Rebecca Dolgin
@rebdolgin.bsky.social
PhD candidate at The New School studying how contexts and social identities influence cognition
Yes, social media can completely distort our impressions. And, what may complicate things even more is a misalignment between what posters intend to communicate and what readers interpret: Here's a link to our research showing evidence of this mismatch:
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
www.tandfonline.com
July 29, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Yes, social media can completely distort our impressions. And, what may complicate things even more is a misalignment between what posters intend to communicate and what readers interpret: Here's a link to our research showing evidence of this mismatch:
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Reposted by Rebecca Dolgin
In this finally out (!) paper, I argue no—and cognitive science backs this up. We can keep the orthodox rationalist view of belief *and* recognize the difficulties in changing minds. The key is thinking of belief as requiring a *capacity* (not a reliable disposition) to respond to evidence.
Resistant Beliefs, Responsive Believers - Volume 122, Issue 4, April 2025
Beliefs can be resistant to evidence. Nonetheless, the orthodox view in epistemology analyzes beliefs as evidence-responsive attitudes. I address this tension by deploying analytical tools on capaciti...
www.pdcnet.org
July 29, 2025 at 1:09 PM
In this finally out (!) paper, I argue no—and cognitive science backs this up. We can keep the orthodox rationalist view of belief *and* recognize the difficulties in changing minds. The key is thinking of belief as requiring a *capacity* (not a reliable disposition) to respond to evidence.
Despite this potential for misunderstanding, authors were 90-100% confident they would be understood as intended.
Checkout the full paper here: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Checkout the full paper here: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Misunderstanding stance in tweets
How accurately do readers of tweets understand the stance that tweet authors intended to express? We solicited from six authors their intended stance in their May 2022 tweets about “Roe v. Wade” af...
www.tandfonline.com
July 29, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Despite this potential for misunderstanding, authors were 90-100% confident they would be understood as intended.
Checkout the full paper here: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Checkout the full paper here: www.tandfonline.com/eprint/U4UGA...
Then we asked online participants to read the same posts and tell us the stance they thought authors had intended when they posted.
A shocking number of readers misinterpreted the author's intent—25% even thought the opposite at least once.
Thread 🧵(2/n)
A shocking number of readers misinterpreted the author's intent—25% even thought the opposite at least once.
Thread 🧵(2/n)
July 29, 2025 at 4:05 PM
Then we asked online participants to read the same posts and tell us the stance they thought authors had intended when they posted.
A shocking number of readers misinterpreted the author's intent—25% even thought the opposite at least once.
Thread 🧵(2/n)
A shocking number of readers misinterpreted the author's intent—25% even thought the opposite at least once.
Thread 🧵(2/n)