Dr. Jennifer Groh

When you try to get your work published, you're going to have to deal with, you know, peer review comments that you may not, you know, I certainly have had my moments where I've been like,

I cannot believe somebody thought that when I wrote this, you know what I mean?

But you go through that emotional period of time and you're like, oh, well, actually it's kind of, I can see how it's actually my fault for how I wrote it, that it didn't actually say what I wanted or it didn't set up the reader to understand the point I was making.

So I need to fix this.

And yes, you're right that there is a hole in the data here that it doesn't fully support

the hypothesis the way I thought it did.

And that's okay.

Like, it's okay not to have the story complete.

It's okay not to have every detail of it right.

Just acknowledge that you don't, you know, acknowledge what you think the weaknesses are.

And I kind of don't see people acknowledging weakness in, let's say, the political domain right now.

Like, to acknowledge, well...

You know, I'd like such and such a thing, but I can see that there's a counter argument to that.

How can I address that?

Or should I change my mind?

Okay, so I want to back up on this question because I think you're asking a pretty deep question.

One might wonder why would that matter?

Like what is actually going on in our brain that that kind of pairing would have an effect, regardless of what might turn out to be sort of the best option?

And so one theory that I like to think about a lot is a theory of thought and what is actually going on in our brains when we think.

And this theory is that what goes on in our brains when we think might be that we're running simulations.