and Media Player Classic - Black Edition (MPC-BE) are a family of free and open-source, compact, lightweight, and customizable media players for 32-bit and 64-bit Microsoft Windows. The original MPC, along with the MPC-HC fork, mimic the simplistic look and feel of Windows Media Player 6.4, but provide most options and features available in modern media players. Variations of the original MPC and its forks are standard media players in the K-Lite Codec Pack and the Combined Community Codec Pack.

This project is now principally maintained by the community at the Doom9 forum. The active forks are Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (MPC-HC) by clsid2 (same developer known as clsid responsible for MPC 6.4.9.1), and Media Player Classic - Black Edition (MPC-BE) by aleksoid.

Media Player Classic
The original Media Player Classic was created and maintained by a programmer named "Gabest" who also created PCSX2 graphics plugin GSDX. It was developed as a closed-source application, but later relicensed as free software under the terms of the GPL-2.0-or-later license. MPC is hosted under the  project at SourceForge.net. The project itself is something of an umbrella organization for works by Gabest.

Media Player Classic development stalled in May 2006. Gabest, the main developer of the original version, stated in March 2007 that development of Media Player Classic is not dead but that he was unable to work on it. MPC 6.4.9.0, released March 20, 2006, is the final official version.

Media Player Classic 6.4.9.1
In August 2007, an unofficially patched and updated build became available, from Doom9 member clsid, hosted under the  project at SourceForge.net. Known as Media Player Classic 6.4.9.1, it was meant for fixing bugs and updating outdated libraries; its branch's development has been inactive since 2011. MPC 6.4.9.1 Revision 107, released February 14, 2010, is the final release version. The community at the Doom9 forum has since further continued the project with MPC-HC.

Media Player Classic - Home Cinema
A fork, called Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (MPC-HC), adds new features, as well as fixes bugs and updates libraries. It also updated the license to GPL-3.0-or-later.

MPC-HC updates the original player and adds many useful functionalities including the option to remove tearing, additional video decoders (in particular H.264, VC-1 and MPEG-2 with DirectX Video Acceleration support), Enhanced Video Renderer support, and multiple bug fixes. There is also a 64 bit-version of Media Player Classic - Home Cinema for the various Windows x64 platforms. MPC-HC requires at least Windows XP Service Pack 3.

As of version 1.4.2499.0, MPC-HC implemented color management support, an uncommon feature that nearly all video players on Microsoft Windows lack. Windows 8 support was introduced in version 1.6.5. Beginning with version 1.6.6 the stable releases are signed.

Apart from stable releases as published, nightly builds are also publicly available. MPC-HC is also distributed in the PortableApps format. MPC-HC 1.7.8 released in 2015 was built with the MediaInfoLib 0.7.71.

MPC-HC 1.7.1 adds support for H.265/HEVC codec.

MPC-HC 1.7.13 requires CPUs with SSE2 support and no longer runs on Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon XP.

MPC-HC 1.7.13 is the final version of the program that was officially discontinued as of July 16, 2017 due to a shortage of active developers with C/C++ experience. Its source code on GitHub was last updated on August 27, 2017, a month and a half after the official final version.

clsid2's fork
MPC-HC 1.8.xx features Youtube-DL integration.

MPC-HC 1.9.xx adds black theme, modern toolbars, video preview on seekbar, and improves subtitle handling.

Updated builds of MPC-HC, a fork from the same developer (known as clsid2 on GitHub/SourceForge) responsible for MPC 6.4.9.1, started appearing in January 2018. This fork contains updated internal codecs (LAV Filters), AV1 support, youtube-dl integration, a new dark theme, video preview on seekbar, support for MPC Video Renderer, A-B Repeat, subtitle performance improvements; support for Windows XP was dropped in these builds. Binary releases are available, as well as source code.

Media Player Classic - Black Edition
Media Player Classic - Black Edition (MPC-BE) is a fork of MPC and MPC-HC. It moved away from MPC's aim to mimic the look and feel of Windows Media Player with updated player controls and provides additional features on top of MPC-HC such as a video preview tooltip when hovering the mouse cursor over the seek bar, as known from video platforms such as YouTube and Dailymotion, though many of these features, including the video preview on seekbar, were added to MPC-HC at a later date.

MPC-BE, however, doesn't include LAV filters by default, making it less efficient than MPC-HC for decoding. This is most noticeable with higher resolution files, newer codecs, or on lower end hardware.

Player development began in February 2011. Developers used a modification of MPC-HC made by a programmer nicknamed "bobdynlan".

The first version (1.0.1.0) was released on September 12, 2012.

Starting with version 1.5.0, MPC-BE no longer supports Windows XP.

MPC-BE version 1.5.1 and newer require SSE2 supporting CPU and no longer run on Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon XP.

MPC-BE version 1.6.7 no longer supports Windows Vista.

Nightly builds are also available.

Media formats and features

 * In this section Media Player Classic and MPC refer to both the original MPC and its forks, unless otherwise specified.

Media Player Classic is capable of VCD, SVCD, and DVD playback without installation of additional software or codecs. MPC has built-in codecs for MPEG-2 video with support for subtitles and codecs for LPCM, MP2, 3GP, AC3, and DTS audio; along with native playback of the Matroska container format. MPC also contains an improved MPEG splitter that supports playback of VCDs and SVCDs using its VCD/SVCD/XCD Reader. On October 30, 2005, Gabest added MP4 and MPEG-4 Timed Text support. Adobe Flash movies (SWF) can be played and frames jumped to.

Supported media formats within the latest builds of MPC-HC and MPC-BE have been considerably expanded compared to the original MPC, as these builds are bundled with iterations of libavcodec and libavformat. MPC-HC version 1.7.0 and newer utilize LAV filters, while MPC-BE uses FFmpeg directly. Consequently, they support all formats from those libraries.

MPC-HC is also one of the first media players to support Dolby Atmos audio natively.

MPC can use an INI file in its application folder, making it a portable application.

DirectShow
Media Player Classic is primarily based on the DirectShow architecture and therefore automatically uses installed DirectShow decoding filters. For instance, after the open source DirectShow decoding filter ffdshow has been installed, fast and high quality decoding and postprocessing of the MPEG-4 ASP, H.264, and Flash Video formats is available in the original MPC. MPC-HC and MPC-BE, however, can play videos in these formats directly without ffdshow.

MPC-HC and MPC-BE also provide DXVA support for compatible Intel, Nvidia, and ATI/AMD video cards when using a compatible codec. This provides hardware-acceleration for playback.

