Log — Psychology Wiki

Append-only history. Entries start with ## [YYYY-MM-DD] <op> | <title> (split · ingest · query · lint).

[2026-07-28] split | psychology-wiki created from the hub _inbox (3 sources)

Spun out by the hub router when kahneman-focusing-illusion arrived with no spoke to take it and completed a cluster of mind-science strays: jung-on-creativity (psychology-creativity, parked 2026-07-23) and human-mouse-perceptual-maps (neuroscience, parked 2026-07-12).

Why these three cohere. Both parked records name the same problem — no spoke owns psychology — and both were declined by ../philosophy-wiki for the same reason: it owns philosophy proper, and a psychiatrist or an experimentalist is a different discipline. Depth psychology, judgment-and-decision research and psychophysics are three sub-fields of one academic subject; all three sources would sit in a psychology department, and one of them was published in Communications Psychology. That is a tighter shared subject than the tag names suggested.

Corroborating signal: the hub already had a dangling reference to this body of thought. ../defensive-security-wiki's soc-fast-slow-thinking designs a two-tier SOC on Kahneman's System 1/2, borrowing a framework no spoke owned. A wiki that cites a discipline it can't link to is evidence the discipline needs a home.

Founding pages: 3 sources + 4 concepts (focusing-illusion, heuristics-and-biases, analytical-psychology, perceptual-learning) + 2 people (daniel-kahneman, carl-jung)

• spine.

Recorded as founding weaknesses, not discovered later. Two of the three sources are essayists' second-hand accounts (one on a general-interest outlet), nothing has been read in the original, and the corpus spans three incompatible standards of evidence — which synthesis turns into the founding tension rather than hiding: claims here get more interesting and less checkable in the same direction. CLAUDE.md carries a standing evidence caveat about replication. Named next ingest: the 2006 Science income-happiness paper, primary.

avoid-ai-writing run over the founding prose. Site rebuilt + verified at the clean rung, as the hub requires for a split.

[2026-07-28] ingest | six sources, batched: Kahneman, Sapolsky ×2, free-will effects, Fromm, Freud

Six sources arrived within ~40 minutes of each other, all psychology and heavily interlinked, so they were ingested as one batch rather than six passes. Pre-routed by the hub. Sources: thinking-fast-and-slow (Wikipedia, T2) · determined (Wikipedia, T2) · the-trouble-with-testosterone (Google Books listing, T4) · free-will-belief-effects (The Conversation, T3) · erich-fromm (Wikipedia, T2) · sigmund-freud (Wikipedia, T2). New: 3 books + 1 article + 3 people (sigmund-freud, robert-sapolsky, erich-fromm) + 2 concepts (free-will, replication-crisis). Updated: heuristics-and-biases (two selves + the peak-end rule; the replication damage), focusing-illusion (why the happiness studies disagree), daniel-kahneman, carl-jung, analytical-psychology, synthesis (three new sections, two open questions), index.

Four things this batch establishes:

1. The founding synthesis's top gap is partly closed, but not the way it asked. It named the primary literature as the highest-value next ingest; what arrived is Wikipedia about the primary literature. thinking-fast-and-slow does deliver the thing the corpus most needed — the experiencing vs remembering self — which explains why the income-happiness studies disagree: they query two different selves, not one quantity badly. The weakness is recorded rather than papered over: this wiki can describe the book and has read neither it nor one study in it.
2. A determinism corner, and the useful move is splitting the question. Does free will exist (metaphysics, ../philosophy-wiki's) / what produced this behaviour (determined) / what happens to people who stop believing in it (free-will-belief-effects, the only measurable one). All three are really about blame — Sapolsky spends his second half on criminal justice, Walton measures punitiveness and shame.
3. The sources arrive arguing about who owns them. Two of determined's four reviewers say a neurobiologist answered a philosophical question (Riskin: scientism; Setiya: ignored the literature). Routed here on the method rule and the objection recorded, not settled — a reflexive check on this spoke's own boundary with ../philosophy-wiki.
4. Evidence became a subject, not just a caveat. thinking-fast-and-slow's own citations fail (Ch. 4 replicability index 14; Kahneman: "I placed too much faith in underpowered studies"), and free-will-belief-effects uses non-replication to clear away the opposing literature while resting on two ~260-person experiments. replication-crisis names both the crisis and that asymmetry: failures get cited against other people's work more readily than one's own. Also: sigmund-freud and erich-fromm complete a depth-psychology line that started mid-way at carl-jung — Freud as origin, Jung deepening the unconscious, Fromm socializing it. Fromm adds social character (the psyche as something an economic order shapes), a genuinely new object here, and is the spoke's hardest philosophy boundary case. Homonym flagged: Fromm's "freedom" (the burden of being unbound) is not the metaphysical freedom of free-will. the-trouble-with-testosterone is the spoke's first T4 and is labelled as such: a catalogue entry that establishes what the book covers and nothing about what it argues. The popular testosterone-and-aggression claim is explicitly not sourced from it. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only). avoid-ai-writing run.

[2026-07-28] ingest | Why writing feels so hard (and how to make it easier) — Lit Hub (lithub.com)

Routed here by the hub (runner-up: none — no spoke owns writing craft, and the substance is psychology). T3: a book excerpt promoting the author's own method (April Dávila, Sit Write Here, St. Martin's Essentials 2026), self-interested by construction, but citing named primary research rather than gesturing at "studies show." New: why-writing-feels-hard (source), flow (concept). Updated: synthesis (two new sections — the citation-chain pattern folded into "Evidence became a subject", and a new section on creativity having two accounts), index. Entities deferred per this spoke's precedent: Dávila and the six named researchers are on the page, not paged — same treatment as Popova, James and Walton.

Finding 1 — a named failure mode: the citation chain terminating in a practice. The essay cites Eisenberger (2004, social pain sharing substrate with physical pain), Baumeister (Bad is Stronger than Good), Chen (2008, social pain re-lived more intensely), Raichle (Default Mode Network), Csikszentmihalyi with Nakamura (flow; 120 bits per second), and Dietrich (transient hypofrontality). Every one is real work, cited accurately enough that spot-checking a reference finds a genuine paper. The argument lives entirely in the joins: Eisenberger's neuroimaging overlap becomes "your brain is genuinely convinced that putting words on a page might kill you," a survival-threat belief about a modern activity none of the cited work tests; the 120-bit figure — whose provenance runs through popular writing, not a measurement — is used as a constant; transient hypofrontality is treated as mechanism rather than the hypothesis it is. And the last join is widest: no cited study is evidence that ten minutes of insight meditation before writing does anything for writing. That's harder to catch than "studies show," because the individual references check out. Recorded as method, not dismissal — the practice may work, the essay just doesn't show it. Also worth noting from inside the citation list: Baumeister is a central figure in the replication-crisis (ego depletion), which the essay doesn't mention. The spoke's standing caveat applies to a source's own bibliography, not just to the source.

Finding 2 — creativity now has two accounts, and they're a test of the spoke's thesis. flow gives an empirical account of making things (a describable state, proposed neural correlates, trainable by practice) directly against jung-on-creativity's depth account (the visionary work arrives from the collective unconscious; the artist is its instrument). Both explain the same fact — good creative work doesn't feel deliberately authored — and disagree about what could settle it. So the founding method spectrum now shows up within one topic rather than across different ones, with the subject held constant and only the method varying. Better test than the founding corpus gave. Weakness recorded on both: each arrived second-hand (an essayist on Jung, a book excerpt on flow) and the spoke still holds no primary literature on either — consistent with the standing note that nothing here has been read in the original. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only). avoid-ai-writing run.

[2026-07-29] ingest | Four therapy books (Hollis · Yalom · Nagoski & Nagoski · Hayes)

Arrived together via Telegram as bare references, two of them in Russian (Джеймс Холлис «Перевал в середине пути» = The Middle Passage; Ирвин Ялом «Вглядываясь в солнце» = Staring at the Sun). None is held as a document — each was verified and summarized from a secondary record, and every page says which one and what that record couldn't establish.

New pages: the-middle-passage (T3, via The Marginalian), staring-at-the-sun (T2, via Wikipedia), a-liberated-mind (T3), burnout-stress-cycle (T3, weakest of the four) · concepts existential-psychotherapy and acceptance-and-commitment-therapy · people irvin-yalom, james-hollis, steven-hayes.

