3.90 score from hupso.pl for:
mindhacks.com



HTML Content


Titlemind hacks – neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 62, Words: 8
Description neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 43, Words: 6
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 5155
Text/HTML 38.99 %
Headings H1 1
H2 17
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
mind hacks
H2
annette karmiloff-smith has left the building
echo chambers: old psych, new tech
built-in bias
news as information and identity
mitigating human foibles
rational judges, not extraneous factors in decisions
is psychosis an ‘immune disorder’?
how liars create the illusion of truth
reinforcing your wiser self
do students know what’s good for them?
false beliefs impede learning
the solution: balancing guided and discovery learning
posts navigation
pages
contact
free ebooks
links & ads policy
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
b
i
repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
em repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford.
Bolds strong 1
b 0
i 1
em 1
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 28
Pliki CSS 7
Pliki javascript 21
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 142
Linki wewnętrzne 2
Linki zewnętrzne 140
Linki bez atrybutu Title 142
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
cancel #

Linki zewnętrzne

mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
annette karmiloff-smith has left the building https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/20/annette-karmiloff-smith-has-left-the-building/
passed away https://cbcdsite.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/annette/
jean piaget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jean_piaget
karmiloff-smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/annette_karmiloff-smith
neuroconstructivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neuroconstructivism
interview http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pzr00
link https://cbcdsite.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/annette/
vaughanbell https://mindhacks.com/author/vaughanbell/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/20/annette-karmiloff-smith-has-left-the-building/
remembering https://mindhacks.com/category/remembering/
2 comments on annette karmiloff-smith has left the building https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/20/annette-karmiloff-smith-has-left-the-building/#comments
echo chambers: old psych, new tech https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/12/echo-chambers-old-psych-new-tech/
the internet and social media http://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.abstract
homophily http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415?journalcode=soc
more likely to hang out with each other http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0167629608000362
confirmation bias https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781
tendency to dismiss it and even harden our convictions http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.1743&rep=rep1&type=pdf
you’re unlikely to persuade them https://theconversation.com/throwing-science-at-anti-vaxxers-just-makes-them-more-hardline-37721
get our news primarily from social media http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
discuss the news http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/24/how-social-media-is-reshaping-news/
identity affirming and truth seeking http://people.virginia.edu/%7eabb3w/library/ssrn-id2459057.pdf
most informed or well educated can believe radically different things http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160907-how-curiosity-can-protect-the-mind-from-bias
bbc https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb
blendle https://blendle.com
pay-per-article https://www.wired.com/2016/03/pay-25-cents-read-article-blendle-certainly-thinks/
otherside.site https://otherside.site
41 people http://mashable.com/2016/11/22/donald-trump-twitter-follows/#k2ajgcirh5qg
politecho.org http://politecho.org/
republican and democratic facebook feeds side-by-side http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/
the conversation http://theconversation.com
original article https://theconversation.com/how-to-check-if-youre-in-an-news-echo-chamber-and-what-to-do-about-it-69999
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/12/echo-chambers-old-psych-new-tech/
other people https://mindhacks.com/category/other-people/
reasoning https://mindhacks.com/category/reasoning/
10 comments on echo chambers: old psych, new tech https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/12/echo-chambers-old-psych-new-tech/#comments
rational judges, not extraneous factors in decisions https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/rational-judges-not-extraneous-factors-in-decisions/
extraneous factors in judicial decisions. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full
- http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.fullhttp://
andreas glöckner in the journal judgement and decision making http://journal.sjdm.org/16/16823/jdm16823.html
extraneous factors in judicial decisions http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full
the irrational hungry judge effect revisited: simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated http://journal.sjdm.org/16/16823/jdm16823.html
for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds https://mindhacks.com/2015/07/01/for-arguments-sake/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/rational-judges-not-extraneous-factors-in-decisions/
uncategorized https://mindhacks.com/category/uncategorized/
leave a comment on rational judges, not extraneous factors in decisions https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/rational-judges-not-extraneous-factors-in-decisions/#respond
is psychosis an ‘immune disorder’? https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/is-psychosis-an-immune-disorder/
study http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(16)30375-3
psychosis http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psychosis/pages/introduction.aspx
receptors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neurotransmitter_receptor
nmda receptors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nmda_receptor
anti-nmda receptor encephalitis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anti-nmda_receptor_encephalitis
discovered http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ana.21050
study https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291716002038
involved https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4378867/
major histocompatibility complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/major_histocompatibility_complex
cerebrospinal fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cerebrospinal_fluid
blood-brain barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/blood%e2%80%93brain_barrier
study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4988748/
film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/brain_on_fire_(film)
book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/brain_on_fire
susannah cahalan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/susannah_cahalan
link http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(16)30375-3
vaughanbell https://mindhacks.com/author/vaughanbell/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/is-psychosis-an-immune-disorder/
inside the brain https://mindhacks.com/category/inside-the-brain/
togetherness https://mindhacks.com/category/togetherness/
4 comments on is psychosis an ‘immune disorder’? https://mindhacks.com/2016/12/08/is-psychosis-an-immune-disorder/#comments
how liars create the illusion of truth https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/
typical https://www.researchgate.net/profile/grant_harris/publication/256486791_credibility_of_repeated_statements_memory_for_trivia/links/0deec5230e01875774000000.pdf
experiment https://www.researchgate.net/profile/grant_harris/publication/256486791_credibility_of_repeated_statements_memory_for_trivia/links/0deec5230e01875774000000.pdf
lisa https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
fazio https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
of https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
vanderbilt https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
university https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/xge-0000098.pdf
here http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds https://www.amazon.com/dp/b010o1z018
here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/557577
