#cognitivebias — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #cognitivebias, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: September 26, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Your worldview might dictate how you perceive neutral faces
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
People who view the world as an inherently dangerous place consistently overestimate the likelihood of specific threats, from violent crimes to animal attacks. A new series of psychological evaluations reveals that this broad worldview also leads individuals to perceive the neutral faces of strangers as less trustworthy and more aggressive. The findings were published in the Journal of Individual Differences.
Psychologists categorize the fundamental ways people perceive their environment into a framework called primal world beliefs. These primal beliefs represent 26 broad dimensions that describe how an individual interprets reality, such as seeing the world as beautiful, abundant, or just. These beliefs cluster into four higher-order categories, one of which involves viewing reality as generally safe versus generally dangerous.
Researchers Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton wanted to understand how a generalized belief about danger influences the way people react to specific, everyday situations. Prior research has established that individuals who believe the world is inherently just will often perceive specific situations, like a workplace or a sports game, as fairer. Kerry and Clifton aimed to test if a similar pattern exists for dangerous world beliefs.
The researchers designed four studies to see whether individuals who see reality as generally threatening consistently overestimate objective physical risks and view unknown people with heightened suspicion. They wanted to determine if holding a broad belief that the world is dangerous translates to overestimating specific, proximate threats. They also sought to rule out alternative explanations, such as the possibility that clinical anxiety or underlying personality traits drive these threat perceptions.
In the first study, the researchers recruited 457 American adults through an online platform. Participants completed a survey measuring their primal world beliefs and then estimated the statistical frequency of 12 real-world dangers in the United States, such as the rate of murders, assaults, and bear attacks. The researchers also measured the participants’ personality traits and recent symptoms of anxiety and depression.
The researchers found that participants with a high dangerous world belief overestimated the prevalence of these specific threats at much higher rates than those with a low dangerous world belief. On average, individuals in the highest quintile for dangerous world beliefs estimated the incidence of these events to be more than four times higher than individuals in the lowest quintile. This broad belief predicted risk estimates better than a person’s underlying anxiety, depression, or general personality traits.
The second study expanded on these results to see if this heightened perception of risk applied to diseases and positive events. The researchers surveyed 881 American adults, asking them to estimate the likelihood of physical dangers, health risks like strokes or infectious illnesses, and positive events like winning money. Participants were randomly assigned to estimate these probabilities for themselves or for the average American.
Individuals with a strong dangerous world belief consistently predicted higher risks for physical dangers, just as they did in the first study. They showed only a weak tendency to overestimate health and disease risks, and they did not overestimate the likelihood of positive or neutral events. The results were similar whether participants estimated risks for themselves or for others, indicating a generalized pattern of threat perception rather than a specific personal fear.
For the third study, the researchers tested how dangerous world beliefs influence the perception of novel social situations. A group of 599 American adults viewed photographs of Caucasian strangers with neutral facial expressions. The participants rated the faces on various emotional and behavioral traits, including warmth, trustworthiness, and the likelihood that the person might commit a crime.
As part of the third study’s design, participants were randomly assigned to a threat condition or a control condition. In the threat condition, the photographs were accompanied by text claiming the person in the image had committed a crime. The researchers wanted to see if contextual cues would interact with dangerous world beliefs to amplify threat appraisals.
Participants who viewed the world as a dangerous place rated the neutral faces as less trustworthy, less warm, and less happy. They also perceived the strangers as more aggressive and more likely to pose a threat to society. The contextual manipulation of telling participants that the targets were criminals did not result in a statistically significant interaction with dangerous world beliefs. Once again, the participants’ generalized belief about the world predicted negative social evaluations better than their reported levels of anxiety or depression.
The fourth study sought to replicate the facial evaluation findings across different racial groups. The researchers recruited 979 American adults, evenly split between Black and White participants, who evaluated a series of neutral Black and White faces. The survey structure mirrored the previous experiment, focusing on traits like trustworthiness and perceived threat.
The evaluations matched the previous results, with dangerous world belief heavily associated with seeing societal threat and crime risk in the neutral faces. It was also linked to lower ratings of trust and warmth. In some instances, the association between dangerous world beliefs and evaluations of traits like warmth and happiness was stronger among Black participants than White participants, regardless of the target’s race.
While these four studies demonstrate a strong link between generalized worldviews and specific threat appraisals, the researchers noted several caveats. The data are cross-sectional and rely on surveys taken at a single point in time. Because of this, it is not possible to prove that holding a dangerous world belief directly causes someone to overestimate risks. It remains possible that an unknown third variable drives both the broad belief and the specific threat perceptions.
Another caveat is that the effects were observed in relatively ambiguous scenarios, such as guessing statistics or judging the faces of complete strangers. A person’s generalized belief about danger might not influence their judgment in environments that provide distinct safety cues, established relationships, or readily accessible facts. The researchers also found no evidence that dangerous world beliefs actually correlated with an individual’s history of participating in real-world risky behaviors, such as extreme sports or high-risk investments.
