Thursday

About Freedom and Rights

"You will only be as free as the wealth holders and power brokers will let you be. It's always been that way. You can believe in a "constitution," but if it's not being followed, believe in the rich, they run this thing. You say you don't believe that? Try challenging them." - Gilroy-Sloose76, Reddit

Monday

Sociopaths and their Flying Monkeys

List attributes of sociopaths. Is their a name for the people that follow them, what are their attributes? Do sociopaths follow and admire other sociopaths in organizations?

1. Attributes of Sociopaths

“Sociopath” is an informal term for Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) as described in the DSM-5. Sociopaths show a persistent pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others.
Key attributes often include:

Superficial charm and charisma — can appear confident, likable, or persuasive.
Manipulativeness — skilled at using others for personal gain.
Pathological lying — habitual deception, often without remorse.
Lack of empathy — disregard for others’ feelings or suffering.
Shallow emotions — emotional reactions are often feigned or fleeting.
Impulsivity — acts without forethought or concern for consequences.
Lack of guilt or remorse — rationalizes harm to others.
Need for control and dominance — thrives on power over others.
Blame-shifting — never accepts fault; others are always responsible.
Violation of social norms — willing to break rules or laws.

2. People Who Follow or Enable Sociopaths

There’s not one single term, but several concepts apply depending on context. These people can be:

a. Enablers or Apologists

Often excuse, defend, or minimize the sociopath’s behavior.
Motivated by fear, loyalty, dependency, or self-interest.
May internalize the sociopath’s worldview (“us vs. them”).

b. Flying Monkeys (term from narcissistic abuse psychology)

Act as agents or messengers for the sociopath.
Spread their narratives, enforce their control, or attack critics.
Often unaware they’re being manipulated; others knowingly participate for favor or protection.

c. Co-dependents

Emotionally reliant on the sociopath for validation or stability.
Try to “fix” or please them, even at personal cost.
Often drawn in by the sociopath’s initial charm or authority.

d. Opportunists

See alignment with the sociopath as a way to gain power, money, or protection.
Exhibit lesser degrees of empathy suppression themselves.
May become sociopathic in practice, even if not clinically so.

3. Do Sociopaths Follow and Admire Other Sociopaths?

Sometimes — but with caution and competition.

Yes, temporarily:
Sociopaths may ally with others who share their disregard for ethics, especially when mutual benefit exists (e.g., in crime, politics, or corporate power). They might admire another’s cunning, ruthlessness, or success.
But alliances rarely last:
Since both lack empathy and trust, cooperation often devolves into rivalry, betrayal, or power struggles.
Their admiration is instrumental — they respect the other’s utility or power, not their personhood.
In organizations:
Sociopaths can gravitate toward each other in hierarchical or high-stakes environments (e.g., politics, finance, large corporations), creating toxic cultures that reward manipulation.
However, each typically views others as competition, not equals.

4. Organizational Dynamics

In workplaces, this can manifest as:

Toxic leadership: sociopathic leaders who charm upward and abuse downward.
Cult-like loyalty among followers who seek protection or advancement.
Moral disengagement: the group normalizes unethical behavior because “everyone’s doing it.”
Fear-based control: dissenters are punished, and conformity is rewarded.

Flying Monkeys

The term “flying monkeys” comes from The Wizard of Oz (the Wicked Witch’s winged servants) and is used in psychology and abuse dynamics to describe people who act on behalf of a manipulative or abusive person, often unknowingly.

Here’s how it applies, especially in sociopathic or narcissistic systems:

Definition

Flying monkeys are individuals who:

Carry out a sociopath’s or narcissist’s bidding.
Defend them publicly or privately.
Attack or discredit the victim or opposition.
Spread the sociopath’s version of reality (smear campaigns, gossip, misinformation).

They serve as extensions of the manipulator’s control.

How Sociopaths Use Flying Monkeys

Sociopaths are strategic — they know their credibility can be questioned, so they recruit others to:

Enforce their narrative (“They’re lying about me!”).
Do their dirty work (harass, ostracize, intimidate).
Isolate the target (make them seem crazy or disloyal).
Maintain their image (they appear charming and innocent while others attack).