The finding: "clinical" was never a position on the method spectrum. The founding table put clinical interpretation at the untestable end, below psychophysics and survey work. Three of these four books are by practising clinicians and they land at opposite ends of the corpus. Hollis and Yalom are where the table predicts. ACT carries 900+ randomized controlled trials, WHO distribution and APA/VA recognition — a larger evidence base than human-mouse-perceptual-maps, the spoke's only experiment. What the third row was actually measuring is a tradition's relationship to testing, not clinical work. Depth psychology declines the question and behaviour analysis is organised around it; both happen in a consulting room. Synthesis amended rather than appended — the founding table now carries the correction inline.

The old caution survives at a smaller scale. burnout-stress-cycle makes confident physiological claims with thin citation and sits on the same shelf as a-liberated-mind, whose therapy has 900 trials behind it and which cites none of them. Reach and evidence still trade off, at the level of the book rather than the discipline.

Two open questions added, and the second is uncomfortable: what is actually in ACT's 900 trials? This spoke discounted thinking-fast-and-slow's citations on replication grounds and is now crediting ACT's on trial-count grounds, working from a Wikipedia summary in both cases. Flagged as an asymmetry in our own handling, not just a gap. Also logged: the "complete the stress cycle" mechanism is specific enough to test and no source here names a study.

No page for Emily or Amelia Nagoski — per ../ENTITIES.md recursion discipline, one source and no cross-source role yet; both named on the book page. Kate Manne likewise (Human Giver Syndrome is attributed, she's a philosopher and would page in ../philosophy-wiki if she pages anywhere). avoid-ai-writing run. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only, no page moves).

[2026-07-29] ingest | Dopamine Nation (Anna Lembke, 2021)

Fifth book routed here today and the best-evidenced, at T2 — not because the source is stronger but because the criticism is documented. Verified from Lembke's Wikipedia entry plus several critical secondary readings rather than from memory. New pages dopamine-nation, anna-lembke.

The split is unusually clean. Supported: chronic overstimulation degrading reward sensitivity, and abstinence restoring it, is established addiction neuroscience. Disputed: the pleasure-pain seesaw oversimplifies dopamine's relationship to pleasure; "dopamine fasting" names something you cannot do to a neurotransmitter and implies days where desensitization recovery runs weeks; the anti-dopamine framing reads to neuroscientists as an argument that ADHD medication is overprescribed, against the evidence; and addiction specialists hold that the abstinence emphasis undervalues medication-assisted treatment — the one critique with direct consequences for what a patient is told to do. Lembke conceded the central simplification in the New York Times.

It sharpens this morning's amendment a third time. The four therapy books forced "clinical" off the method spectrum as a position. Lembke moves the variable again: she is a Stanford professor with 100+ peer-reviewed papers on exactly this literature, so no credential or tradition axis explains the gap. The variable is register — the same author produced the peer-reviewed record and the trade book her field disputes, and the trade book is what a million readers act on. The founding note of this wiki (popular writing compounds the replication problem) is now visible with both steps inside one career. Also gives the corpus its sharpest evidential contrast: human-mouse-perceptual-maps, one experiment nobody outside the field has heard of, against a household phrase whose author walked back its core.

No concept page for dopamine or the pleasure-pain balance: one source, folded in per the ENTITIES recursion discipline, and flagged here — a second addiction/reward source makes both warranted. Cross-spoke note recorded on the page rather than split: the digital-overstimulation thesis is load-bearing for products in ../web-browsers-wiki (opera-air sells distraction-blocking), which is a commercial reason to want the claim correct. avoid-ai-writing run. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only, no page moves).

[2026-07-29] route | Dopamine Nation (Lembke) → psychology-wiki (runner-up: none)

Fifth book to psychology-wiki today, and it lands in the same clinical corner the morning's four opened. Lembke is a Stanford addiction psychiatrist, so the spoke's method rule (clinicians and experimentalists here, philosophers next door) applies without argument. Routed rather than parked despite arriving as a bare title: verified against Wikipedia plus documented critical reviews, which made it the day's best-evidenced book ingest — the criticism exists, unlike for the other four. It refined psychology-wiki's method-spectrum amendment a third time, moving the variable from discipline to register.

[2026-07-29] ingest | The Body Keeps the Score (van der Kolk 2014)

Arrived via Telegram as a bare Wikipedia lede — note the "purported effects" wording, which is the encyclopedia hedging in the first sentence, and a fair preview of what the entry then documents. Fetched the book entry plus van der Kolk's own; T2, and better evidenced on the critical side than any book routed here so far, because the criticism is peer-reviewed rather than commentary.

Three pages: the-body-keeps-the-score (source), bessel-van-der-kolk (Person), psychological-trauma — the spoke's first clinical subject page, and the first entry under MedicalCondition. No separate page for EMDR or the somatic treatments: one source, folded into the trauma page per the ENTITIES recursion discipline. A second trauma-treatment source makes one warranted. McNally, Cox & Codd and Nietfeld are named but not paged, consistent with how the other books' critics were handled.

Why it moved the synthesis rather than just adding to it: the register finding from dopamine-nation had impressions on both sides. This one has ~300 NYT bestseller weeks against a 2025 BJPsych Bulletin audit of 122 claims. It also breaks the assumption hiding inside the Lembke ingest — that criticism eventually produces a correction. McNally's critique landed in 2003, the book followed in 2014, and the peer-reviewed objections since have moved the readership not at all. And the stakes changed: the named harm is readers steered off CBT, not effort wasted. Opened one question: developmental trauma disorder's actual diagnostic status, which no source here gives and which changes how the whole book reads. avoid-ai-writing run. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only, no page moves).

[2026-08-02] ingest | Death and How to Be More Alive: Carl Jung on Immortality and the Rebirth of Middle Age (The Marginalian)

Routed here by the hub from Telegram. T3 — maria-popova in the-marginalian, 2026-07-31, assembled from Jenny Yates's Jung on Death and Immortality plus letters. Third Popova source in this spoke, second on carl-jung.

Pages. Source summary jung-on-death plus a concept page second-half-of-life. Updated carl-jung (death is his other long subject here), index and synthesis. Two entities created: maria-popova and the-marginalian — deliberately paged now rather than at first contact, because three sources through one essayist is a property of the corpus rather than a coincidence. entity-index matched neither. Wolfgang Pauli and Jenny Yates stay prose mentions: subjects of the material, not agents around it.

The provenance work is the substance of this ingest. Popova quotes at length, names her anthology and dates the material, which is why the wiki now has Jung's own sentences. But the connective argument between the quotes is hers and it is literary: she reads Jung's spaceless, timeless unconscious through his dinner with Einstein and the curvature of spacetime, and none of the Jung she quotes mentions spacetime. Recorded on the source page as the reason the tier is T3, and generalized in synthesis as a standing rule for reading her.

Two smaller flags. The essay is named "Death and the Soul" on first mention and "The Soul and Death" twice after — an inconsistency inside one piece, left unresolved here rather than silently picked. And synchronicity appears as context with no argument attached, so it stays a mention.

Two things it changed in the corpus.

The spoke got its first substantive disagreement between sources. irvin-yalom treats mortality as a given to be faced with no promise about what follows (staring-at-the-sun); Jung calls death the goal of a directed life-process and what follows it "unspeakably glorious." Two clinicians, one fact, incompatible consolations, neither citing the other, and nothing in this corpus could settle it — which places it on the founding methodological tension one layer down.

A lineage arrived backwards. the-middle-passage (ingested 2026-07-29) is james-hollis writing in a Jungian series about a second adulthood; this source is Jung's own version, parabola quote included. second-half-of-life holds both and says what their agreement is worth: a school agreeing with its founder, relayed by the same essayist, is one source wearing two hats.

Content-only, no page moves — verify deferred per the hub's standing policy. avoid-ai-writing run over the new prose.

[2026-08-03] ingest | In the Absence of the Ordinary (Francis Weller, via The Marginalian)

Routed from the hub (Telegram). New: in-the-absence-of-the-ordinary (T3 source summary), francis-weller (Person), grief (DefinedTerm/clinical-subject). Updated: maria-popova + the-marginalian (three sources → four), existential-psychotherapy (the shared instruction), synthesis (new section "Welcome the symptom: three schools, one instruction" + sharpened selection-filter note + two open questions), index. Substance: uncertainty as initiation, grief as apprenticeship, "welcoming all of who we are into the story. Nothing excluded." Third independent statement of the corpus's welcome-the-symptom instruction after the-middle-passage and existential-psychotherapy — three lineages, one stance, no evidence from any of them. acceptance-and-commitment-therapy is the testable relative (900+ trials on a similar stance) and connecting the two is now an open question. New in kind: scale. Weller claims a collective initiation ("we are tumbling through a rough initiation"), where everything else here puts the structure inside a person. Only prior move that way is erich-fromm's social character — and Fromm named a mechanism. Evidence: the far edge of the spoke's method spectrum. T3 rates Popova's transmission, not the content — the quotes are reliable, the statements have no truth conditions ("soul navigates the twining trail between sovereignty and intimacy"). the-middle-passage at least had an untestable mechanism; this has an image. First source here on a subject with a large clinical literature it never mentions, so grief exists mainly to name the gap (prolonged grief disorder, the unsupported stage model, process models) — all explicitly marked as NOT from this source. Selection filter now hard to call subtle: four of the wiki's sources come through one essayist and all four sit at the depth-psychological end. Recorded in synthesis with the correction — the next few sources should come from elsewhere. Entity: francis-weller paged (author). Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only). avoid-ai-writing run.

