We describe three areas of inquiry that we foresee as being important in future studies of collective memory, mind, and media. The first is the power of narratives, usually provided by collectives, which can be explicit and conscious or implicit and unconscious. A second important theme during this period of populism and nationalism is the study of the self-centredness (or egocentricity) of groups, especially nations believing their past is special. Such egocentricity can feed conflict among nations as well as groups within nations. The third important direction for research is future thinking, or studies of how people anticipate events they expect to unroll in their future and whether these events are mostly positive or negative. A puzzle of future thinking relative to collective memory is why people readily argue about and even fight over events from the past, but find it much more difficult to mobilise groups about life-threatening future events such as global warming or nuclear war. We look forward to studies in these crucial topics and others as they appear in Memory, Mind & Media.

Introduction: Cognitive processing theories postulate that decision making depends on both fast and slow thinking. Experienced physicians (EPs) make diagnoses quickly and with less effort by using fast, intuitive thinking, whereas inexperienced medical students rely on slow, analytical thinking. This study used a cognitive task analysis to examine EPs cognitive processes and ability to provide knowledge translation to learners. Methods: A novel mind mapping approach was used to examine how EPs translate their clinical reasoning to learners, when evaluating a patient for a possible venous thromboembolism (VTE). Nine EPs were interviewed and shown two different videos of a medical student patient interview (randomized from six possible videos). Results: EPs were asked to demonstrate their clinical approach to the scenario using a mind map, assuming they were teaching a learner in the Emergency Department. EPs were later re-interviewed to examine response stability, and given the opportunity to make clarifying or substantive mind map modifications. Maps were broken into component pieces and analyzed using mixed-methods techniques. A mean of 15.7 component pieces were identified within each mind map (standard deviation (SD) 7.8). Maps were qualitatively coded, with a mean of 2.8 clarifying amendments (e.g. adding a time course caveat) (SD 1.5-5.75) and 4.4 substantive modifications (e.g. changing the flow of the map) (SD 2-5). Conclusion: Resulting mind maps displayed significant heterogeneity in teaching points and the degree to which EPs used slow thinking. EPs frequently made fast thinking jumps, although learners could prompt slow thinking by questioning unclear points. This is particularly important as learners engage in cognitive apprenticeship throughout their training. An improved understanding of EPs cognitive processes through mind mapping will allow learners to improve their own clinical reasoning (Merrit et al., 2017). Educating EPs on these processes will allow modification of their teaching styles to better suit learners.