Future research will need to explore how these generalized beliefs might influence high-stakes professional decision-making. Medical professionals who view the world as highly dangerous might make different judgments regarding treatments than those who see the world as safe. Similarly, judges or jurors with high dangerous world beliefs might evaluate criminal sentencing in a more risk-averse manner.
Psychologists also hope to design experiments that attempt to alter a person’s primal world beliefs. If behavioral interventions can successfully change a person’s overarching worldview, scientists could test whether that shift leads to a lasting reduction in how they perceive everyday threats.
The study, “From Bear Attacks to Neutral Faces: Dangerous World Belief Predicts Specific Appraisals of Threat,” was authored by Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DangerousWorldBeliefs #ThreatPerception #NeutralFacesBias #PrimalWorldBeliefs #SocialPerception #TrustworthinessJudgment #FaceEvaluation #CognitiveBias #PsychologyResearch #JournalOfIndividualDifferences
-
DATE: September 26, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Your worldview might dictate how you perceive neutral faces
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
People who view the world as an inherently dangerous place consistently overestimate the likelihood of specific threats, from violent crimes to animal attacks. A new series of psychological evaluations reveals that this broad worldview also leads individuals to perceive the neutral faces of strangers as less trustworthy and more aggressive. The findings were published in the Journal of Individual Differences.
Psychologists categorize the fundamental ways people perceive their environment into a framework called primal world beliefs. These primal beliefs represent 26 broad dimensions that describe how an individual interprets reality, such as seeing the world as beautiful, abundant, or just. These beliefs cluster into four higher-order categories, one of which involves viewing reality as generally safe versus generally dangerous.
Researchers Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton wanted to understand how a generalized belief about danger influences the way people react to specific, everyday situations. Prior research has established that individuals who believe the world is inherently just will often perceive specific situations, like a workplace or a sports game, as fairer. Kerry and Clifton aimed to test if a similar pattern exists for dangerous world beliefs.
The researchers designed four studies to see whether individuals who see reality as generally threatening consistently overestimate objective physical risks and view unknown people with heightened suspicion. They wanted to determine if holding a broad belief that the world is dangerous translates to overestimating specific, proximate threats. They also sought to rule out alternative explanations, such as the possibility that clinical anxiety or underlying personality traits drive these threat perceptions.
In the first study, the researchers recruited 457 American adults through an online platform. Participants completed a survey measuring their primal world beliefs and then estimated the statistical frequency of 12 real-world dangers in the United States, such as the rate of murders, assaults, and bear attacks. The researchers also measured the participants’ personality traits and recent symptoms of anxiety and depression.
The researchers found that participants with a high dangerous world belief overestimated the prevalence of these specific threats at much higher rates than those with a low dangerous world belief. On average, individuals in the highest quintile for dangerous world beliefs estimated the incidence of these events to be more than four times higher than individuals in the lowest quintile. This broad belief predicted risk estimates better than a person’s underlying anxiety, depression, or general personality traits.
The second study expanded on these results to see if this heightened perception of risk applied to diseases and positive events. The researchers surveyed 881 American adults, asking them to estimate the likelihood of physical dangers, health risks like strokes or infectious illnesses, and positive events like winning money. Participants were randomly assigned to estimate these probabilities for themselves or for the average American.
Individuals with a strong dangerous world belief consistently predicted higher risks for physical dangers, just as they did in the first study. They showed only a weak tendency to overestimate health and disease risks, and they did not overestimate the likelihood of positive or neutral events. The results were similar whether participants estimated risks for themselves or for others, indicating a generalized pattern of threat perception rather than a specific personal fear.
For the third study, the researchers tested how dangerous world beliefs influence the perception of novel social situations. A group of 599 American adults viewed photographs of Caucasian strangers with neutral facial expressions. The participants rated the faces on various emotional and behavioral traits, including warmth, trustworthiness, and the likelihood that the person might commit a crime.
As part of the third study’s design, participants were randomly assigned to a threat condition or a control condition. In the threat condition, the photographs were accompanied by text claiming the person in the image had committed a crime. The researchers wanted to see if contextual cues would interact with dangerous world beliefs to amplify threat appraisals.
Participants who viewed the world as a dangerous place rated the neutral faces as less trustworthy, less warm, and less happy. They also perceived the strangers as more aggressive and more likely to pose a threat to society. The contextual manipulation of telling participants that the targets were criminals did not result in a statistically significant interaction with dangerous world beliefs. Once again, the participants’ generalized belief about the world predicted negative social evaluations better than their reported levels of anxiety or depression.
The fourth study sought to replicate the facial evaluation findings across different racial groups. The researchers recruited 979 American adults, evenly split between Black and White participants, who evaluated a series of neutral Black and White faces. The survey structure mirrored the previous experiment, focusing on traits like trustworthiness and perceived threat.
The evaluations matched the previous results, with dangerous world belief heavily associated with seeing societal threat and crime risk in the neutral faces. It was also linked to lower ratings of trust and warmth. In some instances, the association between dangerous world beliefs and evaluations of traits like warmth and happiness was stronger among Black participants than White participants, regardless of the target’s race.
