Why do people watch the same video or read the same post and disagree on what they saw or read? We presume our own interpretation is the obvious and correct one. But undetected misinterpretations may be a factor online and could even warp perceived consensus. New research:
bit.ly/49jbyZa
Cheyenne Dosso, Tiffany Morisseau, Christophe Heintz, Jean-Sébastien Vayre, A cognitive resource-rational account of epistemic injustice, The Philosophical Quarterly, 2025;, pqaf088, doi.org/10.1093/pq/p...
Preprint in FREE ACCESS at philpapers.org/archive/DOSA...
"Comfort in Responding to Sensitive Topics: A Qualitative Look at the Live Video Survey Mode" at bit.ly/42ukPtH highlights the excellent article in the special issue of @poqjournal.bsky.social by Shlomit Okon, @rebdolgin.bsky.social, & Michael Schober
Preschoolers Selectively Attend to Speech That They Can Learn More From by @ruthefoushee.bsky.social and colleagues
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
New in Public Opinion Quarterly: Live video can change how people feel about answering sensitive questions—but not in the same way for everyone. Example: For some, seeing and being seen can make them MORE at ease, for others LESS at ease.
🎓 Excited to share our review paper on Generative AI and Misinformation in Education! 🤖📚
#GenerativeAI #EdTech #AIInEducation #Misinformation #DigitalLiteracy #EducationResearch #AIEthics
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
here's a useful critical annotation of zuck's "superintelligence" memo sonjadrimmer.com/blog-1/2025/...
Affiliated departments at UNC are hiring an assistant professor position for the study of AI. Happy to connect folks w/ questions. I would say that there is an emphasis on the “socio-technical”.
unc.peopleadmin.com/postings/303...
(Issued with all sincere sympathies about the job market.)
Another semester, another moment to thank that guy from Rice University who made that syllabus maker thing. I love you
wcaleb.rice.edu/syllabusmake...
Only a small % of people engage in toxic activity online, but they’re responsible for a disproportionate share of hostile or misleading content on nearly every platform
Because super-users are so active, they dominate our collective impression of the internet www.theguardian.com/books/2025/j...
Yes, social media can completely distort our impressions. And, what may complicate things even more is a misalignment between what posters intend to communicate and what readers interpret: Here's a link to our research showing evidence of this mismatch:
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
In this finally out (!) paper, I argue no—and cognitive science backs this up. We can keep the orthodox rationalist view of belief *and* recognize the difficulties in changing minds. The key is thinking of belief as requiring a *capacity* (not a reliable disposition) to respond to evidence.
(please share widely!) With the start of August quickly approaching, I wanted to announce that the usual slack for fellow people on the Psych Academic Job Market for the coming cycle has been activated. If you are interested, feel free to fill out this form to join!
forms.gle/2DBgs8S1fktS...
Despite this potential for misunderstanding, authors were 90-100% confident they would be understood as intended.
Checkout the full paper here: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Then we asked online participants to read the same posts and tell us the stance they thought authors had intended when they posted.
A shocking number of readers misinterpreted the author's intent—25% even thought the opposite at least once.
Thread 🧵(2/n)
📗New paper in @discourseprocesses.bsky.social📗
Do readers of social media interpret posts the way authors intended?
We asked authors what stance they intended to convey in a post they tweeted about Roe v. Wade.
Thread 🧵(1/n)
Thrilled to have our research included in this special issue!