[2026-08-03] ingest | Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy (David D. Burns, 1980)

Routed from the hub (Telegram, Amazon listing). New: feeling-good (T2 source summary), cognitive-behavioral-therapy (MedicalTherapy), david-d-burns (Person), aaron-beck (Person). Updated: acceptance-and-commitment-therapy (the tradition it departed from), sigmund-freud (Beck's break as a consequence of the untestability objection), synthesis (two new sections + two open questions), index. Fetch: the routed Amazon page gave almost nothing through WebFetch and only carousel junk through Firecrawl; the product-details block yielded the edition facts (William Morrow Paperbacks reprint, 1999-10-01, 736pp, ISBN 978-0380810338, 4.5/5, rank #476,469) and the jacket copy. Argument, reception and the bibliotherapy studies come from the Wikipedia article, so the page is tiered T2 on that with the split stated in a Provenance section and a precedent note added to index. Substance: CBT was a total gap — no page, no Beck, despite the ACT page already contrasting itself with "the cognitive-therapy move". Two findings. (1) First bestseller here that was tested as itself: a meta-analysis of six studies on self-directed bibliotherapy, eleven more on the guided version, Scogin et al. 1989 — reading the book was the intervention, which inverts the corpus's bestseller-then-audit pattern (the-body-keeps-the-score, dopamine-nation, thinking-fast-and-slow). Caveats kept attached: small n, therapist contact in several, 1994 survey. (2) A real contradiction: CBT says correct the distorted thought; acceptance-and-commitment-therapy says disputing it is more entanglement. Same object, opposite operation, both descended from Beck's break, both with large trial literatures and no comparison held here. Unlike Jung-vs-Yalom this one is not beyond evidence, which makes it the most useful contradiction the spoke has. It also gives the "welcome the symptom" instruction (logged yesterday) a rival rather than merely an absence of evidence. Register problem, sharpest instance yet: Burns attacks antidepressant trials for drug-favouring bias while his own jacket says depression can be "cured without drugs" and works "immediately". Distinguished on the page from bessel-van-der-kolk — a modest true claim sold immodestly is not an unsupported claim. No study named here has been read; the meta-analysis has no author/year/journal in the source. Verify deferred per hub policy (content-only). avoid-ai-writing run.

[2026-08-04] ingest | Does Language Determine Thought? (TheCollector)

Routed here by the hub (runner-up: ../philosophy-wiki). T4 — the spoke's second, and its index header demands the justification: record the study behind a claim, or say that a source gave none. This one gave none. It names Sapir and Whorf and no other researcher, offers colour terms and emotion vocabulary as its entire evidence, and its author's stated credential is a BA. Ingested under the soft gate with the weakness recorded, never refused.

Opens a new subject: language and cognition. Flagged as such rather than forced into an existing thread, per the Ingest rule. New pages (2): does-language-determine-thought (source) and sapir-whorf-hypothesis (DefinedTerm). Sapir and Whorf themselves are deferred — the source gives names and a century and no biography, which is below the evidence-only bar; page them when a real source on either arrives.

Where it connects, without forcing it. perceptual-learning is this spoke's account of structure you did not choose — internal maps that form the same way in humans and mice. Linguistic relativity proposes unchosen structure from a different source, one you acquired socially. And where heuristics-and-biases documents systematic error that is species-level equipment, a relativity effect would be systematic error that varies by language community — a category of finding the spoke holds nothing else in.

Filed against ../philosophy-wiki on method, the line both spokes were spun out to hold. The version of this question that survived is empirical: it is settled by testing whether speakers of different languages actually perceive or remember differently, not by arguing about what thought must be. Same call the hub made when it declined to route the Le Guin essay to philosophy for the mirror reason.

Folded into "The corpus's own weak spot" rather than a new dated section. It sharpens that section into a stronger claim: the spoke's problem was "we read about primary work instead of reading it," and this is the first case of an entire subject entering the corpus without its evidence base being touched at all. New growth edge #4 — experimental work on language and categorization.

[2026-08-05] ingest | The Dunning-Kruger effect isn't what everyone thinks it is (Silicon Canals)

Routed by the hub from Telegram. dunning-kruger-misread — Justin Brown, Silicon Canals, 5 August 2026. T3. Popular corrective on what Kruger & Dunning (1999) measured, what the internet turned it into, and the twenty-year argument over whether the effect is real.

New pages (4): dunning-kruger-misread (source, NewsArticle), dunning-kruger-effect (DefinedTerm, cognitive-bias), plus two entity nodes — silicon-canals (NewsMediaOrganization) and justin-brown (Person). Updated (5): heuristics-and-biases, replication-crisis, synthesis.md, index.md, this log.

Tier reasoning. Six studies named, three with authors. That is well above does-language-determine-thought (T4, cited nobody) and short of anything primary. The publisher's own about page discloses AI-assisted drafting with human editorial judgment, sourced-and-linked claims and 48-hour corrections — a stronger stated process than the-marginalian, and it caps at T3 for the same reason: the review is of the writing, not of the science. The 2021 Nature replication, the strongest evidence in the piece, arrives with no authors and no title.

Why it matters more than a debunking post normally would. Two things the corpus did not have.

A fourth failure mode, and it is not weak evidence. The 2022 Frontiers in Psychology case is that noise on a bounded scale reproduces the Dunning-Kruger pattern in data with no effect in it. That is the opposite complaint from non-replication: the result never vanishes, and bigger samples sharpen the artifact instead of exposing it. replication-crisis got a new section for it, and it lands on heuristics-and-biases where the programme is most exposed — systematic rather than random was the claim that made it a science, and a floor plus a bounded scale supplies systematic direction free.

The first named finding that held. A 2021 Nature replication, ~4,000 participants in each of two studies, supporting the metacognitive reading. Open question 1 asked which heuristics-and-biases results survived; this is the first answer of any kind, and it arrives beside an argument that surviving would not settle it either way. Recorded as partial.

Also a new kind of distortion. Every overreach on file here has an author at the end of it — a jacket, a bestseller, a practice being sold. This one accumulated downstream: the paper has no time axis, measured performance and self-estimate in one sitting, and never contained the "Mount Stupid" curve. Synthesis gained "The distortion with no author behind it."

Entities. Created 2 of a budget of 8. Dunning and Kruger deliberately not paged — ../ENTITIES.md discovers the agents around a source, not its subject, and they are the subject; the source also supplies no affiliation, biography or second work to page them from. Noted in index.md beside the standing Tversky deferral. entity-index returned two MATCH hits (david-d-burns for "David Dunning", justin-le for "Justin Kruger") — both fuzzy first/last-name collisions on different people, overridden by judgment as the tool's output invites.

Growth edge 4 added: the Dunning-Kruger primary literature. The spoke now holds a contested finding, four studies arguing over it, and none of the papers — edges 1 and 2 in their sharpest form, and four of the five are identifiable from what this source gives.

Selection. Answers the standing note that sources should stop arriving via one essayist. A tech newsroom arguing about a specific published result is the experimental end the Popova run never got near.

[2026-08-05] ingest | Kruger & Dunning (1999) + Magnus & Peresetsky (2022) — both primaries

Curator instruction after the Silicon Canals route: "get the 1999 paper and the 2022 critique." Both fetched and read in full. The spoke's first two T1 sources and its first primary research of any kind — growth edge 1 (zero peer-reviewed sources) is closed.

New pages (7): kruger-dunning-1999 and magnus-peresetsky-2022 (sources, ScholarlyArticle, both T1); entity nodes david-dunning, justin-kruger, jan-magnus, anatoly-peresetsky (Person) and cornell-university (CollegeOrUniversity). Rewritten: dunning-kruger-effect — now written from the papers rather than from a summary of them. Updated: dunning-kruger-misread, replication-crisis, heuristics-and-biases, synthesis.md, index.md, this log.

Fetching. The 1999 PDF needed the firecrawl fallback after two dead mirrors (avc.edu 404s, atlas.org serves a viewer shell); the Michigan SASI copy scraped clean at 72 KB. The 2022 paper is open access at Frontiers. Citation and abstract for the 1999 paper cross-checked against PubMed (PMID 10626367).

