I recently read an article by Eric Mandelbaum and Jake Quilty Dunn about how people process information and form beliefs. Their main argument is that we automatically accept information before we evaluate it carefully. This means that even if we know a news source is biased and don't fully trust it, its information might still influence our beliefs.

I came up with one question: If we already know that a news source is biased, are we really protected from its influence? For example, if someone watches a news channel they disagree with, could some of the information still affect their thinking without them realizing it?

I think it's interesting because we often assume that being aware of bias is enough to avoid being misled. But maybe knowing that a source is unreliable does not completely prevent its information from influencing us.

What do you think? Is being aware of bias enough, or do we need to do more to protect ourselves from misinformation?

One of the clearest proofs that profanity isn't standard language comes from stroke wards: patients who lose cortical speech (Broca's area) can often still swear fluently when in pain.

Expletives are stored subcortically in the basal ganglia as motor reflexes. During acute pain, this limbic trigger activates stress-induced hypoalgesia—releasing descending endogenous opioids from the brainstem and dampening spinal pain gates by roughly 33%.

The catch: daily habitual swearers get far less analgesic benefit. The neural pain-shield requires emotional taboo shock to activate.

Full study breakdown and citations:

https://www.oddlyclear.com/why-swearing-reduces-pain/

This study of 128 amateur esports players compared 8 and 28 sessions of Beat Saber, with corresponding groups that did not receive the VR training. Sessions lasted 15 minutes, and visuospatial memory was assessed using a Corsi block-tapping task.

Both VR training groups improved on the memory measure. The longer programme did not clearly outperform the shorter one, raising an interesting question about how much practice is needed before additional sessions stop adding value on a particular cognitive test.

These are visuospatial-memory test outcomes; transfer to actual competitive gaming is a separate question.

Full paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-025-01209-x

The comparison groups did not receive an alternative training activity. What active control would best distinguish a VR-specific effect on memory from exercise, engagement or repeated testing?

How closely does feeling mentally overloaded track electrodermal activity? This study compared NASA-TLX workload ratings with task-related skin-conductance changes in 50 adults completing an adaptive cognitive task.

The two measures showed limited correspondence: the correlation was small and not statistically significant. Previous-night sleep was also examined, but those exploratory analyses did not show a consistent association with either measure.

The paper raises a useful measurement question: when subjective workload and physiological arousal diverge, what does each add to our understanding of cognitive demand?

Full paper: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2026.1928964

The sample was small and sleep duration was self-reported for a single night. Would you prioritize repeated measurements, objective sleep tracking or a controlled sleep intervention in a follow-up study?

So I am planning to apply for summer 27 and currently going through the application process! I just wanted some insight before i fully commit

Could you share your experience finding jobs, the careers this blend has opened up for you?

We get a waiting time from the marshmallow task. Explaining that time takes a bit more work.

F.e. the child has to understand the offer, deal with the tempting reward, and decide whether the adult’s promise is believable. Two children can face the same instructions and bring different expectations into the room.

One small experiment changed what the adult did before the waiting task: the adult either kept or broke promises about art materials and stickers. The groups then waited different amounts of time. That gives us evidence that the situation can change the behaviour, although it doesn’t tell us every child’s motive. The later school extension was less clear, btw.

The original attention manipulations are interesting here too. Directing attention away from the reward made immediate waiting easier. That’s useful information about the task; demonstrating better adult outcomes from training it would take separate evidence.

I made a video going through this and the later follow-ups. Curious how people here would distinguish a relatively stable ability from someone’s interpretation of this particular situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-Z5TNiVO4c

Sources:

- Kidd et al. (2013), kept/broken promises: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3730121/

- Moffett et al. (2020), school extension: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104821

- Shoda et al. (1990), discussion of testing conditions and attention: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978

What psychological concepts explain situations where two people develop an unusually accurate understanding of each other’s thought processes after having repeated deep conversations?

For example, what psychological mechanisms could explain a situation where:

• One person has difficulty verbally articulating an idea, but another person can accurately infer and articulate what they were trying to communicate before they finish explaining it.
• Two people begin recognizing similar patterns in how they analyze problems and interpret situations.
• This understanding becomes stronger after repeated conversations involving personal beliefs, perspectives, reasoning, and abstract topics.
• Both people become increasingly able to anticipate the direction of each other’s reasoning.