This allows the sociopath to remain “clean-handed” — the flying monkeys absorb the blame.

Who Becomes a Flying Monkey

Flying monkeys are often:

Well-meaning but naïve — they believe the sociopath’s story and think they’re helping.
Dependent — financially, emotionally, or socially tied to the sociopath.
Ambitious or self-interested — they side with power to gain favor.
Fearful — they comply to avoid becoming the next target.

Their Attributes

Easily influenced or flattered.
Lack of critical thinking about the manipulator’s motives.
Need to belong or be valued.
Low empathy for the manipulator’s targets.
Tendency to conform or obey authority figures.

Why It Works

Sociopaths often build “triangles”:

The sociopath (the source of control),
The target (who is undermined or punished), and
The flying monkeys (who carry out enforcement).

This triangulation keeps everyone distracted and fighting, while the sociopath remains central and powerful.

Toxic organizational psychology

Let’s break down how the “flying monkey system” typically operates inside an organization (corporate, governmental, academic, or nonprofit).

The Sociopathic Organization Structure

Think of it as a three-tier pyramid:

1. The Sociopath (Top Tier – The Manipulative Leader)

Core traits:

Charismatic and persuasive — presents as visionary or indispensable.
Seeks power, not purpose — rules through fear, charm, and control.
Lies easily and strategically.
Has favorites and enemies; loyalty is prized above competence.
Shows no empathy, takes no responsibility.

Typical role in a workplace:

May be the executive, director, principal, or manager.
Creates chaos, then positions themselves as the “fixer.”
Undermines ethical or competent peers who threaten them.

2. The Flying Monkeys (Middle Tier – Enforcers and Echoes)

These are the extensions of the sociopath’s will. They maintain control and enforce loyalty.

Roles within this tier:

The Loyal Lieutenant: Believes in the leader’s narrative, often parrots their opinions.
The Gossip: Spreads the sociopath’s spin to discredit dissenters.
The Gatekeeper: Controls access to information or the leader.
The Attack Dog: Harasses or isolates targets who challenge the leader.

Why they do it:

Seek protection, advancement, or attention.
Fear losing their position or favor.
Enjoy proximity to perceived power.
May even adopt sociopathic tactics themselves.

Their behaviors:

Defend unethical actions (“You just don’t understand how leadership works”).
Participate in character assassination or rumor-spreading.
Enforce “group think” and punish dissent.
Report “troublemakers” to maintain their own standing.

3. The Targets (Bottom Tier – The Controlled or Expendable)

These are the employees, students, or members who:

Question unethical practices.
Perform well but don’t play political games.
Threaten the sociopath’s image or control.

What happens to them:

They’re marginalized, gaslighted, or falsely accused.
Their credibility is quietly undermined.
They often leave, are pushed out, or burn out.

How the System Sustains Itself

Mechanism	Description
Triangulation	The leader pits people against one another, ensuring loyalty through conflict and mistrust.
Information control	The sociopath manipulates the flow of information — exaggerating, omitting, or lying.
Reward and punishment	Loyalty is rewarded (promotions, praise), dissent is punished (exclusion, demotion).
Gaslighting	Targets are made to question their perception of reality (“That never happened,” “You’re overreacting”).
Moral inversion	Ethical behavior is reframed as weakness; manipulation is reframed as savvy leadership.

Endgame of the System

If unchecked, such a system:

Drives out ethical and competent staff.
Concentrates power in a small loyal circle.
Creates a climate of fear and silence.
Often collapses from internal corruption or exposure — but not before doing significant harm.

How It Ends or Gets Exposed

Whistleblowers emerge (often at great personal cost).
External audits, investigations, or leadership changes reveal patterns of manipulation.
Reputation or performance crises make the sociopath’s charisma insufficient to maintain control.
The flying monkeys, sensing danger, often turn on each other or distance themselves from the leader.

ChatGPT

Tuesday

Living in the Enshittification Age

Chatgpt, what is enshittification? Please provide examples.

