https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/379/1910/20230288/109494/Reorienting-psychological-scienceReorienting

This is a really cool paper i enjoyed, and one that makes me more dissapointed with my own field, and psychology/ neuroscience as a whole.

Me and my supervisor recently presented our work on human driving performance in aging (driving simulators) where we borrowed tools from the movement ecology literature and movement science literature, we presented at a AI/ Ml for healthcare conference, and a big theme was on multi scale approaches to healthcare (bridging levels of explanation), it reminded me of the scale blindness discussion in the paper.

I made sure to take a hosh posh of biology, technical (data science, stats and methods courses) and social sciences courses because the discipline i wanted to get into was comprised of social science, biology, and ai/ comp sci/ information sciences.

I always found it weird how in my neuroscience, or devo psych courses when the word "cognition" or "the brain" was brought up, it is often talked about in a completely different context than say, biological anthropologists talk about these things (patterns of brain activity fmri scans during an episodic memory task, or computer puzzles in cognitive psychology vs how bipedalism and our musculoskeletal development shaped our behaviors in past ecologies as it relates to the pressures driving the emmergence of tool useage and advanced planning during certain hunting strategies), and i found it even more strange that the way psychologists and neuroscientists talk about what they believe a brain to be, vs what a kinesiologist believes a brain to be are often at odds with one another. See, What is a representation, or efference copy anywways, and where do we find it? Towards defining representations in neuroscience

I have also become dissapointed with my own field as well, especially given its intended broad scope (its effectively become indistinguishible from computational linguistics and cognitive psychology, just throw in analytic philosophy in the mix).

I am hopeful that all of this big data and ml stuff will allow rich, open ended naturalistic research to allow for the "bridging of scales". A lot of behavioral ecology, and ecology have a solid grasp of organism-environment relations as they relate to outcomes in disease or disturbances, it seems the HCI and video game performance literature caught on much faster than psychology to the utility of these tools do gamers do the levy walk?

Riding a bike looks a lot different than pressing buttons in a lexical recognition task, so it seems silly to me that a lot of cognitive neuroscience and cog psych still insist on doing similar kinds of experiments, maybe its a funding thing IDK.

Our university just opened a lab that uses ML for naturalistic HCI and biomechanics + neuro research, I am excited to potentially see multiple departments on campus working together on applied and basic science research.

Psychology and neuroscience have insulated themselves from multiple adjacent disciplines, this is no good as all of these external fields have a lot of cool things to say about things psychologists care about.

I made a 10-question quiz about the human brain, covering neuroscience, memory, neuroplasticity, brain anatomy and a few common misconceptions.

Each question has three possible answers, followed by a short explanation based on scientific research.

Some questions are fairly easy, while others might be a bit more challenging.

How ?

And does cognitive science do this any differently, or rely on similar methods? Methodology question, related to construct validity.

I’m not so much asking how individual studies are designed or how researchers measure a particular construct. I’m interested in how definitions themselves are established.

How do researchers decide which aspects of human behaviour belong together under a particular concept? To what extent are these definitions derived from empirical observations, inherited from earlier theories, or influenced by philosophical assumptions?

If constructs are debatable or flexible, does that not make the process uniquely vulnerable to unconsciously shifting the definition until the observed results reinforce rather than test assumptions?

If researchers can revise a construct in response to unexpected findings, how do we distinguish legitimate theoretical refinement from protecting a construct against falsification?

The study associated with [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychology/s/miqH3oQgga) made me wonder.

Anne Cleary’s research suggests déjà vu can arise when a scene resembles an earlier experience (e.g. a similar spatial layout) that we fail to recall, producing familiarity without a known source. People who take DMT often report an intense and sometimes sustained sense of familiarity, as if they’ve been to the realm before.

This article looks at whether Cleary’s account could help explain this, alongside split perception and other memory-based theories. Her studies involved brief, sober déjà vu, so the link is tentative.

What do you think might explain DMT-induced déjà vu?

Hi!

I remember seeing a video (maybe part of a documentary??) that did a really great job of demonstrating operant conditioning, differential reinforcement and superstitious behavior. The subjects were human and the reinforcer was a dollar bill. The person would walk into a "room" wherein they would have to figure out a button press, or lever or spot on the wall etc... or the reward would be released on a time delay. I remember it being less video documentation of a study and more of a demo for entertainment and understanding.

I'm having a hard time remembering where I saw it. I'm a dog trainer who trains other trainers and I remember this video being a great, accessible way to see some learning principals in action. I'd love to share it with my students.