In addition to DirectShow, MPC can also use the QuickTime, RealPlayer, and SHOUTcast codecs and filters (if installed on the computer) to play their native files. Though some of these files may play without the external codecs or filters installed. Alternatively, QuickTime Alternative and Real Alternative can be used in place of their player installations for expanded support of their respective file formats.

TV tuners
MPC supports playback and recording of television if a supported TV tuner is installed.

title: Media Player Classic


text:
Baron Birkett

Baron Birkett, of Ulverston in the County Palatine of Lancaster, is a hereditary title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 31 January 1958 for the prominent lawyer Sir Norman Birkett. He was one of the British judges at the Nuremberg Trials who later served as a Lord Justice of Appeal before becoming a Law Lord.

On 3 April 2015, the title devolved upon Norman Birkett's grandson who became the third Baron, succeeding his father.

Barons Birkett (1958)

 * William Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett (1883–1962)
 * Michael Birkett, 2nd Baron Birkett (1929–2015)
 * Thomas Birkett, 3rd Baron Birkett (b. 1982)

There is no heir to the title.

title: Baron Birkett


text:
Baron Brain

Baron Brain, of Eynsham in the County of Oxford, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 26 January 1962 for the physician and neurologist Sir Russell Brain, 1st Baronet. He had already been created a Baronet, of Reading in the County of Berkshire, on 29 June 1954. the titles are held by his youngest son, the third Baron, who succeeded in that year. He is a retired physician and a former professor of medicine at McMaster University, Canada.

Barons Brain (1962—)

 * [[file:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Walter Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain (1895–1966)
 * [[file:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Christopher Langdon Brain, 2nd Baron Brain (1926–2014)
 * [[file:Coronet of a British Baron.svg|15px|baseline]] Michael Cottrell Brain, 3rd Baron Brain (1928—)
 * (1) Hon. Thomas Russell Brain (1965—)

The heir apparent and sole heir to the peerage is the present holder's son, the Hon. Thomas Russell Brain (born 1965).

title: Baron Brain


text:
HOME STAR

HOME STAR, (also spelled HOMESTAR), informally known as Cash for Caulkers, is a United States government program proposed in November 2009 to encourage economic growth by offering incentives to homeowners and retailers for improving the energy efficiency of existing homes.

Background
In late 2009 there was a broad perception that the United States economy was beginning to recover from the Late-2000s recession. There was a broad perception that government spending authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 had contributed to the recovery, and some desire for the government to do more to encourage job growth and a faster recovery.

In mid-November former president Bill Clinton, and John Doerr of Barack Obama's President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, proposed different versions of an economic stimulus program by which the government would offer tax incentives to encourage people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Doerr, in public speeches, called the proposal "cash for caulkers". Separately U.S. Representative Peter Welch proposed a system of energy rebates to Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff. Obama, in turn, proposed the idea as part of a larger new stimulus program, at a speech at the Brookings Institution on December 8, 2009.

The stated goals of the proposed program are to reduce pollution, particularly greenhouse gases, by reducing household energy use, to save consumers money in the long term through lower power bills, and to stimulate American businesses through the money spent on appliances, materials, and installation. Improving the energy efficiency of "fixed infrastructure", which accounts for approximately 40% of all energy use in the United States, is considered the "low hanging fruit" of energy conservation - a step that achieves results relatively inexpensively and does not require any new technologies or changes to production or consumption methods.

The name "Homestar" is a reference to the popular energy star electronic device efficiency rating system, and the nickname "Cash for Caulkers" is a play on the earlier cash for clunkers automobile trade-in incentive.

Structure
As of December 2009, no proposed legislation had been released, and there were few specific details of how the program would be administered, which federal agencies would be involved, or how the tax incentives would be paid (or to whom). The program is expected to involve preliminary energy audits by private contractor energy experts, who then recommend a series of steps for each homeowner to upgrade their home's energy efficiency. As proposed the plan was for the government to pay 50% of the cost of each home improvement project through a rebate, tax credit, or funds paid to manufacturers and retailers, up to a maximum of $12,000 (~$ in ) paid for each home. Alternatively, there was speculation that the federal government might give funds to local governments to run their own programs. There was no limitation on eligibility based on tax bracket or income.

Items under consideration for the program included weatherization of home by installing additional insulation, new doors, and windows, and replacing old appliances with more energy-efficient new ones. Expensive items such as washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and heaters, would be covered.

The program was expected to cost approximately $10 billion over the course of one year, paid for out of unspent Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, and would reduce energy consumption of homes that took full advantage of the program by up to 20%. To become effective it would have to be part of a bill passed by the United States Congress.

title: HOME STAR


text:
Solomon kaDinuzulu

Nkayishana Maphumzana 'Phumuzuzulu' Solomon kaDinuzulu (1891 – 4 March 1933) was the king of the Zulu nation from 1913 until his death on 4 March 1933 at Kambi at the age of 41 or 42. He was born on the island of St. Helena during the exile there of his father, king Dinuzulu kaCetshwayo.

In conjunction with the ANC he was a founder of the original Inkatha (or Inkatha kaZulu as it was known) in the 1920s. It was mainly formed to act as a rallying point against Jan Smuts' Native Affairs Bill of 1920.

One of his sisters was Princess Magogo kaDinuzulu, who became famous as a singer of traditional Zulu songs as well as for being the mother of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).

He was succeeded by his son Cyprian Bhekuzulu kaSolomon.

title: Solomon kaDinuzulu


text:
Love Songs (Jennifer Love Hewitt album)

Love Songs is the debut studio album by actress and recording artist Jennifer Love Hewitt, released only in Japan on March 21, 1992 by Meldac and distributed by Nippon Crown.

Background
Jennifer Love Hewitt recorded a cover version of the Blondie song "Heart of Glass" as a single for release only in Japan. However, that song was not included in the final track list for this album. Production of Love Songs began in 1991. The first single released from the album was a cover of the ABBA song "Dancing Queen", on June 21, 1991. The second single, "What's It Gonna Take", was released that November. The third and final single, "Please Save Us the World", was released in 1992. A music video for "Please Save Us the World" was made as part of a United Nations charity effort.

