The political right is convinced that they are saving civilization while the left is destroying it. The left believes the opposite. Both are acting in their own self-interest.
Biology is destiny. But you are your biology, so you are your own destiny, or at least an important part of it. Trying to deny biology will not make you more free.
"What's wrong with expecting people to do what is right? Don't I have a right to feel resentful when they don't?" Find out what is wrong with that kind of thinking.
Many "quizzes" on the Web have no demonstrated reliability or validity. What you need to know as an informed consumer about the reliability and validity of psychological tests.
Why are more opinion letters published in the NYT written by male authors? I explore both hypotheses about the answer to this question and how theories determine our hypotheses.
"That is a myth," usually means "That is not true." But can myths reveal truths about the mind? And did you know that the stories you tell about yourself can be useful myth-making?
Where, exactly, is the dividing line between introversion and extraversion? Or, for any trait, how do psychologists determine if you are low, average, or high degree on that trait?
It may seem absurd that we have rules of fair play that regulate the way we conduct wars. The ethological concept of ritualized aggression may help to explain the Law of War.
Psychologists say behavior results from the interaction of biology and environment, yet argue about their relative importance. Read why the importance of biology is always 100%.
A mismatch between evolved feelings about fairness in exchanges and modern economic practices might eventually lead to a revolution against the current political/economic system.
New technologies allow to complete tasks much more quickly, potentially providing us with enormous amounts of free time. So why do we fill that time with more work instead of play?
Authorities have controlled psychological testing for decades. While this regulation might reduce harm, it also stifles creativity and progress. The IPIP is an antidote.
Philosophical naturalism denies the existence of supernatural entities such as angels, demons, elves, fairies, ghosts, gods, souls, and spirits, except as figments of imagination. How is it possible, then, that some naturalists describe themselves as "spiritual" and describe some aspects of nature as "sacred?"
Wayne Dyer's career as one of the most successful self-help authors and motivational speakers of all time came to an end last month at age 75, when he died of heart failure. Despite his success and accolades from millions, he has been accused of propagating New Age drivel. In this post I examine Dyer's life and discuss his contributions.
We know that we can improve our emotional state by looking at our situation differently. This is called cognitive reappraisal or reframing. Cognitive reappraisal seems to be a matter of conscious choice, but some research indicates that the conscious self is a reflection of unconscious brain activity rather than an intentional agent that makes choices.
Eric Dietrich posted "It is not that there are no gods or goddesses, but rather that there are no [true] religions." I agree, but not just because no religion is true. I go a step further. Because each individual's religious experience is unique, there are as many versions of a religion as there are members. Ultimately, there are no Christians, Buddhists, etc.
In August of 2013, Sam Harris issued a challenge to refute, in 1,000 words or less, the central thesis of his book, The Moral Landscape. This thesis is that "questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science." In a three-part blog post, I explain why I agree with everything in his book except the central thesis.
In August of 2013, Sam Harris issued a challenge to refute the central thesis of his book, The Moral Landscape. This thesis is that "questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science." This is part 2 of a 3-part post explaining why I agree with everything in his book except the central thesis.
In August of 2013, Sam Harris issued a challenge to refute, in 1,000 words or less, the central thesis of his book, The Moral Landscape. This thesis is that "questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of science." In a three-part blog post, I explain why I agree with everything in his book except the central thesis.
Perhaps given the introductory statements in the Declaration of Independence, Americans believe that they have inalienable rights. Actually, rights are complete fictions, and trying to appeal to your rights is an ineffective way to get what you want. This post discusses two alternatives to invoking rights as a means of getting what we want.
It seems obvious to may lay persons and professional psychologists that people are likely to misrepresent themselves on personality tests, especially when being evaluated. After some 50 years of research, strong evidence for this alleged problem is lacking. Nonetheless, belief in response sets and styles continues, just like children's belief in the bogeyman.
In 1975, my undergraduate abnormal psychology teacher made a claim that I will never forget: that Paul E. Meehl was "the smartest living psychologist." Meehl died in 2003. In this post I consider whether Meehl indeed might have been the smartest psychologist of the 20th century.
On my first day of retirement from academia, I reflect on the importance of social connections to my educational and career success. Hopefully, the illustrations I describe from my own career history will demonstrate the importance of social connections to career success, not just in psychology, but in any career.
For life to have meaning, we need to dream about experiences that we hope will be ultimately fulfilling. I use as a personal example a 30-year dream of participating in a basketball workshop at the Omega Institute.
Proponents and opponents of the concept of sex addiction claim to have data supporting their views. My examination of the data and arguments have led me to hypothesize that participants in the debate have allowed their personal preconceptions to color their interpretations of the data.
Textbook models of the scientific method indicate that research psychologists are to act like objective, dispassionate detectives, tracking down facts to arrive at the truth. Evidence of the actual behavior of researchers suggests that, in reality, they act more like lawyers, searching for evidence to persuade others of a presumed truth.
According to Dan Dennett (author of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), answering the question cui bono (who benefits?) helps us understand how certain behavior patterns evolved. I've been obsessed most of my life trying to understand behavior in exactly this fashion, by figuring out who benefits. I am particularly interested in who benefits when we engage in moral behavior. Hopefully my thoughts in this blog will contribute to our understanding of behavior in terms of who benefits, and that in the end readers will benefit from my blog posts.
Verified by Psychology Today