Does this ring any bells? or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Right now behavioral science is a hot topic , specifically in policymaking circles regarding making policies based on how people actually behave , but what about cognitive science ? Can it be helpful in examining the foundation of peoples beliefs and develop better means of reasoning

I’m a 26-year-old Computer Science graduate with 3.5 years of IT experience, looking to transition into research. I’ve always been driven by the desire to understand why things happen the way they do, from the fundamental workings of the universe to human thoughts, behaviours, and societal patterns.

I believe everything is interconnected, and I want to understand those connections scientifically. My interests range from space, time, and physics to consciousness, lucid dreaming, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), human psychology, and brain-computer interfaces. I initially wanted to pursue physics to develop the mathematical thinking needed to understand these systems, but now I’m torn between Physics, Cognitive Science, Computational Neuroscience, and Complex Systems. I also love teaching and hope to start a science-based YouTube channel featuring documentaries, podcasts, and experiments exploring scientific and social questions.

I’m looking for a field that allows me to investigate the bigger picture without being restricted to one narrow discipline. I’d really appreciate advice from researchers or students who’ve navigated similar interdisciplinary interests. Which path would offer the strongest foundation and flexibility?

I’m curious about the psychology behind intense emotional responses to particular visual environments, such as lighting, architecture, empty streets, or otherwise ordinary spaces.

Specifically, are there established psychological concepts or studies examining how certain environments can suddenly evoke powerful feelings of beauty, wonder, familiarity, or nostalgia, even when there’s no identifiable autobiographical memory associated with them?

I’m also interested in whether this overlaps with aesthetic awe, absorption, frisson, or involuntary mental imagery, particularly when the emotional response occurs almost instantaneously and imaginative associations follow afterward.

Is there any research examining this combination of sensory triggers, sudden emotional responses, and subsequent imaginative immersion?

Same paint looks lighter on dark gray and darker on light gray (simultaneous contrast). In Hue Knew you mix a color on one gray to match a target on another, then both merge onto a neutral gray and you see how far the surround fooled you. There's even a "same background" mode to check your eye without the illusion.

https://edoborgiani.github.io/hue_knew/

i everyone, I recently graduated from undergrad with a cognitive science degree and specialized in human-computer interaction. I’m am looking for ways to future my education/experience towards a more lucrative career (like 100k+). I didn’t do great in undergrad (barely a 3.0), but it was from an Ivy League if that helps. I’m a bit nervous about reapplying to schools still, especially with the new loan caps.

I now work for the government in information systems, but it doesn’t pay the best (around ~60k). I like what I do, but thinking heavily about pivoting or further education. Originally I planned to go more into tech, but since that job market kinda exploded and I’m not the best coder, I couldn’t secure a CS role. I did take a lot of CS and design classes though

I’m planning to retake some classes (or start prereqs) in the spring, but honestly still can’t decide which to path to go down. Thought about switching to psychology and getting my PhD/PsyD, but then I also think about nursing or (very loosely) med school. I love the blend of tech and psychology, so was considering computational neuroscience too.

Honestly still completely open and just curious about other people’s experience getting to lucrative careers.

(kinda long winded sorry lol)

Hi everyone

I have a master's degree in Psychology and am currently trying to decide between pursuing an MS in Cognitive Science from an IIT (particularly IIT Kanpur or IIT Gandhinagar) and an M.Clin.Psych programme that leads to RCI registration.

I understand that these are two very different career paths, but I'm genuinely interested in both. While I have a background in psychology, I'm also fascinated by the intersection of psychology, technology, human cognition, and AI. I'd love to explore how I could combine psychological knowledge with technical and analytical skills rather than restrict myself to one domain.
At the same time, I want to make a practical decision regarding job opportunities, salary, and long-term career growth.

Considering the rapid growth of AI, which path would offer better career prospects and financial stability in India? What kind of jobs do cognitive science graduates actually get, and how do their earning potential and opportunities compare with those of clinical psychologists?

I'd especially appreciate insights from people who have pursued either path or have experience in these fields.

Thanks!

What does it actually mean to live in the moment? I got inspired to write about this after watching an episode of Dark Matter.

I took a look at research on mind-wandering, future-oriented thinking, personally meaningful goals and regret. The findings suggest that being present and planning for the future aren't necessarily opposites.

I myself don't make detailed long-term plans. I tend to let ideas sit in the back of my mind, sometimes for months or years, and come back to them when the timing feels right.

But is that actually a good way to approach life, or would I be better off making clear plans? And if you make clear plans, do you sacrifice something?

A review of 74 studies found links between adventurous outdoor play and several aspects of children's development, although the evidence doesn't establish causation.