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/
reasoning https://mindhacks.com/category/reasoning/
2 comments on how liars create the illusion of truth https://mindhacks.com/2016/11/11/how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth/#comments
reinforcing your wiser self https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/
- http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
experiments we did http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222895.2013.806108?journalcode=vjmb20
new news http://idiolect.org.uk/notes/?p=1908
unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/feel-different-breaking-your-cell-phones-hold
post about reinforcement schedules, and how they might be used to break technology compulsion https://mindhacks.com/2006/09/19/why-email-is-addictive-and-what-to-do-about-it/
breakdown of will http://ww.picoeconomics.org/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/
learning https://mindhacks.com/category/learning/
leave a comment on reinforcing your wiser self https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/31/reinforcing-your-wiser-self/#respond
do students know what’s good for them? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/
constructivist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/constructivism_%28philosophy_of_education%29
basal ganglia http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/basal_ganglia
activates the same subcortical circuitry http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/8/963.short
curiosity enhances memory http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0896627314008046
augmented with a drive to explore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc4158798/
simple skills http://www.tomstafford.staff.shef.ac.uk/?p=48
complex ideas http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6230/91
mistaken reliance on our familiarity http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3062901/
different cognitive processes http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120209-why-names-and-faces-are-so-vexing
experiments http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/bf03194055
generate the answers from the questions http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5865/966.full
reacted against http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
one review summarising the findings http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doilanding&doi=10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14
one experiment http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/papers/0425/paper0425.pdf
previous research http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/143/1/94/
‘science of learning’ community https://npjscilearncommunity.nature.com/users/21128-tom-stafford/posts/12584-do-students-know-what-s-good-for-them
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/
learning https://mindhacks.com/category/learning/
leave a comment on do students know what’s good for them? https://mindhacks.com/2016/10/10/do-students-know-whats-good-for-them/#respond
page 2 https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
page 737 https://mindhacks.com/page/737/
next page https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
book https://mindhacks.com/book/
links https://mindhacks.com/links/
mindhacks.com wiki http://mind-hacks.wikia.com/wiki/mind_hacks_wiki
- https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
find out more https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
at amazon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinter02
at amazon uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinterco
@mindhacksblog https://twitter.com/mindhacksblog
@vaughanbell https://twitter.com/vaughanbell
@tomstafford https://twitter.com/tomstafford
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/118271
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/110777
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
https://mindhacks.com/ https://mindhacks.com/
creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 17
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 13
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 17
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/aks.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/69999/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/parole.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/phone.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://i2.wp.com/i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/aks.jpg?w=840
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

skip to content mind hacks neuroscience and psychology news and views. annette karmiloff-smith has left the building the brilliant developmental neuropsychologist annette karmiloff-smith has passed away and one of the brightest lights into the psychology of children’s development has been dimmed. she actually started her professional life as a simultaneous interpreter for the un and then went on to study psychology and trained with jean piaget. karmiloff-smith went into neuropsychology and starting rethinking some of the assumptions of how cognition was organised in the brain which, until then, had almost entirely been based on studies of adults with brain injury. these studies showed that some mental abilities could be independently impaired after brain damage suggesting that there was a degree of ‘modularity’ in the organisation of cognitive functions. but karmiloff-smith investigated children with developmental disorders, like autism or william’s syndrome, and showed that what seemed to be the ‘natural’ organisation of the brain in adults was actually a result of development itself – an approach she called neuroconstructivism. in other words, developmental disorders were not ‘knocking out’ specific abilities but affecting the dynamics of neurodevelopment as the child interacted with the world. if you want to hear more of karmiloff-smith’s life and work, her interview on bbc radio 4’s the life scientific is well worth a listen. link to page of remembrance for annette karmiloff-smith. author vaughanbellposted on december 20, 2016december 20, 2016categories remembering2 comments on annette karmiloff-smith has left the building echo chambers: old psych, new tech if you were surprised by the result of the brexit vote in the uk or by the trump victory in the us, you might live in an echo chamber – a self-reinforcing world of people who share the same opinions as you. echo chambers are a problem, and not just because it means some people make incorrect predictions about political events. they threaten our democratic conversation, splitting up the common ground of assumption and fact that is needed for diverse people to talk to each other. echo chambers aren’t just a product of the internet and social media, however, but of how those things interact with fundamental features of human nature. understand these features of human nature and maybe we can think creatively about ways to escape them. built-in bias one thing that drives echo chambers is our tendency to associate with people like us. sociologists call this homophily. we’re more likely to make connections with people who are similar to us. that’s true for ethnicity, age, gender, education and occupation (and, of course, geography), as well as a range of other dimensions. we’re also more likely to lose touch with people who aren’t like us, further strengthening the niches we find ourselves in. homophily is one reason obesity can seem contagious – people who are at risk of gaining weight are disproportionately more likely to hang out with each other and share an environment that encourages obesity. another factor that drives the echo chamber is our psychological tendency to seek information that confirms what we already know – often called confirmation bias. worse, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, we show a tendency to dismiss it and even harden our convictions. this means that even if you break into someone’s echo chamber armed with facts that contradict their view, you’re unlikely to persuade them with those facts alone. news as information and identity more and more of us get our news primarily from social media and use that same social media to discuss the news. social media takes our natural tendencies to associate with similar minded people and seek information that confirms and amplifies our convictions. dan kahan, professor of law and psychology at yale, describes each of us switching between two modes of information processing – identity affirming and truth seeking. the result is that for issues that, for