Cross-national differences in beliefs about welfare appear to be generated by the same underlying psychology. If you want to get people to agree on welfare, you need to get to them agree about the recipients.
Why are men upset when they land in the friendzone and why don't dinner guests pay their hosts for meals? If only exchange relationships could be made more explicit such problems might be avoided, yet many relationships do not opt for transparency. Why is that?
People become involved in the disputes of others for a number of reasons: mutual interest, kinship, reciprocal reciprocity, and, sometimes, because of their behavior. The last item on that list is a rather curious one.
Some research has claimed that people are often found to be "morally dumbfounded", unable to explain their moral judgments with good reasons. The same research also suggests that people moralize "harmless" actions. While that may be true in some cases, in others the fault may reside within what researchers are counting as "good reasons" and "harm".
We attribute motives to other people to try and predict their behavior accurately; we also attribute motives to other people to try and make them look insane, stupid, and/or evil. Guess which one of those goals disagreement tends to bring out?
Given that humans were unlikely to have traveled far enough to encounter different races over our evolutionary history, the emphasis our mind can place on race seems a bit curious. Why might we attend to race as much as we do, and when might we stop noticing?
Many people have been making the claim recently that police are quicker to deploy deadly force against black populations. Some new experimental evidence suggests that those people might have been too quick to deploy such statements.
A new viral video purports to document the frequency of harassment faced by women on the city streets. There are intellectual dangers when it comes to treating viral videos as research or evidence for a particular conclusion, however.