follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Science of Science Communication seminar: Session 8 reading list (climate change 2) | Main | 3 forms of "trust in science" ... a fragment »
Monday
Apr032017

Hurry up & get your copy of "Expressive rationality of inaccurate perceptions" before sold out!

Now in print --

If can't leap paywall, the preprint is pretty close to final.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Dan,

I haven't read Jussim's work - but your paper prompted me to read some of the other commentary on that book. It made me think that Jussim might be taking a stance close to that of Gigerenzer about bias (ecological rationality) without realizing it. In other words, Jussim sites studies of how well humans do in certain circumstances and deduces that this must mean that rationality is working well despite its discontents, when it could instead mean that biased heuristics are working well due to being used in an appropriate environment. Is that possible?

April 4, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

@Jonathan--

I agree Jussim's & Gigerenzer's projects do overlap. You probably are familiar w/ it, but I think the best "response" is another, earlier BBS target article:

Stanovich, K.E. & West, R.F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, 645-665 (2000).

April 4, 2017 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>