whatever reasons, become associated with a group identity, even the most informed or well educated can believe radically different things because believing those things is tied up with signalling group identity more than a pursuit of evidence. mitigating human foibles where we go from here isn’t clear. the fundamentals of human psychology won’t just go away, but they do change depending on the environment we’re in. if technology and the technological economy reinforce the echo chamber, we can work to reshape these forces so as to mitigate it. we can recognise that a diverse and truth-seeking media is a public good. that means it is worth supporting – both in established forms like the bbc, and in new forms like wikipedia and the conversation. we can support alternative funding models for non-public media. paying for news may seem old-fashioned, but there are long-term benefits. new ways of doing it are popping up. services such as blendle let you access news stories that are behind a pay wall by offering a pay-per-article model. technology can also help with individual solutions to the echo chamber, if you’re so minded. for twitter users, otherside.site let’s you view the feed of any other twitter user, so if you want to know what nigel farage or donald trump read on twitter, you can. (i wouldn’t bother with trump. he only follows 41 people – mostly family and his own businesses. now that’s an echo chamber.) for facebook users, politecho.org is a browser extension that shows the political biases of your friends and facebook newsfeed. if you want a shortcut, this wall street journal article puts republican and democratic facebook feeds side-by-side. of course, these things don’t remove the echo chamber, but they do highlight the extent to which you’re in one, and – as with other addictions – recognising that you have a problem is the first step to recovery. this article was originally published on the conversation. read the original article. author tomstaffordposted on december 12, 2016categories other people, reasoning10 comments on echo chambers: old psych, new tech rational judges, not extraneous factors in decisions the graph tells a drammatic story of irrationality, presented in the 2011 paper extraneous factors in judicial decisions. what it shows is the outcome of parole board decisions, as ruled by judges, against the order those decisions were made. the circles show the meal breaks taken by the judges. as you can see, the decisions change the further the judge gets from his/her last meal, dramatically decreasing from around 65% chance of a favourable decision if you are the first case after a meal break, to close to 0% if you are the last case in a long series before a break. in their paper, the original authors argue that this effect of order truly is due to the judges’ hunger, and not a confound introduced by some other factor which affects the order of cases and their chances of success (the lawyers sit outside the closed doors of the court, for example, so can’t time their best cases to come just after a break – they don’t know when the judge is taking a meal; the effect survives additional analysis where severity of prisoner’s crime and length of sentence are factored it; and so on). the interpretation is that as the judges tire they more and more fall back on a simple heuristic – playing safe and refusing parole. this seeming evidence of the irrationality of judges has been cited hundreds of times, in economics, psychology and legal scholarship. now, a new analysis by andreas glöckner in the journal judgement and decision making questions these conclusions. glöckner’s analysis doesn’t prove that extraneous factors weren’t influencing the judges, but he shows how the same effect could be produced by entirely rational judges interacting with the protocols required by the legal system. the main analysis works like this: we know that favourable rulings take longer than unfavourable ones (~7 mins vs ~5 mins), and we assume that judges are able to guess how long a case will take to rule on before they begin it (from clues like the thickness of the file, the types of request made, the representation the prisoner has and so on). finally, we assume judges have a time limit in mind for each of the three sessions of the day, and will avoid starting cases which they estimate will overrun the time limit for the current session. it turns out that this kind of rational time-management is sufficient to  generate the drops in favourable outcomes. how this occurs isn’t straightforward and interacts with a quirk of original author’s data presentation (specifically their graph shows the order number of cases when the number of cases in each session varied day to day – so, for example, it shows that the 12th case after a break is least likely to be judged favourably, but there wasn’t always a 12 case in each session. so sessions in which there were more unfavourable cases were more likely to contribute to this data point). this story of claim and counter-claim shows why psychologists prefer experiments, since only then can you truly isolate causal explanations (if you are a judge and willing to go without lunch please get in touch). also, it shows the benefit of simulations for extending the horizons of our intuition. glöckner’s achievement is to show in detail how some reasonable assumptions – including that of a rational judge – can generate a pattern which hitherto seemed only explainable by the influence of an irrelevant factor on the judges decisions. this doesn’t settle the matter, but it does mean we can’t be so confident that this graph shows what it is often claimed to show. the judges decisions may not be irrational after all, and the timing of the judges meal breaks may not be influencing parole decision outcome. original finding: danziger, s., levav, j., & avnaim-pesso, l. (2011). extraneous factors in judicial decisions. proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 108(17), 6889-6892. new analysis: glöckner, a. (2016). the irrational hungry judge effect revisited: simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated. judgment and decision making, 11(6), 601-610. elsewhere i have written about how evidence of human irrationality is often over-egged : for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds author tomstaffordposted on december 8, 2016december 8, 2016categories uncategorizedleave a comment on rational judges, not extraneous factors in decisions is psychosis an ‘immune disorder’? a fascinating new study has just been published which found evidence for the immune system attacking a neuroreceptor in the brain in a small proportion of people with psychosis. it’s an interesting study that probably reflects what’s going to be a cultural tipping point for the idea of ‘immune system mental health problems’ or ‘madness as inflammation disorder’ but it’s worth being a little wary of the coming hype. this new study, published in the lancet psychiatry, did blood tests on people who presented with their first episode of psychosis and looked for antibodies that attack specific receptors in the brain. receptors are what receive neurotransmitters – the brain’s chemical signals – and allow information to be transferred around the nervous system, so disruption to these can cause brain disturbances. the most scientifically interesting finding is that the research team found a type of antibody that attacks nmda receptors in 7 patients (3%) out of 228, but zero controls. the study found markers for other neuroreceptors that the immune system was attacking, but the reason the nmda finding is so crucial is because it shows evidence of a condition called anti-nmda receptor encephalitis which is known to cause episodes of psychosis that can be indistinguishable from ‘regular’ psychosis but for which the best treatment is dealing with the autoimmune problem. it was only discovered in 2007 but there has been a long-running suspicion that it may be the best explanation for a small minority of cases of psychosis which can be easily misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. importantly, the findings from this research have been supported by another independent study that has just been published online. the two studies used different ranges for the concentration of nmda antibodies they measured, but they came up with roughly the same figures. it also chimes with a growing debate about the role of the immune system in mental health. a lot of this evidence is circumstantial but suggestive. for example, many of the genes associated (albeit weakly) with the diagnosis of schizophrenia are involved in the immune system – particularly in coding proteins for the