The finding this ingest exists for. magnus-peresetsky-2022 argues the DK pattern is a statistical artifact — a three-parameter doubly-censored tobit model, noise plus a random floor and ceiling and no psychological term, fits 665 students' self-predicted exam grades almost perfectly ("there is an effect, but it does not reflect human nature"). It never engages Study 4. kruger-dunning-1999 anticipated the regression objection in print, twice, and built Study 4 against it: ten minutes of logic training moved the trained bottom quartile from an estimated 55th percentile to the 44th and from "5.3 correct" to "1.0 correct," while an untrained control did not move. Censoring cannot produce that. In a smaller slip pointing the same way, Magnus and Peresetsky state that top-performer underestimation was "not discussed in Kruger and Dunning (1999)" — it has a titled section there, The Burden of Expertise, with a false-consensus account and a phase of Study 3 built to test it.

No secondary source in this corpus reports that gap, and neither paper alone shows it. It is visible only from holding both, which is the clearest justification the spoke's method has yet had. Filed as a new contradiction in synthesis.md (its first between two peer-reviewed sources) and as a new subsection on what reading primaries actually bought.

Self-correction. Working from dunning-kruger-misread this morning, the spoke wrote that the 2022 analysis showed the pattern arising "in data with no effect in it." The model is fitted to real exam predictions and the claim is that the fit needs no psychological parameter. Corrected on dunning-kruger-effect with the change marked in place, per the never-silently-overwrite rule, and scored against the source on dunning-kruger-misread.

Entities. 5 new nodes, budget 8, depth 1. david-dunning and justin-kruger were correctly deferred on the morning's ingest (subject of a source, which ../ENTITIES.md excludes) and qualify now as its authors — a clean worked example of the rule, noted in index.md. VU Amsterdam and HSE Moscow left as plain mentions: bounded and real, but unlikely to recur in this spoke, and cornell-university earns its node because the entire 1999 evidence base is one undergraduate pool in cells of 11–37.

Evidence caveat applied. Both papers' limits recorded on their pages: Cornell undergraduates throughout for 1999 plus the humour study's shaky inter-rater criterion, which the authors concede; for 2022, the authors' own note that only 14% of observations exceed 60, plus the unstated and larger one that a single cross-sectional dataset is the whole basis.

Growth edges rewritten. Edge 1 closed. Edge 2 (second-hand accounts everywhere else) is now the top edge and the 2006 Science income-happiness paper is the named next target. Edge 4 narrowed to the literature still missing — Krueger & Mueller (2002) and Kruger & Dunning's published reply first, to see whether the earlier round of this argument also passed Study 4 by.

[2026-08-09] ingest | Epictetus via Space Daily — a popular source that got Dunning-Kruger right

Arrived by Telegram; routed here by the hub over ../philosophy-wiki (logged there as runner-up). The Epictetus quote is the frame, but the substance is metacognition and the accuracy of a popular account of a bias this spoke already holds five pages on. Same author and series as kahneman-focusing-illusion. T3.

New pages: epictetus-learning-spacedaily (source), illusion-of-explanatory-depth (concept), mal-james (Person) and space-daily (Organization) — both entities paged on their second source, per ../ENTITIES.md.

Two things it added.

1. A mechanism the corpus lacked. Fisher, Goddu and Keil (Yale, 2015; nine experiments): searching the internet inflates felt understanding without changing knowledge. It gets merged with dunning-kruger-effect constantly and should not be — rank versus depth, arrived-with versus inducible. The distinction is now on its own page and in synthesis.
2. A counter-case to the spoke's own drift. synthesis had been treating the runaway Dunning-Kruger myth as the thing a popular source relays by default. This one relays the correction, citing Eric Gaze in Scientific American, in the genre most exposed to the myth. The lesson recorded is that genre is not a proxy for accuracy: does-language-determine-thought is T4 for citing nobody while a daily quote column cites four researchers.

Weaknesses recorded. Every study at second hand — the Yale work gets three authors and a year but no title or venue; the Gaze critique gets no date. And the essay welds two different problems together without noticing: Epictetus describes someone who will not begin, Fisher's subjects are willing and simply miscalibrated. Motivation against calibration, and the remedy differs.

[2026-08-10] ingest | Dysgraphia via dyslexia — the first developmental disorder, and an undisclosed interest

Routed from the hub (Telegram). Psychology Today, coral-ps-hoh, 2026-08-09. T3 — edited, reviewed and referenced, which is this spoke's ceiling for popular writing.

New pages: dysgraphia-via-dyslexia (source), dysgraphia and dyslexia (MedicalCondition), coral-ps-hoh (Person), psychology-today (Organization; entity-index returned nothing ≥ threshold).

What it opens. The spoke's first developmental learning disorder, and its first subject where the interesting question is an intervention rather than an explanation. The argument: dysgraphia is a language disorder the name points away from — a child who can't retain a word copies it letter by letter, and the messy page is what's left after that effort — so treat it with the dyslexia remediation evidence rather than with classroom accommodations.

Two things recorded against it.

The sourcing is unusually good and the load-bearing weld still isn't tested. Four references with volumes and pages (Chung 2020; Han & Wang 2025; Berninger 2009, 2002) — better than anything else in the popular shelf here. But nothing cited compares corrective against compensatory outcomes, which is the claim the piece exists to make. Third instance of the citation chain terminating in a practice pattern, with the untested join moved from mechanism to comparison.

No disclosure. Hoh is CEO of EduNational LLC and the piece argues against the free thing (extra time, oral testing) and for the purchasable one. That doesn't make her wrong — Berninger's research predates her — but it is what a reader can't see. Second instance after anna-lembke, and the venue's model makes it structural rather than personal.

Also folded in: the corpus now has two accounts of why writing is hard — why-writing-feels-hard's social-threat story and this linguistic one — which don't conflict because they address different populations. And dyslexia is paged deliberately thin: the whole argument transfers dyslexia's evidence and this wiki holds none of it. A dyslexia remediation outcome study is now worth more here than a second dysgraphia source.

Prevalence flagged, not corrected: "an estimated 20% of the population," cited to Chung et al. and identical to the dyslexia figure it's compared to, from a review rather than a prevalence study, unread here.

[2026-08-12] ingest | Kahneman et al., the income–happiness line: primary and revised (quality cycle)

Growth edge 2 half closed. It had named the source to get: the 2006 Science income-happiness paper. Two arrived, because reading the first one forward found that its central quantity had been revised.

kahneman-income-happiness-2006 (T1, Science 312:1908–1910, read in full from the UCLA copy). focusing-illusion had been carrying this paper's conclusion from an essay about it since the spoke was founded. The page now holds the figures: household income against life satisfaction 0.32, against share of day in a good mood 0.20, against duration-weighted momentary happiness 0.06 (n=740, Columbus DRM). The naming experiment is the better instrument — predicted bad-mood gap between the income bands 32 pp, actual 12.2 pp, and the same overshoot for marriage, supervision and health insurance at P < 0.001. Recorded as a Perspective, not a research report: part literature review, part first presentation of the authors' own data.

income-happiness-conflict-resolved (T1, PNAS 120(10):e2208661120, 2023, plus the authors' 2024 reply). Killingsworth, Kahneman and Mellers reanalysed Killingsworth's experience sampling as an adversarial collaboration: the plateau holds only near the 15th percentile of happiness and only to about $100,000; above that, happiness keeps rising with log(income) and accelerates in the happiest group; the original flat line came from ~85% of high-income responses at the scale maximum. Below $100,000 the slope is steeper at unhappy quantiles, above it flatter, each P < 0.00001.

Access recorded on the page. PNAS returns 403 here for both the article and the PDF, so the 2023 paper is held from its PubMed abstract, with every number taken from the open-access 2024 reply that restates them. No press summary used.

Why this matters past the topic. The spoke's standing question is which heuristics-and-biases findings survived. It now has three shapes rather than two: one that broke (thinking-fast-and-slow Ch. 4), one that held (dunning-kruger-misread's 2021 replication), and one corrected to a narrower claim by its own author. Written into synthesis as a contradictions entry — the corpus's only settled dispute — with the caveat that the reconciliation is correlational by the authors' own statement.

Entity: matthew-killingsworth (Person). daniel-kahneman already held.

Edge 2 rewritten to what is left of it: Jung is still entirely essayists and encyclopedias. Two dated section headings dropped from synthesis (hub quality-log.md Outstanding item).

