negative reasoning Details

---

As stated under Positive Reasoning for this website, democracy is for the people by the people. Positive reasoning is in the best interest of people, where citizens have an equal share of power in the decision-making process (one person, one vote). Consider this: If human life matters, then positive reasoning for the benefit of people must also include the earth, wildlife, and its people because people and wildlife depend on a healthy world. I'm calling this a geocracy that emphasizes stewardship of our planet, making choices that align with well-being and result in positive outcomes for people, wildlife, and the earth. That's also my definition of mindfulness. ***

Root causes of negative Reasoning

*** Must read: It is important to understand the root cause of reasoning problems in childhood by following this link!

The ripple in the process

 Having spent decades learning from parents, teachers, and others, we developed positive and negative effects toward most of what we think or do. Our experiences have a ripple effect on how we perceive challenges and celebrate successes. Words like politics, sex, and religion create a mindset for our ability to communicate mindfully (listen and speak). Security, trust in parents, teachers, and ourselves play significant roles. Freedom is multifaceted, based on our upbringing, experiences, and beliefs.  Let’s explore:

Guidance and Authority:

Some find freedom in clear instructions and guidance from mentors or authority figures, whether rooted in religious teachings or other forms of authority.

Mindful Listening:

To others, Freedom might be peaceful listening, absorbing information, and learning without resistance from parents, teachers, and spiritual leaders while relying on self-critical thinking skills. 

Resisting Authority:

Some view freedom as the right to question authority and seek alternative paths. 

Beneficial Words:  Well-intentioned words can evoke different responses depending on context and perception.  What one person perceives as beneficial advice, another might perceive as restrictive or unwanted. Context matters: parental advice, for instance, can be both nurturing and stifling. While parents often offer valuable insights, their words can also feel constraining, especially when they clash with personal desires.

Freedom is a complex interplay of individuality, context, and personal growth. It encompasses the right to choose, the capacity to listen, and the courage to question.

Our negative emotions often hinder collaboration. Most problems, apart from natural events, stem from relationship issues and faulty negative emotional reasoning. Reason is independent of political parties and should be based on truth and fact, not motivated reasoning or groupthink.

1. Attachment/motivate reasoning/Upādāna: That is mainly the degree to which a person is attached to an ideology, belief, mindset, habits, group, money, religion, etc., that leads to motivated reasoning.  (rating is possible).

2.  Communication errors/fallacies: Understanding communicating errors and fallacies essential to avoid confusion justifying negative emotional reasoning versus positive emotional reason and logic.                                                                                                                      

3. Conformity/groupthink: This is mainly the influence of how a person feels about oneself in a group (judgment, rejection concerns, feeling appreciated by the group, etc.) that becomes the need to conform and go along with a group, even if the group is wrong.

4. Knowledge and information: This is mainly how a person receives information and knowledge and whether the problem is ignorance or misinformation vs. accurate, reliable, valid information. Objective news and facts versus fiction or misunderstanding.

5. Organization: How well is that knowledge and information organized in a person’s head free from emotional reasoning and readily accessible for conversation? Am I prepared for any reasoned discussion? 

6. Intention: Life doesn’t necessarily get better without the intention to choose a positive path in contrast to choosing a negative path of attacking others and risking the spread and escalation of negative emotions.

7. Fear: Fear is the foundation of most reactive behavior. Understanding fear and managing the behavior of fear is critical. Leadership by conspiracy or fear is destructive and is not likely to lead in a positive direction.  Wisdom trumps "strong men."

Considering that we have a wealth of knowledge in areas of psychology, sociology, social psychology, communication, reasoning, etc., it is amazing that we have political division, war, and ecological problems, with some knowledge going back to the 5th century BCE.

In my opinion, the problems are mostly related to an inability to reason while being hooked by fears through motivated reasoning from group leaders.  Bottom line? We need to address the ability to recognize the difference between emotional reasoning and reason based on truth and fact. To be clear, I view reason collectively as what is in our own best interest, the interest of others, and the earth. 

To reason in a positive manner, a person must develop an understanding of the negative emotional reasoning discussed in the sections below. Once a person fully understands negative emotional reasoning, it becomes clear that positive solutions need positive reasoning or an intention to habituate mindful reasoning. 

Behavioral ethics istudies why we make ethical or unethical decisions often driven by emotions rather than reason. emotions Research in behavioral ethics shows that most ethical decisions are made intuitively by emotions rather than by reason.  This is why we should consider whether or not our decisions are based on reason or emotional reasoning. Negative emotional reasoning, or negativity bias.  All things being equal, a negative bias is a tendency to think and remember negative events or feelings more than positive ones; or positive events are judged and remembered as less positive than equally negative events. Negative bias is a cognitive distortion.  According to some studies, negative bias is a typical and prevalent behavior that is influenced by various factors, such as genetics, personality, and environment. For the purpose of this website, negative reasoning is negative bias to clarify the distinction between negative and positive reasoning.

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which an individual concludes that their emotional reaction proves something is true, despite contrary empirical evidence. It is a type of cognitive distortion that can lead to negative emotions and behaviors. An example is "I'm feeling lonely; therefore, no one likes me."  It might be better to look at all the potential factors that could be contributing to loneliness. For instance, they suggest you ask yourself: “What facts do I have to support my thoughts?” or “What would I tell a friend who had that thought?”. By challenging your thoughts and looking for evidence, you can learn to think more rationally and avoid the negative consequences of emotional reasoning.

Dunning and Kruger effect:  is considered to be a cognitive bias that can have a profound impact on what people believe and the decisions they make.  David Dunning and Justin Kruger discovered that some people who scored lowest on grammar, humor, and logic tests tended to overestimate their ability or performance (test scores of 12 % estimated 62%) An example is the person who talks confidently. about areas they have no familiarity with. Dunning wrote, "Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge." 

  Many people believe that the root cause of the immigration problem into the U.S. is an excessive number of immigrants and associated issues that they bring with them. A proposed solution is to address this root cause by closing the borders. Here are some points to consider:

Complexity of Immigration Issues:

• Immigration is a multifaceted issue influenced by economic, social, and political factors. If humans basic survival needs are not being met, they will find a way to migrate for survival reasons.
• It’s essential to recognize that immigration isn’t solely about numbers; it involves human lives, aspirations, and global interconnectedness.

Economic Considerations:

• Immigrants contribute to the economy by filling labor gaps, starting businesses, and paying taxes.
• Restricting immigration might impact economic growth and innovation.

Security and Borders:

• Border security is crucial, but it’s essential to strike a balance.
• Closing borders entirely could have unintended consequences, such as hindering trade, tourism, and international cooperation.

Addressing Root Causes:

• Instead of focusing solely on border closure, consider addressing underlying issues.  For instance, given that the primary contributors to air pollution since the industrial age are the U.S., China, the European Union, and India, it’s not surprising that extreme heat and environmental challenges drive migration. When Howler Monkeys face heat stroke and dehydration at temperatures as high as 120 degrees in Mexico, it’s understandable that people and animals might seek refuge in cooler regions. As we consider migration policies, it’s essential to balance human needs with compassion for the natural world 
• It is better to look mindfully at the root reasons for migration. What would help people to be happier in their home. So we must consider how to make the grass greener where people live to discourage the idea that the grass is greener elsewhere.
• Managing the real root of the problems is almost always the best approach. See positive reasoning and positive problem-solving model.