major histocompatibility complex. however, it’s worth being a little circumspect about this new enthusiasm for thinking of psychosis as an ‘immune disorder’. importantly, these new studies did blood tests, rather than checking cerebrospinal fluid – the fluid that your brain floats around in which lies on the other side of the blood-brain barrier, so we can’t be sure that these antibodies were actually affecting the brain in everyone found to have them. it’s likely, but not certain. also, we’re not sure to what extent anti-nmda antibodies contribute to the chance of developing psychosis in everyone. certainly there are some cases where it seems to be the main cause, but we’re not sure how that holds for all. it’s also worth bearing in mind that the science over the role of the genes associated with the schizophrenia diagnosis in the immune system is certainly not settled. a recent large study compared the role of these genes in schizophrenia to known autoimmune disorders and concluded that the genes just don’t look like they’re actually impacting on the immune system. there’s also a constant background of cultural enthusiasm in psychiatry to identify ‘biomarkers’ and anything that looks like a clear common biological pathway even for a small number of cases of ‘psychiatric’ problem gets a lot of airtime. curiously, in this case, hollywood may also play a part. a film called brain on fire has just been shown to film festivals and is being tested for a possible big release. it’s based on the (excellent) book of the same name by journalist susannah cahalan and describes her experience of developing psychosis only for it later to be discovered that she had anti-nmda receptor encephalitis. hollywood has historically had a big effect on discussions about mental health and you can be sure that if the movie becomes a hit, popular media will be alive with discussions on ‘whether your mental health problems are really an immune problem’. but taking a less glitzy view, in terms of these new studies, they probably reflect that a small percentage of people with psychosis, maybe 1-2%, have nmda receptor-related immune problems that play an important role in the generation of their mental health difficulties. it’s important not to underestimate the importance of these findings. it could potentially translate into more effective treatment for millions of people a year globally. but in terms of psychosis as a whole, for which we know social adversity in its many forms plays a massive role, it’s just a small piece of the puzzle. link to locked lancet psychiatry study. author vaughanbellposted on december 8, 2016december 8, 2016categories inside the brain, togetherness4 comments on is psychosis an ‘immune disorder’? how liars create the illusion of truth repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist tom stafford. “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the nazi joseph goebbels. among psychologists something like this known as the “illusion of truth” effect. here’s how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like “a prune is a dried plum”. sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn’t true (something like “a date is a dried plum”). after a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. the key finding is that people tend to rate items they’ve seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar. so, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. and if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology. but a reliable effect in the lab isn’t necessarily an important effect on people’s real-world beliefs. if you really could make a lie sound true by repetition, there’d be no need for all the other techniques of persuasion. one obstacle is what you already know. even if a lie sounds plausible, why would you set what you know aside just because you heard the lie repeatedly? recently, a team led by lisa fazio of vanderbilt university set out to test how the illusion of truth effect interacts with our prior knowledge. would it affect our existing knowledge? they used paired true and un-true statements, but also split their items according to how likely participants were to know the truth (so “the pacific ocean is the largest ocean on earth” is an example of a “known” items, which also happens to be true, and “the atlantic ocean is the largest ocean on earth” is an un-true item, for which people are likely to know the actual truth). their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility. to cover all bases, the researchers performed one study in which the participants were asked to rate how true each statement seemed on a six-point scale, and one where they just categorised each fact as “true” or “false”. repetition pushed the average item up the six-point scale, and increased the odds that a statement would be categorised as true. for statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable. at first this looks like bad news for human rationality, but – and i can’t emphasise this strongly enough – when interpreting psychological science, you have to look at the actual numbers. what fazio and colleagues actually found, is that the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was… whether it actually was true. the repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. with or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies. this shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn’t over-ride that knowledge the next question has to be, why might that be? the answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. if every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you’d still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time. because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. relying on how often you’ve heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts. if repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we’d be in trouble, but it isn’t. we can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. often this works. sometimes it is misleading. once we know about the effect we can guard against it. part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? this is why scholars are so mad about providing references – so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith. but part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. we live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. if you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. so, please, think before you repeat. this is my bbc future column from the other week, the original is here. for more on this topic, see my ebook : for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds (smashwords link here) author tomstaffordposted on november 11, 2016categories reasoning2 comments on how liars create the illusion of truth reinforcing your wiser self nautilus has a piece by david perezcassar on how technology takes advantage of our animal instinct for variable reward schedules (unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out). it’s a great illustrated read about the scientific history of the ideas behind ‘persuasive technology’, and ends with a plea that perhaps we can hijack our weakness for variable reward schedules for better ends: what is we set up a variable reward system to reward ourselves for the time spent away fro our phones & physically connecting with others? even time spend meditating or reading without technological distractions is a heroic endeavor worthy of a prize which isn’t a bad idea, but the pattern of the reward schedule is only one factor in what makes an activity habit forming. the timing of a reward is more important than the reliability – it’s easier to train in habits with immediate than delayed rewards. the timing is so crucial that in the animal learning literature even a delay of 2 seconds between a lever press and the delivery of a food pellet impairs learning in rats. in experiments we did with humans a delay of 150ms we enough to hinder our participants connecting their own actions with a training signal. so the dilemma for persuasive technology, and anyone who wants to free themselves from its hold, is not just how phones/emails/social media structure our rewards, but also the fact that they allow gratification at almost any moment. there are always new notifications, new news, and so phones let us have zero delay for the reward of checking our phones. if you want to focus on other things, like being a successful parent, friend or human the delays on the rewards of these are far larger (not to mention more nebulous). the way i like to think about it is the conflict between the impatient, narrow, smaller self – the self that likes sweets