I’m particularly interested in the distinction between cognitive empathy, perspective-taking, mentalizing, interpersonal attunement, intellectual intimacy, and similarity-attraction.

Is this primarily explained by learning another person's communication patterns and developing an increasingly accurate mental model of how they think? Or are there other established psychological concepts that better explain this phenomenon?

I'm interested in the psychological mechanisms involved rather than supernatural explanations.

The setup, from Arkes and Blumer (1985): you've bought a $100 ski trip to Michigan. Weeks later you buy a $50 one to Wisconsin, which you think will be more fun. Then you notice they're on the same weekend, and neither ticket can be returned.

Both are already paid for. The only question left is which weekend you'd enjoy more. 33 of 61 students still picked Michigan.

The second experiment used real money. The Ohio University Theater sold season tickets at random prices: $15, $13 or $8. Over the first five plays, full-price buyers used 4.11 tickets each. The discount groups used 3.32 and 3.29. By the last five plays, the difference had gone.

I put these together with Levitt's coin-flip study (20,000+ people; the ones the coin told to make a change were happier six months later) in one page. It also has a quiz on when past costs do count: https://sheets.works/data-viz/sunk-cost-fallacy

I want to set up a training routine like this (the bare-bones version):

1. Mnemonic training (memory palace, word memorization; 15 minutes a day)
2. Meditation (I’m learning about how the Greeks practiced meditation—like Hugh of Saint Victor—for 5 minutes a day)
3. Cognitive training (I want to do 2 exercises a day; these can vary)
4. Reading (books and articles, though the main focus will be books, of course; my minimum goal: 30 pages)

The issues are:

1. I don’t know if 15 minutes of mnemonic training is enough to yield results
2. It’s proving very difficult to stick to a routine like this because I tire quickly
3. I don’t have much evidence regarding whether I really need to do all of this every day or if I should spread the tasks out across different days
4. I’ve been researching, but it’s very hard to find answers to everything (precise answers)

Hey all, I am in the process of applying to cognitive psychology PhD programs and wanted to ask a couple of questions.

- for those that have accepted or rejected, what were your stats and what advice do you have for applicants

-are there any programs/ forms you recommend looking at?

-how many would you suggest applying to and should I apply to masters programs incase I don’t get into PhD programs?

Over the past few months, I’ve had the opportunity to run two live EEG analysis courses with participants from psychology, cognitive neuroscience, engineering, medicine, linguistics and other related fields.

When I created the course, my main goal was to help people develop a stronger understanding of EEG analysis, rather than simply teaching them to follow preprocessing pipelines.

One thing that stood out to me was the feedback from participants. Several mentioned that although they had encountered EEG analysis methods before, what they found particularly helpful was understanding why different steps are performed, when certain methods are appropriate, and how those decisions affect the interpretation of the results.

It reminded me how important it is to build strong foundations when learning to work with brain signals, especially when coming from a different research background.

I’m curious whether others here have had similar experiences.

For those who work with EEG, or have tried learning it, what did you find most challenging when getting started?
Was it understanding the signals themselves, preprocessing, choosing appropriate analysis methods, or interpreting the results?

I’d be interested to hear your experiences.

If a sample size of people all live through roughly the same neutral upbringing and exposed to the same sights, would the variance in their cognitive wiring make a meaningful difference on the beliefs (for example, ethical beliefs) that are held by those people when all other factors are controlled?

Hi, I am a post-grad cognitive neuropsych student and I made an an early-stage app for collecting and organizing research papers, with the option to link them to regions on a 3D brain, all while having access to a community forum. I made this app as a student and for the community. I now need your help to find out whether this would be useful to other students and researchers, and what needs to improve before I take the project further.

I am giving access to anyone who wants to use my webapp through this link: https://mapped-brain.pages.dev/

You can organize papers into personal projects and connect them to brain areas. The idea is that users could also share those projects with the community, helping others explore papers by topic or brain region. It links a classic research paper manager with much more. There’s also a community forum which aims to show a heatmap of all contributions as well as host discussions and interactions for students, researchers, and anyone else interested.

The app currently includes a bilateral brain model, along with some other structures around the brain: vascularity, dura and other layers. However, this is still in its experimental phase.

