Video Content from the Psychology Corner blog goes here. Authored by Lucia Grosaru, Psychology MA. Critical Thinking & Assertiveness tips, Book Reviews and all things related to everyday applications of knowledge pertaining to psychology and connected fields take both written and video form on the website. Subscribe to the newsletter and/or the channel and keep in touch via additional social media platforms.
Those are good examples, but it also should be expanded that not all variants of ad hominem are flawed. There is a way of ad rem argumentation, where the discussed matter is argued with multiple points working in conjunction with each other and are based on previously agreed upon admissions between interlocutors. For example, if you’re all finding yourself as green-peace members of an idea-board, you can’t go suddenly refuting someones better plans to save the environment by questioning the value of environmental preservation (and I don’t mean smth like „grr, kill everyone and the planet will survive - but what would be the point of planet with no people to admire it?” I mean it more in terms of „atomic power is an overall better alternative to wind - but why should we care whether it is better for the environment?” - if by definition that is constitutive purpose of your boards existence and a premise agreed upon by all members even by sole means of this group membership. Also, arguments that build upon premises to which our speaker has already conceded in this particular or previous series of debates is also a valid means of argumentation, given that they haven’t shifted their beliefs on those other matters in the meantime and they remain neither importantly dissimilar, nor chosen to be dropped from upholding by the speaker. (Think of someone that successfully argues that it is wrong for the team leader to eat all the cookies from shared teams cookie jar, that later on takes a turn at being a team leader himself and attempts to make his case for him as a team leader to allowed to eat all the cookies from that jar) This variant is called „ex concessis” (from concession) - one valid form of ad hominem style of argumentation (arguments that could only „work” when spoken to a particular person - if repeated to someone who has different „baggage” of subscriptions - it would not work). Schopenhauer nicely explains it all in his book I believe - it is a pleasant, funny and a very useful read. Basically all of eristics could be treated as a one big list of all the easy to fall for, yet illogical mental trappings that people are prone to fall for just as much in an argument as - more importantly - in their own thinking process. In conclusion: You want to make better decisions? You have to learn eristics, recognize the type of argument models and avoid following the known fallacious ones. Each fallacy is explained in the book - why exactly it is a fallacious type of thinking that does not validly imply, what it appears to support. Be healthy! 💜
This is a false fallacy. If there is no evidence supporting or disproving a belief, you adopt it or not based on your framework. For example, I don't know any Chinese who is bad at math. However, my framework says that there is diversity in the experience, character, and personalities of every human group. Thus, without evidence, I will believe there are millions of Chinese people who are bad at math. Another example is God. In my framework, it makes much more sense for the Universe to have Order (aka God) rather than having no purpose or order. If somehow proven false, I will stop believing in God. But without evidence, I believe whatever makes more sense in my worldview.
@@psychologycorner I know. What I mean is that defending a belief because it wasn't disproven is valid. What is not invalid is to think that lack of evidence suggests that the one belief is incorrect. What I mean is that ignorance leaves free space for speculation.