Conformity is the tendency to align one’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of a group around them. Studies suggest that conformity may evolve in childhood and become stronger with age. The need to belong to a group and conform is presumed to be genetic. This often leads us to imitate what others do while following the majority opinion and conforming to the common standards of behavior that are implicitly agreed upon by society.  The positive side of conformity helps to give us a sense of belonging and an opportunity to be part of a group that we approve of while helping us with our communications, interactions, following instructions, social norms, ethics, and rules through cohesiveness. So conformity helps us to form a sense of identity and security.

On the negative side, conformity can stifle creativity and lead people to give in to destructive peer pressures. A negative consequence of group conformity is the formation of outgroups or groups that we view as fundamentally different from us. Outgroup bias is a form of cognitive bias that causes us to hold negative attitudes toward others that are not associated with the ingroup. These negative behaviors can also lead to mob mentality, gangs, terrorism, and war. War is the consequence of collective negative emotional outgroup behavior.

Some examples of negative group bias and negative conformity are:

•  The Stanford Prison Experiment: A famous psychological study that showed how ordinary people can conform to the roles of prisoners and guards and behave in cruel and abusive ways.
• The Milgram Experiment: Another famous psychological study that showed how people can conform to the authority of an experimenter and inflict electric shocks on a learner, even when they hear screams of pain. A real-life example is the Abu Ghraib prison scandal which was a case of human rights violations and war crimes committed by US soldiers and intelligence officers against Iraqi detainees in 2003 and 2004. The abuse included physical and sexual torture, humiliation, and killing. 
• The Jonestown Massacre: A tragic event that occurred in 1978 when over 900 members of a cult called the Peoples Temple committed mass suicide or murder following the orders of their leader, Jim Jones.
• The Rwandan Genocide was a horrific event that occurred in 1994, when over 800,000 people, mainly from the Tutsi ethnic group, were killed by the Hutu majority, who were incited by propaganda and hate speech.
• The genocide in Gaza 2023-24. A massacre of civilians in Israel subsequently led to an Israeli attack on Palestinians. 
• Problems associated with biodiversity and climate change have led to a cognitive bias and denialism in opposition to climate health.

The rise of authoritarianism is a global phenomenon that is happening in the present day when many people are supporting leaders who are oppressive, corrupt, or violent and who undermine democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Ashe Conformity study

In the original Conformity study, Solomon Ash arranged to have participants match the length of a line with one of three comparison lines. However, they were surrounded by Confederates who gave the same wrong answer on some trials. The first study revealed that, on average, 33% of participants and 38% in the 2nd study conformed incorrectly to the majority opinion across all the 12 critical trials. Moreover, 75% of the participants conformed at least once. This showed that people would discount their own perceptions in favor of conforming to the group.  The study revealed the power of social influence over individual judgment. Even when the correct answer was obvious, people tended to conform to the majority opinion.  In 2023, the study was replicated, yielding very similar results. 

“Much of the time, it is in the interest of the individual to follow the crowd, but in the social interest for individuals to say and do what they think best” - Cass Sunstein.

According to Sunstein, "When people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes. And when such groups include authorities who tell group members what to do, or put them into certain social roles, very bad things can happen."  ― pg 4 Cass Sunstein "Going to Extremes."

Conformity can potentially reduce the motivation and opportunity to think critically.  

When people conform, they often rely on the opinions or judgments of others, rather than their own reasoning or evidence. People may also avoid challenging or questioning the group’s views, for fear of being rejected or punished. This can lead to a loss of individuality, creativity, and curiosity.

Different cultures have their own norms and expectations, which create a sense of harmony within each group. However, these norms and expectations can vary widely across different cultures and groups. The word culture implies conformity to the group’s standards. The pressure to conform in Asian countries, for instance, is greater than in countries like the U.S., Australia, the U.K., and New Zealand, where there is more support for individuality. 

Critical points to understand:

As we grow older, the pressure to conform increases. Sunstein points out that people with uncertainty tend to moderate and avoid extremes while surrounding oneself with like-minded people tend to lead to confirmation bias and greater susceptibility to extremes. Sunstein reported, "You will become more confident that you are correct and be more likely to move in an extreme direction." "The power of conformity and cascades has deep implications for political polarization." 

 Sunstein defines social cascades as “large-scale social movements in which many people end up thinking something or doing something, because of the beliefs or actions of a few early movers” (Sunstein, 2023, p. 34). So many people end up thinking, believing, and acting, based on the beliefs and actions of others of choice or others they trust. He refers to informational and reputational cascades. 

• Informational cascades: People rely on the information conveyed by others or from people in the group that they trust, rather than their own private information. 
• Reputational cascades:  People infer how others will judge them based on their beliefs or actions. People want to avoid being criticized or ostracized by their preferred group members while attempting to gain their approval and respect.

One factor that is apparent to me with regard to group cohesiveness and conformity is that the impact of emotional attachment to a chosen group may influence a person's emotional feelings regarding their relationships to others and to the environment based on the influence to conform to norms and standards of the preferred group.  That attachment can lead to emotional reasoning favoring a chosen group instead of actively seeking out independent truth, and reason for making the best decisions. One way to avoid those hazards mentioned above is to use critical thinking skills. In Wikipedia, under conformity, it is stated, "With the appropriate environmental influence, conforming in early childhood years allows one to learn and thus, adopt the appropriate behaviors necessary to interact and develop "correctly" within one's society. So clearly, teaching critical thinking skills and an understanding of negative groupthink while discouraging participation in groupthink is essential to every child's healthy development and to the benefit of humanity. Understanding mindful thinking is the only healthy way forward that is in the best interest of human civilization.

Conformity can potentially reduce the motivation and opportunity to think critically. When people conform, as stated, they may rely on the opinions or judgments of others rather than their own reasoning or evidence. People may also avoid challenging or questioning the group’s views, for fear of being rejected or punished. This can lead to a loss of individuality, creativity, and curiosity. And that leads to groupthink.

Normative conformity is a psychological term that describes how individuals tend to change their behavior to conform to a group to be liked and accepted by a group while avoiding rejection. Several studies have shown that even when groups provide incorrect answers, some individuals will still conform to the group’s answer, even if they know the answer is wrong. This type of conformity is motivated by normative influence. where the participants will conform to be accepted by the group.    

There was clear evidence that in Nazi Germany, people conformed because they wanted to avoid being rejected, persecuted, or executed by the authorities or their peers. But also because they were influenced by propaganda, fear, and group pressure.  This resulted in a massive violation of human rights and a devastating war that cost millions of lives.  

Social media:

Social media has been the platform for group polarization, making it easier for people to be radicalized and to participate in like-minded thinking, potentially leading to extremes. "With the Internet, it is exceedingly easy for us to find like-minded types." pg 81 Cass Sunstein's "Going to Extremes."

