How should numeric probabilities be translated into words? Maybe they shouldn't be.
"Words of estimative probability" wreak havoc in high-stakes communication like #intelligenceCommunity assessments and briefings, in part because intelligence and defense institutions map numbers to different words (!) — see Amelia Kahn's forthcoming work at ameliakahn.wordpress.com.
Are #philosophy students’ intuitions about thought experiments different because of expertise?
Longitudinal studies of philosophy and #CogSci students (N = 226) didn't seem to reveal as much: there were some group differences in intuitions, but a selection/indoctrination effect seemed more likely than “a general expertise” or “expertise specific to particular subfields”.
How do we know what participants thought when we presented our stimuli?
#ProcessTracing can reveal what people saw (e.g., eye-tracking), consciously thought (e.g., concurrent think-aloud), etc.
Combining those two methods revealed:
(1) thinking aloud didn't impact gaze or word count
(2) retrospective think-aloud left out thoughts that were mentioned concurrently
(3) retrospective think-aloud introduced thoughts unmentioned concurrently
Although correct reflection test answers predicted lower "endorsement" of a "planned disease" #conspiracyTheory, not all of the interventions that involved reflecting on the theory's #logic reduced people's endorsement of it.
People who were told that the conspiracy would not be detrimental even if it were true reported less agreement with it.
People who were shown the theory's logical fallacies did not!