...many leaders in the field are still seeking prestige from a few for-profit, rent-seeking journals.



He then pointed us to better publication practices:
- @peercommunityin.bsky.social

- @unjournal.bsky.social

- @metaror.bsky.social

Post credits: @alexh.bsky.social, @jwastrachan.bsky.social

Importantly, we show here that this doesn't just mean rationalizing faulty intuitions. Deliberation also enables to (better) justify sound ones.
Beyond correction, deliberation thus plays a key role in justification, supporting metacognitive monitoring, explanation, & epistemic accountability. (4/4)

So deliberate reasoning (aka Type 2 reasoning/System 2) not only serves to correct erroneous/biased intuitions. It supports cognitive transparency: the ability to access, understand, and articulate the basis of one’s reasoning.
In other words, it makes our thinking explicit. (3/4)

We found that intuitive correct responses were often poorly justified.
However, participants gave much clearer and normatively appropriate explanations after deliberative correct responses (even when their answer didn't change). (2/4)

We asked people to solve classic reasoning problems (bat-and-ball, base-rate, risky-choice) twice:
• Once under time pressure (intuitive response)
• Then again with unlimited time (deliberate response)
After each response, they were asked to provide a justification for their answer. (1/4)

Yes it was great to see you and exchange at the conference!