While these four studies demonstrate a strong link between generalized worldviews and specific threat appraisals, the researchers noted several caveats. The data are cross-sectional and rely on surveys taken at a single point in time. Because of this, it is not possible to prove that holding a dangerous world belief directly causes someone to overestimate risks. It remains possible that an unknown third variable drives both the broad belief and the specific threat perceptions.
Another caveat is that the effects were observed in relatively ambiguous scenarios, such as guessing statistics or judging the faces of complete strangers. A person’s generalized belief about danger might not influence their judgment in environments that provide distinct safety cues, established relationships, or readily accessible facts. The researchers also found no evidence that dangerous world beliefs actually correlated with an individual’s history of participating in real-world risky behaviors, such as extreme sports or high-risk investments.
Future research will need to explore how these generalized beliefs might influence high-stakes professional decision-making. Medical professionals who view the world as highly dangerous might make different judgments regarding treatments than those who see the world as safe. Similarly, judges or jurors with high dangerous world beliefs might evaluate criminal sentencing in a more risk-averse manner.
Psychologists also hope to design experiments that attempt to alter a person’s primal world beliefs. If behavioral interventions can successfully change a person’s overarching worldview, scientists could test whether that shift leads to a lasting reduction in how they perceive everyday threats.
The study, “From Bear Attacks to Neutral Faces: Dangerous World Belief Predicts Specific Appraisals of Threat,” was authored by Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DangerousWorldBeliefs #ThreatPerception #NeutralFacesBias #PrimalWorldBeliefs #SocialPerception #TrustworthinessJudgment #FaceEvaluation #CognitiveBias #PsychologyResearch #JournalOfIndividualDifferences
-
DATE: September 26, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Your worldview might dictate how you perceive neutral faces
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
People who view the world as an inherently dangerous place consistently overestimate the likelihood of specific threats, from violent crimes to animal attacks. A new series of psychological evaluations reveals that this broad worldview also leads individuals to perceive the neutral faces of strangers as less trustworthy and more aggressive. The findings were published in the Journal of Individual Differences.
Psychologists categorize the fundamental ways people perceive their environment into a framework called primal world beliefs. These primal beliefs represent 26 broad dimensions that describe how an individual interprets reality, such as seeing the world as beautiful, abundant, or just. These beliefs cluster into four higher-order categories, one of which involves viewing reality as generally safe versus generally dangerous.
Researchers Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton wanted to understand how a generalized belief about danger influences the way people react to specific, everyday situations. Prior research has established that individuals who believe the world is inherently just will often perceive specific situations, like a workplace or a sports game, as fairer. Kerry and Clifton aimed to test if a similar pattern exists for dangerous world beliefs.
The researchers designed four studies to see whether individuals who see reality as generally threatening consistently overestimate objective physical risks and view unknown people with heightened suspicion. They wanted to determine if holding a broad belief that the world is dangerous translates to overestimating specific, proximate threats. They also sought to rule out alternative explanations, such as the possibility that clinical anxiety or underlying personality traits drive these threat perceptions.
In the first study, the researchers recruited 457 American adults through an online platform. Participants completed a survey measuring their primal world beliefs and then estimated the statistical frequency of 12 real-world dangers in the United States, such as the rate of murders, assaults, and bear attacks. The researchers also measured the participants’ personality traits and recent symptoms of anxiety and depression.
The researchers found that participants with a high dangerous world belief overestimated the prevalence of these specific threats at much higher rates than those with a low dangerous world belief. On average, individuals in the highest quintile for dangerous world beliefs estimated the incidence of these events to be more than four times higher than individuals in the lowest quintile. This broad belief predicted risk estimates better than a person’s underlying anxiety, depression, or general personality traits.
The second study expanded on these results to see if this heightened perception of risk applied to diseases and positive events. The researchers surveyed 881 American adults, asking them to estimate the likelihood of physical dangers, health risks like strokes or infectious illnesses, and positive events like winning money. Participants were randomly assigned to estimate these probabilities for themselves or for the average American.
Individuals with a strong dangerous world belief consistently predicted higher risks for physical dangers, just as they did in the first study. They showed only a weak tendency to overestimate health and disease risks, and they did not overestimate the likelihood of positive or neutral events. The results were similar whether participants estimated risks for themselves or for others, indicating a generalized pattern of threat perception rather than a specific personal fear.
For the third study, the researchers tested how dangerous world beliefs influence the perception of novel social situations. A group of 599 American adults viewed photographs of Caucasian strangers with neutral facial expressions. The participants rated the faces on various emotional and behavioral traits, including warmth, trustworthiness, and the likelihood that the person might commit a crime.
As part of the third study’s design, participants were randomly assigned to a threat condition or a control condition. In the threat condition, the photographs were accompanied by text claiming the person in the image had committed a crime. The researchers wanted to see if contextual cues would interact with dangerous world beliefs to amplify threat appraisals.
Participants who viewed the world as a dangerous place rated the neutral faces as less trustworthy, less warm, and less happy. They also perceived the strangers as more aggressive and more likely to pose a threat to society. The contextual manipulation of telling participants that the targets were criminals did not result in a statistically significant interaction with dangerous world beliefs. Once again, the participants’ generalized belief about the world predicted negative social evaluations better than their reported levels of anxiety or depression.