The question being asked by the State and the Defense is whether the JURY is being influenced by the cameras in the courtroom and the resulting reporting done by the media. Who can determine what each juror is watching and how it influences them? Obviously this has already happened in this jury pool area and allowing more camera coverage during the pretrial will exasperate the problem further. Even if they sequester the jury the damage has been done. Just let the media attend the trial and take notes and recordings so they can make their reports the old fashioned way, Will this violate the Medias rights? Regardless there is no way a fair trial can be had in Latah Co. How many jurors will qualify after answering the questionnaires? How many jurors can be excused by the Prosecution or the Defense? Photo journalism will manipulate what citizens see regardless of whether they are allowed to be in the courtroom or not. If anyone thinks that it is their right to see what is going on in the courtroom because it will ensure that what is being done in that courtroom is fair and just is delusional because they can't do anything about it anyway because they are not the jury! If 12 jurors decide that BK is guilty and 330 million citizens think that because they had seen on video that Bk was innocent in the courtroom that he would be saved from the firing squad---- THINK AGAIN! On the other hand if 12 jurors determine BK is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and there are no cameras in the courtroom but there are 330 million citizens thinking that because they hadn't seen the video of the trial that BK is guilty and should be in front of a firing squad--- THINK AGAIN! Damn if you do and damn if you don't have cameras in the court room. WHICH IS WORSE? Just one Judge gets to decide! What are his inclinations? What laws or rights will he decide are relevant to a fair and just trial? Compared to 330 million citizens!!!! Why do we have a RIGHT to SEE a public trial? Are we directly involved with the outcome of the trial ? A family member for instance? This should be a private trial? It would appear that this case is private because of the GAG order prevents 330 million citizens from knowing the facts of true discovery. This Gag in itself proves the case for there not being cameras in the courtroom and that trials should be conducted privately by those directly involved with its outcome one way or the other, it's their rights, not 330 million citizens. This would not allow the media to influence the trial other than to report on the specific facts being presented and not some biased journalisming based on the interpretation of video of everyone in a courtroom. This MSM age that we are in right now is the bane of our society. Instant info carried around in our hand and in our forehead and we not knowing if what we are seeing is fact or fiction. Yes this case is a circus ! So if trials are private would there still be a circus? Who is the RINGLEADER? The Judge? 330 Million Citizens? Freedom of Video is not in the Constitution. The Freedoms of Speech and Press are. We should not conflate one with the other two! This allows interpretations of videos that may or may not be understood by those who listen and watch those interpretations. The jury is indeed the ones who will be influenced by them if indeed they are allowed to see them if they are sequestered for this trial. The jury pool has already been influenced like it or not. It appears that both the State and the Defense do not want video in the courtroom to protect the integrity of the trial and the performance of justice as seen by a jury of BKs peers. Privacy of trials should be a right of all citizens who find themselves in need of it. (Make a motion for it in court) Our system of the balance of justice is blind and doesn't see videos. The balance is swayed by the facts being presented in the pretrial motions of discovery and what will be allowed by the Judge in the courtroom as evidence to be heard by the jury. It is that SIMPLE! Innocent or Guilty we don't know yet but we hope that the influences that have rained down on We the People will not affect those 12 jurors who will decide! IMO Read more Show less
I couldn't agree with u more. Unfortunately most of Moscow has him guilty as well as main stream media and cop ytube channels. I think hes being framed and the police etc are using "parallel construction" to blame him. The carry on of the prosecution is doing a real disservice to the victims.
@@psychologycornerYou have to realize that his car being in the area during the time of the murders is very suspicious. For one reason, Moscow is a small town. It's rare to have people on the roads in the early hours of the morning. There probably weren't any other cars out around that time. College students were probably out partying, and they probably were driving to their destination, they were probably crashing at a party house, or walking home. I don't think his car is enough evidence, but it's a strong case against. Why was he in another town, in another state from where he lived. I believe Pullman (the town he lived in) was an hour drive away from Moscow. Why did he happen to be in that area during the murders, and where his DNA matched the DNA on a sheath found next to the victims? It doesn't make him necessarily guilty, but it does make it seem like he's involved, and knows exactly what happened with the murders.
