Curious, but not
careless.
I’m interested in questions that sit between psychology, consciousness, cognition and technology. The point is not to defend a favourite answer — it is to make the question precise enough that evidence can actually push back.
I’m most interested in questions where it’s easy to get seduced by the idea.
That makes methodology more important, not less. My independent research practice focuses on separating observations from interpretation, comparing competing explanations and asking what evidence would actually change the conclusion.
Current interests include consciousness, near-death experience research, cognition, human-computer interaction, AI evaluation and the relationship between subjective experience and scientific explanation.
How I keep myself
from bullshitting myself.
Trace claims to sources
Prefer primary material and distinguish what a study actually reports from what people say it proves.
Keep alternatives alive
Build counterarguments into the research instead of saving them for a token paragraph at the end.
Ask what would falsify it
A claim that cannot lose is not very useful as a scientific claim.
Questions I keep
coming back to.
Consciousness & subjective experience
How subjective reports relate to measurable brain activity, and where interpretation outruns evidence.
Cognition & human behaviour
How people perceive, decide, organise information and adapt to complex systems.
AI & human-computer interaction
How humans evaluate AI outputs, follow rubrics, detect edge cases and build trust in automated systems.
Scientific communication
How to translate uncertainty and complex evidence without flattening it into false certainty.