Oxford Self-Modelling Group

Among the questions that keep us busy are: what are the cognitive benefits of having an internal representation of one's own perception and cognition, and what happens when this representation is disturbed, biased, or not fully developed? In what way does a self-representation interact with memories of one's own actions and experiences, and with the feeling of being in control over one's actions? To what extent do people represent their own minds over and above a generic representation of minds? What is the scope of the human capacity to simulate decision-making under a counterfactual state of knowledge, and how does this capacity interact with moral decision-making and ethics? 

We believe that, at its best, science is:

1. Nonconformist. We don’t shy away from never-before-asked questions, and we are passionate about coming up with entirely new ways to do cognitive science (see for example our work on pretending not to know, or this one about individual differences in unconscious processing).

2. Open. We share all our code, materials, and anonymized data. We are open about our scientific findings, even when they don’t align with our preferred theories. We use clear and simple language to express our ideas, and avoid unnecessary jargon. 

3. Kind. We choose scientific methods that do not involve physical or emotional harm to our subjects. See this opinion piece about the importance of considering ethics in consciousness science.

4. Solid. We want others to know that they can trust our findings, so we pre-register (and time-lock) our studies, follow a fully reproducible data-to-paper workflow, and follow best-practice guidelines for scientific code-writing.

Opportunities