• In Myanmar, Facebook was used to spread disinformation and hate speech against the Rohingya minority, which contributed to the persecution and genocide of the ethnic group.
• In the U.S., social media platforms were used to organize and mobilize the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn the presidential election results.
• In India, social media platforms were used to spread rumors and incite mob violence against people accused of kidnapping children or slaughtering cows.
• In Nigeria, social media platforms were used to amplify the #EndSARS protests against police brutality but also to spread misinformation and propaganda that fueled tensions and violence.
• In France, social media platforms were used to radicalize and recruit members of terrorist groups such as ISIS, who carried out several deadly attacks in the country.

 
Critical thinking (Wikipedia): the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in an objective and rational manner.   Critical thinking has always been the alternate path to avoid all forms of groupthink, gangs, terrorism, mob behavior, and war. The primary trick of positive reasoning and critical thinking is recognizing all the alternate options available to us in the universe of possibilities(Click here to go to positive reasoning - critical thinking)

Groupthink is not a fallacy but rather an informal fallacy that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. It is essential to recognize the situations in which groupthink is most likely to occur, such as when groups feel threatened or when decision-making is rushed. But groupthink and groupthink hysteria are psychological phenomena that occur when people in a group conform to a common opinion or belief, sometimes at the expense of their critical thinking or rationality. Individual reactive nature is the tendency to change one’s behavior or attitude based on the presence or expectations of others. These concepts are related because they both involve the influence of social pressure and the desire for acceptance or belonging.  Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling, like the noise in one's head, that might arise when one’s actions or beliefs are inconsistent with one’s values or self-image.  To reduce this feeling or noise, people can change their actions or beliefs to match their values or self-image or rationalize their actions or beliefs to justify the inconsistency.  groupthink and individual reactive nature can result from the motivation to avoid or reduce cognitive dissonance or noise.   Groupthink hysteria is an extreme form of groupthink that involves collective fear, anxiety, or panic, mostly which is an explanation for all of the groupthink categories and behaviors listed below. In a nutshell, it is collective negative reasoning or bias resulting in negative emotional reasoning. So, in one sense, the negative behavior is mostly a consequence of not recognizing alternate or better options. It can also be influenced by individual reactive nature, as people may react more strongly or emotionally to a perceived threat or danger when they are in a group. 

To minimize the risk of groupthink, it’s critical to allow enough time for issues to be fully discussed and for as many group members as possible to share their thoughts. When dissent is encouraged, groupthink is less likely to occur. It is important to evaluate each individual based on their own actions and merits rather than making assumptions based on their political affiliation or beliefs such as voter suppression or taking away someone’s right to vote based on their political affiliation or beliefs that is generally considered unfair and undemocratic. An informal fallacy is a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context.   The concept of groupthink was first introduced by Irving Janis, a social psychologist, in his classic study Victims of Groupthink in 1972. He defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action". Signs of groupthink

• perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong.
• believing the group is morally correct.
• self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus.
• the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions.
• the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views. (Bush, avoidance of truth regarding WMD)
• perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members.
• holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with differing viewpoints (Janis).

The Milgram experiment, showed that people can obey an authority figure to the point of potentially harming others, demonstrating the dangers of conformity to a group. 

Other studies involving conformity can be found here at  Frontiers | Social Conformity in Immersive Virtual Environments: The Impact of Agents’ Gaze Behavior (frontiersin.org.). 

Critical points to understand:

By definition, "groupthink" is the cohesion of its members, applying pressure from within toward harmony and conformity that discourages creative thinking, resulting in dysfunctional and irrational decisions that require, according to Wikipedia "individuals avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions."  That position is opposite and contrary to the "Problem-Solving Model" on this website that suggests being open to a universe of possibilities to solve problems, otherwise known as "brainstorming." So, the greater the propensity to conform the less likely critical thinking will occur, potentially resulting in extreme behaviors. 

Group polarization:

 Group polarization is a psychological phenomenon in which the beliefs, attitudes, and decisions of groups tend to be more amplified or more extreme than those held by individual group members. The phenomenon is shaped by personal experiences, informational insights, and the emotional need for social acceptance and conformity.  Group polarization is the phenomenon that people tend to adopt more extreme positions when they are in groups of like-minded others, as opposed to when they are by themselves or exposed to different opinions.  That definition is the same as mob behavior.  Group polarization can have important implications for understanding decision-making in various social and political contexts. So, groups holding similar beliefs and positions before they congregate will confirm their bias when they get together and become more extreme after meeting.   It would appear to me that under those circumstances there is already a predisposition that is reinforced by like-minded individuals that encourages the person to act when they might not otherwise do so alone. In other words, like-minded people in groups give permission for extremist behaviors. Reasons suggested:

• Social comparison: People tend to evaluate their own beliefs by comparing them to those of others in the group. If they find that their views are different from the group norm, they may adjust them to fit in and gain approval.
• Persuasive arguments: People are exposed to more arguments that support their initial position and fewer arguments that challenge it when they interact with like-minded peers. This can strengthen their confidence and conviction in their views.
• Social identity: People may identify themselves with a certain group and adopt its values and attitudes as part of their self-concept. This can increase their loyalty and commitment to the group and make them more resistant to opposing views.
• Informational influence: People may learn new information or insights from other group members that reinforce or extend their existing views. This can make them more knowledgeable and persuasive about their position.
• Diffusion of responsibility: People may feel less accountable or responsible for their individual decisions when they are part of a group. This can reduce their risk aversion and make them more willing to take extreme actions.

Cults:

A cult is a group usually led by an influential charismatic leader whose members are devoted to the leader, cause, and purpose of the group. Cult members often display and engage in classic groupthink behavior. According to the Cult Education Institute, Rick Ross, Expert Consultant, and Intervention Specialist, classic warning signs of a potentially unsafe group leader include; 

1. "Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. Records, books, news articles, or television programs document the group's or leader's abuses.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible."

Genocide:
"When you have been prepared in the right way by the radios and the official advice, you obey more easily, even if the order is to kill your own neighbor." As members of a group meet and move toward extremist views, the Salient feature that tends to unify and bond extremists is often their emotional ties or attachment to each other more than the reasoning for a cause. The group may lose members as they move toward extremist views. But those who remain usually also have stronger cohesive bonds or attachments with each other.

possible ways to manage group polarization,

• Encouraging respectful, constructive, and empathetic communication that fosters mutual understanding, learning, and cooperation.
• Provide balanced resources, information, and perspectives that challenge the group’s views and preferences.
• Foster a culture of tolerance, diversity, and critical thinking that values different opinions and experiences.
• Take a silent ballot before any group discussion to avoid conformity pressure and social comparison.
• Ask people to do some writing and reflecting about their values before group discussions to reduce emotional attachment and bias.
• Choose words carefully, hedging claims, and emphasizing areas of agreement to avoid triggering emotional reactions, stereotypes, or conflicts.

Mob Behavior/herd mentality:  A mob is a large group of people, especially when the group is disorganized or unruly usually with a common cause or purpose that can lead to herd mentality, potentially resulting in violence or illegal acts. Mob behavior, herd mentality, or deindividuation is an example of individuals influenced by the larger group, social norms, and the desire to fit into the group in a manner that the individual might not otherwise behave outside of the group. Mob behavior can be seen in different situations, such as protests, riots, sports events, or disasters. This is another example of group conformity. 

