Hugo Mercier

and, if we only look at university positions, the balance between the three domains might not have changed that much, further suggesting that it is driven by universal variations in what our minds find appealing

Even though the data stops at scholars born before 1700, the breakthroughs of the sciences from the abstract then the natural domain might not have affected people’s interest as much as we could expect...

One interpretation of these results is that scholarly curiosity is powered by cognitive variations which are recurrent across time and place: for instance, everywhere, there are people who are more interested in mathematics-driven sciences and, if they can study anything, that’s what they’ll do

Moreover, the human and natural domain seem to substitute for one another, with the abstract domain being its own thing

and time (aggregating over all the world)

We find very little variation in the share of scholars studying each these three domains, both across places (aggregating over all of history)

On the basis of this network, we divided scholarly interests in three broad domains: abstract (centered around mathematics), human (centered around history and philosophy), and natural (centered around botany and zoology).

We found that, across the world and at different time periods, scholars’ interest tended to cluster in a broadly similar manner

This database was restricted to scholars born 1700, to somewhat limit the influence of Western scholars (who are even more overrepresented after that date), and of modern Western-style universities, developing and spreading in the 19th century, which could have a uniformizing effect

We start from a database of 13,556 scholars; built on Wikidata and many other sources, out of which 2317 were ‘polymaths,’ scholars who had more than one occupation (e.g. astronomer and philosopher)

And, if there is a structure, is it similar across time and place? This is what we explore in our recent paper with Charles de Dampierre

drive.google.com/file/d/1zz-T...

From ancient Greece to the Arabic golden age, scholars have been driven by their curiosity to investigate astronomy, history, philosophy, and sundry other disciplines. Is there a structure to that curiosity? Are astronomers as likely to also be historians or to also be philosophers?

Screenshot of the article "How Convincing Is a Crowd? Quantifying the Persuasiveness of a Consensus for Different Individuals and Types of Claims"

We know that a consensus of opinions is persuasive, but how reliable is this effect across people and types of consensus, and are there any kinds of claims where people care less about what other people think? This is what we tested in our new(ish) paper in @psychscience.bsky.social

Deadline tomorrow!

Investing in providing people with clean water is incredibly cost effective.

Our new #cogsci2025 paper led by @maxtaylordavies.bsky.social is a task analysis of agent representation under resource constraints:
🧵

New preprint commentary from me, @malte.the100.ci, and @ianhussey.mmmdata.io.

Cognitive dissonance in large language models is neither cognitive nor dissonant.

THREAD BELOW 🧵

osf.io/preprints/ps...

Payer avec la carte bleue du labo?

"Behavior drives morphological change during human evolution"

Our new article is out in @science.org today

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

So Very Small: How Humans Discovered the Microcosmos, Defeated Germs--and May Still Lose the War Against Infectious Disease So Very Small: How Humans Discovered the Microcosmos, Defeated Germs-and May Still Lose the War Against Infectious Disease - Kindle edition by Levenson, Thomas. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading So Very Small: How Humans Discovered the Microcosmos, Defeated Germs-and May Still Lose the War Against Infectious Disease.

YO!!!
EVERYONE!!!!!

I'd be totally remiss if I didn't shout about the ridiculous deal on my book, So Very Small: $1.99 for the Kindle edition.

People tell me that it's my best work, and that it's an important read in the current moment. At that price, what have you got to lose if they're wrong?

Large-scale processing of within-bone nutrients by Neanderthals, 125,000 years ago Neanderthals intensively processed a minimum of 172 large mammals for grease and marrow fat, 125,000 years ago.

So they found a 125,000 yr old Neanderthal fat rendering plant & I have thoughts.

Knowing that they loved saturated fat SO MUCH that they industrialized to get as much of it as humanly possible?

Makes me feel seen, heard, supported, etc www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

What a framing: Trump is winning even as we are, on average, going to get poorer.

My department at Leuphana University offers 6 fully funded PhD scholarships (incl. research funding) for three years.

If you are interested in studying democratic resilience (particularly party competition and elections 🤓) and you have a strong methodolgical background: Apply!

shorturl.at/kcTbG

This is good news for debriefings in misinformation research:

Debriefings that include fact-checks of the false claims used in the experiment reduce false beliefs, improve attitudes towards the study, and show no signs of negative effects.

👉 osf.io/preprints/ps...

Feedback much welcomed :)

What about debriefings in Misinformation Research?

✅ Only specific debriefings reduce belief in false info
⚠️ Both slightly reduce belief in true info
🧠 Only specific boosts perceived learning
🟢 Only general reduces manipulation & frustration
🔍 Both increase transparency

osf.io/preprints/ps...

This is a great introductory text:
www.amazon.fr/Personality-...

Talking With Henry Farrell Weaponized interdependence and tech bro ideology, oh my

1/Great conversation between @pkrugman.bsky.social and @himself.bsky.social talking weaponized interdependence, hegemonic enshittification, and tech bro science fiction fever dreams. open.substack.com/pub/paulkrug...

How effective are user corrections on social media, and does adding a link to a fact check improve effectiveness?

In piece led by @sachaltay.bsky.social we find corrections have small effects, adding a fact-check unlikely to make them more effective misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-... 1/6

⭐🎓The Department of Sociology in Vienna @univie.ac.at‬ invites applications for a Tenure Track Professor in Sociology with focus on Quantitative Social Science Research Methods | #Sociology | quant methods

Apply here (17 Sept 25): jobs.univie.ac.at/job/Tenure-T...

Repeat after me: Elites who are careless or actively hostile towards the press and democracy are a bigger issue for the latter than AI.