Sign in

Jan Pfänder

@janpfa.bsky.social
213 followers 194 following 71 posts

phd student janpfander.github.io

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Alexey Koshevoy @alexeykoshevoy.bsky.social · 07/09/2026
Are you interested in lexical competition, agent-based modelling, strong inference and Ukrainian? Then this paper, just published in @pnasnexus.org, is for you. With @oliviermorin.bsky.social and @sobchuk.bsky.social, we asked a simple question: why do some words become more common than others?
24317
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Nicolas Beauvais @nicolasbeauvais.bsky.social · 07/09/2026
1/4 🧵 New paper out (open access!) with @wimdeneys.bsky.social Can people tell a strong argument from a weak one on the fly, or only once they stop to think? We find that people already have some intuitive sensitivity to argument strength, but deliberation helps a lot.
163
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Since it looks like the OSF is down currently, you can also access the paper via my website: janpfander.github.io/research/pdf...
janpfander.github.io
020
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
One practical takeaway: science communication matters, and may be particularly effective when stressing how consensual and precise scientific findings are. Preprint: osf.io/preprints/os...
osf.io
OSF
220
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
These data are correlational, but they fit what we coin "the rational impression account of trust in science": people can come to trust scientists through basic, broadly rational cognitive inferences, not just ideological alignment. Here's our theory paper on this: osf.io/preprints/ps...
osf.io
OSF
140
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
What we find: The more precise and consensual participants perceived a discipline's findings to be, the more they trusted its scientists. This held across disciplines, within disciplines, and for science in general.
120
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Why these gaps? Existing accounts point to ideology: people trust those scientists they see as ideologically like-minded more. We tested a complementary explanation: people trust scientists whose findings they perceive as precise and consensual more.
120
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
The US pattern replicates in France: participants trusted biologists (M = 3.78) and physicists (M = 3.68) more than climate scientists (M = 3.47), sociologists (M = 3.14), and economists (M = 2.94) on a 1-5 scale.
120
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Research on trust in science shows big gaps between disciplines, but almost all of it comes from the US. We asked a representative sample of the French population (N = 1,012) about their trust in five disciplines.
120
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
Why do people trust physicists and biologists more than economists or sociologists? In a new paper out in Public Understanding of Science, @hugoreasoning.bsky.social and I argue that it has to do with perceived precision and consensus. doi.org/10.1177/0963...
doi.org
Sciences perceived as precise and consensual are more trusted - Jan Pfänder, Hugo Mercier, 2026
Research focused on the United States shows that people’s trust in science varies considerably between disciplines. Existing explanations of these trust gaps st...
1188
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Julien Lie-Panis @jliep.bsky.social · 09/07/2026
Why do societies rely on rigid moral rules? Don't lie. Keep your promises. Don't steal. We all recognize there are good reasons to make exceptions. So why are moral rules so often categorical? Our new paper proposes an answer. 🧵
Screenshot of article title page, "Why human societies adopt rigid moral rules"
48441
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Marlene Altenmüller @marlephie.bsky.social · 29/06/2026
Friday (July 3), 14:30, Room Dresde: @lenazohm.bsky.social shares her work on “expert trespassing” in a very cool symposium organized by @cruzf.bsky.social, incl. further talks about science reception and communication by him, @janpfa.bsky.social, and Arne Stolp. Add it to your agenda! 📋
122
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · 20/04/2026
1/ "Silicon samples" are becoming more and more common in research and polling. One problem: depending on the analytic decisions made, you can basically get these samples to show any effect you want. The updated version of this preprint is now online! THREAD🧵 arxiv.org/abs/2509.13397
arxiv.org
The threat of analytic flexibility in using large language models to simulate human data
Social scientists are now using large language models to create "silicon samples": synthetic datasets intended to stand in for human respondents. However, producing these samples requires many analyti...