Religious groupthink: 

According to Sunstein people often conform to the expectations of their religious communities, even if they do not fully agree with them, because of the benefits of belonging and the costs of dissenting. He has also examined how religious traditions can evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, and how they can influence or be influenced by legal rules and institutions

“Trauma bonding” is a term used to describe relationships formed under heightened negativity (shared pain) and often at a young age. Leaders of hate groups exploit this vulnerability using collective fear and insecurity of their members as a catalyst to persecute others.  

Groupthink is common in religion for these reasons;  

• Religion often involves a strong sense of group identity and loyalty, which can make people more likely to conform to the norms and expectations of their religious community.
• Religion often appeals to emotions and values, which can make people less likely to question or challenge their beliefs or actions, especially if they feel that they are doing good or following a higher purpose.
• Religion often faces opposition or criticism from other groups or sources, which can make people more defensive and resistant to change, or more hostile and aggressive towards outsiders.
• Religion often relies on authority figures or sacred texts, which can make people more obedient and less independent in their thinking, or more prone to rationalize or justify their decisions.
• People may adopt religious beliefs or practices without critically examining them, just because they want to conform to their group or leader.
• People may ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their religious views, or dismiss alternative perspectives as evil or misguided.
• People may suppress or persecute those who question or challenge their religious doctrines or authorities, or feel threatened by outsiders or minorities.
• People may engage in harmful or violent actions in the name of their religion, believing that they are doing the right thing or fulfilling a divine plan.

Some religions teach children and adults about the persecution of Jesus, his followers, and discrimination against nonbelievers. They may encourage the security of religious groups when facing fears or difficult times rather than teaching personal empowerment and reasoning. Common fallacies of reasoning are just-world reasoning, the assumption people get what they deserve, and that the world is fair,  fallacy of composition, the assumption that what is true for one part of a group is true for the whole group, and fallacies of false equivalencies, two things that are very different are equivalent. These fallacies are used to promote discrimination and retribution for those who fall victim to false outgroup reasoning, accelerating blame toward others in any outgroup.”

So, when individuals feel that their self-worth is tied to the group, they may be more likely to conform to the group’s norms and standards and develop attitudes and beliefs about an out-group, even if they disagree with them. 

According to a Pew Research Center report, religious beliefs and practices are often closely tied to social and cultural factors such as race, ethnicity, and education. The report also found that religious affiliation is strongly correlated with political and social attitudes, with members of different religious groups often holding different views on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and the role of government in society.

Gang groupthink: A gang is a cohesive group of people sharing common interests, identity, and purpose that also commonly engage in violent activity, often associated with a collective vision of invulnerability.  There is a fine line between normal aggressive biological changes and psychological development that affects behavior and cognition, during adolescence years and more extreme adolescent disorders like YMS (Youth Male Syndrome). These behaviors are influenced by factors such as hormones, brain maturation (F-25 yrs., M-30 yrs.), personality, and environment. Adolescent changes can result in increased risk-taking, impulsivity, emotionality, competitiveness, creativity, curiosity, and adaptability. So, gang activity is a social and cultural phenomenon that involves mostly young males engaging in risky and violent behaviors, often to gain status, resources, or mates. Gangs are influenced by factors such as peer pressure, social context, cultural norms, and economic conditions. Gang behavior can result in increased violence, aggression, and crime, but also in social bonding, identity formation, and collective action.  Gangs/terrorist: Gangs and terrorists both operate in a clandestine or subversive manner, but gangs usually have a local or regional scope, while terrorists usually have a political or possibly religious cause and operate on a national or global reach. Religion can be a factor of either. Homophily is a factor, "birds of a feather flock together."

Tribalism and Groupthink podcast from psych bytes

 Political groupthink can lead to poor decision-making and a lack of critical thinking. It’s crucial for individuals and groups to prioritize truth and the best interests of the people over party loyalty. Encouraging critical thinking, seeking diverse perspectives, and fostering a culture of accountability can help mitigate the effects of groupthink. It’s all about creating an environment where different viewpoints are valued and considered.   Political groupthink can also result in dehumanizing or demonizing the opposing groups (outgroups) or parties and reduce the complexity and diversity of political issues and solutions.

Some of the factors that can contribute to political groupthink are:

• High stress and time pressure: the group faces a crisis, threat, or deadline that requires a quick and decisive response, and does not allow for careful deliberation or consultation.
• High group cohesion and loyalty: the group has a strong sense of identity, solidarity, and commitment, and values the group’s goals and interests over the individuals.
• Isolation from external sources of information and feedback: the group limits or filters its exposure to alternative or opposing views and relies on its on sources or echo chambers.
• Lack of diversity and expertise in the group: The group consists of people who have similar backgrounds, experiences, perspectives, and beliefs, but it lacks diversity and people who have different or relevant knowledge or skills.
• Dominant or charismatic leaders: the group has a leader who has a strong influence or authority over the group and who expresses his or her preferences or expectations clearly and persuasively.
• Organizational culture and norms: the group operates within a system or structure that encourages or rewards conformity, consensus, and loyalty, and discourages or punishes dissent, criticism, and innovation.

Some of the symptoms of political groupthink are:

• The illusion of invulnerability: the group is overly confident and optimistic and takes excessive risks.
• Collective rationalization: the group rationalizes away any warnings or contradictory information that might challenge its assumptions or decisions.
• The Illusion of orality: the group believes its decisions are morally correct and superior and ignores ethical or moral consequences.
• Excessive stereotyping: the group stereotypes and dehumanizes its enemies or competitors and the illusion underestimates their capabilities or intentions.
• Pressure for conformity: the group pressures and silences any dissenting members and creates an illusion of unanimity.
• Self-censorship: the group members censor their doubts and objections, and do not express them to the group.
• Illusion of unanimity: The group members mistakenly assume that everyone agrees with the group’s decision and do not seek out or consider any alternative views.
• Mindguards: the group appoints some members to protect the group from any adverse or conflicting information or opinions from outside sources.

Some of the consequences of political groupthink are:

• Poor decision-making: the group makes decisions that are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and do not consider the possible outcomes or alternatives.
• Irrational actions: the group acts impulsively or emotionally, and does not evaluate the costs and benefits of its actions.
• Ethical violations: The group violates laws, norms, and values of society, and harms others or itself.
• Strategic failures: The group fails to achieve its goals or objectives, and faces resistance or retaliation from its opponents or authorities.

Therefore, it is important for political groups to prevent and overcome groupthink, by using some strategies, such as:

• Encouraging critical thinking and constructive dissent.
• Seeking diverse and independent sources of information and expertise.
• Establishing clear and transparent decision-making processes and criteria.
• Creating a culture of learning and accountability.
• Fostering ethical and moral awareness and responsibility.

