RT @CogDevCeu: Final Reminder! 🌟 Don't miss your chance to apply for the 15th BCCCD meeting in Budapest, Hungary (Jan 9-11, 2025)! 🤓 🗓️ S…

RT @OdedRechavi: What’s happening in Israel? Please read and share this thread that I wrote to help clarify the dramatic (and complicated)…

RT @pevchikh: 1/20 Dear friends, I need to draw your attention to something super bad and super important (and it doesn’t originate from Ru…

RT @TheDissenterYT: New episode (708), with Dr. Denis Tatone (@Denis_Tatone): Interpreting Giving and Taking Actions, and the Development o…

RT @MNehzati: I'm finally out of Iran and feel safe enough to talk about the situation publicly with an account bearing my name. The crackd…

Which EU country has just taken a loan from Russia at an undisclosed interest rate?

RT @Denis_Tatone: Tweeps, any good paper providing an account for the seemingly robust difference in East vs. West cultures in producing di…

RT @CECOG3: We are pleased to announce the 14th Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science, devoted to the topic of 'Mechanisms of Collectiv…

@eszter_cs *blinding

RT @CogDevCeu: We developed an iPad game for studying some aspects of social cognition (especially, partner choice) in children (and also i…

@eszter_cs No, but they (1) are less likely to be competitors than the reviewers on the topic of the paper, (2) would read not just the paper but also the reviews, and (3) are not anonymous. And if the reviewers are not requested to recommend a verdict, they are forced to justify their own.

This is why I always (try to) refuse to recommend a decision: Editors, please read my arguments, consider their validity, and make up your own mind. 4/4

@KordingLab No

@RachelRRomeo I always decline such requests. Authors deserve a new set of reviewers. After all, I might have been wrong in my previous assessment.

When was it the last time (before today) when a European leader warned against mixing human races?

@dansperber It is indeed an insightful paper. Highly recommended!