The fourth study sought to replicate the facial evaluation findings across different racial groups. The researchers recruited 979 American adults, evenly split between Black and White participants, who evaluated a series of neutral Black and White faces. The survey structure mirrored the previous experiment, focusing on traits like trustworthiness and perceived threat.
The evaluations matched the previous results, with dangerous world belief heavily associated with seeing societal threat and crime risk in the neutral faces. It was also linked to lower ratings of trust and warmth. In some instances, the association between dangerous world beliefs and evaluations of traits like warmth and happiness was stronger among Black participants than White participants, regardless of the target’s race.
While these four studies demonstrate a strong link between generalized worldviews and specific threat appraisals, the researchers noted several caveats. The data are cross-sectional and rely on surveys taken at a single point in time. Because of this, it is not possible to prove that holding a dangerous world belief directly causes someone to overestimate risks. It remains possible that an unknown third variable drives both the broad belief and the specific threat perceptions.
Another caveat is that the effects were observed in relatively ambiguous scenarios, such as guessing statistics or judging the faces of complete strangers. A person’s generalized belief about danger might not influence their judgment in environments that provide distinct safety cues, established relationships, or readily accessible facts. The researchers also found no evidence that dangerous world beliefs actually correlated with an individual’s history of participating in real-world risky behaviors, such as extreme sports or high-risk investments.
Future research will need to explore how these generalized beliefs might influence high-stakes professional decision-making. Medical professionals who view the world as highly dangerous might make different judgments regarding treatments than those who see the world as safe. Similarly, judges or jurors with high dangerous world beliefs might evaluate criminal sentencing in a more risk-averse manner.
Psychologists also hope to design experiments that attempt to alter a person’s primal world beliefs. If behavioral interventions can successfully change a person’s overarching worldview, scientists could test whether that shift leads to a lasting reduction in how they perceive everyday threats.
The study, “From Bear Attacks to Neutral Faces: Dangerous World Belief Predicts Specific Appraisals of Threat,” was authored by Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/how-a-dangerous-worldview-shapes-our-perception-of-everyday-threats/
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DangerousWorldBeliefs #ThreatPerception #NeutralFacesBias #PrimalWorldBeliefs #SocialPerception #TrustworthinessJudgment #FaceEvaluation #CognitiveBias #PsychologyResearch #JournalOfIndividualDifferences
-
Getty has a harder paywall now so you cannot use some of their search tools and are limited in how many pages you can sift through so I was unable to search directly for press photos from August 2021. However, I did find some hits from Alamy that show that at least in part of August, Weidel did not have this dark hair...she was a bottle blonde.
So it's likely either from before August 2021 or the photo has been manipulated. The strongest lighting in the photo is coming from above, which would not leave a shadow coming from the audience's direction like that.
In any case, it's not like I disagree with depicting Weidel as like a Nazi. She is. But if we admire photojournalists, we should be crediting them. If we care about sources, we should be citing them. If we care about facts, we need to be checking them and also making it easier to keep that provenance there.
#Attribution #Photography #Photojournalism #Germany #CognitiveBias
-
Getty has a harder paywall now so you cannot use some of their search tools and are limited in how many pages you can sift through so I was unable to search directly for press photos from August 2021. However, I did find some hits from Alamy that show that at least in part of August, Weidel did not have this dark hair...she was a bottle blonde.
So it's likely either from before August 2021 or the photo has been manipulated. The strongest lighting in the photo is coming from above, which would not leave a shadow coming from the audience's direction like that.
In any case, it's not like I disagree with depicting Weidel as like a Nazi. She is. But if we admire photojournalists, we should be crediting them. If we care about sources, we should be citing them. If we care about facts, we need to be checking them and also making it easier to keep that provenance there.
#Attribution #Photography #Photojournalism #Germany #CognitiveBias
-
Getty has a harder paywall now so you cannot use some of their search tools and are limited in how many pages you can sift through so I was unable to search directly for press photos from August 2021. However, I did find some hits from Alamy that show that at least in part of August, Weidel did not have this dark hair...she was a bottle blonde.
So it's likely either from before August 2021 or the photo has been manipulated. The strongest lighting in the photo is coming from above, which would not leave a shadow coming from the audience's direction like that.
In any case, it's not like I disagree with depicting Weidel as like a Nazi. She is. But if we admire photojournalists, we should be crediting them. If we care about sources, we should be citing them. If we care about facts, we need to be checking them and also making it easier to keep that provenance there.
#Attribution #Photography #Photojournalism #Germany #CognitiveBias
-
Getty has a harder paywall now so you cannot use some of their search tools and are limited in how many pages you can sift through so I was unable to search directly for press photos from August 2021. However, I did find some hits from Alamy that show that at least in part of August, Weidel did not have this dark hair...she was a bottle blonde.
So it's likely either from before August 2021 or the photo has been manipulated. The strongest lighting in the photo is coming from above, which would not leave a shadow coming from the audience's direction like that.