The 2020 election was the most secure in history:

This was supported by the Brennan Center of Justice in an article dated  December 11, 2020, and according to the Department of Homeland Security (CISA). The 2020 US election was “the most secure in American history" according to , CBS,CNN, Fox and Homeland Security.  The Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating executive committees also issued a joint statement that this year’s election (2020) marked “the most secure in American history” The statement was made in response to baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in key battleground states by President Trump. They further added there was no voting system “deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or in any way compromised.” Add to that there were 60 court cases, the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnel, Bill Barr, the Department of Justice confirmed that there was no evidence of problem with the 2020 election.

The Washington Post: In response to an article by the Post "voter-fraud overwhelmingly targeted minorities and democrats,

 “Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University professor who has written a book on voter fraud, said she was unsurprised there have been so few convictions, since studies, election audits, and reporting have consistently shown that voter fraud is rare.”

“At best, these ‘election integrity’ units, are for show, designed to placate far-right election denialists in the conservative base,” Sawyer said. “At worst, they are used to justify new voting restrictions (1,230 proposed restricted laws listed below) and to intimidate people especially racial minorities from exercising their right to vote.”

Why was there a sudden change after the 2020 election in proposed voter laws?

Proposed voter restriction laws increased from 2020 to 2021 by 7.72 times.

10/23 - 325  restrictive voting bills have been introduced in 45 states by 10/23.  "More restrictive laws have been enacted in 2023    

                       than in any year of the last decade except 2021". 

12/22 - 408 restrictive bills were considered by lawmakers in 39 states, while lawmakers in at least 27 states introduced 151 election 

                     interference bills in 2023.

12/21 - 440 Bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions.

12/20 - 57  Legislators have introduced at least 35 bills that would restrict access in 15 states. Thus, when combined with bills carried over from last year, the- 57re are currently 57 in 2020 

57 + 440 + 408+ 325 = 1,230 total. 

Proposed voter restriction bills went up 7.72 times from 2020 to 2021. Clearly, that did not happen accidentally.

voting rights timeline

The most notable periods of voting rights suppression and resistance are: The Jim Crow era (1877-1965), the women’s suffrage movement (1848-1920), The Native American voting rights struggle (1924-present), The immigrant voting rights challenge (1790-present).

The most recent wave of voting rights restrictions began after the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision, which invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws. Since then, many states have enacted laws that make it harder to vote, such as requiring voter ID, reducing early voting, purging voter rolls, and closing polling places.

There is something very wrong in a country if people are unaware of or support voting restriction or suppression when democracy is counting every vote. Restrictions reduce human rights. They don't encourage and promote human rights.

A.I. suggestions for the problem:

The impact of these bills on voting rights is mostly negative, especially for voters of color, disabilities, and low literacy levels. These bills make it harder to register, vote by mail, or in person, and have one’s vote counted. They also increase the risk of voter suppression, intimidation, and disenfranchisement.

Possible solutions to protect democracy include electoral college reform, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, reducing barriers to voting, holding social media platforms accountable for spreading misinformation, strengthening civic education, and promoting bipartisanship and dialogue.

The problem of conspiracy: reasoning with emotion

Why would people believe NOAA, WHO, Attenborough, Life on our Planet, breaking boundaries (Netflix), NASA, WWF, U.N. EDF, Nature Conservancy, and Harvard Business School, etc. were all involved in a “climate cult” conspiracy suggested by Tucker Carlson who was expelled from FOX NEWS (4/21/23) after promoting “conspiracies of widespread election fraud” associated with Fox News’ $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems (4/18/23) involving Dominion computer voting machines? How do the dots connect from voting to climate? That's not a political question. It's a reasoning question that requires a reasoned response. 

Swami et study (2014) study indicated that a stronger belief in conspiracy theories was significantly associated with lower analytic thinking and open-mindedness and greater intuitive thinking.  Three characteristic behaviors appeared to be consistent with conspiratorial thinking: 

 · Epistemic motives: a need for certainty or desire for information. People with lower levels of education have a tendency toward conspiracy when they feel uncertain and then rely on social media for information. The problem is not intelligence as much as they may lack the essential tools to differentiate credible and non-credible sources.

· Existential motives, may be a sense of powerlessness with a need to feel safe and secure while having a sense of autonomy and power over what happens to them. People who feel powerless or disillusioned tend to gravitate toward conspiracy, especially when threatened.

· Social motives. in a concept of boosting self-esteem by believing in special powers, uniqueness, superiority, and narcissism with a tendency to support an ingroup that may be considered good with outgroups that are evil.

Dwyer in a 2020 article also reported, " Consistent with our hypotheses, results revealed that higher scores on disposition towards open-mindedness predicted lower scores on "control of information conspiracy beliefs; higher scores on disposition towards perseverance predicted lower scores on both "government malfeasance" beliefs and "malevolent global conspiracy" beliefs; and higher scores on disposition towards attentiveness predicted lower scores on "extra-terrestrial cover-up" beliefs."

Once again, the evidence suggests that a lack of education, critical thinking skills, and analytical reasoning tends to predispose individuals to accept unverified or speculative information.

A thorough study revealed those who believe in conspiracy theories tend to see:

• the world is a dangerous and threatening place, 
• where powerful malicious forces are plotting against them. 
• Feeling anxious, insecure, and powerless in the face of these perceived threats, 
• they rely on intuition (unusual or paranormal beliefs) rather than on evidence and logic. 
• They often have negative and hostile attitudes towards others, especially those who disagree with them. They may also feel superior and smarter than the average person and think that they have access to special or secret knowledge that others do not have. 

The negative and hostile attitude, paranormal rather than evidence and logic, falls under the category of negative emotional reasoning on this website.

•  People who fall into the dark tetrad: (possibly 6% of people who are antagonistic, exploitative disagreeable people) are prone  conspiracy.
• People who believe in conspiracy theories are often on the “losing” side of a political issue, have a lower social status due to income or ethnicity, have experienced social ostracism, or are prejudiced against “enemy” groups they perceive as powerful. 
• Epistemic motives: the desire for understanding, accuracy, and certainty about the political situation, especially when it is complex, uncertain, or ambiguous.
• Existential motives: the desire for control, security, and protection from political threats, risks, or challenges, especially when they are perceived as high or imminent.
• Social motives: the desire for belonging, identity, and self-esteem within a political group, especially when they are threatened or challenged by another group.

 Some of the cognitive and social biases that may result from these motives are:

• Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember the information that confirms one’s existing beliefs, and to ignore, distort, or forget the information that contradicts them.
• Attribution bias: the tendency to attribute the causes of one’s own or one’s group’s actions or outcomes to internal or situational factors, and the causes of others’ or other groups’ actions or outcomes to external or dispositional factors.
• In-group bias: the tendency to favor one’s own or one’s group’s members, values, and interests over those of others or other groups, and to perceive them as more positive, trustworthy, and competent.
• Out-group bias: the tendency to dislike, distrust, or devalue others or other groups, and to perceive them as more negative, hostile, and incompetent.

