This is great thanks. It indeed matches the spirit very much.

I think these answer your questions. It is not that certain stimuli are missing, but just people do not exist with opinions in the top left or bottom right. At least not for the type of naturalistic stimuli we have used. (I am sure one can create terrible arguments for stuff you believe in though.)

Very well deserved, I loved it. A beautiful combination of insightful patient stories that tell us a lot about personal identity.

See the same pattern for our Experiments 2 and 3 here. In Experiment 3, we added additional topics (e.g., Separating church from state causes more harm than good.) and more thoroughly controlled argument quality in three levels (good, internally inconsistent, and authority-based).

The pattern in the average data also holds for each of the arguments (each line/colour per panel is one specific argument). People who think a claim (e.g., "abortion should be legal") is false find the corresponding argument is bad; people who think the claim is true think the argument is good.

No. This is the precursor. Calvin is currently writing the SDT paper up. To model the confidence-rating data with SDT, we ended up using a custom brms family that we previously used here: doi.org/10.31234/osf...