In any case, it's not like I disagree with depicting Weidel as like a Nazi. She is. But if we admire photojournalists, we should be crediting them. If we care about sources, we should be citing them. If we care about facts, we need to be checking them and also making it easier to keep that provenance there.
#Attribution #Photography #Photojournalism #Germany #CognitiveBias
-
Getty has a harder paywall now so you cannot use some of their search tools and are limited in how many pages you can sift through so I was unable to search directly for press photos from August 2021. However, I did find some hits from Alamy that show that at least in part of August, Weidel did not have this dark hair...she was a bottle blonde.
So it's likely either from before August 2021 or the photo has been manipulated. The strongest lighting in the photo is coming from above, which would not leave a shadow coming from the audience's direction like that.
In any case, it's not like I disagree with depicting Weidel as like a Nazi. She is. But if we admire photojournalists, we should be crediting them. If we care about sources, we should be citing them. If we care about facts, we need to be checking them and also making it easier to keep that provenance there.
#Attribution #Photography #Photojournalism #Germany #CognitiveBias
-
Three biases distort your analysis #data #dataanalytics #DataAnalysis #DataBias #CognitiveBias
-
Three biases distort your analysis #data #dataanalytics #DataAnalysis #DataBias #CognitiveBias
-
Three biases distort your analysis #data #dataanalytics #DataAnalysis #DataBias #CognitiveBias
-
Three biases distort your analysis #data #dataanalytics #DataAnalysis #DataBias #CognitiveBias
-
Three biases distort your analysis #data #dataanalytics #DataAnalysis #DataBias #CognitiveBias
-
In response to someone giddy over an imagined future where the only human job will be critical thinking, I tried to point out that bias may have blinded him to the thinking people already do.
What they are overlooking is the domain-level knowledge which keeps mechanics/electricians/plumbers/welders in trade schools/guilds/product manuals, truck drivers/bus drivers/pilots in trade schools/behind the wheel of specific machines for years at a go, engineers at university/conferences/industry papers/manufacturers data sheets and scientists/mathematicians at university/conferences/academic papers/libraries/research projects for the whole of their careers. They spend their lives to know how to make judgments on the decisions that the non-domain expert doesn’t even credit as a knowledge domain. If society doesn’t treat their particularized expertise as equally valuable, that doesn’t change that it’s the same human skills and effort to learn and gain the expertise to get the desired job done *right*. A lifetime of socialized specialization just so they can be judged on the fields they aren’t experts in.
People think all the time. And people are much more critical about the thinking of those in outgroups than their own friends, even when nearly everyone believes some crazy thing or has a blind spot in their thinking.
But white collar workers fetishize the forms of white collar management: memos, poster boards, diagrams, etc. without recognizing that the mode of education and prestige of the domain have little bearing on the quality of the thinking.
#CriticalThinking #DomainExpertise #SkilledTrades #HumanIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AI #CognitiveBias #DignityOfLabor
-
In response to someone giddy over an imagined future where the only human job will be critical thinking, I tried to point out that bias may have blinded him to the thinking people already do.
What they are overlooking is the domain-level knowledge which keeps mechanics/electricians/plumbers/welders in trade schools/guilds/product manuals, truck drivers/bus drivers/pilots in trade schools/behind the wheel of specific machines for years at a go, engineers at university/conferences/industry papers/manufacturers data sheets and scientists/mathematicians at university/conferences/academic papers/libraries/research projects for the whole of their careers. They spend their lives to know how to make judgments on the decisions that the non-domain expert doesn’t even credit as a knowledge domain. If society doesn’t treat their particularized expertise as equally valuable, that doesn’t change that it’s the same human skills and effort to learn and gain the expertise to get the desired job done *right*. A lifetime of socialized specialization just so they can be judged on the fields they aren’t experts in.
People think all the time. And people are much more critical about the thinking of those in outgroups than their own friends, even when nearly everyone believes some crazy thing or has a blind spot in their thinking.
But white collar workers fetishize the forms of white collar management: memos, poster boards, diagrams, etc. without recognizing that the mode of education and prestige of the domain have little bearing on the quality of the thinking.
#CriticalThinking #DomainExpertise #SkilledTrades #HumanIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AI #CognitiveBias #DignityOfLabor
-
In response to someone giddy over an imagined future where the only human job will be critical thinking, I tried to point out that bias may have blinded him to the thinking people already do.
What they are overlooking is the domain-level knowledge which keeps mechanics/electricians/plumbers/welders in trade schools/guilds/product manuals, truck drivers/bus drivers/pilots in trade schools/behind the wheel of specific machines for years at a go, engineers at university/conferences/industry papers/manufacturers data sheets and scientists/mathematicians at university/conferences/academic papers/libraries/research projects for the whole of their careers. They spend their lives to know how to make judgments on the decisions that the non-domain expert doesn’t even credit as a knowledge domain. If society doesn’t treat their particularized expertise as equally valuable, that doesn’t change that it’s the same human skills and effort to learn and gain the expertise to get the desired job done *right*. A lifetime of socialized specialization just so they can be judged on the fields they aren’t experts in.
