A political philosopher's reflections on politics, philosophy, science, medicine and law. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity" (Immanuel Kant, 1784).
posted by Colin Farrelly at 1:32 PM
Why do some social problems seem so intractable? In a series of experiments, we show that people often respond to decreases in the prevalence of a stimulus by expanding their concept of it. When blue dots became rare, participants began to see purple dots as blue; when threatening faces became rare, participants began to see neutral faces as threatening; and when unethical requests became rare, participants began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This “prevalence-induced concept change” occurred even when participants were forewarned about it and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it. Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them.
From the conclusion of the study:
Although modern societies have made extraordinary progress in solving a wide range of social problems, from poverty and illiteracy to violence and infant mortality (22, 23), the majority of people believe that the world is getting worse (24). The fact that concepts grow larger when their instances grow smaller may be one source of that pessimism.
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 4:07 PM
Of course, many things can influence voters, including misinformation from other humans they interact with in direct face-to-face conversations, as well as misinformation they are exposed to from online and offline media, etc. So I think it will be a long time before it is clear whether this type of influence is a particularly insidious threat to democracy or not. It is certainly an interesting issue worth keeping an eye on. In the meantime, we should continue to take seriously the critical thinking skills we aspire to cultivate and refine in the citizenry through our institutions of education.
Here are the study abstracts:
There is great public concern about the potential use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) for political persuasion and the resulting impacts on elections and democracy1,2,3,4,5,6. We inform these concerns using pre-registered experiments to assess the ability of large language models to influence voter attitudes. In the context of the 2024 US presidential election, the 2025 Canadian federal election and the 2025 Polish presidential election, we assigned participants randomly to have a conversation with an AI model that advocated for one of the top two candidates. We observed significant treatment effects on candidate preference that are larger than typically observed from traditional video advertisements7,8,9. We also document large persuasion effects on Massachusetts residents’ support for a ballot measure legalizing psychedelics. Examining the persuasion strategies9 used by the models indicates that they persuade with relevant facts and evidence, rather than using sophisticated psychological persuasion techniques. Not all facts and evidence presented, however, were accurate; across all three countries, the AI models advocating for candidates on the political right made more inaccurate claims. Together, these findings highlight the potential for AI to influence voters and the important role it might play in future elections.
AND
Many fear that we are on the precipice of unprecedented manipulation by large language models (LLMs), but techniques driving their persuasiveness are poorly understood. In the initial “pretrained” phase, LLMs may exhibit flawed reasoning. Their power unlocks during vital “posttraining,” when developers refine pretrained LLMs to sharpen their reasoning and align with users’ needs. Posttraining also enables LLMs to maintain logical, sophisticated conversations. Hackenburg et al. examined which techniques made diverse, conversational LLMs most persuasive across 707 British political issues (see the Perspective by Argyle). LLMs were most persuasive after posttraining, especially when prompted to use facts and evidence (information) to argue. However, information-dense LLMs produced the most inaccurate claims, raising concerns about the spread of misinformation during rollouts of future models. —Ekeoma Uzogara
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 7:22 PM
posted by Colin Farrelly at 6:25 AM
posted by Colin Farrelly at 12:46 PM
posted by Colin Farrelly at 8:32 PM
Nature news has the scoop on this fascinating study on creative hobbies and brain aging. A sample from the news item:
Overall, all four creative pursuits seemed to delay brain ageing. The more skilled and experienced participants were at their chosen activity, the slower their brain aged. This anti-ageing effect was strongest in expert tango dancers, whose brains were, on average, seven years younger than their chronological age. Tango’s cognitively demanding mix of complex movement sequences, coordination and planning makes it a particularly good activity for keeping the brain young, says Ibáñez.
And the study's abstract:
Creative experiences may enhance brain health, yet metrics and mechanisms remain elusive. We characterized brain health using brain clocks, which capture deviations from chronological age (i.e., accelerated or delayed brain aging). We combined M/EEG functional connectivity (N = 1,240) with machine learning support vector machines, whole-brain modeling, and Neurosynth metanalyses. From this framework, we reanalyzed previously published datasets of expert and matched non-expert participants in dance, music, visual arts, and video games, along with a pre/post-learning study (N = 232). We found delayed brain age across all domains and scalable effects (expertise>learning). The higher the level of expertise and performance, the greater the delay in brain age. Age-vulnerable brain hubs showed increased connectivity linked to creativity, particularly in areas related to expertise and creative experiences. Neurosynth analysis and computational modeling revealed plasticity-driven increases in brain efficiency and biophysical coupling, in creativity-specific delayed brain aging. Findings indicate a domain‑independent link between creativity and brain health.
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 6:22 AM
I am the Sir Edward Peacock Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Political Studies, Queen's University (Cross-appointed with Philosophy) in Canada.
