“Those who had held the hot coffee were more likely generosity and compassion. In another study, participants who held the warm coffee were more likely to choose to give a gift to a friend than to take it for themselves” (DHRUV KHULLAR).
I find this quote to be interesting with how they’re basically saying that people who hold their hot coffee are the more friendlier people you’ll encounter then the people who don’t hold their hot coffee. I would like to know more about this theory and if there is anything else other than them just being generous people.
“In a series of studies, the authors found that participants prompted to think of their own or other’s moral indiscretions were more likely to rate cleaning products as more desirable than other products and were twice as likely to choose an antiseptic wipe over a pencil when offered a gift for participating” (DHRUV KHULLAR).
I Agree with this quote because people with indiscretions aren’t gonna care about what anyone else is thinking and can decide for themselves and have their own opinions on the cleaning products vs someone with discretion who would just go along with what someone else says.
“researchers asked people to help solve a city’s crime problem, which was described either as a “virus infecting a city” or a “wild beast preying on a city.” People who got the “virus” frame were far more likely to propose solutions involving social reform to address root causes like poverty and lack of education, while those receiving the “beast” frame were more likely to propose solutions involving catching criminals and enforcing laws more strictly.” (DHRUV KHULLAR)
I like this quote because It’s showing that if you’re a “virus” you can have solutions but most likely won’t act on them but if you have the “beast” in you then you’ll also have solutions but you’ll most likely act on them and actually help people.
Geary’s quote “in this famous line from “Romeo and Juliet.” Juliet is the sun. Now, here, Shakespear gives the thing, Juliet, a name that belongs to something else, the sun. But whenever we give a thing a name that belongs to something else, we give it a whole network of analogies too. Erard’s quote “They have what Glucksburge calls ‘dual reference’. He points out others that have become conventionalized metaphors. ‘Buther’ refers to anyone who should be skilled but is incompetent’, ‘Enron’ to dramatic accounting scandal’, and Vietnam to and ‘disastrous military intervention’. Both Geary and Erard’s quotes show that you can give a thing a name that belongs to something else and still have it mean something Even if the object or person are two separate things.
