Author | Lightnews

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

HUGE thanks to our incredible team: @janengelmann.bsky.social and the @socialoriginslab.bsky.social, @estherherrmann.bsky.social, @wdt.bsky.social, Josep Call, Snow Zhang, Dr. Joshua Rukundo and the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary, and most of all, thanks to the brilliant chimpanzees!!

3 3 29

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

“It is a profound gift to know that when a chimpanzee stares into a person’s eyes, they too could be reflecting on their beliefs about humans.” - Brian Hare (photo by Innocent Ampeire) www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

1 10 64

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

Across experiments, our computational modeling analyses demonstrated that the best explanation for the chimps’ behavior was rational reasoning.

Figure depicting modeling results for all experiments. The tested models are Recency Bias (where the subject only uses evidence perceived most recently), Belief Perseveration (where the subject only uses evidence perceived first), Cue Saliency (where the subject only uses the strongest evidence they've perceived), and Rational Choice (where the subject combines all relevant evidence). Recency Bias and Belief Perseveration failed to explain behavior in Experiments 1 and 2. Both Cue Saliency and Rational Choice are consistent with the results of Experiments 1 and 2. Cue Saliency fails to explain behavior in Experiments 3, 4, and 5. Rational Choice is the best explanation for behavior across all 5 experiments.

2 4 37

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

My favorite result: chimps metacognitively re-evaluated old evidence. We showed them food in the box, then we showed them that there was a sticker that looked like food in the box. Astonishingly, chimps re-evaluated their previous construal of the evidence, revising their belief away from that box!

A figure illustrating the experimental procedure.
Top panel: Defeater condition. Evidence 1: One box is shaken, and the chimpanzee hears something inside. Evidence 2: The chimpanzee sees through blurry glass into the other box, which appears to contain an apple. Choice 1: The chimpanzee indicates which box they think contains food. Evidence 3: Panels of glass are removed from both boxes. The glass removed from the shaken box is blank. The glass removed from the blurry visual box has a picture of an apple on it. Choice 2: The chimpanzee again indicates which box contains food.
Bottom panel: Non-Defeater condition. Evidence 1: One box is shaken, and the chimpanzee hears something inside. Evidence 2: The chimpanzee sees through blurry glass into the other box, which appears to contain an apple. Choice 1: The chimpanzee indicates which box they think contains food. Evidence 3: Panels of glass are removed from both boxes. Both panes of glass are blank. Choice 2: The chimpanzee again indicates which box contains food.

2 3 39

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

In our study, chimps had to guess where food was hidden. They got strong evidence for one box and weak evidence for the other. Consistent with rationality, the chimps revised their choice more often when weak evidence came first, overwhelmingly choosing the option supported by stronger evidence!

A figure illustrating the experimental procedure.
Left panel: Strong evidence first condition. Evidence 1: The chimpanzee sees through blurry glass into a box containing an apple. Choice 1: The chimpanzee indicates which box they think contains food. Evidence 2: The other box is shaken and something can be heard inside. Choice 2: The chimpanzee again indicates which box contains food.
Right panel: Weak Evidence First condition. Evidence 1: One box is shaken, and the chimpanzee hears something inside. Choice 1: The chimpanzee indicates which box they think contains food. Evidence 2: The chimpanzee sees through blurry glass into the other box, which looks to contain an apple. Choice 2: The chimpanzee again indicates which box contains food.

2 7 42

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · 1d

Are humans really the only rational animals? Our NEW PAPER 🎉 out in @science.org suggests otherwise! In a large collaboration led with my joint first author @hanna-schleihauf.bsky.social, we show that “Chimpanzees rationally revise their beliefs” 🧵

Chimpanzees rationally revise their beliefs

The selective revision of beliefs in light of new evidence has been considered one of the hallmarks of human-level rationality. However, tests of this ability in other species are lacking. We examined...

www.science.org

170 410 1.5K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Michael Hobbes @michaelhobbes.bsky.social · 3d

Nothing can prepare you for the factual basis behind this 'wokeness gone too far' anecdote.

The criticism of Springer Nature group, which publishes the journal, was made by Anna Krylov, an American professor who has been a supporter of President Trump’s drive to stop American universities from promoting diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) in their admissions policies.

Krylov, a chemistry professor at the University of Southern California (USC), said she had been invited to act as a peer-reviewer — a scientist asked to provide independent scrutiny — of a study being published in the journal Nature Communications.

In an open letter to bosses at Springer Nature, she said the topic was “within my field of expertise” and that she would “normally welcome the opportunity”, but asked if she had been contacted “because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs”.

67 260 1.5K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

pixelatedboat aka “mr bluesky” @pixelatedboat.bsky.social · 20d

In my opinion it’s time to retire the Nobel prizes for fields where most of the important discoveries have already been made, like physics, and add prizes for newer fields where substantial innovations occur every year, like speedrunning

79 790 4.8K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Batman or halo @milesklee.bsky.social · 29d

This is the biggest, toughest article I’ve done about so-called “AI psychosis.” It’s the story of a man who committed a horrific crime in his youth but served his time and against all odds found love and a new life—one that completely unraveled after he started talking to Google’s Gemini chatbot.

