But even as Trump’s campaign has been blaming outside groups and allies for bad headlines, Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term. He has also pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and has outlined an immigration agenda that includes militarizing the southern border and mass deportations.
“Editor’s note: In 2020, researchers from universities in the Netherlands and the United States replicated Oxley’s and his team’s study and concluded that: “Our analyses do not support the conclusions of the original study, nor do we find evidence for broader claims regarding the effect of disgust and the existence of a physiological trait.”
Nice of them to bury this editor’s note 4/5ths of the way into the article lol
I wish I could see their full study — Paywalls hiding publicly-funded research… I just love it.
The next sentence further says, “Rather than studying unconscious responses as the ‘real’ predispositions, alignment between conscious and unconscious responses promise deeper insights in the emotional roots of ideology.”
I’d need to see the study but it might suggest that there is indeed a subconscious difference in response but how that’s mediated by other parts of the brain either remains the same or differs?
I apologize for missing that! I got really excited when I found that article because it seemed to cover it all so succinctly.
They’re basically just saying they didn’t find the same results and that using exclusively physiological responses to indicate “real” feelings is a dubious assumption. They’re essentially calling for better studies that also involve reported cognition and sentiment (“conscious” responses).
That seems reasonable. It’s weird that the article buried that so far into the summary though!
Understood, and I appreciate the clarification, but it does damage, or at least work against, the credibility of most of the body of the article, so I would likely not have used it if I’d noticed that as I went through.
Why would it damage most of the article? That was only a clarification on one study or subpoint.