510047
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Center for Adaptive Rationality (MPIB, Berlin) @arc-mpib.bsky.social · 15/05/2026
🚨Next week's talk at ARC Join us for a talk presented by Dr. Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology). 📅 21 May 11:00 (Local Time Germany) @mpib-berlin.bsky.social or online See the link for details👇 www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/events/45727...
mpib-berlin.mpg.de
ARC Talk: Jan Pfänder, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag): Strengthening Trust in Climate Scientists in the US: A Megastudy Approach
0104
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Daniel Lakens @lakens.bsky.social · 11/05/2026
Updated my textbook with a cleaner lay-out, better accessibility, and eight new interactive visualizations made completely in html (such as this illustration of the positive predictive value). lakens.github.io/statistical_...
46729
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 07/03/2026
Taking a look at Castro-Schilo & Grimm about "residualized change vs diff scores" -- interesting case of how spelling out estimands affects reasoning. Estimand of interest: "effect of prior cohabitation on change in relationship satisfaction pre/post marriage"> journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
Sofia, a close relationships’ researcher, is interested in examining change in relationship satisfaction before and after marriage. Specifically, she wants to know whether cohabiting prior to marriage has an effect on changes in relationship satisfaction. As she plans her data analysis strategy, Sofia realizes she has two options: (1) use the postmarriage relationship satisfaction score as her outcome and include the premarriage score in her analysis as a predictor, in addition to whether or not couples cohabited prior to marriage to account for individual differences in baseline relationship satisfaction (known as residualized change approach) or (2) compute the difference between the postmarriage relationship satisfaction score and the premarriage relationship satisfaction score and use it as her outcome to test the effect of cohabiting prior to marriage (known as difference score approach). Which of these two strategies is most appropriate? Should both strategies provide the same results? Sofia has heard difference scores have a bad reputation, why is that? Are there additional strategies Sofia is not aware of that might be preferred over her current options?
6265
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · 08/03/2026
The sky is not falling; high-quality platforms (Prolific, Verasight, CR Connect) have low rates of apparent bots. osf.io/preprints/ps... But also not zero; vigilance is very much needed!
212857
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
lionkircheis.bsky.social @lionkircheis.bsky.social · 27/02/2026
My first paper is out today in Environmental Research Letters. Wildfire smoke doesn't just harm your lungs; it's also linked to violence. Using 11 years of data from Seattle, I find that smoke days see 3.6% more violent assaults. 🧵 A short thread on what was found. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae436c
262
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛ @rmcelreath.bsky.social · 26/02/2026
"the paper’s main outcome variable cannot possibly be constructed as described in the paper." Retraction of 2023 paper that did not use the reported variables. The replication report is astonishing www.nature.com/articles/s41... Pre-publication peer review remains undefeated in laundering bullshit
My effort to reproduce this paper began as part of the Institute for Replication’s ongoing project to systematically examine the reproducibility and robustness of papers in Nature Human Behaviour3; my participation in this endeavour was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam’s School of Business and Economics. Inspecting the paper’s first two figures revealed a mathematical impossibility. There are nine EU countries that experienced zero terror attacks during the study’s time frame. However, the paper reports that the inverse hyperbolic sine of these countries’ per capita attack rates are positive, and increase or decrease over time. This is impossible; the inverse hyperbolic sine of zero is zero4. The main outcome variable displayed in the paper’s second figure is hard-coded in the replication data as ‘DVSin’. Figure 1’s top row of plots shows that DVSin is negatively correlated with both terrorist attack rates (r = −0.107, two-sided P = 0.024) and their inverse hyperbolic sine (r = −0.108, two-sided P = 0.022). These plots also show that in the 305/420 country-year observations after 2006 experiencing zero terror attacks (72.6%), DVSin takes on 292 different positive values. This implies that the paper’s main outcome variable cannot possibly be constructed as described in the paper.