and gossip and all things immediate gratification – and the wider, wiser self – the self than invests in the future and carers about the bigger picture. that self can win out, does win out as we make our stumbling journey into adulthood, but my hunch is we’re going to need a different framework from the one of reinforcement learning to do it nautilus article: unreliable rewards trap us into addictive cell phone use, but they can also get us out mindhacks.com: post about reinforcement schedules, and how they might be used to break technology compulsion (from 2006 – just sayin’) george ainslie’s book breakdown of will is what happens if you go so deep into the reinforcement learning paradigm you explode its reductionism and reinvent the notion of the self. mind-alteringly good. author tomstaffordposted on october 31, 2016categories learningleave a comment on reinforcing your wiser self do students know what’s good for them? of course they do, and of course they don’t. putting a student at the centre of their own learning seems like fundamental pedagogy. the constructivist approach to education emphasises the need for knowledge to reassembled in the mind of the learner, and the related impossibility of its direct transmission from the mind of the teacher. believe this, and student input into how they learn must follow. at the same time, we know there is a deep neurobiological connection between the machinery of reward in our brain, and that of learning. both functions seem to be entangled in the subcortical circuitry of a network known as the basal ganglia. it’s perhaps not surprising that curiosity, which we all know personally to be a powerful motivator of learning, activates the same subcortical circuitry involved in the pleasurable anticipation of reward. further, curiosity enhances memory, even for things you learn while your curiosity is aroused about something else. this neurobiological alignment of enjoyment and learning isn’t mere coincidence. when building learning algorithms for embedding in learning robots, the basic rules of learning from experience have to be augmented with a drive to explore – curiosity! – so that they don’t become stuck repeating suboptimal habits. whether it is motivated by curiosity or other factors, exploration seems to support enhanced learning in a range of domains from simple skills to more complex ideas. obviously we learn best when motivated, and when learning is fun, and allowing us to explore our curiosity is a way to allow both. however, putting the trajectory of their experience into students’ hands can go awry. false beliefs impede learning one reason is false beliefs about how much we know, or how we learn best. psychologists studying memory have long documented such metacognitive errors, which include overconfidence, and a mistaken reliance on our familiarity with a thing as a guide to how well we understand it, or how well we’ll be able to recall it when tested (recognition and recall are in fact different cognitive processes). sure enough, when tested in experiments people will over-rely on ineffective study strategies (like rereading, or reviewing the answers to questions, rather than testing their ability to generate the answers from the questions). cramming is another ineffective study strategy, with experiment after experiment showing the benefit of spreading out your study rather than massing it all together. obviously this requires being more organised, but my belief is that a metacognitive error supports students’ over-reliance on cramming – cramming feels good, because, for a moment, you feel familiar with all the information. the problem is that this feel-good familiarity isn’t the kind of memory that will support recall in an exam, but immature learners often don’t realise the extent of that. in agreement with these findings from psychologists, education scholars have reacted against pure student-led or discovery learning, with one review summarising the findings from multiple distinct research programmes taking place over three decades: “in each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer”. the solution: balancing guided and discovery learning this leaves us at a classic “middle way”, where pure student-led or teacher-led learning is ruled out. some kind of guided exploration, structured study, or student choice in learning is obviously a necessity, but we’re not sure how much. there’s an exciting future for research which informs us what the right blend of guided and discovery learning is, and which students and topics suit which exact blend. one strand of this is to take the cognitive psychology experiments which demonstrate a benefit of active choice learning over passive instruction and to tweak them so that we can see when passive instruction can be used to jump-start or augment active choice learning. one experiment from kyle macdonald and michael frank of stanford university used a highly abstract concept learning task in which participants use trial and error to figure out a categorisation of different shapes. previous research had shown that people learned faster if they were allowed to choose their own examples to receive feedback on, but this latest iteration of the experiment from macdonald and frank showed that an initial session of passive learning, where the examples were chosen for the learner boosted performance even further. presumably this effect is due to the scaffolding in the structure of the concept-space that the passive learning gives the learner. this, and myriad experiments, are possible to show when and how active learning and instructor-led learning can be blended. education is about more than students learning the material on the syllabus. there is a meta-goal of producing students who are better able to learn for themselves. the same cognitive machinery in all of us might push us towards less effective strategies. the simple fact of being located within our own selfish consciousness means that even the best performers in the world need a coach to help them learn. but as we mature we can learn to better avoid pitfalls in our learning and evolve into better self-determining students. ultimately the best education needs to keep its focus on that need to help each of us take on more and more responsibility for how we learn, whether that means submitting to others’ choices or exploring things for ourselves – or, often, a bit of both. this post originally appeared on the npj ‘science of learning’ community author tomstaffordposted on october 10, 2016categories learningleave a comment on do students know what’s good for them? posts navigation page 1 page 2 … page 737 next page pages book links search for: search neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain. mindhacks.com wiki - explore our back pages! mind hacks is a book by tom stafford and matt webb. find out more, or buy it: → at amazon (34% off) → at amazon uk (30% off) contact automatic blog feed on twitter @mindhacksblog. follow us individually as @vaughanbell and @tomstafford emails to tom@[thedomainnameofthissite] have been retired. tweet us instead! please do not contact us about promoting anything free ebooks links & ads policy mindhacks.com does not take sponsorship for links or reviews. everything linked here is done so because we find it interesting. as soon as i read the words "advertising", "sponsored links" or "business partnership" in an email i delete it. we will not place adverts for you, so please don't ask. all blog posts by https://mindhacks.com/ are licensed under a creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. post to cancel


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 5099

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.67% (391)
and - 2.2% (112)
for - 2.04% (104)
that - 1.65% (84)
her - 1.51% (77)
all - 1.2% (61)
our - 1.12% (57)
how - 1.08% (55)
you - 1.06% (54)
with - 0.94% (48)
his - 0.92% (47)
learn - 0.88% (45)
are - 0.88% (45)
but - 0.84% (43)
this - 0.82% (42)
out - 0.8% (41)
can - 0.71% (36)
- 0.69% (35)
one - 0.65% (33)
now - 0.63% (32)
more - 0.61% (31)
like - 0.61% (31)
learning - 0.61% (31)
know - 0.59% (30)
here - 0.57% (29)
they - 0.57% (29)
thing - 0.53% (27)
use - 0.53% (27)
not - 0.51% (26)
judge - 0.49% (25)
which - 0.49% (25)
new - 0.47% (24)
fact - 0.45% (23)
see - 0.45% (23)
other - 0.43% (22)
some - 0.43% (22)
lie - 0.43% (22)
fro - 0.43% (22)
show - 0.43% (22)
effect - 0.43% (22)
what - 0.41% (21)
from - 0.41% (21)
people - 0.39% (20)
true - 0.39% (20)
able - 0.37% (19)
about - 0.37% (19)
over - 0.37% (19)
mind - 0.37% (19)
led - 0.37% (19)
own - 0.33% (17)
has - 0.33% (17)
case - 0.31% (16)
truth - 0.31% (16)
just - 0.31% (16)
sit - 0.31% (16)