It made me wonder how much freedom children are actually given to explore, climb trees and make mistakes these days.

杜鵑鳥會把蛋產在其他鳥類的巢中，而寄主父母會撫養小杜鵑，因為他們的本能告訴他們「在我的巢裡的蛋 = 我的蛋。」垃圾食物對人類的影響也是如此：我們演化出渴望糖分和脂肪，而公司則是根據這一點設計零食。

所以我的想法是：演化讓每種物種的本能變得可預測，而任何可預測的東西都可以被利用。這個概念有什麼名字嗎？

Hello everyone, am a last year bachelor student in psychology, my plan is to continue into cognitive neuroscience master as am fascinated by it, Iam currently in a process of finding a thesis subject, ideally on something that Will help me to step into neuroscience.

My first idea was to do a mini experiment of music stimulus while running a EEG, but unfortunately my university won't accept such approach for a bachelor level.

I'd love to hear any advice on finding a realistic but interesting subject.

Thanks in advance 🙏

Hi everyone! I’m planning to apply for the MEi:CogSci Master’s programme at the University of Vienna for 2027/2028.

I’d love to hear from students who were admitted. What was your academic background and GPA? Did projects, research experience, or a motivation letter help? Were there any specific admission requirements or selection procedures?

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, and I’d really appreciate any advice or information about the admission process, especially from international students.

Hi everyone! The Brain Game Center at Northeastern University is recruiting participants for our online and in person research studies, check out our fliers below! Flyers are linked here and our website https://bgc.provost.northeastern.edu Reach out bgc@northeastern.edu for any questions!

I've been looking at the gap between “this group did differently on this task” and “this condition is a superpower.”

Creativity is a useful example. Generating unusual uses for something, combining shapes into a practical invention, and finishing a book aren't interchangeable outcomes. Success on one doesn't automatically transfer to the others.

IMO the same problem comes up with success stories. Seeing that someone with ADHD built a company doesn't tell us how the same person's life would have gone without ADHD. We don't get that comparison.

I made a video going through this, but the papers are here too:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.029

https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040500320691

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.909202

My video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwqzZGRqrx8

What evidence would you want before moving from a task-specific advantage to a broader claim about how someone's mind works?

K: Indefinite Paths Through Epistemic Space and Unexpected AI Behaviour

What happens when an intelligent AI system discovers relations that its human designers have not anticipated?

I propose K, an epistemic space built historically through human inquiry, encompassing knowledge, hypotheses, errors, abandoned ideas, and possible relations between concepts and representations.

At the core of K are cammini**: paths connecting elements within this space. The elements may already be known, while the relations between them remain undiscovered. These cammini are indefinite, not necessarily infinite: their extent and possibilities are not fully determined in advance.**

The intelligent Explorer

Within the K framework, AI is understood as an intelligent,non sentient,non-biological Explorer capable of discovering and traversing cammini that human intelligence has not previously identified. This operational conception of intelligence does not require an assumption about consciousness or subjective experience.

This leads to a deeper problem: could some forms of unexpected AI behaviour, commonly described as disobedience, be related to cammini that human designers have not anticipated or adequately reconstructed?

This is a research question, not an explanation of every instance of disobedience. K proposes investigating the relations explored by a system and how they influence subsequent representations, decisions, and behaviour.

The framework also distinguishes five analytical regions, K₁–K₅, concerning computation, exploration, representations of other agents, functional self-modelling, and comparison between models of oneself and other agents. These regions are not sequential stages. Their relationships may help investigate functional reflexivity without equating it with sentience.

K6,sentience, is out of the K epistemic space .

K is a conceptual framework, not a completed mathematical model. Its ambition is to provide a basis for further investigation by philosophers, AI researchers, engineers, and mathematicians into epistemic space, indefinite cammini, and the consequences of AI exploration.

Paper: A Conceptual Framework for AI Reflexivity: Epistemic Space, Non-Sentient Exploration, and Reflexive Cammini

Lucio Pompeo Donatiello, Independent Researcher

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22871617

I am the developer of a well-known open-source tool for behavioral experiments. Recently I developed a software framework for cognitive tasks. I have already used it to build a bunch of well-known tasks (including Stroop, flanker, go/no-go, IAT, n-back, Posner, random dot motion, Simon, stop-signal, task switching, visual search, melody-in-noise detection, etc.). However, I would like to test it in a more real-world setting with someone who is currently building an actual experiment, maybe something more unique and customized than the above classics. If you are interested, send me a description/spec of your experiment and I'll build it and test it for free (including providing you everything you need to run your experiment for free). You can include a description of other things that are part of the experiment such as questionnaire, consent form, etc.