People think all the time. And people are much more critical about the thinking of those in outgroups than their own friends, even when nearly everyone believes some crazy thing or has a blind spot in their thinking.
But white collar workers fetishize the forms of white collar management: memos, poster boards, diagrams, etc. without recognizing that the mode of education and prestige of the domain have little bearing on the quality of the thinking.
#CriticalThinking #DomainExpertise #SkilledTrades #HumanIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AI #CognitiveBias #DignityOfLabor
-
In response to someone giddy over an imagined future where the only human job will be critical thinking, I tried to point out that bias may have blinded him to the thinking people already do.
What they are overlooking is the domain-level knowledge which keeps mechanics/electricians/plumbers/welders in trade schools/guilds/product manuals, truck drivers/bus drivers/pilots in trade schools/behind the wheel of specific machines for years at a go, engineers at university/conferences/industry papers/manufacturers data sheets and scientists/mathematicians at university/conferences/academic papers/libraries/research projects for the whole of their careers. They spend their lives to know how to make judgments on the decisions that the non-domain expert doesn’t even credit as a knowledge domain. If society doesn’t treat their particularized expertise as equally valuable, that doesn’t change that it’s the same human skills and effort to learn and gain the expertise to get the desired job done *right*. A lifetime of socialized specialization just so they can be judged on the fields they aren’t experts in.
People think all the time. And people are much more critical about the thinking of those in outgroups than their own friends, even when nearly everyone believes some crazy thing or has a blind spot in their thinking.
But white collar workers fetishize the forms of white collar management: memos, poster boards, diagrams, etc. without recognizing that the mode of education and prestige of the domain have little bearing on the quality of the thinking.
#CriticalThinking #DomainExpertise #SkilledTrades #HumanIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AI #CognitiveBias #DignityOfLabor
-
In response to someone giddy over an imagined future where the only human job will be critical thinking, I tried to point out that bias may have blinded him to the thinking people already do.
What they are overlooking is the domain-level knowledge which keeps mechanics/electricians/plumbers/welders in trade schools/guilds/product manuals, truck drivers/bus drivers/pilots in trade schools/behind the wheel of specific machines for years at a go, engineers at university/conferences/industry papers/manufacturers data sheets and scientists/mathematicians at university/conferences/academic papers/libraries/research projects for the whole of their careers. They spend their lives to know how to make judgments on the decisions that the non-domain expert doesn’t even credit as a knowledge domain. If society doesn’t treat their particularized expertise as equally valuable, that doesn’t change that it’s the same human skills and effort to learn and gain the expertise to get the desired job done *right*. A lifetime of socialized specialization just so they can be judged on the fields they aren’t experts in.
People think all the time. And people are much more critical about the thinking of those in outgroups than their own friends, even when nearly everyone believes some crazy thing or has a blind spot in their thinking.
But white collar workers fetishize the forms of white collar management: memos, poster boards, diagrams, etc. without recognizing that the mode of education and prestige of the domain have little bearing on the quality of the thinking.
#CriticalThinking #DomainExpertise #SkilledTrades #HumanIntelligence #FutureOfWork #AI #CognitiveBias #DignityOfLabor
-
What if AI isn’t making you smarter — just **better at being wrong?**
AI can turn assumptions into convincing arguments and polished analysis.
The key distinction: **AI-assisted reasoning vs AI-assisted rationalization.**
Instead of asking:
“Can you prove I’m right?”
Ask:
**“Can you help me discover that I’m wrong?”**
-
What if AI isn’t making you smarter — just **better at being wrong?**
AI can turn assumptions into convincing arguments and polished analysis.
The key distinction: **AI-assisted reasoning vs AI-assisted rationalization.**
Instead of asking:
“Can you prove I’m right?”
Ask:
**“Can you help me discover that I’m wrong?”**
-
What if AI isn’t making you smarter — just **better at being wrong?**
AI can turn assumptions into convincing arguments and polished analysis.
The key distinction: **AI-assisted reasoning vs AI-assisted rationalization.**
Instead of asking:
“Can you prove I’m right?”
Ask:
**“Can you help me discover that I’m wrong?”**
-
What if AI isn’t making you smarter — just **better at being wrong?**
AI can turn assumptions into convincing arguments and polished analysis.
The key distinction: **AI-assisted reasoning vs AI-assisted rationalization.**
Instead of asking:
“Can you prove I’m right?”
Ask:
**“Can you help me discover that I’m wrong?”**
-
What if AI isn’t making you smarter — just **better at being wrong?**
AI can turn assumptions into convincing arguments and polished analysis.
The key distinction: **AI-assisted reasoning vs AI-assisted rationalization.**
Instead of asking:
“Can you prove I’m right?”
Ask:
**“Can you help me discover that I’m wrong?”**
-
From the Leanpub Blog: Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
From the Leanpub Blog: Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
From the Leanpub Blog: Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
From the Leanpub Blog: Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
NEW! Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
NEW! Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
NEW! Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
NEW! Leanpub Book LAUNCH 🚀 Contemplation: The Interior Forms of Epistemic Failure by James Roy Dennis
#books #leanpublishing #selfpublishing #epistemicFailure #selfKnowledge #epistemology #cognitiveBias #carryFailure
-
**One problem. One enemy. One solution.**
Simple narratives are comforting. Complexity isn't.
