How to Communicate Complex Ideas to Any Audience

What has been corrected on this page?

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 15 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   No study by 'Camille Swink' on the curse of knowledge exists in the literature. The curse of knowledge as an economic/cognitive bias was described by Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber in a 1989 paper in the Journal of Political Economy (not Journal of Experimental Psychology, and not 1990). 'Theory-based categorization' as a concept describing experts vs. novices organizing category knowledge around causal theories rather than perceptual similarity was established by Murphy & Medin (1985) in Psychological Review, not by Paul Bloom in a 2000 Psychological Review paper. This is a real researcher (Paul Bloom is a real Yale psychologist) misattributed to an unverified citation detail. The actual Deslauriers, Schelew & Wieman (2011) Science study reported exam scores of 74% vs 41% for the active-learning versus lecture groups, described in the literature as 'more than twice' the score, not a '2.5-fold improvement in learning gains.'

   Before

   described by Camille Swink and colleagues in a 1990 study published in <em>Journal of Experimental Psychology</em>

   After

   described by Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Martin Weber in a 1989 study published in the <em>Journal of Political Economy</em>

   Why: 3 issues fixed: No study by 'Camille Swink' on the curse of knowledge exists in the literature. The curse of knowledge as an economic/cognitive bias was described by Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber in a 1989 paper in the Journal of Political Economy (not Journal of Experimental Psychology, and not 1990). | 'Theory-based categorization' as a concept describing experts vs. novices organizing category knowledge around causal theories rather than perceptual similarity was established by Murphy & Medin (1985) in Psychological Review, not by Paul Bloom in a 2000 Psychological Review paper. This is a real researcher (Paul Bloom is a real Yale psychologist) misattributed to an unverified citation detail. | The actual Deslauriers, Schelew & Wieman (2011) Science study reported exam scores of 74% vs 41% for the active-learning versus lecture groups, described in the literature as 'more than twice' the score, not a '2.5-fold improvement in learning gains.'

   View the full record →

Who checked this page?

1 contributor has checked "How to Communicate Complex Ideas to Any Audience" on Down Under Cafe. Each name below links to that person's public CitePep profile, where every contribution they have made is listed with the exact change they proposed.