Dario Krpan

This proposal identifies the fundamental problem of being as the non-understanding of how structures of matter operating at different scales contribute to an organism’s ability to act, and of how the brain uses interactions among these structures to maintain its own functioning and that of the organism as a whole. It presents a theoretical framework intended to establish a conceptual basis for understanding this problem and to demonstrate how it functions across different contexts. Its central concepts include products of thought, outcomes of products of thought, tartemins, personal actions, Activity, deflection of boredom, and the network of Activity. Through a set of theoretical and implicational postulates, the proposal examines the relationships among matter, mind, action, and human intellectual functioning. It applies this framework to problems concerning knowledge, logic, free will, personal identity, communication, education, language, psychological functioning, societal organization, the mind-body problem, and the historical development of culture. Its broader aim is to transform the problem of being from a primarily metaphysical question into a functional problem of action and to provide a basis for connecting philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics, history, science, literature, and art within a single conceptual approach.

Behavioural spillovers refer to the influence that a given intervention targeting behaviour 1 exerts on a subsequent, non-targeted, behaviour 2, which may or may not be in the same domain (health, finance etc.) as one another. So, a nudge to exercise more, for example, could lead people to eat more or less, or possibly even to give more or less to charity depending on the nature of the spillover. But what if spillovers also operate backwards; that is, if the expectation of behaviour 1 influences behaviour 0 that precedes it? For example, a person may form an intention to exercise prompted by a policy intervention but overeat at present as a result. We define such a possibility as a "spillunder". In the proposed article, we critically review the few papers that we have identified through a narrative literature review which have demonstrated spillunder effects to date, and we propose a conceptual framework. Based on evidence about the human mind and behaviour from psychology and economics, we argue that spillunder effects may be more common than the limited empirical findings suggest. We propose six representative mechanisms through which the prospect of behaviour 1 may impact behaviour 0: executive functions, moral licensing and moral cleansing, emotion regulation, energization, construal level, and savouring and dread. We further discuss the policy and practical implications of spillunder effects and examine methodological issues that need to be considered when empirically testing these effects. As with our earlier paper on spillovers, we aim to motivate other behavioural scientists to research behavioural spillunders more systematically and extensively, and to prompt decision makers to consider these effects when designing behavioural interventions.

This paper explores whether people are more likely to recognize inconsistency in others’ judgments than in their own, and if so, why. It reports two pre-registered online experiments with samples representative of the UK population (N = 814 and N = 1,623). In Study 1, people are more likely to recognize inconsistency in others’ moral (and non-moral) judgments than in their own. Study 2 replicates this finding and tests three explanations: (i) motivated reasoning, (ii) selective cognitive effort, and (iii) limited insight into others’ reasoning. Ad (i), because people’s susceptibility to motivated reasoning is said to diminish when people must account for their judgments, the presence of motivated reasoning was examined by manipulating social accountability. No effect was found. Ad (ii), while people spent significantly more time (a proxy for cognitive effort) on reviewing others’ consistency than their own, this explained only a fraction of the greater rate at which inconsistencies in others’ reasoning were recognized. Ad (iii), using low confidence in consistency evaluations as a proxy for limited insight, the study did not find support for the limited insight hypothesis. The finding that people are better at recognizing inconsistency in others’ moral judgments aligns with the idea that moral consistency reasoning is a social device that operates best when we interact with others, but more research is needed to uncover the psychological mechanisms behind this effect.

This paper explores whether people are more likely to recognize inconsistency in others’ judgments than in their own, and if so, why. It reports two pre-registered online experiments with samples representative of the UK population (N = 814 and N = 1,623). In Study 1, people are more likely to recognize inconsistency in others’ moral (and non-moral) judgments than in their own. Study 2 replicates this finding and tests three explanations: (i) motivated reasoning, (ii) selective cognitive effort, and (iii) limited insight into others’ reasoning. Ad (i), because people’s susceptibility to motivated reasoning is said to diminish when people must account for their judgments, the presence of motivated reasoning was examined by manipulating social accountability. No effect was found. Ad (ii), while people spent significantly more time (a proxy for cognitive effort) on reviewing others’ consistency than their own, this explained only a fraction of the greater rate at which inconsistencies in others’ reasoning were recognized. Ad (iii), using low confidence in consistency evaluations as a proxy for limited insight, the study did not find support for the limited insight hypothesis. The finding that people are better at recognizing inconsistency in others’ moral judgments aligns with the idea that moral consistency reasoning is a social device that operates best when we interact with others, but more research is needed to uncover the psychological mechanisms behind this effect.