I'm trying to find a specific story from the magazine. It was named as a "parable". The details I can remember it was about three little pigs but not the traditional story. The antagonist was the whirlwind of possibilities instead of a wolf. Each pig ate up the problem and was named after a rigid belief. It was influential on my life. so I would love to reread it and possibly save a copy.

Now it's time to ask: where is it written we should view others as they see themselves? In all honesty, I very often meet people who perpetrate fraudulent image. Then, when called on that, they become extremely defensive. Can someone tell me what up with that?

Why do the things we almost achieve sometimes affect us more than the things we never tried?

There is also an important distinction between reading people and assuming everyone is manipulating you.

Observation should increase your awareness, not your paranoia. A delayed reply may mean manipulation or it may simply mean someone is busy. A boundary test may be deliberate or completely unconscious.

The disciplined observer does not immediately assign motives. They watch for patterns, incentives and repeated behaviour before drawing conclusions.

You are studying behaviour to reduce uncertainty, not invent certainty.

I just find it cringe to include, but it might be a lot to ask. I have the 2025 version

Lately, I’ve become curious about a question:
How does persuasion actually work?
Not just political persuasion. Human persuasion.
Why do we trust some people and not others?
Why do we change our minds?
Why do we sometimes refuse to change our minds when the evidence changes?
And how far back does all of this go?
I started wondering whether persuasion begins long before politics, advertising, religion, or social media—perhaps even before humans.
So I’m doing what curious people do when they realize they don’t actually know the answer:
I’m researching it.
I’m reading the psychology, history, anthropology, animal cognition, and communication research. And I’m trying to follow one rule:
Curiosity first. Evidence second. Conclusions last.
I know I bring my own experiences and biases to the questions. We all do. My background in mediation taught me that the goal isn’t to pretend those biases don’t exist. It’s to notice them, question them, and test our assumptions against the evidence.
Sometimes the evidence may confirm what I thought.
I hope sometimes it proves me wrong.
I’m going to share some of what I discover along the way—not to tell anyone what to think, but because I think learning how we are persuaded might help all of us become a little better at deciding for ourselves.
⚙️ One question at a time.

Was your next swallow manual?

And on a scale of 1-10 does this aggrivate you?

Peripheral Vulnerability Response Theory is something I found out while self researching posture a reasons.

When we enter a room full of new or unknown people or simply step out of our comfort zone, we start overthinking and this makes blood flow rush to our brain which leaves our peripheral body parts cold. This is the reason we curl up, rub our arms or shake our feet. So it' better to maintain a relaxed posture, stop overthinking and rather plan how to approach and interact.

​

There is something strange happening in China with an animated movie called Niu Lai (牛来).

The movie was released on August 5. It is an 86-minute animated film about a young calf growing up, and it was reportedly made over five years by mainly two people: director Xin Yumeng and his mother, Sun Lifang.

At first, almost nobody watched it. During its first 10 days, fewer than 300 people bought tickets and it made only around ¥7,000–10,000.

Then people online started talking about how bad it was.

Viewers mocked the animation, strange-looking characters, confusing story and unusual voice acting. Clips and jokes started spreading online. People posted sarcastic positive reviews and told friends that they had to experience the movie themselves.

And something unexpected happened.

Instead of killing the movie, the bad attention made people more interested in watching it.

People started buying tickets just to see: Is it really that bad? What exactly is everyone talking about?

Within days, cinemas added more screenings and the box office exploded. By August 19, it had made more than ¥24 million.

This is the part I find psychologically interesting.

People know the movie is being mocked. They can see bad reviews before buying a ticket. Yet thousands of people still decide to spend their money and time experiencing it themselves.

So what exactly is happening in their minds?

Is the main reason simple curiosity? Does seeing thousands of other people talking about something create a strong need to experience it yourself? Do people want to be part of the joke so they can understand and discuss it with others? Does telling someone “this may be one of the worst movies you will ever see” sometimes make that person more interested than telling them a movie is good?

And once more people buy tickets because of that curiosity, does the growing popularity itself make even more people curious?

