Below, we’ve posted titles and a brief quotation from some of our favorite non-Situationist situationist blogging during September 2010 (they are listed in alphabetical order by source).
* * *
From BPS Research Digest: “Power leads us to dehumanise others”
“Think how terrible you’d feel if a decision you made led to the death of another person. How then does a political leader cope with the burden of making decisions which lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands? According to a new journal article, they cope through dehumanising those over whom they have power. By this account, dehumanising – seeing others as less than human – isn’t always a bad thing. It serves a function, allowing leaders and certain professionals, such as doctors, to cope with the decisions they have to make.” Read more . . .
From Jury Room: “When identifying punishment—will jurors focus on intent or outcome?”
“Back in October of 2009, we blogged about some new research from Harvard University showing that when we know someone has hurt us intentionally, it makes us furious. We talked about using that knowledge strategically to light the fire of moral indignation in jurors.” Read more . . .
From Mind Matters: “The Hidden Rules of Blame”
“People like to use categories for people (race, religion, nation, class, gender) as explanations for others’ behavior (for example, I was late because there was traffic and I have a lot on my plate right now, but you were late because you’re a Gen X slacker). Yet all categories are not equal. Instead, each one seems to be licensed to explain only certain kinds of behavior.” Read more . . .
From Neuromarketing: “Wear a Fake Rolex, Turn Into O.J.”
“You can find fake designer and luxury products just about anywhere these days, and most people consider owning one a harmless transgression. After all, if you were never going to pay $12,000 for a real Rolex, who is really hurt if you wear a fake that cost you $30? Rolex didn’t really lose a sale, right? It turns out that the victim of the “crime” may be none other than YOU!” Read more . . .
From We’re Only Humans: “Color blind? Or blind to injustice?”
“In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the cause of racial equality, ruling 7 to 1 in Plessy v. Ferguson that “separate but equal” was the law of the land. The lone dissenter in that landmark case was Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former slave owner, who bitterly predicted an era of inequality and racial intolerance in America. History proved Harlan right, and we now know what followed as the Jim Crow era. Indeed it took almost 60 more years for the Court to begin setting things right by discarding the “separate but equal” doctrine.” Read more . . .
The Situationist 