Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The wrong way to respond to such situations is to disregard the accusation, and focus instead on things that the accuser has done. Ask yourself whether you are in fact arguing that two wrongs do make a right, and if the answer is "yes", rethink your approach before you hit "save". It can be very tempting in the heat of a dispute to point the ...
People may base their expectations and perceptions of a robot on its appearance (form) and attribute functions which do not necessarily mirror the true functions of the robot. [96] Fundamental pain bias The tendency for people to believe they accurately report their own pain levels while holding the paradoxical belief that others exaggerate it ...
Conservative journalist Victor Lasky wrote in his book It Didn't Start With Watergate that, while two wrongs do not make a right, if a set of immoral things are done and left unprosecuted, this creates a legal precedent. Thus, people who do the same wrongs in the future should rationally expect to get away with them as well.
Setting up to fail is a well-established workplace bullying tactic. [6] [7] [8] One technique is to overload with work, while denying the victim the authority to handle it and over-interfering; [9] another is the withholding of the information necessary to succeed.
The just-world fallacy, or just-world hypothesis, is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will necessarily have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under ...
If people have too much external justification for their actions, cognitive dissonance does not occur, and thus, attitude change is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, when people cannot find external justification for their behavior, they must attempt to find internal justification—they reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes or behaviors.
Windschitl, Kruger & Simms (2003) have conducted research into focalism, focusing specifically on the better-than-average effect, and found that asking participants to estimate their ability and likelihood of success in a task produced results of decreased estimations when they were asked about others' chances of success rather than their own.
Some researchers have claimed that people think good things are more likely to happen to them than to others, whereas bad events were less likely to happen to them than to others. [22] But others have pointed out that prior work tended to examine good outcomes that happened to be common (such as owning one's own home) and bad outcomes that ...