These biases may lead people to believe that there is a secret and powerful group of people or entities that are conspiring to harm or manipulate them or their group and to reject or resist any alternative or opposing explanations or evidence. These beliefs may also reinforce or justify one’s own or one’s group’s actions or attitudes, and may provide a sense of meaning, coherence, or empowerment in the face of political uncertainty or adversity 

Military/war groupthink:  the military is vulnerable to groupthink, which is a phenomenon that occurs when a cohesive group prioritizes consensus over critical thinking, and suppresses dissenting opinions, information, or alternatives. Groupthink can lead to poor decision-making, irrational actions, ethical violations, and strategic failures (A.I. 12/5/23). Groupthink is especially relevant and prevalent in the military, as the military decision-making process relies on analysis, inputs, and recommendations from the commander and staff, who normally work in a group environment to plan, synchronize, and control combat operations.  There are many examples of groupthink in military history,  the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Battle of Gallipoli, the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Iran hostage rescue mission, the Somalia intervention, and the Abu Ghraib scandal. Groupthink also includes  The Iraq War and Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Groupthink could also include actions by Hamas and Israel in Gaza 2023.

Systemic reasoning:

Systemic reasoning is a problem-solving method that involves looking at the whole and how its parts work in relationship to the whole. It considers the root aspects that make up the entire system, understanding that changing one aspect or part of the whole can have an impact on other parts and result in the system functioning differently than anticipated or resulting in unintended consequences. This approach can help us to address the complex and dynamic challenges that we face in our personal and professional lives, as well as in our society and environment.

An important recognition that impacts our human group dynamic thinking or reasoning is to understand that we have all been influenced as a group by our ancestors and our personal past development. As such, we have all been raised with certain habit patterns, principles, and manners of thinking and behaving that were appropriate for what we understood and believed in our past. But these behaviors may not necessarily apply to an appropriate manner of thinking and acting today. Habit patterns are like coiled springs, which are difficult to unwind when we are older. An example might be that I may have been raised to believe in the survival of the fittest principles or ways of thinking. My belief system today might support the idea that only the most muscular bully men succeed in getting what they want. That certainly may have been a behavior that worked in tribal or caveman ethics. Clearly, this is not an appropriate way of thinking and acting in our society today.

Therefore, we can summarize the main points as follows:

• Systemic reasoning is a way of thinking that looks at the whole system and its interactions and considers the consequences and alternatives of changing any part of it.
• Human group dynamic thinking or reasoning is a way of thinking that is influenced by our ancestral and personal history and may not be suitable for present or future situations. 
• We need to be aware of and challenge our own assumptions and biases, resist change, and be open and flexible to alternate ways of working with our relationships with each other and our environment, which suggests a better understanding of mindfulness.  Awareness matters.

It is important to recognize that previous systemic reasoning did not prepare us for the following conditions: famine, catastrophic events, ecological and biodiversity destruction, economic collapse, disease, war, expanding population, societal collapse, or living in the most healthy, appropriate manner in relationship to each other or in relationship to our environments. Past behaviors or systemic teachings did not necessarily teach us or prepare us for all that we need to understand to manage our lives in a positive, healthy, and appropriate manner today. There remains much work to bring us up to date. A top priority is developing and teaching "mindfulness toward each other and environment while recognizing that we are all part of an existing ecosystem that requires us to work collectively together for the benefit of all to survive."

The cure: 

Self-worth, independent thinking, and avoiding groupthink is essential to avoid falling into the trap of conformity. Likewise, one should not blindly follow and believe what others are saying on social media or from other dubious sources but rather seek out credible news sources that are objective, reliable, and truthful. Following the news, every day is critical to freedom and democracy. Ignorance can have disastrous outcomes.

James Madison drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights in 1789. He supported the separation of church and state and freedom of the press. He was aware of the long history of religious interference in politics, from ancient Egypt to Mesopotamia to medieval and modern Europe. He feared that the government could violate people’s freedom of conscience by imposing religion on the citizens or that people could corrupt and oppress others by mixing religion and civil authority. He knew religion could sway people’s emotions and judgments in political matters. That's why he became a strong advocate for the First Amendment because he wanted to protect individual liberties from the potential tyranny of federal and state governments.  The problem-solving model found under positive reasoning is also a source to encourage independent positive thinking while learning critical thinking skills to think independently, instead of relying on group answers.  When individuals feel that their self-worth is tied to a group, they are more likely to conform to the group’s norms and standards, even if they disagree with them. By fostering a sense of self-worth that is independent of the group, individuals may be more likely to think critically and independently 

The above fictitious model is based on attachment theory, which is a psychological theory that explains how people form emotional bonds with others as children that can impact the rest of their lives and relationships. Attachment theory addresses the genetic, and biological survival need for safety while serving the psychological purpose of security against any potential threat. For instance, psychological studies many years ago established well-known facts that institutionalized children had delays in cognitive function, motor development, and language. They also showed deficits in socio-emotional behaviors and experienced more psychiatric disorders. That is why taking children from their parents at the border could be considered detrimental to the child and a human rights violation if it is not absolutely necessary.  Attachment behaviors have been observed in infant primates and other animals. "Attachment theory" does not address "rightness, money or environment, etc." except from the perspective of irregularities in development that might impact "attachment styles."  It is stated that primary caregivers' responsiveness and availability allow for healthy development. The infant learns a caregiver is dependable, creating a secure base that allows the child the opportunity to freely explore the world without fear. Many studies have supported Ainsworth's attachment styles, indicating that those styles can have an impact on behaviors later in life.   Failure to form healthy, secure attachments early in life can have a negative impact on behavior later in childhood and throughout life. Regardless of the developmental attachment behaviors and styles traditionally considered under the American model of "Attachment Theory," the above model differs from that narrow perspective to consider a different concept proposed by Buddhists and Jainists called  Aparigraha (non-attachment) that dates back to 2, 500 years ago.  Parigraha refers to the act of accumulating, desiring, seeking, seizing, or accepting material possessions or gifts from others for personal benefit. According to this view, attachment is a universal human trait that manifests in various forms, such as clinging to money, property, religions, ideologies, groups, one’s own opinions or rightness. The Speculative Attachment Model examines how attachment affects not only our relationships with others, but also our sense of self-worth. It also explores how attachment can lead to self-centeredness, narrow-mindedness, and indifference to the wider world. Buddhists observed that humans characteristically demonstrated attachment to money, property, religions, ideologies, groups, and rightness in nearly the same manner. So, we are considering behavior as it relates to anything that humans become attached to including the self.  Attachment from this perspective can be self-absorption, selfishness, an attachment to one's own family, group, or town, etc., without a sense of awareness of humanity or the environment. 

It is possible in the above model to rate an assigned attachment value to others, groups, the environment, time, money, and self, ranging from +10 (strong positive bond) to -10 (strong negative bond or rejection).

• This attachment value influences how people support or oppose those categories. For example:
  • If the people in a group have a high attachment value toward their own group (in-group, tribalism) and assign a high negative value to another group (out-group), one might presume they would be more inclined to go to war with that out-group. 
  • If a person has a low attachment value for the environment, they may be less likely to care about environmental issues or have a desire to take action to help the environment, or possibly not enjoy being out in the environment.
  • An attachment value to self can be very high but not necessarily positive.
• The model suggests that attachment theory can help us to understand the causes and consequences of human conflicts and cooperation. 

In the above example, a mother, whether human or grizzly bear, will almost always have a strong positive genetic attachment value to a newborn and be willing to react emotionally to sacrifice to preserve the baby.  So, any perceived threat could likely carry a strong negative emotional value in contrast to the strong positive attachment to the baby potentially resulting in a strong emotional response or attack.    