He Grew Obsessed With an AI Chatbot. Then He Vanished in the Ozarks

Jon Ganz committed a terrible crime in his youth, but he survived prison, fell in love, and started over. His new life unraveled in a way nobody could have predicted.

www.rollingstone.com

62 760 2.4K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

A.R. Moxon @juliusgoat.bsky.social · Sep 30

We need a bigger tent, that’s why we must betray and expel the following types of people:

84 1.3K 7.4K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · Sep 30

great piece from the always-great @pastpunditry.bsky.social and a welcome antidote to vacuous commentators whose historical memories seem to go back no further than the first iron man movie

Opinion | The Right Didn’t Catch Cancel Culture From the Left

www.nytimes.com

28 490 2.2K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Chad Topaz Queer DEI Race Traitor @chadtopaz.bsky.social · Sep 26

One little thing I’m really getting tired of is insecure over-empowered crybaby hypocritical disingenuous hate-filled white guys.

9 47 280

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · Sep 26

NSF changed their eligibility requirements for the GRFP a month before the deadline. Students used to be able to apply in their 1st or 2nd year, now only 1st years can apply - excluding an entire cohort of students with no notice. Yet another way this admin is kneecapping American science

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)

www.nsf.gov

2 4

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Jason Williams @jasonwilliamsny.bsky.social · Sep 25

Please share with anyone who cares about NSF support for graduate students and take 30 seconds to sign and leave a comment.

The deadline for the 2025 Graduate Research Fellowship Program is about one month away and literally no one can apply. #NSFGRFP

jasonjwilliamsny.github.io/grfp2025/

An Open Letter to U.S. STEM Leadership on the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program

jasonjwilliamsny.github.io

12 280 220

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · Sep 23

Depolarization is not "a scalable solution for reducing societal-level conflict.... achieving lasting depolarization will likely require....moving beyond individual-level treatments to address the elite behaviors and structural incentives that fuel partisan conflict" www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

17 130 390

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Miranda Yaver @mirandayaver.bsky.social · Sep 23

14 44 330

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò @olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social · Sep 23

"Common decency stigmatizes people that do not participate in it—removes them from voluntary association. We indeed have to live with one another, but terms and conditions apply."

me on why Ezra Klein should be ashamed / why shame is Good Actually

www.bostonreview.net/articles/how...

How Can We Live Together? - Boston Review

Ezra Klein is wrong: shame is essential.

www.bostonreview.net

200 1.9K 6.7K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Molly Jong-Fast @mollyjongfast.bsky.social · Sep 18

They are literally canceling culture

420 4.2K 23K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Michael @fleerultra.bsky.social · Sep 17

so many dead canaries and we just keep on mining

280 7.2K 30K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

darth™️ @darthbluesky.bsky.social · Sep 16

they are vaccine deniers tbh

The New York Times @nytimes.com · Sep 16

CDC committee members, some of whom are vaccine skeptics, are likely to recommend restricting the use of hepatitis B shots at birth or delaying them. The vaccine is credited by public health experts with nearly eliminating maternal transmission of the disease in the U.S.

RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Committee Likely to Target Hepatitis B Shot for Newborns

Committee members, some of whom are vaccine skeptics, are likely to recommend restricting the use of the shots at birth or delaying them until later in childhood.

nyti.ms

25 290 1.6K

Emily M. Sanford @emilymsanford.bsky.social · Sep 15

i don't believe these because you're not willing to write 900 pages of notes on a 300 page book, which is critical for an accurate michael impression

5

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Nicholas Grossman @nicholasgrossman.bsky.social · Sep 15

The free speech activist who built a list of professors he worked to get fired for their speech must be celebrated for his support of free speech, and anyone who quotes his speech accurately in context will be fired and/or face state punishment by the champions of free speech, do I have that right?

590 8.7K 29K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Lindsay Ballant @lballant.bsky.social · Sep 13

We’ve been living through 72 nonstop hours of this exact tweet

170 7.1K 33K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Andrea Junker @strandjunker.com · Sep 13

The fact that Matthew Dowd lost his job for pointing out Charlie Kirk’s hate speech, while Brian Kilmeade openly suggests we should euthanize the homeless and there is zero outrage, shows exactly what is terribly wrong with today’s political mainstream media.

1.1K 13K 41K

Reposted by Emily M. Sanford

Michael Hobbes @michaelhobbes.bsky.social · Sep 13

These people have smarted themselves into the dumbest fucking arguments.

Determining whether someone is "doing politics the right way" depends almost entirely on the content of their speech! If someone lies constantly and endorses authoritarians that's not practicing good politics.

What Ezra means by "the right way," and what I meant expressing a similar line this morning, is that Kirk was operating within a liberal framework that was modeled on persuasion and included real, robust support for free speech. Obviously it's not an endorsement of the content.

130 450 3.4K