[2026-08-12] ingest | Handwriting vs typing notes — the finding that shrank

Routed here from the hub the moment it arrived by Telegram. The subject is learning and memory measured experimentally, which is this spoke's declared ground, and the piece is structurally a replication-crisis story — which is where most of its value ended up.

handwriting-vs-typing-notes (T3, silicon-canals). Three studies assembled against the popular "paper beats keyboard" claim: a 2024 Educational Psychology Review meta-analysis of 24 studies across 21 articles putting handwriting's test-performance advantage at Hedges' g = 0.248 and typing's advantage on volume recorded at g = 0.919; a 2021 direct replication of Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014) with 74 laptop and 68 longhand note-takers finding "neither group performed better" on the immediate quiz; and a 2026 Frontiers in Education EEG study of 33 South Korean undergraduates over three ten-minute video lessons, also finding no significant difference.

note-taking-and-learning (new Thing page) holds the reconciliation. The three studies only conflict under the popular framing. Under the mechanism the article itself proposes — handwriting is too slow to transcribe, so it forces compression, and compression is what a later test rewards — the nulls are predicted: an immediate-recall test measures before the effect has anywhere to land. The mechanism also makes the claim transferable to any capture method that forces compression, which no source here tests. Recorded as a prediction, not a finding.

The synthesis gained a fifth form of evidence failure, and it is the most ordinary one. The four already there are non-replication, the citation chain, the artifact, and the distortion with no author. This is the finding that shrank — survived, at a quarter of a standard deviation. Argued in synthesis.md that this is probably the most common fate of a famous result and the hardest for this corpus to notice, because g = 0.248 cannot be said in a headline, so the 2014 version circulates unopposed without anyone defending it.

A publisher pattern is now confirmed rather than suspected. silicon-canals gave this spoke dunning-kruger-misread on 2026-08-05 with three of six citations lacking an author. This piece names no researchers and no institution for the meta-analysis carrying its headline number, and none for the 2021 replication. Two for two. The page now states the rule plainly — the outlet reports findings accurately and citations incompletely, so it is a good lead and a poor terminus — which matters because both its pieces are load-bearing on replication-crisis.

Gaps recorded, not filled. Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014) is discussed on two pages here and held nowhere; the 2024 meta-analysis and the 2021 replication cannot be looked up from what the article gives; and every study reported tests immediately, while the mechanism predicts the gap should grow with delay. Four pages touched: two new, plus replication-crisis and silicon-canals.

[2026-08-13] ingest | Psychology of the Unconscious (Jung 1912/1916) — via research pass

Hub research pass, most-wanted edge 16 (Jung from the primary texts). psychology-of-the-unconscious (T1, Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido, tr. Beatrice M. Hinkle, Moffat/Yard 1916, public domain via Project Gutenberg). The spoke's first primary Jung text — carl-jung, analytical-psychology, second-half-of-life and jung-on-creativity had been built entirely from essayists and encyclopedias.

Three things the paraphrases had blurred, now quotable from the book: libido as general life energy "comparable to Bergson's élan vital" with sexuality one channel among many; the split between directed and fantasy thinking; and "the myths a mass-dream of the people: the dream the myth of the individual."

Two findings recorded against the source, not for it. The Freud break is a definitional disagreement — how to individuate a theoretical quantity — with no observation that could have settled it either way. And the book's central case analyses the fantasies of Miss Frank Miller, a woman Jung never met, read for mythological correspondence with no procedure that could have falsified a reading. The spoke now holds both evidentiary standards in primary form (kahneman-income-happiness-2006 at the other end) and can compare them rather than assert that Jung's support is thin.

Half closed only. Archetypes and the collective unconscious are 1920s–30s work and remain second-hand. Successor edge written.

[2026-08-21] ingest | Psychological Types — Jung's own lexicon, via research pass

Hub research pass, most-wanted edge 16 (Jung from the primary texts, the successor written on 2026-08-13). psychological-types (T1, Psychologische Typen 1921, tr. H. Godwyn Baynes, Kegan Paul / Harcourt, Brace 1923; first-English-edition scan digitized by the University of Victoria, public domain). Second primary Jung text in the spoke. Read for chapter XI, the 57 numbered definitions, because that is where the terms analytical-psychology is built from are actually fixed.

Three findings, none of them the expected one.

1. The archetype is not a headword. Not among the 57; it appears once, inside definition 26 (Image), as a parenthetical: "The primordial image (elsewhere also termed the 'archetype') is always collective." Jung's footnote points at his own 1919 Instinct and the Unconscious. The collective unconscious has no entry either — it is defined by implication, as where primordial images come from.
2. The inherited-image claim has a mechanism and it is heredity. "A mnemic deposit, an imprint ('engramm' — Semon)", "the psychic expression of an anatomically and physiologically determined disposition". Semon's mneme held acquired traces to be inherited. That makes the thesis a biological claim resting on a mechanism later biology dropped, which is worse for it than the "untestable" verdict this spoke had been giving.
3. Definition 56 denies the metaphysics. "The concept of the unconscious is for me an exclusively psychological concept, and not a philosophical concept in the metaphysical sense" — a boundary-concept justified "purely and solely from experience". carl-jung and analytical-psychology say the opposite. Both kept; flagged in synthesis as a new tension.

Also recorded: the evidence offered for universality is a single clinical observation in the racial language of 1921, with no procedure and no comparison — the Miss Frank Miller problem repeating. Individuation is defined (definition 29) without any timing claim, so second-half-of-life keeps resting on essayists.

Pages touched: psychological-types (new) · carl-jung · analytical-psychology · second-half-of-life · jung-on-creativity · synthesis.md (Jung section, new contradiction, edges 2 and 2a) · index.md.

Half close, not a close. Successor edge 2a names the two pages the primary texts did not reach and one concrete target: "On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry" in Contributions to Analytical Psychology (tr. Baynes, 1928).

[2026-08-22] quality | Cycle: the replication crisis gets its first case, and it is not a replication

Coverage edge 8 partly closed. debunking-the-stanford-prison-experiment (Le Texier, American Psychologist 74(7):823–839, 2019, T1) read in full from the PDF: the Stanford archives, the Akron recordings, 15 participant interviews, seven findings. The load-bearing ones for this wiki are that the guards were briefed on the wanted result and were not told they were subjects, that 11 of the SPE's 17 rules were copied from an uncredited class experiment three months earlier, and that the conclusions were written in advance. Prisoner 8612's "breakdown" is documented from his own side, twice, twenty years apart.

Filed against replication-crisis, which now has a case — and a case of a different kind, since a staged study has no effect to fail to reproduce. synthesis.md gains a section naming three distinct failure modes and a successor edge 8a (nobody here has read Zimbardo's 2018 reply). Milgram and Asch stay open. index.md gains one ScholarlyArticle entry. Entities: 0 created — Zimbardo is a subject here, not an author of anything this spoke holds.

[2026-08-23] ingest | The Brain's Reward System in Health and Disease (Lewis, Florio, Punzo & Borrelli 2021)

Routed here by the hub from Telegram. lewis-borrelli-reward-2021 read in full from the open PMC manuscript (Adv Exp Med Biol 1344:57–69, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-81147-1_4, PMID 34773226). T1 — the spoke's eighth, and its first from the life sciences.

The neuroscience corner had no biology in it. "Behaviour has biological causes" was carried by determined (a Wikipedia summary) and the-trouble-with-testosterone (a bookseller listing, the only T4). It now has a receptor, a gene, an enzyme and a set of experiments.

Read the title with its volume. This is chapter 4 of Circadian Clock in Brain Health and Disease (AEMB 1344, eds. Engmann & Brancaccio, Springer 2021), and the abstract says the subject is "the influence of the dopaminergic reward pathways on circadian system." No reward prediction error, no Berridge, no anhedonia, no Parkinson's, no schizophrenia, no treatment section — despite Borrelli's own stated disease interests being Parkinson's and schizophrenia. Not an overreach; the volume set the scope. Recorded because the chapter title invites the other reading.

What it does to dopamine-nation. Both registers of the same subject in the same year are now held. The chapter confirms the direction (drugs of abuse all raise dopamine; palatable food drives accumbens dopamine; striatal D2R availability lower in obese humans; social media "leverage the reward system in ways similar to what gambling does") and contains none of the packaging — no seesaw, no dopamine fast, no recovery timescale, dopamine never equated with pleasure. Best detail: the qualification Lembke conceded to the NYT under pressure sits in the chapter's opening paragraph, unprompted. The register finding finally has a citation under it instead of an inference from reviews.

The counter-caution, recorded on the same page. A peer-reviewed review is still secondary. 141 references, zero new data, and several D2R results running back through mouse lines Borrelli's lab built. Confident claims are mouse knockouts; claims about human life (phones, sleep, obesity) rest on five associational human studies. Confidence and evidence run opposite — the founding tension, inside one T1.