Conclusion:               

 According to this Buddhist style interpretation of attachment theory, we form deep and enduring emotional bonds with something that we value highly and feel secure with (e.g., a baby, money) in the same manner as suggested under attachment theory. This bond makes us react with intense negative emotions when we perceive any threat to it. Conversely, when we have a positive emotional attachment to something, we will do our best to support and protect it from any potential harm (e.g., a religion, a spouse, a baby, money). That is true for the attachment value of self, which is not necessarily positive while an attachment to money can be closely tied or correlated to a concept of self or image of self as in self-worth or value.  We may also have a strong attachment value to rightness or righteousness as in a religion that could be an attachment to the group and/or to God. So, it is not unusual for a person to reject the truth or what might be in the best interest of people and earth for the preservation of a group, its values, and the principles of righteousness (e.g. "I can't be wrong." "My ideology or God can't be wrong").  Are we so attached to our time, money, emotions, and beliefs that we conform instead of reason to find solutions in Gaza or to consider sustainability for people on the planet while blaming others for the problems we create? Division is the evidence of an absence of critical thinking and example of attachment to political solutions that are not solving problems.

Many humans are naturally self-indulgent as animals are in nature. Historically, survival of the fittest was a requirement for life. 

It has always been a dream of mine to wake up one day to find that humans have learned to be mindful of each other and the earth rather than oppositional, narcissistic, and destructive of each other and the environment. From my perspective mindfulness requires that we have an understanding of the seeds we plant in our children's minds that may influence their future. Are we teaching our children to be mindful of each other and the earth? What does a child imagine when you put a weapon designed to kill others in their hands as opposed to encouraging them to plant seeds that will help the earth to become healthier and more beautiful? Below are 23 reasons why it may be harmful to put a weapon in a child's hands. Why? Mostly one can see that difference by looking at the 2 photos above. Here are the reasons I believe it is harmful:

1. What's the Purpose of Weapons: 

• When children consider the purpose of a weapon, their understanding is often shaped by the environment they grow up in, the emotions surrounding them, and the stark reality that weapons are designed “to kill people.”

2. Children’s Maturity and Reasoning: 

• Children lack the full maturation, reasoning, and understanding that adults possess.
• Adolescents, in particular, tend to be more reactive and impulsive due to hormonal changes and increased stress.
• The challenges of transitioning into adulthood—finding a spouse, job, house, and security—can be daunting, especially when leaving home for the first time.

3. Early Adulthood and Negative Energy:

• As individuals reach the “early adulthood” or “novice phase” of development (as discussed in the article “Maturation of the Adolescent Brain”), negative energy can lead them down potentially harmful paths.
• Cultivating positive seeds is crucial for personal well-being, the well-being of others, and the health of our planet.
• A weapon designed to kill people is neither positive nor healthy, in my opinion.

4. Beyond Visual Representation:

• The issue extends beyond the mere visual representation of how a weapon can cause harm.
• It involves considering an individual’s level of maturity, life experience, wisdom, understanding of reason, and ability to manage emotions effectively.
• Once essential life skills are acquired, there is typically no valid justification for possessing a weapon whose primary purpose is harm.
• Even in cases of self-defense, the actual self-defense aspect is statistically less than 1-2%, and some instances may not truly qualify as self-defense. 

5. A Shift in Focus:

• It is in everyone’s best interest, including wildlife and the Earth, to shift away from a singular focus of defense.
• Instead, consider that fostering a stronger emphasis on positive reasoning, mindfulness, and understanding can lead to a more harmonious existence.
• Remember that our collective well-being depends on the choices we make regarding weapons and their purpose in our lives.
• Gun training does not address positive psychology. It’s reasonable to assume that an individual’s emotional state significantly influences whether they use a gun. In 2021, over half of gun-related deaths (54%) were suicides, and tragically, 415 of those deaths were children in 2023.  Having a history of violence, youth justice-involvement, physical interpersonal abuse, and parental justice-involvement are more significant factors in predicting future violence than mental health issues alone.
• Groupthink about the 2nd amendment does not negate positive reasoning in the best interest of adults and children nor negate the above concerns or below statistics.

Statistical facts:

1. Frontal lobe maturation 25 -28 yrs. for males and prefrontal cortex into the 30s

2. “The adolescent brain undergoes profound development.”

3. “The environment, including teaching can and does shape the developing adolescent brain.

4. Military recruitment targets young people, including adolescents who, based on general observation tend to follow rules without question, have less fear, and take more risks, while believing in their own invincibility. 

5. In Montana 84% of gun deaths are suicides.

6. Boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children.

7. Those aged 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all children gun deaths. 

8. Gun deaths among children rose 50% in 2 years.

9. The 10 -25 yrs (adolescent phase) is seriously challenging with pressure for many young adults. 

10. Mortality rates (15–24 yr) triple the mortality rates of middle school children.

11. Hormonal changes occur during adolescence that significantly impacts emotion.

12. Adolescents rely more on an emotional brain than adults, which explains quick intense feelings.

13. Under conditions of high arousal and intense emotion, teens make poorer decisions. 

14. It’s more difficult for teens to think through potential outcomes and understand the consequences of their decisions. 

15. Adolescents are more vulnerable to nicotine, alcohol, and drug addictions because the limbic brain regions that govern impulse and  

     motivation are not yet fully developed.  

16.  Children and teens, homicide accounted for 60% of gun deaths. 

17. 26.3 million individuals have established a strong connection between guns and suicide.

18. In Montana, 84% of gun deaths are suicides.

19. Depression impacts 20.1% of the U.S. population ages 12 to 17yrs (16-17yrs-26.8).

20. Montana is 8 highest on the list of gun deaths/per capita.

21. Guns cost $1,296 per person/yr or 1 billion in Montana. Don’t complain about your taxes. complain about the cost and harm to your 

    kids from guns. 

22. Top 10 states with the highest number of deaths from guns are red states except NM.

 Upon realizing that there is more to the world beyond our immediate survival concerns, negative biases, and fears, the next crucial step involves embracing Positive Reasoning, Self-Learning, and, most importantly, the Environment.