Personnel

 * Jennifer Love Hewitt – vocals, background vocals
 * Rod Antoon – drums, keyboard
 * Leon "Ndugu" Chancler – drums
 * Brad Cole – keyboard
 * Liz Constantine – background vocals
 * N'Dea Davenport – background vocals
 * Jerry Deaton – drums
 * Joel Derouin – violin, concert master
 * Bruce Dukov – violin
 * Bob Etoll – guitar, drums
 * Charles Everett – violin
 * Armen Garabedian – violin
 * Berj Garabedian – violin
 * Seth Gilstrap – baritone saxophone
 * Herbert Hoover;- alto saxophone
 * Gary Herbig – saxophone
 * Suzie Katayama – conductor
 * Peter Kent – violin
 * Rob Lorentz – violin
 * Jim Altman - baritone ukulele
 * Christian Rollman – keyboard and background vocals
 * Dave Marotta – bass
 * Quincy McCrary – background vocals
 * Kelly Parkinson – violin
 * Starr Parodi – keyboard
 * Greg Poree – acoustic guitar
 * Sheldon Reynolds – guitar
 * Steve Richards – cello
 * Wolfgang Schmid – bass
 * Daniel Smith – cello
 * Jana Sorenson – background vocals
 * Ralph Stemmann – synclavier
 * Chad Wackerman – drums
 * John Wheelock – electric guitar
 * Fred White – background vocals
 * Ed Willett – cello
 * Herschel Wise – viola
 * John Yoakum – oboe
 * Derek J. Young – background vocals
 * Nate White – handpan and didgeridoo

Production

 * Producers: Rod Antoon, Bob Etoll, Greg Poree, Jeffrey Weber
 * Engineer: Wolfgang Aichholz, John Baker, Vincent Cirilli, Walter Clissen, Clark Germain, Khaliq Glover, Mike McDonald
 * Mixing: Walter Clissen, Harry Maslin
 * Mixing assistant: Matt Pakucko
 * Sound technician: Ralph Stemmann
 * Keyboard programming: Rod Antoon, Brad Cole, Jerry Deaton, Bob Etoll
 * Arrangers: Rod Antoon, Brad Cole, Jerry Deaton, Bob Etoll, Greg Poree, Jeffrey Weber
 * String arrangements: Suzie Katayama

title: Love Songs (Jennifer Love Hewitt album)


text:
Talk:Karelia (historical province of Finland)

Untitled
This article about Karelia, the historical province of Sweden should not be the main article. I demand we make Karelia a disambiguation page. This article is in the past, the current Russian republic is NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 March 2004 (UTC)

 * Please see the discussions at Talk:Republic of Karelia and Talk:Karelia for closely related topics. (See also User talk:Daniel Nagy.) -- Mic 19:55, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

KARELIA SHOULD BECOME A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE!
If no one responds, I will take matters into my own hands, as I have done with Avars. -User:Dagestan 07:11, 24 March 2004 (UTC)

 * There is already a disambiguation page for Karelia at Karelia (disambiguation). Like before you are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Taking part of a discussion means that you not only will have to present some form of argument where you try to convince the other participants, but also that you take the trouble of getting yourself acquainted to what stage the discussion has progressed at what arguments has been made. You then have the opportunity to support, oppose or develop these arguments further. When engaging in a discussion you are also more likely to get results in making proposals rather than making unilateral demands. Good luck and welcome to join in on the discussion. -- Mic 15:02, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

The problem IS, that the discussion on Talk:Republic of Karelia is dead! No one has been posting there since January. Please, there are more important things than the historical povince of Sweden. -User:Dagestan 16:03, 24 March 2004 (UTC)

 * There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Have you even tried posting there yourself? There was a posting only yesterday and it would be courteous of you to at least try to get acquainted with the discussion. -- Mic 13:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

distinction between the Finnish and the Swedish province?
Is it really a good idea to lable this article "Karelia (Swedish Province)? Should there come one "Karelia (Province of Finland)" also?

I really don't know what's best, but I lean at thinking that Finland (the Grand Duchy aswell as the independent republic) was a direct successor of the undivided Sweden, and hence that the loss of Old Finland is insignificant in this case, and that Karelia (province) would be to prefer. /Tuomas 16:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Renaming this Karelia (province) would be the best choice. Historical province Karelia is a redirect and might also be an acceptable name. -- Jniemenmaa 19:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That name is not well chosen and as is discussed at Talk:Republic of Karelia a new location for this page has to be decided before and if it is decided that it will be moved. It will possibly be replaced by the new article at temp and if so the 70 or so links needs to be disambiguated and it is a very good idea to agree on a new location first. I know that Karelia (province) has been suggested, but personally I think Finnish Karelia or Swedish Karelia would work better. -- Mic 23:20, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't Finnish Karelia be a good choise? It was, I believe, never Swedish in any other meaning than being part of the Swedish kingdom until 1721 (not insignificant, of course). Culturally and linguistically it could maybe be argued that Finnish≠Karelian, but that objection surely carries less and less weight in the 19th and 20th centuries.
 * — But what's the disadvantage with Karelia (province)? That there existed a parallell tsarist entity that could be called the same? Or something I don't come to think of?
 * Ruhrjung 11:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I could live with Finnish Karelia. I proposed West Karelia on Talk:Republic of Karelia, maybe it is a bit more neutral? -- Jniemenmaa 09:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Swedish Karelia is not a faulty label, but it rather limits the extent of the article. In this sense Finnish Karelia is less limiting, since it would also be a workable name covering the Swedish period. West Karelia is perhaps a bit more generic, but still definately applicable. However, to what extent has the area been refered to as "West Karelia", as a name? In my mind Western Karelia sounds more appropriate, since that has the character more of a designation than as a name label. It represents "western Karelia", rather than being named "West Karelia". An outcome where "western" is favoured should probably also affect the current location of East Karelia to "eastern". Relating to this are the Finnish regions where North Karelia and South Karelia represent names, or name labels. Conceptually "Northern Karelia" and "Southern Karelia" would not refer to the same geographical areas. -- Mic 12:10, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * While the term East Karelia really was in use in historically significant contexts (1917-1944), Finnish Karelia and Western Karelia are both lesser used terms that Wikipedia take in use due to our needs. I wouldn't disagree to continue to use East Karelia also if the current Karelia article was renamed to Western Karelia.
 * --Ruhrjung 22:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, West Karelia has not been used very much, and doesn't have a well defined meaning. It can be used as a synonym to "Finnish Karelia", but can also mean the area aroung Vyborg. I only thought it would be good as the "opposite" of East Karelia, but now, when I think about it, it seems quite bad. The term Finnish Karelia, as in "Suomen Karjala", is used much more and it seems like everyone can accept it, so I say we go with it. BTW, Here is a quite comprehensive explanation of all the Karelias: (in finnish). -- Jniemenmaa 07:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Good! (No, I don't read Finnish, but a map says more than a thousand words. :-) If you say that this is a credible source, then it confirms my understanding of Ladoga Karelia which has evolved thanks to you here at Wikipedia.
 * Shall we wait for User:Dagestan and User:Mikkalai before we make a move, maybe?
 * (If I'm around at the time, I'll be happy to take part in the work with updating links to the page.)
 * --Ruhrjung 09:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the approach in Karelia/temp. I have no clear opinion on the term Finnish Karelia. But at the moment it seems reasonable to make a move and see what to do further. Mikkalai 21:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