35014
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Peter Tennant @pwgtennant.bsky.social · 25/02/2026
This recent RCT of an "AI stethoscope" claims the technology "shows promise" for diagnosing cardiovascular conditions. It does not. It is a textbook example of the risks of conducting unprincipled 'per protocol analyses'. Once again, peer review at a major medical journal has failed. 🧵 1/
8436186
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Benoît de Courson @bdecourson.bsky.social · 10/02/2026
🔴 Gallicagram v2, nous voici ! 🔴 Nouvelle interface en react vachement plus stable et rapide, nouveaux corpus (Mediapart, Libé, le Parisien, Le Figaro…), recherche contextuelle, comparaisons inter-corpus, filtre rubrique, bilingue, infinite scrolling... on vous explique tout ! 📌 www.gallicagram.com
1317683
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
nccr-climplus.bsky.social @nccr-climplus.bsky.social · 30/01/2026
Breaking news: The #NCCR #CLIM+ on "Climate Extremes & Society" will be funded by the @snf-fns.ch in the coming 4 years! With 47 PIs, 20 institutions & 22 stakeholders from #health to #finance & #agriculture, it will unite climate expertise from both natural & social science! nccr-climplus.ch
23120
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Madalina Vlasceanu, PhD @madalina.bsky.social · 27/01/2026
What motivates people to engage in climate advocacy? In a new PNAS Nexus megastudy [doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf400] led by @dgoldwert.bsky.social we tested 17 theoretical interventions on a large US sample (N=31,324) to increase public, political, and financial climate advocacy. 1/5
13720
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Felix Thoemmes @felixthoemmes.bsky.social · 29/01/2026
Played around with Causion by @isager.bsky.social It's an impressive teaching tool for causal inference... and it also really pretty. Amazing color scheme and slick interface. Shown below a demonstration of an extended front-door DAG in Causion.
Causion interface showing a front-door DAG
2175
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Alex Coppock @aecoppock.bsky.social · 27/01/2026
🎺 Call for proposals 🎺 1️⃣ replicate an existing experiment 2️⃣ run a novel experiment on repdata.com 3️⃣ coauthor with Mary McGrath and me to meta-analyze the replications and existing studies 4️⃣ publish your study details: alexandercoppock.com/replication_... applications open Feb 1 please repost!
Call for Proposals: Data Collection for
Replication+Novel Political Science Survey Experiments
Alexander Coppock and Mary McGrath
January 27, 2026
We invite proposals for a survey experiment replication+novel design competition. Se-
lected replication+novel design survey experiments will be conducted on large samples of
American respondents, quota sampled to match U.S. Census margins and filtered for quality
and attention by the survey sample provider Rep Data (repdata.com).
Each proposal consists of two parts: (1) a replication study of an existing, previously
published survey experiment, and (2) a novel experimental design on a topic of the authors’
choosing.
The replication studies and reanalyses of the existing studies will be combined into a
meta-paper to be co-authored by all authors of accepted proposals along with the princi-
pal investigators (Coppock and McGrath). As a condition for acceptance, authors commit
to sharing the data and producing a write-up of the findings from their novel design for
submission to a scholarly journal, and public posting of a working paper pre-publication.
08071
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Jamie Cummins @jamiecummins.bsky.social · 22/01/2026
Comparing registrations to published papers is essential to research integrity - and almost no one does it routinely because it's slow, messy, and time-demanding. RegCheck was built to help make this process easier. Today, we launch RegCheck V2. 🧵 regcheck.app
regcheck.app
RegCheck
RegCheck is an AI tool to compare preregistrations with papers instantly.
818696
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Joe Bak-Coleman @jbakcoleman.bsky.social · 19/01/2026
Ever wonder what proportion of high profile social media research is tied to the tech industry? New from me, @cailinmeister.bsky.social, @jevinwest.bsky.social and @carlbergstrom.com. Thread tomorrow. arxiv.org/abs/2601.11507
arxiv.org
Industry Influence in High-Profile Social Media Research
To what extent is social media research independent from industry influence? Leveraging openly available data, we show that half of the research published in top journals has disclosable ties to indus...
