Must Read on Pocket

This is one of the most-saved, read, and shared stories on Pocket.

Recommendations from Pocket Users

Jitesh Patel

Shared February 10, 2019

The fallacy of perception.

Oscar Bazaldúa

Shared May 2, 2017

We live in a world where “in some sense, almost everything we see can be construed in multiple ways,” says Bavel. As a result, we are constantly choosing between duck and rabbit.

Aduke Thelwell

Shared October 6, 2018

Fascinating. Can’t we acknowledge the duck and the rabbit at once?

Numerous studies have suggested a biased neural signature in subjects when they see images of people from their own racial in-group. But now tell subjects the people in those images have been assigned to a fictitious “team,” to which they also belong. “In that first 100 milliseconds or so, we’re presented with a rabbit-duck problem,” says Jay Van Bavel, a professor of psychology at NYU. Are you looking at someone from your own team, or someone from a different race? In Van Bavel’s study, suddenly it is the team members that are getting more positive neuronal activity, virtually rendering race invisible (almost as if, per duck-rabbit, we can only favor one interpretation at a time).4

Mark Anderson

Shared 5 days ago

We live in a world where “in some sense, almost everything we see can be construed in multiple ways,” says Bavel. As a result, we are constantly choosing between duck and rabbit

Tudor Buligă

Shared November 8, 2016

As research by Yale University law and psychology professor Dan Kahan has suggested, polarization does not happen with debates like climate change because one side is thinking more analytically, while the other wallows in unreasoned ignorance or heuristic biases.9 Rather, those subjects who tested highest on measures like “cognitive reflection” and scientific literacy were also most likely to display what he calls “ideologically motivated cognition.” They were paying the most attention

Tony D'Ambra

Shared February 10, 2019

Subjects were asked to encode each image

Brandon Dorr

Shared August 27, 2018

We form our beliefs based on what comes to us from the world through the window of perception, but then those beliefs act like a lens, focusing on what they want to see. In a New York University psychology laboratory earlier this year, a group of subjects watched a 45-second video clip of a violent struggle between a police officer and an unarmed civilian.3 It was ambiguous as to whether the officer, in trying to handcuff the person resisting arrest, behaved improperly. Before seeing the video, the subjects were asked to express how much identification they felt with police officers as a group. The subjects, whose eye movements were being discretely monitored, were then asked to assign culpability. Not surprisingly, people who identified less strongly with police were more likely to call for stronger punishment. But that was only for people who often looked at the police officer during the video. For those who did not look as much at the officer, their punishment decision was the same whether they identified with police or not.

Nose Art

Shared August 12, 2018

juicy
it feels good to have supposedly scientific vindiction for one's beliefs appear online

Patrick Orwig

Shared September 26, 2018

The brain, she says, is an “inference generating organ.”

Francisco Lippke

Shared February 9, 2019

that people cognize and interpret information to fit what they already believe.