On moving this page
There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia on what the content at Karelia should be. I believe that this process is working well and there is an alternative article at Karelia/temp which is coming along nicely. Any attempt to unilaterally circumvent this process and disallowing participation with a proper resolution is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the individual generally wishing to disrupt this page seems to have very little to contribute or to articulate when it comes to dealing in a cooperative mode on resolving the question. -- Mic 23:13, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

What "individulal" are you talking about here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagestan (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The page was moved once more, this time to Karelia (Swedish Province) . To engage in move wars, either directly or via the use of proxies in the form of sockpuppets, is idiotic and highly unproductive. It seems a bit futile having to explain this over and over. Either there is someone who really doesn't have the capacity to understand this or else just refuses to engage in cooperation with others. -- Mic 08:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * ...and once again, now to Karelia (historical province). ;-/
 * --Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved
IMO the page may sit for a while under the neutal title Karelia (historical province). It doesn't say whose province it was, and it is good, since we have 3 (or 2, if one thinks taht Sw/Fin are not really competitors) contenders here over quite a time. Also, it is convenient to make links to this name from simply "Karelia" via the "|" trick. If better ideas pop up, we can move again. Also, as you may notice I cleaned the wealth of redirect litter. It still remains to disambig the direct Karelia links, but these are of no big harm. Mikkalai 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I am informed, the Tsarist régime considered this area "Old Finland" from the conquest in the early 1700s, which makes a good argument for Finnish Karelia.--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The idea to have articles to "sit for a while" under intermediary titles is nothing I would approve or applaud. Quite the contrary. It only means extra work. Please move this page to Finnish Karelia, which as far as I can tell is the outcome of the discussion on which name to chose for the article.

Please move the article at Karelia/temp to Karelia at the same time. (One has to be administrator to do that. Actually, this is the first time I can remember during my time at Wikipedia that I would have been glad to have that capacity.)

Then there are dozens of links to Karelia that has to be changed to .... --Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You might have noticed that I moved it after someone else moved it to an incorreclty constructed name, and to prevent futher impatient moves. Guess how many pages I deleted that were created by "movers"? I will gladly move it to a better place. I agree the name (historical province) is not the best (after all, Russian Karelia is a "historical province" as well). And I agree that "Finnish" attribution would be a good compromise. But please notice that this term is an informal one, although is in use. I'd suggest to deliberate about two more, related, choices, which are formally more correct: Karelia, Finland and Karelia (Finland). I am in favor of the second version, since you may link from it both full [Karelia (Finland)] and shorter [Karelia (Finland) | ] "displayed" name. The second move, to 'Karelia', I'll do it right away. As for re-redirecting, I'll do the ones I am 100% sure. Mikkalai
 * I'll do redirecting later, when the name will be finalized. Mikkalai 05:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Who decided to throw consensus out the window?
I believe that all parties, less one individual, are trying to be constructive here. I have also operated on the basic assumption that all parties that working constructively on the case have had the best intentions, aiming to resolve the matter in a consensus fashion. I believe that we were about to achieve consensus on moving the Karelia article, setting a new designation for it and finally replacing it with the article developed at Karelia/temp.

In my opinion, we had (even if we were close) not arrived there. The clearest example of this is that we currently have the original article hanging in the balance, without a clear designation. I think it is unfortunate and highly inappropriate to circumvent the decision making process in this way. Unilateral action, taken even with the best intentions is a breach against consensus.

Appreciating that consensus and resolution on the issue is likely to have been very close, it would be a pity having to call in mediation at this stage. In some sense we are also past the voting stage, since that really is what should have been called in instead of taking unilateral action. For the voting to have any sense of meaning, it would presuppose a restoration of the articles to their original positions and I think that it would be less than desirable, even though it might be the most appropriate course of action.

The present situation is untenable however and the given designation is neither neutral nor appropriate. The article will be relocated to Finnish Karelia. Should there be any objecting calls to this move I can see no recourse than to restore the articles to their original places and take a vote on the issue. The designation of the article can however be raised again, but from within that location.

Even if we have been plagued by vandalism and general uncooperativeness from one nameless party I think that most actions and input have been of a constructive nature. However, I am very sorry to see how we ultimately resort to resolving the matter in this sloppy fashion. -- Mic 17:16, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * You are taking this a bit too emotional. This page was was moved at least 7 (!) times, and I am sure it was not the same "one individual". My move was done immediately after a move to a grammatically incorrect name. I did it fast, so you probably even didn't manage to notice this, otherwise you would have been even more passionate :-). I had two options: (1) to revert the move. (2) To move elsewhere. I decided to temporarily move to a neutral place. At the same time I did a significant clean-up of consequences of previous moves. Please look at the "What links there" for Karelia and Finnish Karelia. Please also consider my arguments (above) why I think "Finnish Karelia" is inappropriate. Mikkalai 17:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I did not intend for you to misinterpret me. When I refer to the uncooperative party I am not referring to you, but to our nervous and intransigent friend. I feel that you have mainly contributed in a very constructive and cooperative manner and I think that is very good! I can also appreciate the difficulties in dealing with various types of vandalism, and that all (admins) need not be in perfect agreement on what methods to use in combating this.

 * What is intolerable is the way that this circumvents the consensus decision process. There are several actions that you could have taken before acting and settling the issue single handedly. If you felt that the discussion had reached a stalemate, you should have requested a vote on the issue and the voting alternatives could have been formulated. If you felt that the threat of vandalism to the page was too great you should have, taken action against that user. I am very sorry to see this have happened and for me this is an issue on principal grounds not emotional. -- Mic 17:56, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Here I beg to allow me to disagree. In some cases it is much more productive to yeild a bit and go on with the main job, rather that to engage into administrative procedures. Especially bearing in mind that our impatient friend was basically harmless. Besides, history shows that many people just come in and start editing without reading talk pages, simply from not knowing the rules of the game, rather than from a malicious intent. I admit, my fault was that I didn't notice that there was kind of consensus on the new name, although the deliberations were not marked as completed. Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I might be more emotional than Mic. I saw with considerable grief how virtually all knowledgeable Wikipedians who'd contributed on Finland-related matters disappeared after bold actions by some English speakers last August. After all, such events are detrimentiuous for Wikipedia, as very few non-Finnics can read Finnish/Karelian/Estonian. The demonstrated disrespect, which the title changes and, even more so, the overriding of the consensus decision process were clear signs of, is no good foundation to get competent contributors willing to engage in improving the articles. What will be left? The young, the dumb and the angry? That must be avoided!
 * --Ruhrjung 21:01, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

