{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03376205787781351, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006430868167202572, 'mean_word_length': 5.1683168316831685, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beyond red states and blue states in cognitive science

As in political debate, the commentaries in this issue mostly tend towards the two ends of a similar spectrum: ‘one true path’ versus ‘anything goes’. We hope to persuade swing voters of a more moderate position: ‘diversity without chaos’. Spivey and Anderson (this issue) provide an excellent illustration of our claim that a belief in ontologically privileged descriptions leads to both epiphenomenalism and to thinly disguised contempt. In a contemporary variation on ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’ (Orwell 1946), they state: