{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02558139534883721, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.15, '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}}
Counterfactual Thinking: From Logic to Morality

People create counterfactual alternatives to reality when they imagine how things would have turned out differently “if only. . . .” They understand counterfactuals by constructing models that correspond to the conjecture, and to the presupposed facts. The dual meaning of counterfactuals leads people to make more inferences from them compared to ordinary conditionals. People create counterfactuals by changing an aspect of reality that has been represented explicitly in their models, and they zoom in on a “fault line,” such as an exceptional event. However, knowledge can modulate what is represented in models and so the fault lines can shift. Counterfactuals permeate much of mental life, including judgments about morality, such as blame or praise, and assessments of emotions, such as regret or relief.