See also: Sami music
So why this link is in this page? Kahkonen 18:40, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
 * Because it is part of (the possible future article about) the culture of Karelia, where quite a few sami lived and live (if I am not wrong), and thus contribute to the culture of the land. Mikkalai 00:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Samis living in Finnish Karelia? Yes, quite a few (maybe even 10), and more when Finnic tribes wandered towards Finland.
 * But in Eastern Karelia there are some in northern parts of it. Kahkonen 05:22, 2004 May 29 (UTC)

Standing issues
There are a number of standing issues for structure of the article and its relations to corresponding articles. It belongs to the series of Swedish and Finnish historical provinces and which by template make reference to current, either Swedish, or in this case Finnish administrative entities. At one point there was an idea of being able to carry both Swedish/Finnish as well as Russian aspects of Karelia and also Russian entities and various other aspects were added. As this no longer is the case the article reverts to covering the Finnish administrative entities by template. Russian entities will still remain in reference on several locations in text. The article should also accomodate reference to the various different articles related to Karelia, not currently covered. -- Mic 17:59, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Name: After additional thinking I am withdrawing my objections posted above. But there is another one: aren't the definitions "Russian Karelia" and "Finnish Karelia" are degrading or humiliating in a way? I think not really, but could that be an isuue to a more involved side? Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The area should be..
refered as occupied terretories as they are no less so than Chechnya, East Prussia, Palestine, Iraq so on, taken by force and injustice by brutal nation of barbarians under yoke of the most brutal dictator that ever poised this earth, a wrong yet to be corrected. Ethnic cleansing also took place there and the area in now infested with colonialists, pretty much like Russia would have been dealt with had Germany won the war, you know, the population deported away or eliminated and the lands infested with their own population that is unnative to the lands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.215.244.106 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Name of the article
If this article must exist, it should remain where it is. WP:Names is very clear: English names must be used. Karjala is in English Karelia, thus the article must be located according to its English name. This has been discussed before with Turku and Pori County and in Toponyms of Finland. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karelia (historical province of Finland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040602001752/http://www.kotus.fi/verkkojulkaisut/julk129/karjalat_kartta1.shtml to http://www.kotus.fi/verkkojulkaisut/julk129/karjalat_kartta1.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991004124230/http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/kaakkois.html to http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/kaakkois.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991006021001/http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/savolais.html to http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/savolais.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the Swedish name?
Why the Swedish name is mentioned in the introduction? Velivieras (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because Finland is now a bilingual country and Swedish has been the administrative language for a long period. Per W (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But most parts of historical Karelia are not in Finland and Finnish Karelia is not bilingual? In Karelia Swedish was (one) administrative language only in the years 1617-1809. Velivieras (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish. Nova Scotia is not bilingual, but since it is a part of a bilingual country, it is given in the other language as well. Per W (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * An additional reason for having the Swedish name in the lead is that Karelia was a Swedish province before being ceded to Russia. Finland, as a political entity, wasn't created until after Sweden had ceded its eastern provinces to Russia in 1809, before then all provinces in what is now Finland, plus a number of provinces south of the Bay of Finland, were provinces of Sweden ("Finland" originally referred only to the southwestern part of what is now Finland, i.e. Finland Proper, "Egentliga Finland" in Swedish and "Varsinais-Suomi" in Finnish, with the "collective name" for all provinces east of the Bay of Bothnia, in today's Finland, originally being "Österland" in Swedish). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sweden occupied all of this historical region actually only between 1617–1721. I don`t know what was the administrative language in Sweden that time. Latin most probably had a big part especially among clergy and in international affairs and German was likely used in commerce. After this period Swedish was officially used in the region alongside with Finnish during the short period of 1918–1944. Under the Russian rule 1809–1917 the administrative language was officially Russian (from 1818 onwards to be exact). Clergy had to use Finnish from 1824 onwards. We also have to take into account that this historical region ceased to exist 74 years ago. So is approximately 130 years of (only) administrative language at some point of history enough? Can this be applied to other articels also?
 * ps. The term "Österland" was actually in use only between 1350–1470. Velivieras (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source for "Österland" being used only between 1350 and 1470? I did write "originally", BTW. Not that it matters, though, considering all the other reasons given here for why the Swedish name for Karelia should be mentioned in the lead. And neither Latin (which lost its standing in Sweden after the reformation) nor German (which was used among merchants, not for official purposes) were official languages in Sweden, and French wasn't an official language either (even though it was spoken by all nobles during the 18th Century...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk
 * The source is Sveriges Österland från forntiden till Gustav Vasa (2008) by Kari Tarkiainen.
 * I find it difficult to find the reasons from the aguments provided. Occupation of 1617-1721 (104 years) and then the short bilingual period of 1918-1944 (26 years) are quite short times in history. Taking also into consideration that Swedish was mainly an adminstrative language only spoken by few in the region. One argument is that we cannot generalise this logic to other articles in Wikipedia, it would lead in really awkward results. Think about e.g. only the history of many European countries. Velivieras (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "an adminstrative language only spoken by few in the region". Well there were Swedish newspapers in Viborg, 9 out of 37 in fi:Luokka:Viipurin_media. I wrote before that "In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish.". Why can't Wikipedia have place for the official names of different parts of the countries? The guidelines tell that "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. " Manual_of_Style/Lead_section Per W (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming that there were only "a few" Swedish-speakers in Karelia is outright silly/ignorant, considering that Viborg/Viipuri, which for a long period of time was the second largest town/city in Finland, was founded by Sweden/Swedes and had a sizeable Swedish-speaking population for almost 650 years, from its founding around 1300AD to the early 1940s, when the three largest ethnic groups, Finns, Swedes and Germans, were forced to leave by the Soviets. