Bence Bago

@BenceBago

Research Fellow at Toulouse School of Economics

Vrijeme pridruživanja: kolovoz 2017.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @BenceBago

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @BenceBago

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    3. velj

    I need your help, Twitter. I can't access an APA paper that *I am an author on*: Doesn't seem to come up on sci-hub. Don't have institutional access (as far as I can tell). Can't email the author (that's me). 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    Two weeks left to submit individual abstracts to the 2020 International Conference on Thinking, in Paris, this summer! Don't miss out on this one, it's going to be legendary and you'll forever regret not attending

    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    There is no universal consensus on how to conduct and report Bayesian analyses. & colleagues present their views on the debate in a Comment, providing a thinking guideline for scientists wishing to employ Bayesian inference in their research

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Now accepted in principle at Nature Human Behaviour: "Moral thinking across the world: Exploring the influence of personal force and intention in moral dilemma judgments." Great work team! More info on next steps coming soon 🎉

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Yay! On to data collection for this one!! 🤹🏻‍♂️ Many, many thanks to & 🙏🏽

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    28. sij

    This time it IS out! Not Born Yesterday, arguing that people aren’t gullible. Psychology! Political science! History! Anthropology! Media studies! ToC below, and threads to follow with stuff I wish I’d put in the book

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    28. sij

    Expert panel discussion on how to conduct Bayesian inference is just out at With I. Klugkist Z. Dienes

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 22. sij

    Implications: Analytic thinking is good!! ⇒Interventions that promote critical thinking should be expected to improve accuracy, not increase bias. ⇒Social media design, which encourages fast scrolling and not careful thinking, may exacerbate success of fake news

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 22. sij

    People higher on cognitive reflective abilities were also more likely to engage in deliberation and correct their erroneous intuitive response.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 22. sij

    Then we turned to political headlines... Results were the same! Deliberation increased accuracy, regardless of political consistency. And no effect on partisan differences. ✔️Classical dual-process theory ❌Motivated System 2 Reasoning

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 22. sij

    First we tried non-political headlines, where there's no role for partisan motivated reasoning. As expected, belief in false headlines was higher in initial (intuitive) responses than final (deliberative) responses or control ("one response baseline"). Deliberation⇒accuracy

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 22. sij

    🚨But correlation ≠ causation! So we manipulated level of deliberation when assessing news headlines Subjects gave intuitive response under time pressure+cognitive load. Then headline was presented again without deliberation constraint. Control=1 rating with no constraint

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 22. sij

    Prior correlational evidence supports the classical account: People who are more deliberative are less likely to believe false headlines, regardless of partisan consistency.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 22. sij

    Classical Dual-Process Theory suggests that deliberation helps people correct flawed intuitive responses - and thus increases accuracy. Prediction: Deliberation decreases belief in false headlines relative to true headlines.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 22. sij

    Motivated System 2 Reasoning suggests deliberation is used to protect one’s identity – and thus that reasoning is held hostage by partisanship. Prediction: Deliberation increases belief in politically consistent headlines relative to politically inconsistent headlines.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 22. sij

    We tested predictions of two major contrasting theories about the role of deliberation in information processing: Motivated System 2 Reasoning (MS2R) vs Classical dual-process theory

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 22. sij

    New JEP:G paper w Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines Preprint First *causal* evidence that analytic thinking increases accuracy, not partisan bias!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    21. sij

    “New” work (accepted 2018, published 2020!) with in the latest Thinking and Reasoning issue. We tested predictions of the revised dual-process model that we and others have been developing postprint:

    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    24. lis 2019.

    Sits neatly with recent pubs (ft. , , , , et al.) challenging the traditional dual-process model of moral cognition (e.g., ) It seems that our utilitarian impulses are as intuitive as the deontological ones!

    Poništi
  20. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    A new study from , & found that people are more likely to fall for false headlines if they spend less time thinking about them

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·