Hi,from Denmark... I cannot thank enough for making this video....I'm actually have tears streaming down my face..... ( Thursday Aug.22.2023, 11:52 pm,Danish time).... I always knew,Bryan,was a scapegoat... Both by intuition and what is brought about the whole case... If they kill Bryan,they kill an innocent,young man.... Idaho/Moscow/university/coppers/landlords,you name it,is sooo,crooked there... My mom asked me the other day.; Karyn,dear! Why does this,"thing",make you so sensitive and sad? You cry for Bryan,and the victims every single day,WHY? love,you live in Denmark,and nobody here really knows about this,and would not care one bit,bc. It is in The USA... Why,what do you see,how can you feel so strongly for this,young man's life?".... All I could say,while crying was,; Mom,because,I CARE....I care about this boys life.... I know by intuition,and seen how the case has been progressing and ,prosecution,only have vague evidence,nothing near putting,him,up for the firing squad. The state is sooooo ,crooked,and there is way more behind it,that meets the eye of a shallow human beings perspective..... 98% of American people have already decided that he is the one..But he is NOT.... My point is,is that I am soooooo glad to know that we are many,critical thinking individuals who can see,that there's more than meets the eye... I saw somewhere,that the Latah county jail,had shown on their website,that the realise of,Bryan Kohberger is due to January 2024.... And I do hope that,that's the truth.... He could be my son... So thank you a million,for doing this...❤❤❤❤
Not a lot of critical thinking going on with the blood-thirsty guilters imo. The prosecution's acting like they're hiding evidence. I'm trying to stay unbiased.
I wanted to watch so bad, but the AI sounding voice turns me off. Thanks anyway. 🌹🌹🌹 I see YT is whacked out again: 3.3k likes, yet 237 views. Update: I see every video I’m watching has 3.3k likes.
I don't have more than 20 minutes to waste on his nonsense. I already wasted enough watching this "documentary". Other professionals have also talked about his "work". There's an audience for everything, I guess...
You failed to actually talk about the cases where people have actually found human bodies when using this app among other weird things when you start playing. There was an even when someone had the intention set to danger and the literally saw someone get shot while going to a location.
What exactly is the matter with you? Michael didn't marry Apollonia bc he wanted her to be his wife or bc he wanted her to be mother of his children. Michael had thunderbolt which is biological manifestation of arousal, sexual eraction. To satisfy his desire he has to marry her since there is no sex before marriage in sicily. Or as Coppola commented it " This is NOT the case of a prince asking for a princess ". He conned a manipulative goldigger into marrying him at the hight of the danger and he killed her...and than he moved on as if she never existed. He married Kay bc he loved her and cared about her. He brought her back into his life more than a year after he came back from Sicily, after he made sure it was safe for her, after he made plan to execute 4 families, regain lost territories and get rid of the danger she might be in. He had absolute happiness with her as he himself articulated to his father and as it's portrayed in a movie through a song Speak softly love. Their marriage fell apart after the attack on the house. After he lost Kay he got diabetes, aged over night, stopped smoking drinking killing never took the ring of his finger or touched another woman for the rest of his life. He sits in a chair, in a cardigan in his back yard a broken man as Love said goodbye by Andy Williams plays.
As a clinical psychologist, I have to disagree immensely with your article. I hope a critical point of few is okay with, since that what's your doing yourself. Are you aware of the deep psychological damage this cohesive environment did to these people? I do find your analysis quite superficial. Tell me, did you really forget Daniella you stayed in a room for more than 2 years, because she fell in love with a young man which KR punished her for. She was threatened to be extinct if she didn't try to make amends every day writing him the letters he demanded her to with out any forgiveness. Sorry, but that's fucking crazy and not a business, but a cult. Or India Oxenberg who was so brainwashed she didn't know how to say no to K.R. You seem to make a thing out of being 'critical'. How come you are not able to see all these people were stripped of their rights to think critical themselves, that they were brainwashed? They were all in survival mode for a lot of years.
For anyone interested to educate themselves on the topic of high control groups (cults) here are some experts that have credible content on the topic: - Janja Lalich - Steven Hasaan - Alexandra Stein - Rick Alan Ross They all have books on the topics. Most of them are in audiobooks too. I highly recommend Peace ✌🏼
WoW, the case is proven in court, that was an extremely high bar to meet. And you are insulting the people whose lives were mangled and bodies branded!
What was proven in court is the guilt of Raniere & Co. Regarding very specific facts and people. The cult aspect had nothing to do with it in any other way than prove the authority level one abused.
