How do the super rich see themselves as moral and good and BLESSED? How are they not troubled by the ways they exploit all of us? How does their conscience not trouble them as they hoard wealth and others starve? How do MAGA live with themselves as they support genocide and ethnic cleansing and making kids go hungry and overt corruption? THEY THINK THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS.
Well - I have a purpose for this little corner of the internet now. I have decided this is my dumping grounds. I have a toolbar link to dump as I go. It will come as I find it - no particular rhyme or reason - as I bounce around this wonderland of information we call the internet. Hope you find something of interest - you may just get an idea of just who I am by what I find valuable. Enjoy.
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychology. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 8, 2026
Monday, April 6, 2026
The New Science of Eyewitness Memory | John Wixted | TED
We've built a legal system that distrusts eyewitness memory — backed by cautionary science and high-profile exonerations. John Wixted, a leading psychology researcher, challenges this conventional wisdom with a counterintuitive finding: the problem might not be memory itself but how (and when) courts test it. (Recorded at TEDxUCSanDiego on May 17, 2025)
Labels:
psychology,
science
Monday, March 30, 2026
Sunday, June 18, 2023
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
Our findings highlight the importance of situations and historical factors that can produce political shifts by affecting psychological needs pertaining to uncertainty and threat. The need to achieve closure and to resolve ambiguity, for example, are heightened under conditions of destabilizing uncertainty (for example, with the outbreak of terrorism, economic turmoil or political instability). Thus our research is best understood as addressing the cognitive and motivational bases of conservatism (and liberalism) rather than the personalities of conservatives (and liberals).
We readily acknowledge that identifying the motivational underpinnings of a belief system does not constitute a valid argument in a political debate any more than it does in scientific debates. What counts is the cogency of the political arguments and the degree to which they fit with independently verifiable facts and reasonable assumptions. When the dust settles on the current debate, we hope that these important messages will be seen as the real focus of our research.
Labels:
conservative,
liberal,
politics,
psychology,
science
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)