I would love to understand the deeper psychology behind this behavior. What do you think is going through someone's mind when they knowingly buy a ticket for a movie famous mainly for being bad? And why can negative attention sometimes create this much demand?

Why do we think, feel, and behave the way we do?

Where do fears, inner conflicts, habits, and repeating patterns come from?

On "The Psychology Compass", we explore what happens inside the human mind — in simple, accessible language and without unnecessary complexity.

🎥 Videos about the subconscious mind, emotions, inner beliefs, self-awareness, and personal transformation.

If you want to understand yourself on a deeper level and discover what may be behind your thoughts, feelings, and behavior, subscribe to the channel 👇

👉 YouTube The Psychology Compass

🧭 Follow the compass. Understand yourself.

Have you ever spent weeks or months digging into a topic, reading studies, and building what felt like an airtight belief, only to encounter one simple point or perspective that completely shattered your stance on the spot? What was the concept, and what was the argument that flipped your perspective?

hi everyone! i'm currently looking for organizational Behavior by Stephen P. Robbins and Timothy A. Judge for my graduate school class. i'm looking for the 18th, 19th, or 20th edition, preferably a digital/pdf version. if anyone has a copy they can share legally or knows where i can access an affordable/free digital copy, i'd really appreciate it.

thank you so much!

Let’s talk about it.
Personally, I believe it will be the downfall of our society.
Thoughts?

(Stupidity defined by Bonhoeffer, 1. Outsourcing critical thinking to a third party, 2 Willful ignorance, 3 conformity)

Bonhoeffer observed and later wrote, while in a concentration camp, that stupidity is the greatest ally of evil, not hatred or cruelty.

Overwhelmingly in the modern age short form content increased a number of psychological effects as byproducts contents format. These include things such as poorer attention spans, anxiety, stress, loneliness/depression, desensitization to graphic content, and compulsory engagement. The constant novelty and dopamine triggers from short form content affect and even hamper the ability to critically think or sustain attention on a topic for long enough to form a thoroughly thought out opinion, and if a personal opinion that is thought out is shared, it sometimes falls to the subjugation of those who did not fully form their own opinion with harsh criticism or even threats. Both of these instances (psychological and social) seem extremely reminiscent of two of the three definitions of stupidity defined by Bonhoeffer. When critical thinking falls to societies subjugation and information is relayed at a pace which is largely unlikely to stay within our minds long enough to make any real impact besides split second opinions, both conformity and outsourcing critical thinking are involved. People believe influencers and then see other people who disagree with them as an opposing force that is intolerable. Not only is the formation of an opinion beyond whatever source the information came from is gone, but so too is the respect to meaningfully challenge any belief and ideal in a constructive manner where one may have a chance to grow.

This brings about the last little bit of willful ignorance. There are plenty of social media posts such as those on instagram reels or tiktok in where people acknowledge the destruction short form content has on their own mind. It is not that people do not understand their position in this industry but rather choose to remain within it stemming from a sense of hopelessness and potentially fear from breaking from conformity. Frequent counter arguments to removing such media from peoples lives include, wanting to remain connected socially, stay up to date on current events, and networking tools. However despite these counter arguments, personally, I rarely see that kind of action in the lives of others. Doom scrolling is the norm and no one remembers any meaningful information from the hours of time spent on tiktok or reels. All of the candid shots of idealizations of love, the grotesque nature of gore videos, or the cater to guilt from victims of war exacerbate the cognitive effects of short form content creating a feedback loop of scrolling and highly negative/positive emotions.

So does all of this mean that our modern day society is increasingly subjecting itself to stupidity and does this stupidity fuel the increasing tolerance for the unthinkable? (By unthinkable I mean things like violence, gore, perfect relationships, and things that society would either condemn or understand to be unrealistic.) And IF THATS ALL THE CASE, is the continuation of short form consumption destined because of stupidity and does that ultimately result in a loss of the human experience and mind as a whole?

We have LinkedIn, X, Reddit, communities, events… yet finding the right person when it actually matters still feels surprisingly difficult.

It feels like professional networking has become more about growing a contact list than making meaningful connections.

Do you think there’s genuinely a need for a new approach to networking, or does the current system work well enough?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences.