//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Cognitive scientist, writer, podcaster. Interested in the diversity of communication & cognition. Language, gesture, concepts, time, space, metaphor. Host of Many Minds (@manymindspod.bsky.social) www.kensycooperrider.com
Kensy Cooperrider









Loading...
So many chewy questions in this one! Generally fascinated by the idea of "cryptic" word knowledge—understanding that's hard to detect. I suspect there's a lot more of this out there than we've uncovered so far, especially in dogs...
This all obviously interacts with questions of "Do I have bandwith?" and "Do I want to do the inviting editor a favor?"—but, leaving those aside...
What heuristics should we be using when deciding whether to accept a review request? I toggle between a few: - Does it look cool? - Would I be helpful to the authors? - Am I especially well-positioned to comment? But these are often in conflict. Anyone have helpful frameworks / rules of thumb?