...scary things

Actually, we recently spooked away some ghosts with warnings and other scary things (with @semihaktepe.bsky.social)

If that counts as nocebo, I got bad paradoxical effects from benzodiazepines the one time I took one - anxiety, restlessness, and more that I don't want to describe. But I never trusted benzos in the first place and thought it'd make me feel bad. 🫠

I like a habit tracking + to do list app called "Hizo" 🤷🏻‍♀️
But I think these things are super personal, I can see it not working for others.

Weirdly, it doesn't work for me either if I look at it directly, but it does when I move my eyes around it. Then I see illusory movement in the periphery. (Explanations are welcome ^^)

I listened to the interview but hadn't read the preprint yet - now did - and from a more *student perspective* (early carreer anyway), I found it super useful. It definitely validates some feelings and doubts. Thank you & all the team for this work

Such an important topic. I would have liked to hear the talk 🙂

@123simonkey.bsky.social

I had this kind of task during my Master in Psychology, but the papers didn't have to be "really bad". Our job was just to find limitations that were not listed in the limitations section. Then there are more than enough papers to choose from, and it's a good exercize :)

But rap is definitely angry about these topics. At least in French, German and Spanish

Ah, or maybe I remember www.youtube.com/@FrankWatkin... having some covid-related balads

I would expect this more from rap and punkrock?

@123simonkey.bsky.social :)

I thought that developing effective mood-alleviating exercises for people with mood disorders might take more time and money 🙈

@123simonkey.bsky.social

I think it depends on studies? The idea is usually to take fake news from fact-checking websites, and real news headlines, but then ideally you'd still pre-test them on credibility/plausibility so that it's approximately balanced. I think that some studies might skip this step?

And the skepticism that appears in studies could (partly?) be an artefact of the experimental setting? If you ask people about accuracy, they can react extra-skeptically. Way more than when they're just scrolling online. It's a bit like a vigilance-prompt.

Yes, and it's reassuring that this method works. It would fail if people didn't use their knowledge (or had really little), or if fake news were as convincing as real ones. The two things can be independent, I think? If fake news get too realistic, your background knowledge becomes useless.

My first thought was "good; bc if not, it would indicate that people know nothing about the world"? On second thought, it could also have meant that fake news were as convincing as true ones. So, people have some knowledge, and / or fake news still seem a bit less true? Hope it stays that way.