What if our preference for simple answers isn't stupidity, but an evolutionary strategy — one increasingly unsuited to the complex world we've created?
My latest on *Wrong Opinions*: **The Price of Complexity**
https://wrongopinions.com/ideas-and-society/the-price-of-complexity/
-
**One problem. One enemy. One solution.**
Simple narratives are comforting. Complexity isn't.
What if our preference for simple answers isn't stupidity, but an evolutionary strategy — one increasingly unsuited to the complex world we've created?
My latest on *Wrong Opinions*: **The Price of Complexity**
https://wrongopinions.com/ideas-and-society/the-price-of-complexity/
-
**One problem. One enemy. One solution.**
Simple narratives are comforting. Complexity isn't.
What if our preference for simple answers isn't stupidity, but an evolutionary strategy — one increasingly unsuited to the complex world we've created?
My latest on *Wrong Opinions*: **The Price of Complexity**
https://wrongopinions.com/ideas-and-society/the-price-of-complexity/
-
**One problem. One enemy. One solution.**
Simple narratives are comforting. Complexity isn't.
What if our preference for simple answers isn't stupidity, but an evolutionary strategy — one increasingly unsuited to the complex world we've created?
My latest on *Wrong Opinions*: **The Price of Complexity**
https://wrongopinions.com/ideas-and-society/the-price-of-complexity/
-
**One problem. One enemy. One solution.**
Simple narratives are comforting. Complexity isn't.
What if our preference for simple answers isn't stupidity, but an evolutionary strategy — one increasingly unsuited to the complex world we've created?
My latest on *Wrong Opinions*: **The Price of Complexity**
https://wrongopinions.com/ideas-and-society/the-price-of-complexity/
-
Emotional intensity is not evidence for a belief's accuracy. A triggering event activates an automatic thought, which generates an emotional consequence. We often accept the consequence as proof of the belief. The active phase of Disputation collects evidence for and against the belief.
🔗 https://neuroviaxacademy.com/cognitive-restructuring-guide/
-
Emotional intensity is not evidence for a belief's accuracy. A triggering event activates an automatic thought, which generates an emotional consequence. We often accept the consequence as proof of the belief. The active phase of Disputation collects evidence for and against the belief.
🔗 https://neuroviaxacademy.com/cognitive-restructuring-guide/
-
Emotional intensity is not evidence for a belief's accuracy. A triggering event activates an automatic thought, which generates an emotional consequence. We often accept the consequence as proof of the belief. The active phase of Disputation collects evidence for and against the belief.
🔗 https://neuroviaxacademy.com/cognitive-restructuring-guide/
-
Emotional intensity is not evidence for a belief's accuracy. A triggering event activates an automatic thought, which generates an emotional consequence. We often accept the consequence as proof of the belief. The active phase of Disputation collects evidence for and against the belief.
🔗 https://neuroviaxacademy.com/cognitive-restructuring-guide/
-
Emotional intensity is not evidence for a belief's accuracy. A triggering event activates an automatic thought, which generates an emotional consequence. We often accept the consequence as proof of the belief. The active phase of Disputation collects evidence for and against the belief.
🔗 https://neuroviaxacademy.com/cognitive-restructuring-guide/
-
Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079175
#HackerNews #understanding #bias #cognitivebias #explanatorydepth #illusionofunderstanding #criticalthinking
-
Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079175
#HackerNews #understanding #bias #cognitivebias #explanatorydepth #illusionofunderstanding #criticalthinking
-
Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079175
#HackerNews #understanding #bias #cognitivebias #explanatorydepth #illusionofunderstanding #criticalthinking
-
Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079175
#HackerNews #understanding #bias #cognitivebias #explanatorydepth #illusionofunderstanding #criticalthinking
-
Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-illusion-of-explanatory-depth
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079175
#HackerNews #understanding #bias #cognitivebias #explanatorydepth #illusionofunderstanding #criticalthinking
-
I Think You Might Be Fooling Yourself with AI
https://louwrentius.com/i-think-you-might-be-fooling-yourself-with-ai.html
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021843
#HackerNews #AI #self-awareness #AIethics #techinsights #cognitivebias
-
I Think You Might Be Fooling Yourself with AI
https://louwrentius.com/i-think-you-might-be-fooling-yourself-with-ai.html
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021843
#HackerNews #AI #self-awareness #AIethics #techinsights #cognitivebias
-
I Think You Might Be Fooling Yourself with AI
https://louwrentius.com/i-think-you-might-be-fooling-yourself-with-ai.html
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021843
#HackerNews #AI #self-awareness #AIethics #techinsights #cognitivebias
-
I Think You Might Be Fooling Yourself with AI
https://louwrentius.com/i-think-you-might-be-fooling-yourself-with-ai.html
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021843
#HackerNews #AI #self-awareness #AIethics #techinsights #cognitivebias
-
I Think You Might Be Fooling Yourself with AI
https://louwrentius.com/i-think-you-might-be-fooling-yourself-with-ai.html
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49021843
#HackerNews #AI #self-awareness #AIethics #techinsights #cognitivebias
-