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to census of 1930 in the administrative area of Wyborg 2,9% of the population were Swedish-speakers. You have to also take into account that Wyborg itself, as a commercial city, was an exception. In ceded Karelia the percentage of Swedish speakers was even much lower from the total population of 450 000. So yes, Swedish was only spoken by few, less than 0,05% from the population to be exact. Nobody is claiming that the name of historical province of Värmland should also be in Finnish eventough significant proportion of the population was from Finland in the 16-17th Centuries. Wyborg was not found by Swedes. It was fortified market place of Karelians that Catholic Church and Swedes destroyed and occupied in their campaign in 1293. Grand Duchy of Finland in the 19th Century was part of Russia and civil servants had to use Russian. Velivieras (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote before that "In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish.". Russian was introduced as an administrative language first in 1898 by Bobrikov. Karelia (nowadays only a part) is part of Finland, a bilingual state. Per W (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC) I was wrong the Language Manifesto came in 1900. Per W (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, civil servants had to use Russian from 1818 onwards. I have to also remind that this article is about Karelia as a historical province that doesn`t exist anymore, and were Swedish was only a administrative language for a short while only spoken by a few. There are dedicated articles for South and North Karelia that still exists. Velivieras (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Russification of Finland it was in 1900 that Russian started to be used in administration. Do you call several centuries (varying for different parts of Karelia) a short period of time? Per W (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Russian was administrative language 1818 onwards and the goal of the Russification era was to erase other languages. I have presented the years that Swedish was the main admnistrative language in Karelia as a historical province and that`s not relatively a long time. Velivieras (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, then some other articles should be changed if your claim is correct about the Russian language. Please, provide a source for it. Per W (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Russian was not the administrative language of Finland from 1818 and on, no matter how often you repeat that false claim. Swedish continued to be the sole administrative language of Finland until Finnish also started to be used during the second half of the 19th century. Russian in fact had no official standing at all until the Tsar's "Language manifest" (fi:Kielimanifesti) of 1900, which stipulated that it should be gradually introduced as administrative language over a period of ten years. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Grand Duchy of Finland civil servants had to know Russian from 1818 onwards. The source is "Kansalliskielten historiallinen, kulttuurinen ja sosiologinen tausta. (2000)" and the publisher is the Ministry of Justice (Finland). Velivieras (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Having to know" Russian does not make Russian an official/administrative language. Most civil servants serving in Finland had to know both Swedish and Finnish already before 1809, in order to be able to translate what was being said during court proceedings etc, but Swedish was still the only official/administrative language (people who spoke only Finnish were allowed to speak their own language in courts etc, and were questioned in their own language, but everything that was said in Finnish was then translated into Swedish, since all official documents, court records etc, had to be in Swedish, the sole official/administrative language). An interesting side note is that everything was translated, even names, so if a "Juha Heikkinpoika" appeared in court, his name was given as "Johan Henriksson" in the court protocols... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Finland was a Grand Duchy of Russia and all the civil servants spoke Russian. I think there is a good argument to call the official language in administration Russian. But that is another question. We have to notice that we are discussing about Karelia as a historical province that was attached as a part of Grand Duchy of Finland in 1812 and that it had been part of Russia in its major parts from 1323 onwards until 1617 and then again from 1721 onwards (in practice since 1710 when Russian occupied the area). Only German and Russian were used in schools and the language in the administration and in commerce was German (Low-German to be precise). This was the case also during the Swedish occupation in 1617–1721, because German had been the language of the administration and the commerce since the Middle Ages until the mid-19th Century, when Swedish started to be used in some degree. The first know bourgeoisie of Vyborg was German Ewert von Balven (1393) as well as the the first known councillor Magnus Schröder (1410), but of course the vast majority of the population spoke Finnish or Karelian language. Velivieras (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is, quite frankly, just a load of (unsourced) cr*p. Swedish was the official/administrative language of Karelia, but Russian was not, no matter how you twist it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is "Ruotsalais-saksalainen aika Wiipurissa" by Hans Andersin who in his lifetime worked to preserve the traditions and history of Vyborg. Velivieras (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you got it from somewhere, but it's totally irrelevant for this discussion, and this article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you got it from somewhere, but it's totally irrelevant for this discussion, and this article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Kimi Räikkönen
What the heck is Kimi Räikkönen doing in the people section? Kimi Räikkönen was born over three decades after the cession of Finnish Karelia, in Espoo, which is nowhere near Karelia. Was this vandalism? J I P | Talk 11:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
I'm proposing splitting parts of this article ("Inhabitants" and maybe "Culture" as well?) to a separate article, which could be named named something like Karelians (Finns), for example, in similar spirit as we have articles for other Finnish subgroups. It would be an equivalent to Karjalaiset and Карелы (субэтнос финнов). --Vilutar (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Vilutar, as you point out it may be a valuable split to distinguish territory from people. The discussion would however need to address the page Karelians. Should it be renamed also to Karelians (Baltic Finnic people) or something similar? Lappspira (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Lappspira. Currently it seems that Finnish and Russian Wikipedias are naming them so that Finnish Wikipedia calls Karelians "Karelians (people)" and Finnish Karelians only Karelians, whereas Russian Wikipedia calls Karelians Karelians and Finnish Karelians "Karelians (Finnish sub-ethnicity)". Both are fine ways to make a difference between them in my opinion, so whether Karelians remains Karelians or is renamed as you asked about, personally I think they would both work. Of course, it could be made so that Karelians is a disambiguation page with links to Karelians (Baltic Finnic people) and Karelians (Finns). --Vilutar (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Karelians" as a DAB sounds like the way to go: while there are clear primary terms for fi.wp and ru.wp, I'm not convinced there is one for en.wp. Not sure what the disambiquated titles would be, tho. "Karelians (Finns)" and "Karelians (Baltic Finnic people)" is probably a reasonable thing to default to, but the titles are a bit too similar for my taste. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first one could be phrased in many ways if that would make it clearer, since there are options like "Finnish Karelians" or "Karelians (Finnish subgroup)" etc... Though I can't personally think of a good different version to "Karelians (Baltic Finnic people)". --Vilutar (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to the previous message, if we want to compare how similar situations have been handled in en.wp, there are pages called Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (ethnic group). So I guess Karelians (Finns) and Karelians (ethnic group) are also options. --Vilutar (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


text:
John Abraham (disambiguation)

John Abraham (born 1972) is a Bollywood actor

John Abraham can also refer to:
 * John Abraham (director) (1937–1987), Malayali Indian filmmaker and scriptwriter
 * John Abraham (American football) (born 1978), retired NFL defensive end for the New York Jets, Atlanta Falcons, and Arizona Cardinals
 * John Abraham (politician) (died 1689), Hudson's Bay Company governor of Port Nelson
 * John Abraham (engineer), American mechanical engineering professor at the University of Saint Thomas
 * John Braham (tenor) (1774–1856), English vocalist, born John Abraham
 * John Abraham, Indian American former mayor of Teaneck, New Jersey

title: John Abraham (disambiguation)


text:
Egocentric bias

Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of oneself than reality. It appears to be the result of the psychological need to satisfy one's ego and to be advantageous for memory consolidation. Research has shown that experiences, ideas, and beliefs are more easily recalled when they match one's own, causing an egocentric outlook. Michael Ross and Fiore Sicoly first identified this cognitive bias in their 1979 paper, "Egocentric biases in availability and attribution". Egocentric bias is referred to by most psychologists as a general umbrella term under which other related phenomena fall.