Attitude polarization based on guns:    t.com pewresearch.org  fivethirtyeight.com  pewresearch.org     

emotional reasoning: en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org britannica.com  names.org6📷study 1📷psychologycorner.com2📷bing.com3📷psychologytoday.com4📷en.wikipedia.org5📷exploringyourmind.com6📷psychologytools.com7📷frontiersin.org8📷psychologytoday.com 1. psychologytoday.com. psychologycorner.com4. psychologytoday.com  

fallacy and reason:  1. bing.com2. merriam-webster.com3. en.wikipedia.org4. dictionary.com5. oxforddictionaries.com6. en.wikipedia.org7. logicalfallacies.org8. grammarly.com9. listoffallacies.com10. writingcenter.unc.edu    

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/11-3-persuasive-reasoning-and-fallacies/ 

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/   1en.wikipedia.org2britannica.com3britannica.com4mozilla.org5en.wikipedia.org
confirmation bias:  1. simplypsychology.org 2. en.wikipedia.org3. ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu Cognitive bias - Wikipedia  

motivated reasoning:  1📷apa.org2📷writingcenter.uagc.edu3📷en.wikipedia.org  Why we believe alternative facts (apa.org) 1📷psychologytoday.com2📷en.wikipedia.org 1. en.wikipedia.org2. oxfordbibliographies.com3. psychology.iresearchnet.com4. psychologytoday.com  

red herring:  1. en.wikipedia.org2. bing.com3. dictionary.cambridge.org4. litcharts.com5. en.wikipedia.org  

false equivlaency:  1. en.wikipedia.org2. dictionary.com3. knowyourlogicalfallacies.com4. developgoodhabits.com 

faulty generalization:  1. scribbr.com2. thoughtco.com3. tckpublishing.com4. en.wikipedia.org5. writingcooperative.com Faulty generalization based on insufficient evidence.  

fallacy of composition:  1. en.wikipedia.org2. thoughtco.com3. finmasters.com4. logical-fallacy.com5. scribbr.com 

ad hominem:  1. bing.com2. britannica.com3. en.wikipedia.org4. merriam-webster.com5. dictionary.com6. oxforddictionaries.com 

cognitive bias:  1. verywellmind.com2. simplypsychology.org3. en.wikipedia.org4. britannica.com  

slippery slope fallacy:  1. publichealth.jhu.edu2. pewresearch.org3. scientificamerican.com4. bearingarms.com
1. grammarly.com2. en.wikipedia.org3. scribbr.com  

false dilemma fallacy:  1. grammarly.com2. scribbr.com3. thoughtco.com4. en.wikipedia.org5. en.wikipedia.org
begging the question:  1. scribbr.com2. logical-fallacy.com3. txstate.edu

conformity:  Conformity - Wikipedia Ashe conformity experiments - Wikipedia  As psychologytoday.co  explorepsychology.com scribbr.com  

Groupthink:  (verywellmind.com) en.wikipedia.org harbormentalhealth.com simplypsychology.org  

 The illusion of Racial bias

1.https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/153/1/21/119942/The-Science-of-Implicit-Race-Bias-Evidence-from

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-harvard-implicit-racial-bias-highest.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/4015720-unconscious-racial-bias-goes-deep-regardless-of-views-on-equality-study/

2.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/debunking-myth-immigrants-and-crim

https://www.ktsm.com/local/el-paso-news/utep-study-finds-migrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-u-s-citizens/

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime

3. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/11/585

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Racial-Authoritarianism-Weaver-Prowse.pdf

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/uploads/reports/Final-Reports/FollowTheLeader2019Feb07.pdf

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-71122-0

Group polarization:  Verywellmind.com simplypsychology.org thebehavioralscientist.com dictionary.apa.org  How Conformity Can Be Good and Bad for Society (berkeley.edu) . apps.dtic.mil . smallwarsjournal.com . psychologytodayost secure .com. realcleardefense.com Groupthink: Definition, Signs, Examples, and How to Avoid It (verywellmind.com) Groupthink - Wikipedia Groupthink: Definition, Signs, Examples, and How to Avoid It (verywellmind.com) en.wikipedia.org harbormentalhealth.com simplypsychology.org 

Genocide:  psychologytoday.com verywellmind.com onemindtherapy.com
: https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html :  suhay_2016_politicalconformity.pdf (uci.edu) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Frontiers | Social Conformity in Immersive Virtual Environments: The Impact of Agents’ Gaze Behavior (frontiersin.org)  en.wikipedia.org2. simplypsychology.org3. socialsci.libretexts.org4. thoughtco.com5. psychology.fas.harvard.edu6. en.wikipedia.org  Social Conformity and Group Pressure | Psychology Today 

mob behavior:   1. webmd.com2. psychologytoday.com3. ifioque.com4. dictionary.apa.org5. cambridge.org
religious groupthink:  Why We Shouldn’t Ask Who Decides: Religious Arguments and Public Justification  Social Norms and Social Roles : [On the Tension Between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom]  Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org dash.harvard.edu bloomberg.com jstor.org nrs.harvard.edu bloomberg.com jstor.org nrs.harvard.edu dash.harvard.edu 📷en.wikipedia.org11gettyimages.com 

trauma bonding/religious groupthink:  britannica.com pbs.org gatesnotes.com psychologytoday.com verywellmind.com en.wikipedia.org  

religious groupthink:  pewresearch.org pewresearch.org psychologytoday.com psychologytoday.com hbr.org hbr.org  1. psychologytoday.com2. cslewisinstitute.org3. biblicalarchaeology.org4. persecution.org5. time.com6. psychologicalscience.org7. women.com8. verywellhealth.com9. psychologytoday.com 

gang groupthink:  1. globaljournals.org2. globaljournals.org3. academicjournals.org4. healthsmartva.org5. sao4th.com6. academicjournals.org 3. pbs.org4. researchgate.net5. webmd.com  

Enemies:  scholar.harvard.edu www.brookings.edu escholarship.org 

 political groupthink:  1. sites.psu.edu2. en.wikipedia.org3. sites.psu.edu4. en.wikipedia.org5. thoughtco.com6. investopedia.com https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-july-2021

Conspiracy:  

https://www.psypost.org/2024/01/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-heres-what-the-science-says-220856

 journals.sagepub.com . apa.org . en.wikipedia.org . verywellmind.com Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories (verywellmind.com) 1verywellmind.com2psychologytoday.com3apa.org   Conspiracy Beliefs and Disposition Towards Critical Thinking  Analytic Thinking reduces Belief in Conspiracy Theories.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-time-cure/202110/conspiracy-beliefs-vs-critical-and-analytical-thinking

attachment:     Schaffer R (2007). Introducing Child Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 83–121. ISBN 978-0-631-21628-5. 

Young ES, Simpson JA, Griskevicius V, Huelsnitz CO, Fleck C. Childhood attachment and adult personality: A life history perspective. Self and Identity. 2019;18:1:22-38. doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1353540.  The Implications of Attachment Theory in Counseling and Psychotherapy | Society for the Advancement of Psychotherapy (societyforpsychotherapy.org)  Attachment Theory: Bowlby and Ainsworth's Theory Explained (verywellmind.com) Aparigraha

Social Psychology: https://opened.tesu.edu/introsocialpsychology/chapter/conformity-and-obedience/)
1📷psychologytoday.com2📷hbr.org3📷hbr.org
1: Wikipedia 2: Psychology Today uk.indeed.com 2. progressivebritain.org3. files.eric.ed.gov  
 1verywellmind.com2pbs.org3harbormentalhealth.com  1verywellmind.com2psychcentral.com3share.upmc.com4theconv
 📷practicalpie.com2📷logical-fallacy.com3📷thoughtco.com4📷englishgrammarnotes.com 

 Summary:   healthline.com psychcentral.com bing.com healthline.com psychcentral.com verywellmind.com en.wikipedia.org healthline.com psychcentral.com bing.com  Frederickson, Barbara:  Positivity resonates: Barbara Frederickson
psycnet.apa.org scirp.org  

Negative Reasoning (brief page)