Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Abstract
This book attempts to resolve the Great Rationality Debate in cognitive science—the debate about how much irrationality to ascribe to human cognition. It shows how the insights of dual-process theory and evolutionary psychology can be combined to explain why humans are sometimes irrational even though they possess remarkably adaptive cognitive machinery. The book argues that to characterize fully differences in rational thinking, we need to replace dual-process theories with tripartite models of cognition. Using a unique individual differences approach, it shows that the traditional second system (System 2) of dual-process theory must be further divided into the reflective mind and the algorithmic mind. Distinguishing them gives a better appreciation of the significant differences in their key functions: the key function of the reflective mind is to detect the need to interrupt autonomous processing and to begin simulation activities, whereas that of the algorithmic mind is to sustain the processing of decoupled secondary representations in cognitive simulation. The book then uses this algorithmic/reflective distinction to develop a taxonomy of cognitive errors made on tasks in the heuristics and biases literature. It presents the empirical data to show that the tendency to make these thinking errors is not highly related to intelligence. Using a tripartite model of cognition, the book shows how, when both are properly defined, rationality is a more encompassing construct than intelligence, and that IQ tests fail to assess individual differences in rational thought. It then goes on to discuss the types of thinking processes that would be measured if rational thinking were to be assessed as IQ has been.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271 · see citing works
Self-citationWhy do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254 · see citing works
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.12001 · Cited by 1,381 · see citing works
Self-citationRenaissance of case research as a scientific method
Ketokivi, M. A., & Choi, T. Y. (2014) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.004 · Cited by 1,312 · see citing works
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302 · see citing works
The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory
Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2015.1007651 · Cited by 1,282 · see citing works
The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1 · Cited by 1,047 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.844729 · Cited by 864 · see citing works
Self-citationNudge and the Manipulation of Choice
Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013) · European Journal of Risk Regulation · doi:10.1017/s1867299x00002762 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Climate‐Science Communication and the Measurement Problem
Kahan, D. M. (2015) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12244 · Cited by 717 · see citing works
Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12003214 · Cited by 652 · see citing works
Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712 · Cited by 605 · see citing works
Reasoning in Organization Science
Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. A. (2012) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0188 · Cited by 603 · see citing works
Modelling with stakeholders – Next generation
Voinov, A. A., Kolagani, N., McCall, M. K., Glynn, P. D., Kragt, M. E., Ostermann, F., Pierce, S. A., & Ramu, P. (2015) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016 · Cited by 601 · see citing works
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines.
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000729 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Pennycook, G., Allan Cheyne, J., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006999 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Stanovich, K. E. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0003 · Cited by 532 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001 · Cited by 474 · see citing works
Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413480174 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
Self-citationMisconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition
Kahan, D. M. (2017) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2973067 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: Placing the adolescent brain in developmental context
Römer, D., Reyna, V. F., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2017) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Meta-Reasoning: Monitoring and Control of Thinking and Reasoning
Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.004 · Cited by 400 · see citing works
Neys, W. D. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611429354 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Intuition and Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2010.521057 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot.
West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028857 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Self-citationDual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2011) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.007 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory
Bagó, B., & Neys, W. D. (2016) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.014 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Kahan, D. M. (2016) · Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
Kahan, D. M. (2012) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Miserliness in human cognition: the interaction of detection, override and mindware
Stanovich, K. E. (2018) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1459314 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Self-citationSchneider, C., Weinmann, M., & Brocke, J. V. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3213765 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Salvaging the concept of nudge
Saghai, Y. (2013) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100727 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x13002197 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2020) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2020.1786388 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Digital Behaviour Change Interventions to Break and Form Habits
Pinder, C., Vermeulen, J., Cowan, B. R., & Beale, R. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3196830 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Kaufman, S. B. (2013) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.33 · Cited by 229 · see citing works
Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis.
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J., Marks, A. D. G., & Hine, D. W. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000027 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Conflict, metacognition, and analytic thinking
Thompson, V. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2014) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.869763 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-011-0093-6 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Self-citationBats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools
Neys, W. D., Rossi, S., & Houdé, O. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0384-5 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Individual differences in the newsvendor problem: Behavior and cognitive reflection
Moritz, B. B., Hill, A. V., & Donohue, K. L. (2012) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.11.006 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Apps That Motivate: a Taxonomy of App Features Based on Self-Determination Theory
Villalobos-Zúñiga, G., & Cherubini, M. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102449 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking
Neys, W. D. (2022) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x2200142x · Cited by 191 · see citing works
The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence
Mercier, H. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.003 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Self-citationSubtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking
Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. S. B. T. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1100001x · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
A dual‐system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice
Dhar, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.002 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
An integrated model of clinical reasoning: dual‐process theory of cognition and metacognition
Marcum, J. A. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01900.x · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034910 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Self-citationStrategy selection as rational metareasoning.
Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2017) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000075 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Stanovich, K. E. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0022 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Self-citationBase rates: Both neglected and intuitive.
Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S. J., & Thompson, V. A. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0034887 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Heitzmann, N., Seidel, T., Hetmanek, A., Wecker, C., Fischer, M. R., Ufer, S., Schmidmaier, R., Neuhaus, B. J., Siebeck, M., Stürmer, K., et al. (2019) · Frontline Learning Research · doi:10.14786/flr.v7i4.384 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization
Dimara, E., Franconeri, S., Catherine Plaisant, B., Bezerianos, A., & Dragicevic, P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2872577 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced
Matute, H., Blanco, F., Yarritu, I., Díaz‐Lago, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Barberia, I. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
New Paradigms in the Psychology of Reasoning
Oaksford, M., & Nick Chater, A. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051132 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2011.637674 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citationCognitive Biases in Performance Evaluations
Andersen, S. C., & Hjortskov, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muv036 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Kahan, D. M. (2014) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1148067 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Dual processing model of medical decision-making
Djulbegović, B., Hozo, I., Beckstead, J. W., Tsalatsanis, A., & Pauker, S. G. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-94 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Theory and Metatheory in the Study of Dual Processing
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691613483774 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1125787 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Self-citationThe smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking
Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & Neys, W. D. (2020) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104381 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Dual Process Theories in Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics: a Critical Review
Grayot, J. D. (2019) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-019-00446-9 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Cugurullo, F., & Acheampong, R. A. (2023) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01598-6 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Chadwick, A., & Stanyer, J. (2021) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtab019 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Beyond dichotomies in reinforcement learning
Collins, A. G. E., & Cockburn, J. (2020) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-020-0355-6 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
On Dual- and Single-Process Models of Thinking
Neys, W. D. (2021) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620964172 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
The ‘whys’ and ‘whens’ of individual differences in thinking biases
Neys, W. D., & Bonnefon, J. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.001 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Mikušková, E. B. (2020) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/1359105320962266 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Fast or Slow: Sociological Implications of Measuring Dual-Process Cognition
Moore, R. (2017) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v4.a9 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
MacIntyre, T. E., Igou, E. R., Campbell, M. J., Moran, A. P., & Matthews, J. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01155 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Culturally antagonistic memes and the Zika virus: an experimental test
Kahan, D. M., Jamieson, K. H., Landrum, A. R., & Winneg, K. M. (2016) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1260631 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research
(2013) · Converging evidence in language and communication research · doi:10.1075/celcr · Cited by 116 · see citing works
The relationship between schizotypal facets and conspiracist beliefs via cognitive processes.
Barron, D. S., Furnham, A., Weis, L., Morgan, K., Towell, T., & Swami, V. (2018) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.001 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
The Selective Laziness of Reasoning
Trouche, E., Johansson, P., Hall, L., & Mercier, H. (2016) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12303 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Cognitive reflection, cognitive intelligence, and cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis
Otero, I., Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2021) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101614 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Newman, I. R., Gibb, M., & Thompson, V. A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000372 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Dual-Process Theories of Deductive Reasoning: Facts and Fallacies
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0008 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Adaptive expertise in medical decision making
Croskerry, P. (2018) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2018.1484898 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000482 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Adamkovič, M., & Martončik, M. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01784 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Metacognition matters in many ways
Kuhn, D. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1988603 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Glynn, P. D., Voinov, A. A., Shapiro, C. D., & White, P. A. (2017) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000487 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
“Many of the biases and heuristics are discussed by behavioral scientists [Tversky and Kahneman, 1974, 1981; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1984; Stanovich, 2010], are being investigated in neurobiology [De Martino et al., 2006], and are being used to suggest critical improvements in the implementation…”
BackgroundHomo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality
Rathbun, B. C., Kertzer, J. D., & Paradis, M. (2017) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818316000412 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Actively Open-Minded Thinking and Its Measurement
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11020027 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Self-citationAnalytic thinking: do you feel like it?
Thompson, V. L., & Morsanyi, K. (2012) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-012-0100-6 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
The Doubting System 1: Evidence for automatic substitution sensitivity
Johnson, E. D. M., Tubau, E., & Neys, W. D. (2015) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.12.008 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Skagerlund, K., Forsblad, M., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00970 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Noone, C., Bunting, B. P., & Hogan, M. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02043 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Dynamic inference and everyday conditional reasoning in the new paradigm
Oaksford, M., & Nick Chater, A. (2013) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.808163 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Bagó, B., & Neys, W. D. (2019) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1552194 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Explanation Fiends and Foes: How Mechanistic Detail Determines Understanding and Preference
Fernbach, P. M., Sloman, S. A., Louis, R. D. S., & Shube, J. N. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/667782 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Decision Making and Cognition in Multi‐Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study
Narayanan, A., & Moritz, B. B. (2015) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.12343 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines
Bago, B., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/29b4j · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Doidge, J., Flora, D. B., & Toplak, M. E. (2018) · Journal of Attention Disorders · doi:10.1177/1087054718815588 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Elqayam, S., & Over, D. E. (2013) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.841591 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stanovich, K.
- Corresponding author
- Stanovich, Keith
- ORCID
- Stanovich, Keith
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2010-12-03
- OpenAlex
- W654145152
- Cited by
- 1,041
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 16.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- rationality, dual-process theory, cognitive simulation, cognitive errors, heuristics and biases, individual differences, intelligence, intelligence testing, System 2, evolutionary psychology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