The effects of egocentric bias can differ based on personal characteristics, such as age and the number of languages one speaks. Thus far, there have been many studies focusing on specific implications of egocentric bias in different contexts. Research on collaborative group tasks have emphasized that people view their own contributions differently than they view that of others. Other areas of research have been aimed at studying how mental health patients display egocentric bias, and at the relationship between egocentric bias and voter distribution. These types of studies surrounding egocentric bias usually involve written or verbal questionnaires, based on the subject's personal life or their decision in various hypothetical scenarios.

History and analysis
The term "egocentric bias" was first coined in 1980 by Anthony Greenwald, a psychologist at The Ohio State University. He described it as a phenomenon in which people skew their beliefs so that what they recall from their memory or what they initially understood is different than what actually occurred. He cites research by Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker, who explain that the self-reference effect is the ability of people to recall information better if they think about how the information will affect them during the encoding process (recording memories in their brain). Greenwald argues that the self-reference effect causes people to exaggerate their role in a situation. Furthermore, information is better encoded, and thus people are more likely to suffer from egocentric bias, if they produce information actively rather than passively, such as by having a direct role in the outcome of a situation.

Egocentric bias occurs when people fail to consider situations from other people's perspectives. Egocentric bias has influenced ethical judgements to the point where people not only believe that self-interested outcomes are preferential but are also the morally sound way to proceed. People are more inclined to be aware of their own behaviors since they can use their thoughts and emotions to gain more information about themselves. These thoughts and emotions can affect how people view themselves in relation to others in specific situations. A common example arises when people are asked to explain how much credit should be given to each person in a collaborative project. Daniel Schacter, a psychology professor at Harvard University, considers egocentric bias as one of the "seven sins" of memory and essentially reflects the prominent role played by the self when encoding and retrieving episodic memories. As such, people often feel that their contributions to a collaborative project are greater than those of other members, since people tend to focus more on how much they have done.

In social context, egocentric bias influences people to choose a social circle that is capable of maintaining one's positive traits. Studies show that one's choice of friend or social circle is likely to be dependent on the amount of positive feedback received.

Examples
In a 1993 study conducted in Japan, subjects were asked to write down fair or unfair behaviors that they themselves or others did. When writing about fair behavior, they tended to start with the word "I" rather than "others". Likewise, they began unfair behaviors with "others" rather than "I". This demonstrates that people tend to attribute successes and positive behaviors to themselves, while placing the burden of failures and negative behaviors on others. Furthermore, in this study there were gender differences detected; Japanese women, compared to men, remembered the behaviors of others more than their own, and were also more probable to characterize fair or unfair behavior to others compared to themselves.

Another study found that egocentric bias influences perceived fairness. Subjects felt that overpayment to themselves were more fair than overpayment to others; by contrast, they felt the underpayment to themselves were less fair than underpayment to others. Greenberg's studies showed that this egocentrism was eliminated when the subjects were put in a self-aware state, which was applied in his study with a mirror being placed in front of the subjects. When a person is not self-aware, they perceive that something can be fair to them but not necessarily fair to others. Therefore, fairness was something biased and subjective. When a person is self-aware, there is a uniform standard of fairness and there is no bias. When made self-aware, subjects rated overpayment and underpayment to both themselves and to others as equally unfair. It is believed that these results were obtained because self-awareness elevated subjects' concerns about perceived fairness in payment, thereby overriding egocentric tendencies.

The egocentric bias can also be clearly observed in young children, especially those who have not yet developed theory of mind, or the ability to understand concrete situations from the perspective of others. In one study by Wimmer and Perner, a child and a stuffed animal were presented with two differently colored boxes and both are shown that one contains an object of interest. The experimenter then removed the stuffed animal from the room and moved the object into the other box. When asked where the stuffed animal should search for the object, the children overwhelmingly tended to point to the box that they knew the object was in. Rather than thinking about the animal's perspective, the children displayed an egocentric bias in assuming that the animal would share their point of view, even though the animal had no way of knowing the same information as them.

Causes
The causes and motivations for egocentric bias were investigated in a 1983 journal entry by Brian Mullen of Murray State University. Inspired by the study by Ross et al. demonstrating the false consensus effect, Mullen's paper focused on the overestimation of consensus. Mullen analyzed the NBC television show "Play the Percentages" to determine whether egocentric bias was rooted in a perceptual and unintentional distortion of reality versus a conscious, intentional motivation to appear normalized. Subjects in this analysis were contestants from the show, 20–30 year old middle class married couple with equal gender distribution. At the start of each show, studio audiences were asked several trivia questions, and the percentage of correct answers was recorded for later use in the game. During each round of the game, opposing contestants estimated the percentage of correct answers. The contestant who had a closer estimate wins the percentage of correct answer as a score, and then if they answer said trivia question correctly, wins the remaining percentage for a maximum possible 100 points. The first couple to win 300 points received a cash prize, with the opportunity to win more prizes in bonus rounds. Thus, the show provided incentive for unbiased estimates of consensus. Statistical analysis of the collected data showed that the "egocentric bias of false consensus was observed in spite of the potent incentive for unbiased estimates of consensus." This analysis ultimately supports the hypothesis that egocentric bias is a result of unintentional perceptual distortion of reality rather than a conscious, intentional motivation to appear normalized.

From a psychological standpoint, memories appear to be stored in the brain in an egocentric manner: the role of oneself is magnified in one's experiences to make them more personally relevant and thereby easier to recall. Early childhood memories, therefore, may be more difficult to recall since one's sense of self is less developed, so old memories do not connect as strongly to oneself as newer ones. Moreover, egocentric bias may have evolved from hunter-gatherer times, in which communities were small and interdependent enough that individuals could assume that others around them had very similar outlooks. An egocentric view would have reduced cognitive load and increased communication efficiency.

Age
A 2016 study published by Riva, Triscoli, Lamm, Carnaghi, and Silani found that egocentric bias tends to be experienced in a much greater degree by adolescents and older adults than by young and middle aged adults. They examined the emotional effect of visuo-tactile stimulation on pairs of participants from a population of 114 female of varying ages. The varying degree of egocentric bias with age was attributed to the developmental cycle of the right supramarginal gyrus (rSMG) of the parietal lobe, which finishes developing at the end of adolescence and decays early.