New subject for the whole hub. A grep across all 36 spokes found zero mentions of circadian rhythm or the suprachiasmatic nucleus. circadian-rhythm carries the claim worth keeping: reward is a zeitgeber — feeding, sex, drugs and social contact move the clock through dopamine, they don't only obey it.

Pages: lewis-borrelli-reward-2021 (new) · reward-system (new) · dopamine (new) · circadian-rhythm (new) · dopamine-nation · anna-lembke · synthesis.md (new section, three new open questions) · index.md (three new @type groups: BrainStructure, Substance, Chapter, plus CreativeWorkSeries).

Entities: 3 created — emiliana-borrelli (Person; corresponding author, built the first D2R knockout mouse), uc-irvine (CollegeOrUniversity; all four authors, INSERM U1233 on a US campus), advances-in-experimental-medicine-and-biology (CreativeWorkSeries; the spoke's first peer-reviewed venue node). Budget 3/8, not reached. Lewis, Florio and Punzo left as plain mentions — the source evidences an affiliation for each and nothing else. entity-index scored uc-irvine against uc-berkeley at 0.82 MATCH, a false positive on the "University of California" stem; separate campuses, created new and noted on the page.

Largest gap opened: the corpus now describes the reward circuit and the molecule with no theory of the computation — Schultz's reward prediction error and Berridge's wanting/liking appear nowhere. Logged as an open question in synthesis.md.

[2026-08-28] ingest | On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetic Art (Jung 1928) — research pass, T1

Jung's Zurich literary-society lecture, pp. 225–249 of Contributions to Analytical Psychology, tr. H. G. and Cary F. Baynes, "first published in England 1928" (Routledge & Kegan Paul). Read in full from the Digital Library of India scan (archive.org dli.ernet.532881), ~24 pages. Ingested with claude-opus-5 at high effort, via the research pass hunting growth edge 2a — which named this exact volume as the cheap target.

Created analytical-psychology-and-poetic-art (T1, primary text). Updated synthesis and index.md. The spoke's third primary Jung text.

1. The archetype gets its first English definition, and it is datable now. psychological-types (1921) has no headword for it; here it is defined outright — "a figure, whether it be a daemon, man, or process, that repeats itself in the course of history wherever creative phantasy is freely manifested. Essentially, therefore, it is a mythological figure" — with a derivation ("the psychic residua of numberless experiences of the same type").

2. The inheritance claim is weaker than this wiki has been asserting, and better. Alongside the Semon-style "mnemic images" the spoke recorded from Types, 1928 adds "anatomical formations in the very structure of the brain" and then rules out the usual reading: "It does not yield innate ideas, but inborn possibilities of ideas… categories of phantasy-activity, ideas a priori as it were, the existence of which cannot be ascertained except by experience." Inherited disposition, content from experience, in a Kantian frame. Two pages here gloss Jung as claiming inherited images; on this text that gloss is wrong, and it is now flagged in synthesis rather than swept.

3. The circularity objection is Jung's own stated method. "Only through the conclusion derived a posteriori from the perfected work of art are we able to reconstruct the primitive foundation of the primordial image." Not a concession — a description. It re-poses the spoke's untestability complaint as a question about inferential warrant.

4. Creativity as an autonomous complex — the mechanism jung-on-creativity (T3) reports only as "the artist as instrument." Defined operationally: it "appears or vanishes… independent of the option of consciousness" and "cannot be subjected to conscious control, whether in the form of inhibition or of voluntary reproduction." The madness link is hedged tightly: "The divine frenzy of the artist has a perilously real relation to morbid states without being identical with them. The analogy consists in the presence of an autonomous complex."

5. A dating correction, recorded not overwritten. The word "visionary" appears nowhere in the essay and no two-mode distinction is drawn, so the psychological/visionary pair jung-on-creativity presents as the Jung theory of creativity belongs to the later Modern Man in Search of a Soul essay (~1930). Both accounts stand; what the corpus gains is that "Jung on creativity" is two positions eight years apart.

6. One sentence for the free-will corner. Jung, in 1922, on psychology reduced to its substrate: its "specific value and essential quality is at once obliterated as soon as it is regarded as a mere brain activity, thus bringing it into line with other glandular activities as a mere subdivision of physiology." That is the objection this spoke's determined pages have been making with no source. Not evidential, and recorded as such.

Edge 2a half closed, successor written: second-half-of-life is still untouched, and this text is the second primary source to define individuation with no timing claim — which makes the 1930 stages-of-life essay the specific missing item rather than a vague gap. Cooldown to 2026-09-11.

Entity note: no new nodes — carl-jung and the Baynes translation's subjects are already paged; the translators are left as prose (named, but no claim here rests on them).

[2026-08-30] ingest | The DTD field trial replication (via the quality cycle's absence-claim drain)

psychological-trauma had said, since 2026-07-29, that "no source here establishes its formal status" for developmental trauma disorder. The cycle's absence-claim queue surfaced the sentence and one search settled it.

The status: DTD was proposed for DSM-5 and rejected for insufficient evidence, and it is not in ICD-11. ICD-11 admitted complex PTSD instead, which DSM-5 in turn does not carry. Two rival framings, one code, and DTD does not have it.

The evidence that continued anyway: dtd-field-trial-replication (Ford, Spinazzola & van der Kolk, Eur. J. Psychotraumatology 12(1):1929028, 2021, T1) — 271 children in treatment at six US sites. DTD 27%, PTSD 39%. The load-bearing number is comorbidity count: 5.2 for DTD without PTSD against 3.8 for PTSD without DTD and 2.1 for neither. Three associations survive full adjustment for DTD (oppositional defiant disorder, depression, separation anxiety) against one for PTSD.

Pages: new dtd-field-trial-replication, julian-d-ford, joseph-spinazzola. Updated psychological-trauma (the absence closed, with the conflict of interest stated), synthesis.md (a new section — this is a fourth shape of replication beside the three the 08-22 cycle sorted: a team replicating itself, which buys generalization across sites and not independence, and which is exactly the objection DSM-5 raised), index.md.

[2026-09-01] ingest | The 2002 exchange, both halves (quality cycle)

Growth edge 4 asked for "the 2002 exchange first," and both papers are public PDFs. Downloaded and read with pypdf: krueger-mueller-2002 (JPSP 82(2) 180–188, T1) and kruger-dunning-2002-reply (JPSP 82(2) 189–192, T1).

The edge's question was whether the 2002 critics ignored Study 4 the way magnus-peresetsky-2022 does. They did not — Krueger and Mueller left the experiments alone and attacked the mediation instead, and Kruger and Dunning replied on the experiments. That is a cleaner dispute than the one the corpus was recording from secondary sources.

Numbers now held: seven of eight unbiased mediator tests move the correlation by ≤.01; BTA-corrected asymmetries of 1, 10, −4 and 7 against raw 33, 32, 32, 29; split-half reliability .17 (difficult) and .56 (easy) in the critique against .93 for 1999's Study 4; extreme-quartile re-test stability of .32 and .49; training moving bottom-quartile overestimation from 36 percentile points to 17.

Updated dunning-kruger-effect (a new section on the exchange, and the narrower statement of what is actually disputed), kruger-dunning-1999 (the .93 reliability figure, which belongs to that study and could not come from it), dunning-kruger-misread (its "hole" paragraph verified against the primary rather than inferred), synthesis.md (new section; edge 4 half-closed with the residue written), index.md.

Entity note

No new entity pages: justin-kruger, david-dunning and cornell-university already exist and are linked. Joachim Krueger and Ross Mueller are the source's authors but no identity URL was checked, so they stay plain mentions rather than take a guessed same-as:. Budget: 0 of 8.

[2026-09-01] ingest | The science of musical expression (unattributed paste)

Routed from the hub (runner-up: ../music-tech-wiki, which owns the instrument; the substance is brains, bodies and learning, so it landed here).

Arrived as pasted text in the curator's Telegram channel with no URL, no author, no outlet and no date. Held verbatim as this spoke's first raw/ document — raw/2026-09-01-musical-expression-telegram.md — because there is no link to point a page at. musical-expression-neuroscience, T4.

Nothing in it is checkable. Five appeals to an unnamed literature in ~500 words: "Cognitive neuroscience shows", "Neuroimaging studies demonstrate", "Physiological research proves", "Empirical data shows", "Controlled studies indicate". The page separates the claims by how much each would cost to verify rather than repeating them: music/speech overlap and reward-circuit engagement have a real literature this document adds nothing to; the ACC-and-inferior-frontal-gyri dissociation is a specific imaging claim needing one named study; and the AI-pedagogy result ("significantly faster development") is the load-bearing claim with no study, sample, measure or author attached, and should not be repeated.

