anllohernan.bsky.social
Cognitive Scientist (LNC2, ENS-PSL). I study how lessons, suggestions, instructions, advice and other forms of linguistic exchange shape perception, preferences and behaviors. I also keep an eye on LLMs.
47 posts
459 followers
698 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I'm sure you saw that all data is available for our 11-country study www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
Hmmmm. I get what's going on here, but indeed the only way to conclusively debunk this IMO is to replicate in rural areas and non-urban ethnic groups. As I see it now (pun intended) the effect is clearly low level in origin, but culture could defo determine its instantiation.
comment in response to
post
Hmmmm. I get what's going on here, but indeed the only way to conclusively debunk this IMO is to replicate in rural areas and non-urban ethnic groups. As I see it now (pun intended) the effect is clearly low level in origin, but culture could defo determine its instantiation.
comment in response to
post
Do include me please!
comment in response to
post
Lovely, thanks for sharing. Open for a chat indeed!
comment in response to
post
It will do, it will do *faints into oblivion*
comment in response to
post
Yes. I mean hell, half of the psychologists i know don't fully understand how linear regression works so...
comment in response to
post
I want in!
comment in response to
post
A biiiiiig thanks to my co-authors, everyone who gave me feedback and to the Marie Curie initiative for funding this as part of my project. Follow-ups coming soon!
comment in response to
post
If you want to see more (or you saw the poster at CCN or SNE and want to see the whole picture) do click on the link and come see what the work is about! I for one I'm happy that listening to others in non-competing settings is actually a good maximization strategy! [faith in humanity restored]
comment in response to
post
Also (as shown in the picture above), factors like social anxiety modulated tendency to give advice actually rendering advice-givers more responsible and mindful of information shared. Note that while imposing cost on advice changed advice frequency, for the most part did not compromise its quality
comment in response to
post
Long story short, we found that a third of people will share advice compulsively (even without any added incentive). But the rest of them would actually think before sharing, and propagate advice that was backed by their experiential knowledge. Thus, heeding advice gives access to curated knowledge.
comment in response to
post
Sharing your choice as advice to others was either (1) totally free of cost or incentive, (2) costed a bit of money, (3) exposed your performance socially in a public scoreboard (social cost), or (4) was done accepting the responsibility that future participants had to use your advice as feedback.
comment in response to
post
We prepared a classic 2-armed bandit task, presented under the guise of a fishing trip. Participants were explorers scouting the fish yield of different lakes. On every turn, they could choose to share their choice of lake as advice to others (before feedback, so based on accumulated knowledge).
comment in response to
post
Humans everywhere tend to like (love) giving and receiving advice. But giving advice is actually a chore. Why do it when there's nothing to gain? And why (at times) trust it more than your own experience? We seem evolutionary oriented towards heeding advice, but is it sensible?
comment in response to
post
Banco a full. Espero tengamos los mismos esporadicos y respetuos intercambios que en X por estos pagos. Bienvenido!
comment in response to
post
Yes, myself and @stepalminteri.bsky.social should definitely be in there
comment in response to
post
Which points directly to my question. Why. Why do we resist its dismantling? Why do we enforce it if we all suffer it?
comment in response to
post
Right, but you see that's the thing. Journals exist for profit. They select papers based on subjective criteria and interest. The illusion here is that they are ranking the quality of science. They are not, simply because they lack the necessary qualifications to do so. They make money. That's it.
comment in response to
post
I see... so we did that instead of just keeping the money otherwise sent to journals, which would be enough to pay scientists to do this right, and also fund the rest of science three times over? Just making sure I'm getting it right.
comment in response to
post
My question is... why. Why are we low-key ok with public funds fueling gargantuan profits to Journals, who just ask acting editors with 7 unrelated publications to judge our science or desk-rejected in just two reads (if lucky). This money could instead be used to fund positions and pay reviewers.
comment in response to
post
This third party, on the other hand, has no trouble admitting they are a business and thus are in it for the money. And oh do they collect. See www.theguardian.com/science/2017...
comment in response to
post
To be clear. Grants, Universities and Public Officers largely base their decisions on who to give money to on publication outlet. This in turn shapes science and its topics. It's almost as if we were outsourcing a vital part of the process to a private third party.
comment in response to
post
I'm intrigued. Is that an occipital ROI ? Why though? Are you asking your participants to visualize something to regulate their breathing rhythm by any chance?
comment in response to
post
I would LOVE to invite Stefano and Nicolas here, how can I send out invites myself?
comment in response to
post
This is so pretty and clear!! Can I use this when I teach (will give credit of course)?