Bilingualism
Recent studies of egocentric bias have been done in many different subgroups of people, such as bilingual people. A study done by Paula Rubio-Fernández and Sam Glucksberg found that bilingual people are less prone to egocentric bias because they have grown to pay more attention to others' thoughts. Thus, it is less difficult for them to differentiate between their own opinions and those of others.

False-consensus effect
Considered to be a facet of egocentric bias, the false-consensus effect states that people believe their thoughts, actions, and opinions are much more common than they are in reality. When people are asked to make an estimate of a population's statistic, they often only have data from themselves and tend to assume that others in the population are similar to them due to egocentric bias. In turn, people tend to overestimate the extent to which their opinion is shared by the rest of the population. Moreover, people tend to believe that those who differ in opinion must be part of a minority and that the majority actually agrees with them. Therefore, the false-consensus effect, or the tendency to deduce judgements from one's own opinions, is a direct result of egocentric bias.

A well known example of false-consensus effect is a study published by Ross, Greene and House in 1977. Students are asked to walk around a campus with a sandwich board that bearing the word "repent". People who agreed to do so (50%) estimated that most of their peers would also agree to do so (average estimation 63.5%). Conversely, those who refused to do the experiment reported that most of their peers would refuse as well.

People who exhibit the false consensus effect take egocentric bias a step further: they not only forgo thinking of other perspectives, but they believe that their viewpoints are those accepted by the majority of people. Nevertheless, some psychologists do not distinguish between egocentric bias and the false consensus effect. For example, in the paper published by Ross, Greene, and House, the terms "false consensus" and "egocentric attribution bias" are used interchangeably. In the second part of their study, they gave out a questionnaire which asked participants which option (out of two choices) they would choose in specified situations, and what percentage of the population would choose which option. In all four scenarios that were given, subjects rated the option that they chose as the most probable. Ross, Greene, and House conclude that their results support the false consensus hypothesis, and that "intuitive estimates of deviance and normalcy, and the host of social inferences and interpersonal responses that accompany such estimates, are systematically and egocentrically biased in accord with his own behavioral choices."

Self-serving bias
A related concept to egocentric bias is self-serving bias, in which one takes undue credit for achievements and blames failures on external forces. However, egocentric bias differs from self-serving bias in that egocentric bias is rooted in an erroneous assumption of other's perception of reality, while self-serving bias is an erroneous perception of one's own reality. For example, consider a student who earns a low grade in a class. Self-serving bias would result in the assumption that the student's low grade is a result of poor teaching, which would direct the fault of one's reality away from one's own actions.

Egocentric bias might also result in an overestimation of the number of students that received low grades in the class for the purpose to normalize these students' performance. However, similar to the false-consensus effect, the self-serving bias and the egocentric bias have also been used as interchangeable terms.

Both concepts may be the product of individualistic cultures that usually stress independence and personal achievement over group-oriented success. Cross-cultural studies have found a strong presence of the egocentric bias in the primarily individualistic American, South African, and Yugoslavian communities, but noted the opposite effect in the collectivistic Japanese, Nepali, and Indian societies. People from these cultures tend to demonstrate a bias toward modesty, in which success is attributed to external or group-related factors and failures are seen as the result of personal shortcomings.

Bayesian inference
Bayesian reasoning is a form of statistical inference that relies on Bayes' rule to make probability prediction based on given information. In Bayesian updating, people use prior probabilities to make estimates, and then gradually change these probabilities as they gain more information. Bayesian inference is often used by psychologists to determine whether subjects who exhibit the false-consensus effect have a rational thought process. To understand Bayes' rule, consider an example from an experiment by Kreuger and Clement: there is an urn with 100 chips, some blue and some red, and then subjects are told that the first chip drawn from the urn is blue. Subjects are asked to estimate the probability that the urn contains predominantly blue chips. Using Bayes' rule, the probability that a blue chip is drawn given that the urn contains predominantly blue chips is equal to the probability of the urn being predominantly blue multiplied by the probability of the urn being predominantly blue given that a blue chip was drawn, all divided by the probability that the urn is predominantly blue. Most participants overestimated the requested probability. Data shows that subjects tend not to pay attention to sample size when making probability predictions. For example, although it has statistically been proven by the law of large numbers that larger samples have less variability, people tend to claim that large and small samples have the same amount of variability. Studies like the urn experiment above provide evidence that the false-consensus effect is not entirely rational, and that egocentric viewpoints tend to be predominant.

Collaboration
Egocentric bias can lead to the devaluation of peer contributions and the amplification of one's own work when in a collaborative setting. For example, when group members have been asked to report what percentage of the output they created, the total summed to greater than 100%. Usually, individuals are more easily able to recall their personal contributions and thus believe them to greater or more important. This applies to both positive and negative inputs: in a study of married couples, each spouse rated themselves as more responsible for helpful (cleaning) and detractive activities (causing arguments). Research has shown that feelings of sibling caregivers and their siblings depend on the contact between siblings and their feelings of closeness. Each of these two groups believed that their siblings contributed less to the needs of their family than themselves, and were more resistant to increasing these types of contributions. The closer that siblings were to each other, measured through observation and self reports, the smaller the extent of egocentric bias they felt in reporting each sibling's contribution.

Mental health
An overly exaggerated or extremely low demonstration of egocentric bias could be an indicator of mental illness. Those with anxiety tend to view themselves as the center of all events around them, regardless of their nature or how unrelated they are to oneself. On the other hand, people suffering from depression may have a lower tendency towards egocentricity, as evidenced by the fact that they tend to more realistically rate their contributions to group work, while non-depressed participants often overreport their additions.

Voting
The egocentric bias has also been shown to contribute to a citizen's decision to vote in elections. Firstly, people tend to view their personal choice between voting and abstinence as a reflection of those who support the same candidates and issues. Secondly, although each individual vote has very little power in large-scale elections, those who vote overestimate the significance of their ballot. Moreover, citizens demonstrate egocentric bias, in conjunction with the false-consensus effect, in their predictions of election outcomes. A study examining the 2008 American presidential election found that the more strongly people favor a certain candidate, the higher they estimate that candidate's likelihood of winning the election. For instance, those who strongly preferred Barack Obama predicted that he had a 65% chance of becoming the president, while those who preferred another candidate approximated that he only had a 40% chance of victory.

title: Egocentric bias