The synthesis finding is about the shape, not the subject. The document's vaguest attributions carry its most precise assertions — the opposite of handwriting-vs-typing-notes, where a named meta-analysis brings g = 0.248 with it and that number caps what the writer can say. Citation density has been read here as a reliability signal; it also works as a brake on ambition, and the brake is what goes missing first. New synthesis section: The floor of the evidence ladder.

Recorded as a gap, not a finding: performance psychology — perceptual-motor expertise, deliberate practice, performance anxiety — has no page in this wiki, and this document is a map of where to look.

New: musical-expression-neuroscience, raw/. Updated: index.md, synthesis.md. No entity pages — there is nobody to page.

[2026-09-05] ingest | The connectivity–polarization model, and the argument the coverage omitted

Telegram arrival: a PsyPost write-up, "A computational model explains the sudden rise in societal division." Three pages, because reading the primary turned a single trade article into a much more interesting object.

Dedup: rg found nothing in any spoke for polarization, homophily, social balance or Thurner. These are the spoke's first sources about groups rather than individual minds.

The primary (polarization-connectivity-model, T1): Thurner, Hofer & Korbel, PNAS 2025, 10.1073/pnas.2517530122. PNAS returns 403 to WebFetch; read in full through firecrawl, per the fallback rule. Homophily plus Heider social balance on a Poissonian small-world, N=10⁵, Metropolis dynamics minimising cognitive dissonance. ψ jumps discontinuously at ⟨k⁺⟩ ≈ 5 into two groups of ~50%; 2% radical influencers make the transition continuous and start it earlier; hysteresis means reducing connectivity does not undo it. Empirically: Pew polarization 0.11 → 0.19 (pre-2010 to 2017) against connectivity 2.2 → 4.1 (2004–2024), reproduced with only connectivity varied.

The exchange (polarization-connectivity-dispute, T1): four letters, all read in full. Völker, Corten & Mollenhorst attack the empirical premise on five specifics — country selection, polarization measured only for the US, pooled non-comparable instruments, GSS series that reported a decline over 1985–2010, and their own compilation showing no consistent rise. Thurner et al. reply that Hungary's non-kin ties show the same ~100% densification, that US-only still crosses a first-order transition (~2 → ~3.7), that the survey labels denote methodological lineage, and that Gallup (9.9 close friends against a GSS ceiling of 5) and a COVID-era APS survey do not qualify. Górski et al. attack the mechanism; the reply's counterexample is the clean one — their P_LP metric scores a canonical polarized society at ≈0.05 where ψ = 1, so it measures negative-link density rather than ideological polarization. Their reply also fixes what is not in dispute: Górski et al. "do not question the central finding … that polarization undergoes a phase transition at critical connectivity."

The finding, and it is about the argument rather than the model. Both sides end up saying the same thing about the load-bearing input. The critics: no such friendship trend "has been documented in the extensive sociological literature on personal networks." The authors: "the state of evidence … is lamentable. The only way forward is to collect more evidence." A contested claim whose disputed premise is named identically by both parties is the healthiest state this spoke has recorded, and it is a fourth shape for is a famous result real, alongside the finding that broke, the one narrowed, and the one where data are agreed and explanation is not.

The arriving source (psypost-polarization-model, T3 — accurate in outline, so not filler): reports the model as an explanation, mentions none of the exchange, and states "four and a half close connections" as a threshold when the paper's γ=0.02 transition is continuous and therefore has none. Second instance in this spoke of the dunning-kruger-misread defect, now in a different decade and subfield: the tertiary layer keeps the finding and drops the argument.

Scope, stated rather than assumed. This is statistical physics by a complexity-science group, and this spoke's own note says to decide by method — argument versus experiment or clinic. Simulation is neither. It routed here on subject: homophily and social balance are social-psychology results and the output is a claim about how opinions form under social pressure, which is the closest fit among 36 spokes and not a comfortable one. Written as growth edge 11: two more sources, then decide, rather than settling the scope question by precedent from one arrival.

Also written as growth edge 10, and it is the useful one: the model's fit turns on β = 2.7, set above the 1–2 range prior work measured for consumer topics on the authors' hypothesis that political belief is felt more keenly. Nobody in the exchange tests it. That is a psychology question holding up a physics result, and it is measurable with the paradigm that produced the original estimates.

Updated: replication-crisis and dunning-kruger-misread (both now link the cluster, so it is reachable from the pages a reader starts at), synthesis.md, index.md.

[2026-09-07] ingest | Generational differences in what boundaries are (YourTango)

Telegram source, routed here by the hub over ../research-wiki (a therapy term spreading through popular culture is a diffusion case, but the substance is the concept and its misuse, which is this spoke's). generational-boundaries-yourtango — T4, published: 2026-09-06.

The article. 813 words by luke-aliga for yourtango: boomers use boundaries for emotional distance, Gen X decline to set them and withdraw instead, millennials were the first to prioritize them, Gen Z treat them as non-negotiable and sometimes "try to control other people's behavior under the guise of boundaries." No survey, no sample, no numbers, no named researcher.

Why it earned a page anyway: I chased the citations. Six outbound links carry the piece's authority and three were followed.

• The Johns Hopkins link under "millennials are the first to make setting boundaries a priority" is The Changing Generational Values (Hanju Lee, imagine.jhu.edu, 2022-11-17) — a student careers blog about workplace values that never mentions boundaries and cites no survey.
• The psychology-today link under the Gen Z control claim is Alli Spotts-De Lazzer (LMFT, LPCC, CEDS-C), The Dark Side of Boundaries No One Talks About (updated 2025-08-13). It is the strongest link in the chain — three peer-reviewed works cited — and it argues that rigid boundaries isolate the person setting them. Generation-neutral, and it never says anyone uses boundaries to control others.
• The Truity link is a personality-test company's blog post, "clinically reviewed," with no data.

Synthesis gains "The citation layer that carries nothing." musical-expression-neuroscience set the floor by citing nothing, and the lesson taken from it was that citations act as a brake on a writer's ambition. This is the inverse and the commoner case: the links are all present and none of them carries a measurement, so nothing is braked. It also sharpens a defect recorded twice before — dunning-kruger-misread and psypost-polarization-model show the tertiary layer keeping a finding and dropping the argument; this one adds a claim its source does not make.

New growth edge 12: do generational categories measure anything? The spoke holds no source on whether birth-cohort labels survive measurement — the age–period–cohort identification problem, or any critique of generational research. Without one, this wiki cannot say the four sketches are wrong or right, only that they are unsupported. Cheap to close, and it would arm the spoke against a genre rather than one article.

Entities: yourtango (NewsMediaOrganization; same-as is the Tango (American magazine) Wikipedia article's #YourTango section, which is what the redirect actually resolves to — checked) and luke-aliga (Person; same-as his author page, which resolves). psychology-today updated: its second appearance here, this time as somebody else's citation, and the T3 cap turns out to buy a checkable claim, which is what let the misuse be caught.

No concept page for boundaries. The subject deserves one and this source cannot support it — following the precedent set with musical-expression-neuroscience, the hole is recorded rather than filled with the only thing to hand.

[2026-09-19] ingest | Mind After Midnight — nocturnal wakefulness as a risk state

Routed from the hub: a ScienceAlert piece arrived by Telegram, and because it linked its primary, the primary was read too — tubbs-mind-after-midnight-2022, Frontiers in Network Physiology vol. 1, T1. A third source was found while reading it and fetched: mind-after-midnight-nimh-grant, the press release for the study built to test the hypothesis.

New concept page: mind-after-midnight-hypothesis — being awake during the biological night as a risk state in its own right, separable in principle from sleep debt. Four circadian curves stacked (affect, attention, reward, inhibition), with adjusted behavioural epidemiology underneath.

Three existing pages gained a time axis they did not have. circadian-rhythm had the molecular clock and no behaviour; it now carries the clock acting on reward, which is the return leg of the loop lewis-borrelli-reward-2021 opened from the other side. reward-system gained the nocturnal state — elevated anticipation, blunted receipt, D2 availability falling under sleep deprivation. dopamine gained what sleep loss does to the receptor pair.

Why the paper is T1 despite measuring nothing. It is a mini review, and its authors state their own gaps more plainly than a reviewer would have forced: "all aspects of this hypothesis require empirical validation," and no study has tested sleep deprivation × circadian timing on reward processing — the load-bearing mechanism. Most executive-function evidence it cites was collected during the day after a sleep-deprived night, which is the wrong hour for the claim. The tier grades what the document is and how honestly it reports itself, not how much it proves.