410138
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 13/01/2026
We've got ISSUES. Literally. We scraped >100k special issues & over 1 million articles to bring you a PISS-poor paper. We quantify just how many excess papers are published by guest editors abusing special issues to boost their CVs. How bad is it & what can we do? arxiv.org/abs/2601.07563 A 🧵 1/n
17514314
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Mattan S. Ben-Shachar @mattansb.msbstats.info · 12/01/2026
Too many significance tests!! Made this little graphic for my #stats class, showing the various kinds of (N)HST and how interpreting confidence intervals can replace all of them. Made with #rstats #ggplot (duh)
510628
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Hugo Mercier @hugoreasoning.bsky.social · 07/01/2026
Interesting megastudy on the (in)effectiveness of climate messaging: tiny effects on attitudes, no effects on donation www.nature.com/articles/s41... "Persuasiveness varied little across party lines", another win for Persuasion in Parallel @aecoppock.bsky.social
nature.com
A registered report megastudy on the persuasiveness of the most-cited climate messages - Nature Climate Change
How to effectively communicate climate change to the public has long been studied and debated. Through a registered report megastudy, researchers tested the ten most-cited climate change messaging str...
0226
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · 03/12/2025
Kids: Inspect your data (yikes) www.nature.com/articles/s41... www.nytimes.com/2025/12/03/b...
2378
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 03/12/2025
1. Transparency is necessary for credibility 2. Transparency is hard to change 3. Require transparency* 4. Transparency is not magic 5. Journals are part of problem 6. Expect more from journals 7. Peer review is not magic 8. A crisis can look a lot like „normal“ science 9. Meta-analysis is not magic
49039
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Fabian Dablander @fdabl.bsky.social · 02/12/2025
🚨 Mapping climate change coverage In a new preprint, Simon Wimmer, @jmbh.bsky.social, and I analyzed over 50,000 articles about climate change from major German newspapers across the political spectrum (2010-2024) using large language models 🧵 🔗 Link: osf.io/preprints/so...
Title page of our paper
2259
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 28/11/2025
Scientific Reports has a ⬆️ Impact Inflation: a very high IF given their citation network (self-citing, citation cartels, etc). They'll even typeset & publish AI slop for a fee! Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS Strain explorer β: pagoba.shinyapps.io/strain_explo... #SciPub #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicSky
A chart showing the Impact Inflation of Scientific Reports is much higher than the average journal. Biology Open, the "anything technically sound" megajournal of the non-profit Company of Biologists is shown for comparison given these two journals started in 2012 and 2013 respectively. The two have different management strategies: one focuses on profit via immense publication output (SciRep), the other focuses on publishing sound science (BiolOpen).
23113
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Lisa Oswald @lfoswaldo.bsky.social · 30/10/2025
We have a new preprint: osf.io/preprints/so... What have we learned about social media - the constantly moving target of empirical research - over the past decade?
28339
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · 12/11/2025
Experimental participants to us
619943
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 25/11/2025
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
sciencedirect.com
Global studies on trust in science suggest new theoretical and methodological directions
Public trust in science is vital for tackling global challenges. Recently, global surveys and Many Labs collaborations have begun to broaden the scope…
050
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 25/11/2025
In a new short review piece, we argue that advancing research on trust in science requires: - clearer concepts - harmonized measures - a normative discussion about what levels and forms of trust are desirable. Huge thanks to my co-authors @nielsmede.bsky.social and @colognaviktoria.bsky.social.
141
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 25/11/2025
Trust in science is increasingly being studied across the globe—which is good news. However, expanding geographic coverage alone isn’t enough. doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
doi.org
Redirecting
191
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 24/11/2025
There is no reason why systematic reviews can't be open. The data used for synthesis is *already* open and there are many excellent open source tools that can facilitate the easy sharing of analysis scripts. Here's a nice guide for performing open systematic reviews doi.org/10.1525/coll...
This paper provides guidance and tools for conducting open and reproducible systematic reviews in psychology. It emphasizes the importance of systematic reviews for evidence-based decision-making and the growing adoption of open science practices. Open science enhances transparency, reproducibility, and minimizes bias in systematic reviews by sharing data, materials, and code. It also fosters collaborations and enables involvement of non-academic stakeholders. The paper is designed for beginners, offering accessible guidance to navigate the many standards and resources that may not obviously align with specific areas of psychology. It covers systematic review conduct standards, pre-registration, registered reports, reporting standards, and open data, materials and code. The paper is concluded with a glimpse of recent innovations like Community Augmented Meta-Analysis and independent reproducibility checks.