Keep in mind the app is in very early access and I would welcome any and all critique and feedback. I have created a 10 question quickfire survey below for anyone who uses the website, it would help a lot for improving the webapp. You could also reach out to me on the email on the webapp if you have any other thoughts.

https://forms.gle/XjgoT1NyJfgj2LXW9

Hi, I'm thinking of applying for my masters in Cognitive Science for the fall of 2027. I'm having a hard time deciphering which programs are good. I have a bachelors in Philosophy with a minor in Social Science methods and Economics. The Universities that are on my radar are ENS-PSL, Sorbonne-Paris Cite, University of Vienna, Neuchatel, Osnabruck and Trento. I would love some help on the opinions of these unis, especially since I'd like to go into research and do a phd and would like to go to a uni which gives good placement or is well respected for when I move to do a phd somewhere (could be the same place or other). Any help would be very very appreciated as I've found it hard to find much information online apart from university websites. Thank you in advance!

I am a freshman in college, and I have my first Cog Sci 101 midterm next week. We don't have a textbook, and basically, all we get are lecture slides. I honestly don't know how to study. All I've done so far is take notes on the lecture slides and I guess just try to understand stuff. I tried looking for practice questions online but none of them really matches the material. Please help.

Hi everyone — I put together this free interactive resource for exploring cognitive biases and related effects. I thought it might be relevant and helpful here.

https://thebiasmap.com

It’s adapted from the Cognitive Bias Codex, with 188 entries, plain-English explanations, everyday examples, sources, and short animated videos. Credit for the original Codex is on the site.

I’d appreciate any feedback or corrections.

I've been thinking about the boundary between cognition and environment.

Suppose I experience anger.

That state can produce facial expressions, posture, voice changes, movement, etc. Another person detects those signals and constructs an interpretation of my internal state.

Their interpretation changes their behavior, which changes my perception of the situation, which changes my next state.

So:

internal state → behavior → environment → another mind → interpretation → behavior → original mind

This seems straightforward socially, but I'm wondering how far the same principle extends to cognition itself.

Humans externalize cognitive processes into:

- language

- writing

- diagrams

- calculators

- computers

- search engines

- smartphones

- AI systems

These aren't merely passive storage devices. They can alter what we remember, what we attend to, what we consider possible, how quickly we reason, and what actions we take.

That creates a recursive loop:

cognition → external representation/tool → altered cognitive environment → altered cognition → new tools/representations

My question is:

Is there a principled cognitive-science boundary between "a cognitive process using an external tool" and "a cognitive process that genuinely includes the external tool as part of its functional organization"?

And separately:

Could increasing technological coupling eventually change the kind of cognition humans perform, rather than merely making existing cognition faster?

I'm deliberately not assuming the extended-mind thesis is correct. I'd like to know where the strongest empirical objections are.

For example, what evidence would distinguish:

1. an internal cognitive process merely receiving information from a tool,

from

1. a genuinely distributed cognitive process spanning brain, body, other people, and technological systems?

I'm especially interested in work from cognitive science, neuroscience, embodied cognition, extended cognition, predictive processing, or related fields.

This mind blowing and rich conversation between Biologist and Author Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Indian Philosopher and Author Acharya Prashant explores various interesting topics such as Consciousness, Scientism, Enlightenment, Reincarnation, Suffering, Prayer, Sentience , Compassion and Self Knowledge.

What really excited me was the conversation on consciousness. When we say something is conscious there is prior assumption that something/someone should show certain signs or behavior, which resembles are own behavior. And what difference does it make for me to call something as conscious and something is unconscious. But have we even questioned that are we conscious? Without exploring the one who is calling himself conscious how do I know I am conscious in the first place. Here comes the importance of Self knowledge, knowing oneself, if I don't know myself then how can I know the reality of my own claims.

This conversation is an invitation to reflect and question what we already believe in and consider it to be true.

For example, when you are trying to learn about a historical figure's personal life for a history project, option 1 goes the path of using ai like gemini or perplexity to learn their life, option 2 reads on autobiographies about them and the historical events that happened during his era in his region. However, ai misses out on key details, and gives you the answer much quicker within minutes, compared to option 2. So long term, cognitively, whats the long term effect of such implications?