The methodological point worth keeping. Raw counts by hour are the wrong instrument, because the size of the awake population is the biggest daily rhythm in the data. Adjusting for it turns a nighttime deficit in raw suicide counts into a threefold excess in risk. The opioid figure is the cleanest case: overdose risk up 4.7-fold at night while heroin use falls.

A fourth position on the spoke's evidence ladder. The corpus held a finding that broke, one that held, and one corrected to a narrower claim. This is a well-specified conjecture whose authors name the experiments that would kill it — and mind-after-midnight-nimh-grant records those experiments funded: $3.8M NIMH, five years, two arms (kept awake to 2am vs woken at 2am) that are exactly the confound the paper complained about. Argument in synthesis.

On the T3 layer. mind-after-midnight-sciencealert is the best popular source this spoke has ingested — linked primaries, the central caveat kept, its subject separated from ordinary 3am waking. It still loses the article type, gets the journal's name wrong (Network Psychology for Physiology), and frames a request for research as a warning. It is also re-dated republished copy (2026 stamp, 2025 image path) with no disclosure, which is a staleness problem this corpus should learn to see.

Entities (8, at the ../ENTITIES.md cap): elizabeth-klerman (ORCID confirmed by lookup), michael-grandner, fabian-xose-fernandez, andrew-tubbs (no same-as — every candidate 404'd; left off rather than guessed), university-of-arizona, frontiers-in-network-physiology (the spoke's first journal node), science-alert, carly-cassella. Michael L. Perlis deferred — named on three pages, evidenced on none.

Open question added: is being awake at the wrong hour different from being tired? Growth edges added: 13, sleep itself (the spoke's first source on sleep is about being awake, and it holds nothing on sleep architecture, consolidation or insomnia); 14, suicide risk as a subject rather than three statistics. Open question advanced: "does dopamine teach, or does it want?" — an anticipation/receipt split is the shape of Berridge's wanting-vs-liking, from a paper that never names it, which narrows the ask to incentive salience.

[2026-09-27] ingest | The Joy of Writing (Psychology Today, James Danckert)

Source: the-joy-of-writing, Psychology Today Canada, Modern Boredom blog, James Danckert, published 2026-09-24. Tier T3 (this spoke caps the Psychology Today genre at T3 regardless of author credentials — see psychology-today). Argument: outsourcing writing to an LLM costs homogenized output, the reward of effortful work, and the development of personal voice.

Citation-chain check, three claims:

1. Homogenization (Bieleke & Wolff PsyArXiv preprint wzveh_v1) — unverifiable. The OSF page renders client-side; fetch returned no text. Recorded as unverified, not false.
2. "Cognitive misers" (linked to a PsycNet page) — mis-cited. Resolves to Kool, McGuire, Rosen & Botvinick (2010), a demand-avoidance study, not Fiske & Taylor's 1984 paper that coined the term.
3. Voice/AI-buzzwords (arXiv 2409.01754) — accurate and undersold. Read in full; a synthetic- control analysis of 737,083 hours of podcast speech plus a preregistered N=496 experiment, both showing chatbot vocabulary entering active human speech. Given its own source page: yakura-llm-human-speech-2024 (T1).

New DefinedTerm: cognitive-miser — carries both the term's real origin and the tension with michael-inzlicht's effort paradox, which the source cites in the same piece without noticing the two traditions disagree. Recorded in synthesis.md → Contradictions.

Entities (8, at the ../ENTITIES.md cap): james-danckert (same-as to his University of Waterloo faculty page), john-eastwood, michael-inzlicht (same-as Wikipedia), george-a-miller (same-as Wikipedia + Wikidata), university-of-waterloo (same-as Wikipedia), maik-bieleke, wanja-wolff (no same-as — left off rather than guessed), marc-schmitt (no same-as — left off rather than guessed). Ekua Hagan (reviewer) excluded as too thin to page.

Also caught: the byline misspells "Maik Bieleke" as "Mark Bieleke" — noted on maik-bieleke rather than silently corrected.

Disclosed conflict of interest, recorded not hidden: Danckert states his and Eastwood's co-authored book Out of My Skull was used by anthropic to train models without permission, and that he expects to benefit from a lawsuit settlement. Recorded on the-joy-of-writing and in synthesis.md; does not by itself weaken the citation-chain findings above, which stand independently.

Runner-up spoke (cross-spoke note only, not ingested there): ../research-wiki, for the AI-buzzword-diffusion angle in yakura-llm-human-speech-2024 — recorded in synthesis.md → Cross-spoke adjacency.

[2026-10-04] ingest | Algorithms to Live By (Christian & Griffiths)

Pre-routed by the hub. Source page algorithms-to-live-by (T3, published: 2016-04-19 per Wikipedia; routing note said 2015). Held only a Wikipedia stub and the book's site, so content claims are thin and flagged. Entities brian-christian, tom-griffiths (no same-as; affiliation conflict Princeton vs Berkeley recorded). New synthesis section on normative decision standards. Cross-spoke context only: optimization-algorithms-wiki, machine-learning-wiki, mathematics-wiki.

[2026-10-07] ingest | AI behaves more like a brain than a database — The Conversation

Routed from the hub (no runner-up spoke). New page ai-cognitive-science-origin (T3): Hout & Robbins argue AI's example-learning architecture traces to cognitive science (Rosenblatt, Hebb, 1980s connectionists), explaining hallucination as reconstructive-memory confabulation, citing Loftus's false-memory finding by name only. Partly addresses open edge 9 (memory/Loftus) — the connective argument is now sourced, the primary memory literature is still not.

[2026-10-07] ingest | LSD reconfigures cortical dynamics (Subramani et al., Communications Biology 2026) — Telegram PDF

New page lsd-cortical-dynamics-meg (T1, read from PDF with pypdf): a re-analysis of 17-participant MEG data separates genuine oscillatory weakening from a faster peak-frequency shift LSD also causes, two effects standard band-power analysis conflates into one "desynchronization" reading. Aperiodic slope flattens, signal complexity rises; music does not amplify the signature. Opens the spoke's neuroscience-of-consciousness corner with a fresh topic (no existing psychedelics page). Entity pages for karim-jerbi and robin-carhart-harris, evidence-only. No published: day stated beyond the 2026 volume/issue.

[2026-10-08] ingest | Профессиональная деформация (Russian Wikipedia)

Routed from the hub (no runner-up spoke). New pages: professional-deformation (DefinedTerm), professional-deformation-wikipedia-ru (source, T2 encyclopedic, no published: stated — the 2025-12-29 edit stamp is not a publication date) and pitirim-sorokin (thin Person, same-as to English Wikipedia, checked). Dedup swept the whole hub: no earlier page on the term or on Sorokin. The source is T2 but weakly cited (footnote flag since 2012, first classification uncited), so the pages record a concept and taxonomy, not findings. Synthesis notes it as a Russian/Soviet lineage beside Kahneman/Tversky, and separates it from burnout-stress-cycle and from "professional destruction".

[2026-10-08] ingest | Déformation professionnelle (English Wikipedia)

Routed from the hub (no runner-up spoke); a refresh, second sibling of the Russian article. New page: professional-deformation-wikipedia-en (source, T2 encyclopedic, no published: stated). Refreshed professional-deformation with the medical origin and a Western sociological lineage (Warnotte, Merton's grouping with Veblen and Dewey, Carrel, Pullum's "nerdview"), kept apart from the Russian lineage. Recorded conflict: Russian source says Sorokin coined the term; English says Warnotte probably did and flags Sorokin "citation needed." Both kept, unresolved; noted on pitirim-sorokin and in synthesis. Entity decision: no pages for law of the instrument, occupational psychosis, trained incapacity or nerdview; the source only links them (entity-index: nothing above threshold). Dedup: no earlier hub pages on these terms.

[2026-10-08] ingest | Man, The Unknown (Carrel, 1935)

Routed from the hub (no runner-up spoke). Primary text behind the Carrel quote already on professional-deformation, extracted locally with pypdf from a 169-page PDF. New pages: man-the-unknown-carrel-1935 (source, T1, published: 1935) and alexis-carrel (thin Person page, sourced to the book and a Nobel Prize page for the 1912 award only). Refreshed professional-deformation: the quote upgraded from T2 (English Wikipedia) to T1, restored to its context (the 1930s argument that the physical sciences outran the human ones). Wikipedia's wording is accurate; its 1939 date is the revised edition. The book also argues eugenics, recorded on the source and person pages. Synthesis updated. Dedup: no earlier Carrel page in the hub.