011740
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Josh McCrain @joshmccrain.bsky.social · 18/11/2025
new paper by Sean Westwood: With current technology, it is impossible to tell whether survey respondents are real or bots. Among other things, makes it easy for bad actors to manipulate outcomes. No good news here for the future of online-based survey research
38770390
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Fabian Dablander @fdabl.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
🚨Techno-optimistic scientists take fewer climate actions In a new preprint, @colognaviktoria.bsky.social, @maiensachis.bsky.social, @jmbh.bsky.social & I examine techno-optimism among 9,199 scientists and how it relates to their civic engagement and lifestyle choices🧵 🔗 Link: tinyurl.com/hh94huzv
Title page of the paper "Techno-optimistic scientists take fewer climate action"
47735
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Marius Mercier @mariusmercier.bsky.social · 13/11/2025
🎉 New preprint: Bayesian Competence Inference guides Knowledge Attribution and Information search If someone knows that Venus is the only planet in the Solar System that rotates clockwise, will they also know what Earth’s only natural satellite is? What about which planets have no moons at all?
12911
Jan Pfänder @janpfa.bsky.social · 13/11/2025
🎉 You’ve exceeded even our most optimistic expectations — we received 107 intervention proposals. THANK YOU! 🕵 Our advisory board will now begin reviewing all interventions. 🔗 More information: janpfander.github.io/trust_climat...
082
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11/11/2025
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing: a 🧵 1/n Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/... Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below.

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.A figure detailing the drain on researcher time.

1. The four-fold drain

1.2 Time
The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce,
with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure
1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material
has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs,
grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for
profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time.
The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million
unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of
peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting
widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the
authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many
review demands.
Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of
scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in
‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow
progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to
volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier,
local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with
limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging
with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks
intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below:

1. The four-fold drain
1.1 Money
Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for
whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who
created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis,
which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024
alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit
margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher
(Elsevier) always over 37%.
Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most
consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial
difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor &
Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American
researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The
Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3
billion in that year.The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised
scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers
first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour
resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
8644453
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 11/11/2025
"For instance, randomized controlled trials could explicitly manipulate multilingualism"
media.tenor.com
a woman wearing a blue and white floral dress stands in front of a sign that says natural beauty
Alt: Jennifer Lawrence nodding and doing a thumbs up
137710
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · 06/11/2025
Fascinating economics job market paper by Jens Oehlen on the effects of Enigma codebreaking and how it interacted with military/intelligence strategy jensoehlen.github.io/uploads/Enig...
3468
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Petter Törnberg @pettertornberg.com · 07/11/2025
LLMs are now widely used in social science as stand-ins for humans—assuming they can produce realistic, human-like text But... can they? We don’t actually know. In our new study, we develop a Computational Turing Test. And our findings are striking: LLMs may be far less human-like than we think.🧵
arxiv.org
Computational Turing Test Reveals Systematic Differences Between Human and AI Language
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior, based on the assumption that they can generate realistic, human-like text. Yet this assumption rem...
14329131
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 23/10/2025
I am hiring PhD candidates to study the psychology of attention & technology use at @tilburg-university.bsky.social. We're looking for motivated & curious scholars with expertise in cognitive psychology and statistics, and offer a friendly work environment with great terms & benefits. tiu.nu/22989
An aerial photograph of the Tilburg University campus.
14952
Reposted by Jan Pfänder
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 05/11/2025
Wrote a little interactive webapp for creating psyarxiv coauthorship networks, try it out: vuorre.com/psyarxiv-das... Feedback welcome: github.com/mvuorre/psya...
psyarxiv coauthorship network from https://vuorre.com/psyarxiv-dashboard/coauthorship showing Matti Vuorre's coauthors
1114