วีดีโอ

@@munmilks Thank you !!

Thank you so much for dropping by and the kind words!

You're very welcome:-)

Must be some crazy willpower!

Tak min ven ❤️

Disagree. If they lose a war to big birds; how can they expect to win a nobel prize??

Really appreciate the nice words !!

Poseidon 🤝 Nic Cage

Thanks!

:(

A small consolidation is that most people get around that:) Thank you for taking the test!!

Thank you so much!! More to come for sure

Thank you for the nice comment! And yes the endowment effect is really really powerful..

Thank you so much! I hope your enjoy my future videos also :)

Thank you !

Thanks!

That's exactly how I felt when I started my psychology-journey. But another more positive perspective is that this irrationality, that is embedded in the human psyche, actually makes life pretty tolerable. If we were constantly analyze the situation and think about the most rational option, there might not be a lot of room for happiness, and if we constantly feel bad about being irrational (which our irrationality prevents us from doing), it would be pretty damning for our mental health.

booooo

Thank you for the feedback! Will look into it

Thanks for the feedback. I will look to turn up the audio for the future!

Thanks for the sub and the great comment! I really liked your thought about the perceived cost of your own labor. It could definitely be key factor in our way of thinking loss and gain. Sadly Shafir and Thaler didn't touch upon this topic, but would be extremely interesting to look into this.

alcohol makes us all happy

Many people prefer cannabis. Also, like half the world don't drink because of religious reasons

stick

Stick

Stick

Stick?

Stick

I would argue that this is an integral part of microorganizational litterature and therefore an integral part of how people act in businesses. Take Bearings Bank that also plead ignorance to Nick Leesons fraudulent activities to make profit. It’s a very common thing to do and not necessarily an indication that someone is a sociopath.

@@businesspsychologycb In the example you use, Sanofi ignore red flags in order to generate profit. Reporting them would not have landed the company in trouble. The product killed people but it is considered a good case because Sanofi managed to make a profit out of it. Moreover if the product was not dangerous, they would have continued to make profit. So this only benefits you when the product is in fact dangerous, rationalizing inflicting human sufferings for profit/upwards mobility as a good thing. The fact that is it integral only highlights the implicit complicity of all involved and that the literature has become itself corrupted. I would also like to point out that by ignoring red flags, they are encouraging the faking of the data to begin with, as favorable results will get you more customers. So it's not just corrupt, it's self sustaining and defeats the purpose of the tests. The regulations are not there for the companies to overcome, but to follow

@@zombieGI I definitely see your point. The way I see it, is that strategic ignorance is not inherently bad or good, depends on what you use it for. As another person commented he ignores knowledge about bad things happening in his city, because he wants to savor his mental health. In the Sanofi example it was used extremely maliciously, and McGoey (the person who wrote the article) describes how they used strategic ignorance to deflect accountability for their immoral act - she nor I aren't condoning the behaviour, it's a decription of their particular behaviour. I wouldn't say that the litterature has necessarily been corrupted by merely pointing out what Sanofi did.

@@businesspsychologycb If this is the case can you point me out to a morally good case of strategic ignorance. I see the opposite in practice all the time. Sales experts describing the deliberate psychological manipulation of minors to gaming execs (and the preamble i am not gonna talk about the moral implications) is another good example. The preamble itself is another demonstration of strategic ignorance. One is strategic ignorance, the other is just ignorance or coping with things you cannot affect another difference between the examples).

@@businesspsychologycb Another example would be bankers ignoring toxic assets. They made a law to ban it and now its back in a different form because they didn't ban strategic ignorance, and i would say it's hard to justify plausible deniability when you have literature that lays out your intent

Thanks for this great comment! Just as many other things, strategic ignorance is not inherently wrong. It definitely saves the brain from some cognitive overload. As humans we can’t consider everything happening in our vaste world.

Thanks a lot!

Yes! I completely agree with you. From a third-party-perspective the person would typically still be at fault, but the moral wiggle room, as described here, is self-imposed from that person to the person. That means that this is merely a description of how people usually avoid that piece of knowledge that would condemn them as a “bad person”. In a situation with uncertainty about the whether a person has herpes, that person typically would feel better continuing that questionable moral behaviour rather than in a situation where he knows 100% that he has herpes. So he is creating a moral wiggle room for himself, to justify his own behaviour

And undoubtedly a knowledgeable professor!

Exactly lmao. I should change the title

Thanks!

Thank you. Means a lot to me!

Appreciate it 😎

Thanks ❤️

That's what she said

Thank you so much ❤️

Thanks for the comment ❤️

"you have a frog in your hand" - Barbara

Thank you for helping me achieve it ❤️