Page 1 of 1 [ 3 posts ] 

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

04 Apr 2014, 3:17 pm

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Apr 2014, 4:19 pm

Typical - my subscription to The Journal of Neuroscience has just lapsed. :)

Really, though, I would have thought that of course it's linked to reason - every aspect of human thought relies on both reason and emotion/sentiment, and they cannot be divided.

I'd need to be able to have a look at the study itself to actually be able to consider the claims made - it might just be the write up/reporting, but there seem to be a lot of unconsidered assumptions/assertions behind the research. But it seems to be saying, people who thought more about something reacted more strongly to it. Which makes sense.

Though the Reason write up conflates 'reacting more strongly' with 'being more concerned', and I'm not sure that follows. It seems to be begging the question. I shall have to think it through more.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

04 Apr 2014, 4:38 pm

It sounds like the contrasts made between people high in "need for cognition" as opposed to people with a "just-world belief" made in my introductory Social Psychology class. People with a "just-world belief" tend to blame suffering people for their situation in order to maintain that belief system: In a just world, victims must have done something to deserve their plight. Whereas people with a "need for cognition" try to figure out the causes of the suffering and see injustice as injustice and therefore something that they should reduce as much as possible.