even - 0.31% (16)
brain - 0.29% (15)
time - 0.29% (15)
reward - 0.27% (14)
their - 0.27% (14)
these - 0.27% (14)
judges - 0.27% (14)
immune - 0.27% (14)
study - 0.27% (14)
seem - 0.27% (14)
student - 0.27% (14)
call - 0.27% (14)
echo - 0.25% (13)
have - 0.25% (13)
decision - 0.25% (13)
rate - 0.25% (13)
self - 0.25% (13)
were - 0.25% (13)
than - 0.25% (13)
mental - 0.25% (13)
also - 0.25% (13)
was - 0.24% (12)
part - 0.24% (12)
chamber - 0.24% (12)
when - 0.24% (12)
tech - 0.24% (12)
often - 0.24% (12)
find - 0.24% (12)
each - 0.24% (12)
psychosis - 0.24% (12)
cause - 0.24% (12)
post - 0.24% (12)
there - 0.24% (12)
way - 0.24% (12)
things - 0.22% (11)
break - 0.22% (11)
take - 0.22% (11)
where - 0.22% (11)
it’s - 0.22% (11)
likely - 0.22% (11)
into - 0.22% (11)
will - 0.22% (11)
order - 0.22% (11)
reason - 0.22% (11)
factor - 0.22% (11)
rational - 0.22% (11)
read - 0.2% (10)
psychology - 0.2% (10)
tom - 0.2% (10)
experiment - 0.2% (10)
shows - 0.2% (10)
been - 0.2% (10)
actual - 0.2% (10)
system - 0.2% (10)
media - 0.2% (10)
get - 0.2% (10)
them - 0.2% (10)
book - 0.18% (9)
repetition - 0.18% (9)
cover - 0.18% (9)
need - 0.18% (9)
item - 0.18% (9)
its - 0.18% (9)
students - 0.18% (9)
human - 0.18% (9)
hacks - 0.18% (9)
evidence - 0.18% (9)
cases - 0.18% (9)
she - 0.18% (9)
your - 0.18% (9)
author - 0.18% (9)
come - 0.18% (9)
decisions - 0.18% (9)
known - 0.18% (9)
problem - 0.18% (9)
because - 0.18% (9)
make - 0.18% (9)
repeat - 0.18% (9)
test - 0.18% (9)
any - 0.18% (9)
news - 0.18% (9)
something - 0.18% (9)
isn’t - 0.16% (8)
role - 0.16% (8)
logical - 0.16% (8)
may - 0.16% (8)
search - 0.16% (8)
stafford - 0.16% (8)
link - 0.16% (8)
who - 0.16% (8)
only - 0.16% (8)
same - 0.16% (8)
receptor - 0.16% (8)
view - 0.16% (8)
work - 0.16% (8)
side - 0.16% (8)
finding - 0.16% (8)
origin - 0.16% (8)
sure - 0.14% (7)
original - 0.14% (7)
nmda - 0.14% (7)
comment - 0.14% (7)
information - 0.14% (7)
karmiloff-smith - 0.14% (7)
being - 0.14% (7)
best - 0.14% (7)
after - 0.14% (7)
2016categories - 0.14% (7)
items - 0.14% (7)
whether - 0.14% (7)
think - 0.14% (7)
participants - 0.14% (7)
old - 0.14% (7)
december - 0.14% (7)
page - 0.14% (7)
every - 0.14% (7)
actually - 0.14% (7)
we’re - 0.14% (7)
illusion - 0.14% (7)
long - 0.12% (6)
both - 0.12% (6)
good - 0.12% (6)
look - 0.12% (6)
psychologist - 0.12% (6)
example - 0.12% (6)
technology - 0.12% (6)
science - 0.12% (6)
on, - 0.12% (6)
help - 0.12% (6)
social - 0.12% (6)
different - 0.12% (6)
research - 0.12% (6)
don’t - 0.12% (6)
world - 0.12% (6)
tend - 0.12% (6)
factors - 0.12% (6)
plea - 0.12% (6)
worth - 0.12% (6)
curiosity - 0.12% (6)
used - 0.12% (6)
phone - 0.12% (6)
true, - 0.12% (6)
support - 0.12% (6)
session - 0.12% (6)
so, - 0.12% (6)
small - 0.12% (6)
win - 0.12% (6)
does - 0.12% (6)
development - 0.12% (6)
cognitive - 0.12% (6)
found - 0.12% (6)
important - 0.12% (6)
mean - 0.12% (6)
education - 0.1% (5)
knowledge - 0.1% (5)
blog - 0.1% (5)
means - 0.1% (5)
article - 0.1% (5)
experiments - 0.1% (5)
want - 0.1% (5)
allow - 0.1% (5)
set - 0.1% (5)
chambers - 0.1% (5)
first - 0.1% (5)
under - 0.1% (5)
irrational - 0.1% (5)
tomstaffordposted - 0.1% (5)
extraneous - 0.1% (5)
feed - 0.1% (5)
effective - 0.1% (5)
well - 0.1% (5)
analysis - 0.1% (5)
discovery - 0.1% (5)
in. - 0.1% (5)
could - 0.1% (5)
against - 0.1% (5)
meal - 0.1% (5)
rewards - 0.1% (5)
favourable - 0.1% (5)
before - 0.1% (5)
facts - 0.1% (5)
hear - 0.1% (5)
interact - 0.1% (5)
studies - 0.1% (5)
become - 0.1% (5)
mad - 0.1% (5)
most - 0.1% (5)
believe - 0.1% (5)
belief - 0.1% (5)
statement - 0.1% (5)
health - 0.1% (5)
delay - 0.1% (5)
associate - 0.1% (5)
why - 0.1% (5)
rule - 0.1% (5)
ebook - 0.1% (5)
hang - 0.1% (5)
enough - 0.1% (5)
start - 0.1% (5)
ones - 0.1% (5)
guide - 0.1% (5)
let - 0.1% (5)
main - 0.08% (4)
mindhacks.com - 0.08% (4)
idea - 0.08% (4)
receptors - 0.08% (4)
annette - 0.08% (4)
please - 0.08% (4)
attack - 0.08% (4)
use, - 0.08% (4)
would - 0.08% (4)
called - 0.08% (4)
number - 0.08% (4)
can’t - 0.08% (4)
point - 0.08% (4)
benefit - 0.08% (4)
question - 0.08% (4)
result - 0.08% (4)
disorder’ - 0.08% (4)
taking - 0.08% (4)
phones - 0.08% (4)
matt - 0.08% (4)
claim - 0.08% (4)
tire - 0.08% (4)
course - 0.08% (4)
schedule - 0.08% (4)
psychologists - 0.08% (4)
better - 0.08% (4)
links - 0.08% (4)
glöckner - 0.08% (4)
sound - 0.08% (4)
antibodies - 0.08% (4)
without - 0.08% (4)
back - 0.08% (4)
false - 0.08% (4)
change - 0.08% (4)
those - 0.08% (4)
is, - 0.08% (4)
lies - 0.08% (4)
learner - 0.08% (4)
ocean - 0.08% (4)
between - 0.08% (4)
play - 0.08% (4)
check - 0.08% (4)
reinforce - 0.08% (4)
seems - 0.08% (4)
familiar - 0.08% (4)
twitter - 0.08% (4)
big - 0.08% (4)
feel - 0.08% (4)
fundamental - 0.08% (4)
large - 0.08% (4)
identity - 0.08% (4)
forms - 0.08% (4)
comments - 0.08% (4)
‘immune - 0.08% (4)
ways - 0.08% (4)
beliefs - 0.08% (4)
published - 0.08% (4)
seek - 0.08% (4)
findings - 0.08% (4)
around - 0.08% (4)
bit - 0.08% (4)
passive - 0.08% (4)
genes - 0.08% (4)
choice - 0.08% (4)
once - 0.08% (4)
had - 0.08% (4)
schizophrenia - 0.08% (4)
then - 0.08% (4)
less - 0.08% (4)
further - 0.08% (4)
blend - 0.08% (4)
guided - 0.08% (4)
rather - 0.08% (4)
graph - 0.08% (4)
might - 0.08% (4)
judges, - 0.08% (4)
live - 0.08% (4)
affect - 0.08% (4)
going - 0.06% (3)
problems - 0.06% (3)
repeated - 0.06% (3)
plausible - 0.06% (3)
experience - 0.06% (3)
what’s - 0.06% (3)
becomes - 0.06% (3)
press - 0.06% (3)
interesting - 0.06% (3)
really - 0.06% (3)
piece - 0.06% (3)
is. - 0.06% (3)
scholars - 0.06% (3)
cell - 0.06% (3)
tested - 0.06% (3)
everyone - 0.06% (3)
heard - 0.06% (3)
answer - 0.06% (3)
ends - 0.06% (3)
schedules - 0.06% (3)
sometimes - 0.06% (3)
variable - 0.06% (3)
thinking - 0.06% (3)
anti-nmda - 0.06% (3)
made - 0.06% (3)
checking - 0.06% (3)
here’s - 0.06% (3)
reading - 0.06% (3)
did - 0.06% (3)
right - 0.06% (3)
power - 0.06% (3)
wiser - 0.06% (3)
reinforcing - 0.06% (3)
reliable - 0.06% (3)
future - 0.06% (3)
habit - 0.06% (3)
train - 0.06% (3)
biological - 0.06% (3)
lab - 0.06% (3)
blood - 0.06% (3)
psychiatry - 0.06% (3)
outcome - 0.06% (3)
tendency - 0.06% (3)
facebook - 0.06% (3)
common - 0.06% (3)
public - 0.06% (3)
share - 0.06% (3)
recall - 0.06% (3)
pay - 0.06% (3)
trump - 0.06% (3)
donald - 0.06% (3)
2016december - 0.06% (3)
memory - 0.06% (3)
journal - 0.06% (3)
assumption - 0.06% (3)
extent - 0.06% (3)
story - 0.06% (3)
scientific - 0.06% (3)
decisions. - 0.06% (3)
parole - 0.06% (3)
obviously - 0.06% (3)
bias - 0.06% (3)
child - 0.06% (3)
gets - 0.06% (3)
it. - 0.06% (3)
chamber, - 0.06% (3)
explore - 0.06% (3)
presented - 0.06% (3)
us. - 0.06% (3)
active - 0.06% (3)
understand - 0.06% (3)
range - 0.06% (3)
lose - 0.06% (3)
ourselves - 0.06% (3)
another - 0.06% (3)
review - 0.06% (3)
already - 0.06% (3)
however, - 0.06% (3)
minds - 0.06% (3)
pure - 0.06% (3)
you’re - 0.06% (3)
discuss - 0.06% (3)
takes - 0.06% (3)
error - 0.06% (3)
law - 0.06% (3)
two - 0.06% (3)
associated - 0.06% (3)
cramming - 0.06% (3)
chance - 0.06% (3)
bbc - 0.06% (3)
drive - 0.06% (3)
works - 0.06% (3)
questions - 0.06% (3)
building - 0.06% (3)
developmental - 0.06% (3)
away - 0.06% (3)
doesn’t - 0.06% (3)
reinforcement - 0.06% (3)
follow - 0.06% (3)
judgement - 0.06% (3)
learning, - 0.06% (3)
day - 0.06% (3)
limit - 0.06% (3)
avoid - 0.06% (3)
estimate - 0.06% (3)
generate - 0.06% (3)
words - 0.06% (3)
kind - 0.06% (3)
influence - 0.06% (3)
life - 0.06% (3)
seemed - 0.06% (3)
specific - 0.06% (3)
structure - 0.06% (3)
example, - 0.06% (3)
disorders - 0.06% (3)
fall - 0.06% (3)
simple - 0.06% (3)
showed - 0.06% (3)
irrationality - 0.06% (3)
email - 0.06% (3)
timing - 0.06% (3)
augment - 0.04% (2)
six-point - 0.04% (2)
macdonald - 0.04% (2)
judgements - 0.04% (2)
concept - 0.04% (2)
creative - 0.04% (2)
instruction - 0.04% (2)
scale, - 0.04% (2)
categorised - 0.04% (2)
unknown - 0.04% (2)
frank - 0.04% (2)
true. - 0.04% (2)
emails - 0.04% (2)
bad - 0.04% (2)
emphasise - 0.04% (2)
still - 0.04% (2)
pages - 0.04% (2)
rationality, - 0.04% (2)
next - 0.04% (2)
wiki - 0.04% (2)
- 0.04% (2)
posts - 0.04% (2)
- 0.04% (2)
quick - 0.04% (2)
amazon - 0.04% (2)
mature - 0.04% (2)
off) - 0.04% (2)
push - 0.04% (2)
everything - 0.04% (2)
contact - 0.04% (2)
statements - 0.04% (2)
examples - 0.04% (2)
figure - 0.04% (2)
free - 0.04% (2)
repeating - 0.04% (2)
feels - 0.04% (2)
habits - 0.04% (2)
perhaps - 0.04% (2)
functions - 0.04% (2)
learning. - 0.04% (2)
machinery - 0.04% (2)
connecting - 0.04% (2)
connection - 0.04% (2)
neurobiological - 0.04% (2)
this, - 0.04% (2)
related - 0.04% (2)
putting - 0.04% (2)
them? - 0.04% (2)
immediate - 0.04% (2)
circuitry - 0.04% (2)
learningleave - 0.04% (2)
october - 0.04% (2)
deep - 0.04% (2)
unreliable - 0.04% (2)
far - 0.04% (2)
