This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Here are my Research Blogging Editor's Selections for this week.
A post by Bradley Voytek on Oscillatory Thoughtsabout an article by Mo Costandi in Natureabout a paper by Dan Simons and colleagues, about research methodology and video game studies. Voytek writes, "It amazes me how many meta peer-review papers are written that simply reiterate basic research and/or statistical methodologies."
"Humans are consistently and bafflingly overconfident. We consider ourselves more skilled, more in control, and less vulnerable to danger than we really are. You might expect evolution to have weeded out the brawl-starters and the X-Gamers from the gene pool and left our species with a firmer grasp of our own abilities," writes Elizabeth Preston at the Inkfish blog. So why are humans so arrogant anyway?
That's it for this week... Check back next week for more great psychology and neuroscience blogging!