Ministry Proposes Tax on Nostalgia Posts to Save the Environment
The Ministry has proposed a Nostalgia Tax on every "Only 90s kids will understand..." post. The revenue will help data centers survive the endless storage of recycled memories while an official investigation examines whether the good old days were actually good—or just remembered that way. -
Ministry Proposes Tax on Nostalgia Posts to Save the Environment
The Ministry has proposed a Nostalgia Tax on every "Only 90s kids will understand..." post. The revenue will help data centers survive the endless storage of recycled memories while an official investigation examines whether the good old days were actually good—or just remembered that way. -
Ministry Proposes Tax on Nostalgia Posts to Save the Environment
The Ministry has proposed a Nostalgia Tax on every "Only 90s kids will understand..." post. The revenue will help data centers survive the endless storage of recycled memories while an official investigation examines whether the good old days were actually good—or just remembered that way. -
Ministry Proposes Tax on Nostalgia Posts to Save the Environment
The Ministry has proposed a Nostalgia Tax on every "Only 90s kids will understand..." post. The revenue will help data centers survive the endless storage of recycled memories while an official investigation examines whether the good old days were actually good—or just remembered that way. -
Ministry Proposes Tax on Nostalgia Posts to Save the Environment
The Ministry has proposed a Nostalgia Tax on every "Only 90s kids will understand..." post. The revenue will help data centers survive the endless storage of recycled memories while an official investigation examines whether the good old days were actually good—or just remembered that way. -
"Quantifiable risk belongs to the casino, the mortality table, and the actuarial ledger. It describes a world where the outcome of an event is unknown, but historical data exists to support a probability estimate. Because the boundaries of the system are fixed, we can use historical data to calculate numerical odds.
Knightian uncertainty, by contrast, considers the unprecedented. It arises when a situation, like climate change, is so novel or complex that history offers no guide. We are pushing the biosphere far outside its Holocene baseline, entering an environment where the variables themselves are changing, and the models used to project future outcomes break down."
Why We're Blind to Civilizational Collapse
by Sarah Connor
July 8th, 2026https://collapse2050.substack.com/p/why-were-blind-to-civilizational
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #CollapseAware #polycrisis #DisasterPreparedness #CognitiveBias #LogicalFallacy #SelectiveUpdating #Sociology #HumanPsychology
-
"Quantifiable risk belongs to the casino, the mortality table, and the actuarial ledger. It describes a world where the outcome of an event is unknown, but historical data exists to support a probability estimate. Because the boundaries of the system are fixed, we can use historical data to calculate numerical odds.
Knightian uncertainty, by contrast, considers the unprecedented. It arises when a situation, like climate change, is so novel or complex that history offers no guide. We are pushing the biosphere far outside its Holocene baseline, entering an environment where the variables themselves are changing, and the models used to project future outcomes break down."
Why We're Blind to Civilizational Collapse
by Sarah Connor
July 8th, 2026https://collapse2050.substack.com/p/why-were-blind-to-civilizational
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #CollapseAware #polycrisis #DisasterPreparedness #CognitiveBias #LogicalFallacy #SelectiveUpdating #Sociology #HumanPsychology
-
"Quantifiable risk belongs to the casino, the mortality table, and the actuarial ledger. It describes a world where the outcome of an event is unknown, but historical data exists to support a probability estimate. Because the boundaries of the system are fixed, we can use historical data to calculate numerical odds.
Knightian uncertainty, by contrast, considers the unprecedented. It arises when a situation, like climate change, is so novel or complex that history offers no guide. We are pushing the biosphere far outside its Holocene baseline, entering an environment where the variables themselves are changing, and the models used to project future outcomes break down."
Why We're Blind to Civilizational Collapse
by Sarah Connor
July 8th, 2026https://collapse2050.substack.com/p/why-were-blind-to-civilizational
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #CollapseAware #polycrisis #DisasterPreparedness #CognitiveBias #LogicalFallacy #SelectiveUpdating #Sociology #HumanPsychology
-
"Quantifiable risk belongs to the casino, the mortality table, and the actuarial ledger. It describes a world where the outcome of an event is unknown, but historical data exists to support a probability estimate. Because the boundaries of the system are fixed, we can use historical data to calculate numerical odds.
Knightian uncertainty, by contrast, considers the unprecedented. It arises when a situation, like climate change, is so novel or complex that history offers no guide. We are pushing the biosphere far outside its Holocene baseline, entering an environment where the variables themselves are changing, and the models used to project future outcomes break down."
Why We're Blind to Civilizational Collapse
by Sarah Connor
July 8th, 2026https://collapse2050.substack.com/p/why-were-blind-to-civilizational
#ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #CollapseAware #polycrisis #DisasterPreparedness #CognitiveBias #LogicalFallacy #SelectiveUpdating #Sociology #HumanPsychology