friend - 0.04% (2)
focus - 0.04% (2)
gratification - 0.04% (2)
actions - 0.04% (2)
persuasive - 0.04% (2)
themselves - 0.04% (2)
subcortical - 0.04% (2)
ideas - 0.04% (2)
judging - 0.04% (2)
ineffective - 0.04% (2)
bear - 0.04% (2)
instinct - 0.04% (2)
suit - 0.04% (2)
place - 0.04% (2)
student-led - 0.04% (2)
guard - 0.04% (2)
ability - 0.04% (2)
answers - 0.04% (2)
helping - 0.04% (2)
easier - 0.04% (2)
strategies - 0.04% (2)
it, - 0.04% (2)
addictive - 0.04% (2)
familiarity - 0.04% (2)
reliance - 0.04% (2)
metacognitive - 0.04% (2)
nautilus - 0.04% (2)
much - 0.04% (2)
animal - 0.04% (2)
students’ - 0.04% (2)
both. - 0.04% (2)
complex - 0.04% (2)
exploration - 0.04% (2)
trap - 0.04% (2)
motivated - 0.04% (2)
strongly - 0.04% (2)
matter, - 0.04% (2)
happens - 0.04% (2)
wall - 0.04% (2)
judicial - 0.04% (2)
paper - 0.04% (2)
2011 - 0.04% (2)
originally - 0.04% (2)
puts - 0.04% (2)
bother - 0.04% (2)
users, - 0.04% (2)
individual - 0.04% (2)
behind - 0.04% (2)
breaks - 0.04% (2)
such - 0.04% (2)
conversation. - 0.04% (2)
good. - 0.04% (2)
recognise - 0.04% (2)
technological - 0.04% (2)
won’t - 0.04% (2)
group - 0.04% (2)
describes - 0.04% (2)
dan - 0.04% (2)
ruled - 0.04% (2)
taken - 0.04% (2)
natural - 0.04% (2)
glöckner’s - 0.04% (2)
three - 0.04% (2)
prisoner - 0.04% (2)
(from - 0.04% (2)
assume - 0.04% (2)
mins - 0.04% (2)
unfavourable - 0.04% (2)
system. - 0.04% (2)
influencing - 0.04% (2)
making - 0.04% (2)
last - 0.04% (2)
now, - 0.04% (2)
legal - 0.04% (2)
seeming - 0.04% (2)
heuristic - 0.04% (2)
on). - 0.04% (2)
success - 0.04% (2)
due - 0.04% (2)
truly - 0.04% (2)
close - 0.04% (2)
minded - 0.04% (2)
view, - 0.04% (2)
session. - 0.04% (2)
based - 0.04% (2)
vaughanbellposted - 0.04% (2)
affecting - 0.04% (2)
approach - 0.04% (2)
children - 0.04% (2)
organisation - 0.04% (2)
suggesting - 0.04% (2)
abilities - 0.04% (2)
adults - 0.04% (2)
entirely - 0.04% (2)
chambers: - 0.04% (2)
almost - 0.04% (2)
organised - 0.04% (2)
cognition - 0.04% (2)
assumptions - 0.04% (2)
starting - 0.04% (2)
went - 0.04% (2)
left - 0.04% (2)
views. - 0.04% (2)
neuroscience - 0.04% (2)
20, - 0.04% (2)
psych, - 0.04% (2)
convictions. - 0.04% (2)
similar - 0.04% (2)
confirms - 0.04% (2)
psychological - 0.04% (2)
environment - 0.04% (2)
obesity - 0.04% (2)
homophily - 0.04% (2)
touch - 0.04% (2)
course, - 0.04% (2)
that’s - 0.04% (2)
drives - 0.04% (2)
us, - 0.04% (2)
them. - 0.04% (2)
maybe - 0.04% (2)
nature - 0.04% (2)
features - 0.04% (2)
aren’t - 0.04% (2)
diverse - 0.04% (2)
ground - 0.04% (2)
democratic - 0.04% (2)
political - 0.04% (2)
sessions - 0.04% (2)
interacts - 0.04% (2)
items, - 0.04% (2)
terms - 0.04% (2)
propaganda - 0.04% (2)
regardless - 0.04% (2)
makes - 0.04% (2)
create - 0.04% (2)
liars - 0.04% (2)
brain, - 0.04% (2)
inside - 0.04% (2)
reflect - 0.04% (2)
discussions - 0.04% (2)
“a - 0.04% (2)
name - 0.04% (2)
possible - 0.04% (2)
shown - 0.04% (2)
film - 0.04% (2)
hollywood - 0.04% (2)
case, - 0.04% (2)
clear - 0.04% (2)
looks - 0.04% (2)
anything - 0.04% (2)
truth” - 0.04% (2)
dried - 0.04% (2)
recent - 0.04% (2)
university - 0.04% (2)
earth” - 0.04% (2)
largest - 0.04% (2)
“the - 0.04% (2)
(so - 0.04% (2)
split - 0.04% (2)
un-true - 0.04% (2)
paired - 0.04% (2)
prior - 0.04% (2)
fazio - 0.04% (2)
(like - 0.04% (2)
repeatedly? - 0.04% (2)
sounds - 0.04% (2)
repetition, - 0.04% (2)
foible - 0.04% (2)
advantage - 0.04% (2)
truth. - 0.04% (2)
source - 0.04% (2)
new, - 0.04% (2)
date - 0.04% (2)
there’s - 0.04% (2)
cause, - 0.04% (2)
data - 0.04% (2)
sake: - 0.04% (2)
study, - 0.04% (2)
little - 0.04% (2)
cultural - 0.04% (2)
probably - 0.04% (2)
proportion - 0.04% (2)
neuroreceptor - 0.04% (2)
attacking - 0.04% (2)
disorder’? - 0.04% (2)
argument’s - 0.04% (2)
tests - 0.04% (2)
settle - 0.04% (2)
pattern - 0.04% (2)
simulations - 0.04% (2)
also, - 0.04% (2)
experiments, - 0.04% (2)
contribute - 0.04% (2)
always - 0.04% (2)
judged - 0.04% (2)
presentation - 0.04% (2)
lancet - 0.04% (2)
episode - 0.04% (2)
certainly - 0.04% (2)
explanation - 0.04% (2)
developing - 0.04% (2)
fluid - 0.04% (2)
enthusiasm - 0.04% (2)
involved - 0.04% (2)
diagnosis - 0.04% (2)
many - 0.04% (2)
lot - 0.04% (2)
independent - 0.04% (2)
importantly, - 0.04% (2)
discovered - 0.04% (2)
brain. - 0.04% (2)
autoimmune - 0.04% (2)
treatment - 0.04% (2)
encephalitis - 0.04% (2)
crucial - 0.04% (2)
markers - 0.04% (2)
zero - 0.04% (2)
type - 0.04% (2)
team - 0.04% (2)
receive - 0.04% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.04% (2)
of the - 0.69% (35)
in the - 0.45% (23)
at the - 0.35% (18)
if you - 0.29% (15)
for the - 0.27% (14)
that the - 0.27% (14)
we can - 0.24% (12)
on the - 0.24% (12)
to the - 0.22% (11)
but the - 0.2% (10)
the judge - 0.18% (9)
likely to - 0.18% (9)
and the - 0.18% (9)
that a - 0.18% (9)
with a - 0.16% (8)
is that - 0.16% (8)
with the - 0.16% (8)
the brain - 0.14% (7)
the judges - 0.14% (7)
immune system - 0.14% (7)
the same - 0.14% (7)
of truth - 0.12% (6)
the immune - 0.12% (6)
illusion of - 0.12% (6)
on that - 0.12% (6)
we know - 0.12% (6)
they do - 0.12% (6)
more likely - 0.12% (6)
– the - 0.12% (6)
can be - 0.12% (6)
is the - 0.12% (6)
the illusion - 0.12% (6)
extraneous factors - 0.1% (5)
of psychosis - 0.1% (5)
author tomstaffordposted - 0.1% (5)
mental health - 0.1% (5)
a small - 0.1% (5)
of human - 0.1% (5)
but they - 0.1% (5)
this is - 0.1% (5)
learning is - 0.1% (5)
social media - 0.1% (5)
as the - 0.1% (5)
people who - 0.1% (5)
how we - 0.1% (5)
in which - 0.1% (5)
by the - 0.1% (5)
of cases - 0.1% (5)
after a - 0.1% (5)
echo chambers - 0.1% (5)
and so - 0.1% (5)
about the - 0.08% (4)
brain in - 0.08% (4)
you want - 0.08% (4)
and in - 0.08% (4)
of this - 0.08% (4)
be the - 0.08% (4)
to know - 0.08% (4)
from the - 0.08% (4)
just been - 0.08% (4)
which the - 0.08% (4)
on december - 0.08% (4)
the best - 0.08% (4)
you are - 0.08% (4)
but it - 0.08% (4)
rational judge - 0.08% (4)
a break - 0.08% (4)
mind hacks - 0.08% (4)
the effect - 0.08% (4)
here is - 0.08% (4)
that this - 0.08% (4)
factors in - 0.08% (4)
of people - 0.08% (4)
they are - 0.08% (4)
just a - 0.08% (4)
the truth - 0.08% (4)
rather than - 0.08% (4)
of learning - 0.08% (4)
december 8, - 0.08% (4)
more of - 0.08% (4)
who are - 0.08% (4)
the echo - 0.08% (4)
– an - 0.08% (4)
annette karmiloff-smith - 0.08% (4)
comments on - 0.08% (4)
to make - 0.08% (4)
of these - 0.08% (4)
of course - 0.08% (4)
– so - 0.06% (3)
comment on - 0.06% (3)
the timing - 0.06% (3)
wiser self - 0.06% (3)
use, but - 0.06% (3)
has just - 0.06% (3)
psychosis an - 0.06% (3)
the genes - 0.06% (3)
benefit of - 0.06% (3)
story of - 0.06% (3)
it’s a - 0.06% (3)
in our - 0.06% (3)
variable reward - 0.06% (3)
reward schedule - 0.06% (3)
number of - 0.06% (3)
self – - 0.06% (3)
the self - 0.06% (3)
kind of - 0.06% (3)
– and - 0.06% (3)
each of - 0.06% (3)
like the - 0.06% (3)
in each - 0.06% (3)
be true - 0.06% (3)
on how - 0.06% (3)
are true - 0.06% (3)
seems to - 0.06% (3)
the role - 0.06% (3)
there are - 0.06% (3)
taking a - 0.06% (3)
of their - 0.06% (3)
karmiloff-smith has - 0.06% (3)
able to - 0.06% (3)
the other - 0.06% (3)
being a - 0.06% (3)
whether it - 0.06% (3)
known as - 0.06% (3)
role of - 0.06% (3)
the learner - 0.06% (3)
that they - 0.06% (3)
even if - 0.06% (3)
discovery learning - 0.06% (3)
the actual - 0.06% (3)
can see - 0.06% (3)
their own - 0.06% (3)
truth effect - 0.06% (3)
where the - 0.06% (3)
finding is - 0.06% (3)
not sure - 0.06% (3)
about how - 0.06% (3)
need to - 0.06% (3)
we’re not - 0.06% (3)
and psychology - 0.06% (3)
rational judges - 0.06% (3)
echo chamber, - 0.06% (3)
psychology and - 0.06% (3)
showed that - 0.06% (3)
the first - 0.06% (3)
you can - 0.06% (3)
shows the - 0.06% (3)
want to - 0.06% (3)
but there - 0.06% (3)
this effect - 0.06% (3)
and truth - 0.06% (3)
more and - 0.06% (3)
because it - 0.06% (3)
tendency to - 0.06% (3)
what we - 0.06% (3)
with people - 0.06% (3)
has been - 0.06% (3)
can also - 0.06% (3)
they don’t - 0.06% (3)
the order - 0.06% (3)
and more - 0.06% (3)
evidence of - 0.06% (3)
other factor - 0.06% (3)
can change - 0.04% (2)
liars create - 0.04% (2)
reinforcing your - 0.04% (2)
not just - 0.04% (2)
cell phone - 0.04% (2)
of our - 0.04% (2)
that reason - 0.04% (2)
for variable - 0.04% (2)
sake: evidence - 0.04% (2)
reward schedules - 0.04% (2)
trap us - 0.04% (2)
for argument’s - 0.04% (2)
into addictive - 0.04% (2)
learning and - 0.04% (2)
they can - 0.04% (2)
an echo - 0.04% (2)
make a - 0.04% (2)
also get - 0.04% (2)
live in - 0.04% (2)
new tech - 0.04% (2)
our phones - 0.04% (2)
old psych, - 0.04% (2)
is only - 0.04% (2)
timing of - 0.04% (2)
a delay - 0.04% (2)
in experiments - 0.04% (2)
so the - 0.04% (2)
echo chambers: - 0.04% (2)
the building - 0.04% (2)
→ at - 0.04% (2)
