Here is the paper:.

In just the same way, if you want people to understand what "knowingly" means, you can't just teach them about that one concept! . You need to also talk about what it means to do something "recklessly" and help them see that "knowingly" is different from "recklessly".

The key is to give them a *contrast* . An analogy:. If you wanted to teach people what folk music is, it wouldn't work to just teach them about folk. You might need to teach them about blues, country, etc. and help them see the contrast.

Ordinary folks often have trouble grasping the concept of doing something "knowingly," as used in the criminal law . What would make people understand it? Giving them a definition? . No! New studies from @cjmott1 and Larisa Heiphetz show that it is something else.

Recent studies suggest that manipulating "growth mindset" might not improve students' academic performance. This new research suggests that it has a different effect. Growth mindset makes people more inclined to *blame* students for their failures.

RT @jammacleod1: The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence!. 38 chapters, soooo many great contributors… Very exciting to have m….

RT @paul_henne: Sure thing! In a really nice article, Thanawala and Erb, investigated some features of double-prevention scenarios. (1/13)….

RT @briandavidearp: 🚨 Global BioXPhi Research Initiative 🚨 Assessing Replicability and Cross-Cultural Generalisability of Experimental Phil….

Singh's approach:. Focus on the *social* role of the shaman in the community. The shaman cannot play this role unless they somehow convey that something deeply unusual is happening . Creating the impression of an altered state of consciousness is then essential to the role.

The obvious strategy for explaining this phenomenon:. Exploring something about the nature of the altered state of consciousness itself. Maybe something involving psychedelics, or meditation, or experiences of non-duality.

I loved this interview about shamanism with @mnvrsngh. It offers *such* a radically different perspective on why we see shamans all over the world entering altered states of consciousness that one might call "trance".

RT @scott_part: New paper ���Norms emerge through iterated learning” (with Rachana Kamtekar and Shaun Nichols) is out in PNAS!. We develop an….

RT @TadegQuillien: Counterfactual models predict that normality should influence causal judgments in a different way depending on causal st….

Even if you haven’t yet read Protzko’s full paper, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about all this!.

Protzko argues for the opposite view: it’s a matter of different people having different intuitions. In defense of this view, he notes that the distribution is bimodal: people are not giving responses that fall at around the midpoint of the scale

Why do we always get this result?. The view I’ve defended: The variance we find in people’s in responses reflects a conflict within each individual participant . Each individual is feeling drawn in conflicting directions .

When we run studies on controversial philosophical questions, we never find that the folk converge on a single answer . We always find that the folk themselves are divided. As Protzko illustrates in this nice figure:

Interesting new paper by @JProtzko argues for the exact opposite of the view I’ve defended about what experimental philosophy shows about people’s philosophical intuitions. The key question: How do make sense of the variance in responses on our studies?.

Turns out it depend on the order of intuition vs. principle . If they first consider the general principle then the specific case, they tend to change their minds. But if they first have an intuition about the specific case then consider the principle, they reject the principle.

People normally think that certain things should not be for sale (e.g., organs). But what happens when people consider the principled arguments economists have given for the view that these things *should* be for sale?.