easier to - 0.04% (2)
world where - 0.04% (2)
if they - 0.04% (2)
up the - 0.04% (2)
associate with - 0.04% (2)
of course, - 0.04% (2)
a range - 0.04% (2)
blog at - 0.04% (2)
as true. - 0.04% (2)
six-point scale, - 0.04% (2)
one where - 0.04% (2)
left the - 0.04% (2)
scale, and - 0.04% (2)
seemed on - 0.04% (2)
the participants - 0.04% (2)
prior knowledge - 0.04% (2)
hacks blog - 0.04% (2)
we find - 0.04% (2)
a power - 0.04% (2)
heard something - 0.04% (2)
win out - 0.04% (2)
we need - 0.04% (2)
on twitter - 0.04% (2)
ground of - 0.04% (2)
are so - 0.04% (2)
we believe - 0.04% (2)
part of - 0.04% (2)
fact that - 0.04% (2)
of how - 0.04% (2)
because we - 0.04% (2)
those things - 0.04% (2)
will be - 0.04% (2)
more often - 0.04% (2)
that drives - 0.04% (2)
often than - 0.04% (2)
is our - 0.04% (2)
has left - 0.04% (2)
us out - 0.04% (2)
but my - 0.04% (2)
explore our - 0.04% (2)
when tested - 0.04% (2)
the answers - 0.04% (2)
generate the - 0.04% (2)
metacognitive error - 0.04% (2)
these findings - 0.04% (2)
student-led or - 0.04% (2)
more effective - 0.04% (2)
guided and - 0.04% (2)
there was - 0.04% (2)
and one - 0.04% (2)
sure how - 0.04% (2)
of guided - 0.04% (2)
and discovery - 0.04% (2)
to take - 0.04% (2)
choice learning - 0.04% (2)
organisation of - 0.04% (2)
passive learning - 0.04% (2)
into the - 0.04% (2)
need a - 0.04% (2)
the world - 0.04% (2)
neuroscience and - 0.04% (2)
there is - 0.04% (2)
and how - 0.04% (2)
based on - 0.04% (2)
that we - 0.04% (2)
that people - 0.04% (2)
used a - 0.04% (2)
experiment from - 0.04% (2)
active choice - 0.04% (2)
be used - 0.04% (2)
suggesting that - 0.04% (2)
how well - 0.04% (2)
false beliefs - 0.04% (2)
unreliable rewards - 0.04% (2)
vaughanbellposted on - 0.04% (2)
to better - 0.04% (2)
how they - 0.04% (2)
used to - 0.04% (2)
is what - 0.04% (2)
reinforcement learning - 0.04% (2)
on october - 0.04% (2)
learningleave a - 0.04% (2)
do students - 0.04% (2)
at amazon - 0.04% (2)
ocean on - 0.04% (2)
know what’s - 0.04% (2)
good for - 0.04% (2)
course they - 0.04% (2)
december 20, - 0.04% (2)
mind of - 0.04% (2)
our curiosity - 0.04% (2)
have to - 0.04% (2)
to explore - 0.04% (2)
actually a - 0.04% (2)
learn best - 0.04% (2)
to more - 0.04% (2)
range of - 0.04% (2)
so that - 0.04% (2)
result of - 0.04% (2)
tom stafford - 0.04% (2)
in learning - 0.04% (2)
curiosity is - 0.04% (2)
subcortical circuitry - 0.04% (2)
that of - 0.04% (2)
affecting the - 0.04% (2)
of reward - 0.04% (2)
earth” is - 0.04% (2)
that confirms - 0.04% (2)
the largest - 0.04% (2)
that attack - 0.04% (2)
read the - 0.04% (2)
receptors in - 0.04% (2)
chambers: old - 0.04% (2)
psych, new - 0.04% (2)
and allow - 0.04% (2)
judges, not - 0.04% (2)
in decisions - 0.04% (2)
anti-nmda receptor - 0.04% (2)
on people - 0.04% (2)
blood tests - 0.04% (2)
a little - 0.04% (2)
worth being - 0.04% (2)
judicial decisions. - 0.04% (2)
what it - 0.04% (2)
the conversation. - 0.04% (2)
is known - 0.04% (2)
people with - 0.04% (2)
genes associated - 0.04% (2)
be sure - 0.04% (2)
your brain - 0.04% (2)
did blood - 0.04% (2)
new studies - 0.04% (2)
it’s worth - 0.04% (2)
involved in - 0.04% (2)
he only - 0.04% (2)
published on - 0.04% (2)
the extent - 0.04% (2)
nmda antibodies - 0.04% (2)
with other - 0.04% (2)
the findings - 0.04% (2)
you have - 0.04% (2)
a problem - 0.04% (2)
study that - 0.04% (2)
against the - 0.04% (2)
in everyone - 0.04% (2)
graph shows - 0.04% (2)
a long - 0.04% (2)
truly is - 0.04% (2)
due to - 0.04% (2)
contribute to - 0.04% (2)
were more - 0.04% (2)
break – - 0.04% (2)
so on). - 0.04% (2)
we can’t - 0.04% (2)
the time - 0.04% (2)
and will - 0.04% (2)
we assume - 0.04% (2)
new analysis - 0.04% (2)
decision making - 0.04% (2)
effect could - 0.04% (2)
case in - 0.04% (2)
not be - 0.04% (2)
been published - 0.04% (2)
8, 2016categories - 0.04% (2)
chance of - 0.04% (2)
new study - 0.04% (2)
‘immune disorder’? - 0.04% (2)
not extraneous - 0.04% (2)
rational judges, - 0.04% (2)
case after - 0.04% (2)
8, 2016december - 0.04% (2)
a meal - 0.04% (2)
change minds - 0.04% (2)
reason can - 0.04% (2)
evidence that - 0.04% (2)
argument’s sake: - 0.04% (2)
and decision - 0.04% (2)
effect is - 0.04% (2)
in judicial - 0.04% (2)
forms like - 0.04% (2)
that means - 0.04% (2)
ocean is - 0.04% (2)
some of - 0.04% (2)
lie often - 0.04% (2)
repeat a - 0.04% (2)
already know - 0.04% (2)
be true, - 0.04% (2)
as more - 0.04% (2)
to rate - 0.04% (2)
– of - 0.04% (2)
advantage of - 0.04% (2)
which isn’t - 0.04% (2)
even when - 0.04% (2)
a dried - 0.04% (2)
like “a - 0.04% (2)
how true - 0.04% (2)
presented with - 0.04% (2)
to think - 0.04% (2)
effect in - 0.04% (2)
becomes the - 0.04% (2)
led by - 0.04% (2)
on earth” - 0.04% (2)
largest ocean - 0.04% (2)
one reason - 0.04% (2)
participants were - 0.04% (2)
seek information - 0.04% (2)
system. the - 0.04% (2)
the lie - 0.04% (2)
the lab - 0.04% (2)
you heard - 0.04% (2)
just because - 0.04% (2)
what you - 0.04% (2)
for all - 0.04% (2)
effect on - 0.04% (2)
an important - 0.04% (2)
like this - 0.04% (2)
and it - 0.04% (2)
of developing - 0.04% (2)
like a - 0.04% (2)
that if - 0.04% (2)
developing psychosis - 0.04% (2)
play a - 0.04% (2)
lot of - 0.04% (2)
cases of - 0.04% (2)
even for - 0.04% (2)
associated with - 0.04% (2)
of information - 0.04% (2)
the most - 0.04% (2)
how that - 0.04% (2)
group identity - 0.04% (2)
but we’re - 0.04% (2)
more than - 0.04% (2)
it. we - 0.04% (2)
health problems - 0.04% (2)
terms of - 0.04% (2)
often enough - 0.04% (2)
how liars - 0.04% (2)
our convictions. - 0.04% (2)
regardless of - 0.04% (2)
more true, - 0.04% (2)
makes a - 0.04% (2)
that even - 0.04% (2)
create the - 0.04% (2)
2016december 8, - 0.04% (2)
these new - 0.04% (2)
lancet psychiatry - 0.04% (2)
to associate - 0.04% (2)
which we - 0.04% (2)
in terms - 0.04% (2)
not to - 0.04% (2)
information that - 0.04% (2)
probably reflect - 0.04% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.04% (2)
illusion of truth - 0.12% (6)
the immune system - 0.12% (6)
more likely to - 0.12% (6)
the illusion of - 0.1% (5)
author tomstaffordposted on - 0.1% (5)
if you want - 0.08% (4)
extraneous factors in - 0.08% (4)
a comment on - 0.06% (3)
has just been - 0.06% (3)
likely to be - 0.06% (3)
the role of - 0.06% (3)
number of cases - 0.06% (3)
of truth effect - 0.06% (3)
we’re not sure - 0.06% (3)
the echo chamber, - 0.06% (3)
or how we - 0.06% (3)
annette karmiloff-smith has - 0.06% (3)
more and more - 0.06% (3)
to know the - 0.04% (2)
ocean on earth” - 0.04% (2)
is the largest - 0.04% (2)
whether it is - 0.04% (2)
lie often enough - 0.04% (2)
rate how true - 0.04% (2)
is a dried - 0.04% (2)
a lie often - 0.04% (2)
earth” is an - 0.04% (2)
largest ocean on - 0.04% (2)
ocean is the - 0.04% (2)
if you repeat - 0.04% (2)
more often than - 0.04% (2)
karmiloff-smith has left - 0.04% (2)
reinforcing your wiser - 0.04% (2)
we need to - 0.04% (2)
self – the - 0.04% (2)
blog at wordpress.com. - 0.04% (2)
learningleave a comment - 0.04% (2)
means that even - 0.04% (2)
known as the - 0.04% (2)
mind of the - 0.04% (2)
know what’s good - 0.04% (2)
tomstaffordposted on october - 0.04% (2)
unreliable rewards trap - 0.04% (2)
a delay of - 0.04% (2)
of this is - 0.04% (2)
also get us - 0.04% (2)
but they can - 0.04% (2)
cell phone use, - 0.04% (2)
us into addictive - 0.04% (2)
variable reward schedules - 0.04% (2)
that reason can - 0.04% (2)
argument’s sake: evidence - 0.04% (2)
a world where - 0.04% (2)
true, regardless of - 0.04% (2)
but we’re not - 0.04% (2)
liars create the - 0.04% (2)
old psych, new - 0.04% (2)
but it does - 0.04% (2)
case after a - 0.04% (2)
and so on). - 0.04% (2)
a break – - 0.04% (2)
is due to - 0.04% (2)
you are the - 0.04% (2)
not extraneous factors - 0.04% (2)
tomstaffordposted on december - 0.04% (2)
: for argument’s - 0.04% (2)
of human psychology - 0.04% (2)
information that confirms - 0.04% (2)
seek information that - 0.04% (2)
with people who - 0.04% (2)
a range of - 0.04% (2)
to associate with - 0.04% (2)
chambers: old psych, - 0.04% (2)
author vaughanbellposted on - 0.04% (2)
the timing of - 0.04% (2)
sake: evidence that - 0.04% (2)
is psychosis an - 0.04% (2)
involved in the - 0.04% (2)
of people with - 0.04% (2)
mental health problems - 0.04% (2)
for a small - 0.04% (2)
seems to be - 0.04% (2)
of developing psychosis - 0.04% (2)
we can’t be - 0.04% (2)
being a little - 0.04% (2)
of the genes - 0.04% (2)
reason can change - 0.04% (2)
finding is that - 0.04% (2)
did blood tests - 0.04% (2)
it’s worth being - 0.04% (2)
brain in a - 0.04% (2)
just been published - 0.04% (2)
psychosis an ‘immune - 0.04% (2)
2016december 8, 2016categories - 0.04% (2)
on december 8, - 0.04% (2)
mind hacks blog - 0.04% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.