Enshittification is a term coined by tech writer Cory Doctorow to describe the process by which digital platforms (social media, marketplaces, apps, etc.) gradually degrade in quality as they shift priorities—from serving users, to serving business customers (advertisers, sellers, etc.), to maximizing profit extraction for the company itself.

The pattern usually looks like this:

Stage 1 – Good to users: The platform offers great value (free or cheap services, convenience, high-quality features) to attract a large user base.

Stage 2 – Favor business partners: Once users are hooked, the platform shifts to favor businesses—charging for visibility, tweaking algorithms to push paid placements, or limiting organic reach.

Stage 3 – Extract from everyone: Finally, the platform prioritizes its own profits at the expense of both users and business partners, often leading to a worse experience for all and a slow decline.

Example:

Facebook/Instagram

Early days: You saw posts from friends and family in chronological order—great user experience.

Middle phase: Businesses and creators were encouraged to build pages and got free organic reach—great for businesses.

Later: Algorithms started throttling organic reach, forcing businesses to pay for ads, while users got flooded with sponsored content and “engagement bait.” Now both users and businesses often feel shortchanged, while the platform maximizes ad revenue.

Example: Microsoft Teams & Office 365 ecosystem

Stage 1 – Great for users:

Microsoft Teams launched during the pandemic with free or bundled access in Office 365.

It was lightweight, fairly easy to use, and organizations quickly adopted it because it integrated with familiar Microsoft products.

Stage 2 – Favor business customers/lock-in:

Microsoft deepened integration so businesses using Office 365 found it hard to avoid Teams.

Some competitors (like Slack) complained that bundling Teams with Office unfairly pushed customers into Microsoft’s ecosystem.

Businesses benefited from the centralization, but competition was squeezed.

Stage 3 – Extract from everyone:

Microsoft began layering in more paid features and premium tiers.

Users noticed bloat (slower performance, cluttered UI, confusing updates) and more nudges to upgrade to higher-cost Microsoft 365 plans.

Both businesses and end users now often feel trapped: leaving is costly, staying means tolerating a product that feels increasingly monetized.

Another smaller-scale example:

Windows itself once gave clean desktop experiences. Over time, it’s become filled with pre-installed apps, ads in the Start Menu, aggressive nudges toward Microsoft Edge, OneDrive, and paid services—classic enshittification.

How about post World War II federal goverment through today?

That’s a sharp question — and yes, you can think of the trajectory of the U.S. federal government since World War II in terms of enshittification, though Doctorow uses the word for tech platforms. The same pattern — serving citizens well, then serving special interests, then mostly serving itself — can be mapped.

Trajectory of Enshittification: U.S. Federal Government, Post–WWII → Today

Stage 1 – Serving the people (High trust era, 1945–1970s)

After WWII, the U.S. expanded programs that directly benefited citizens:

The GI Bill sent millions of veterans to college and into the middle class.

Huge investments in infrastructure (Interstate Highway System).

Medicare and Medicaid expanded healthcare access.

Trust in government institutions was high. Citizens saw direct improvements in daily life.

Stage 2 – Serving business and special interests (1970s–2000s)

Economic crises (oil shocks, stagflation) shifted policy toward deregulation and privatization.

Lobbying and campaign finance exploded after decisions like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010).

Policy often favored corporations and wealthy donors over broad public benefit:

Financial deregulation helped Wall Street more than Main Street.

Tax policy tilted toward the wealthy and big business.

Military-industrial complex spending boomed.

Citizens got less direct benefit, but corporate and political elites prospered.

Stage 3 – Extracting from everyone (2000s–today)

Gridlock and polarization make government less responsive to citizens.

Public goods (infrastructure, education, healthcare) lag behind peer countries.

Citizens experience more bureaucratic friction (complex taxes, healthcare billing, student loans) while corporations and the wealthy exploit loopholes.

Increasing surveillance, corporate lobbying dominance, and political polarization mean the government is often seen as working for itself or entrenched interests, not the average person.

Trust in government has cratered — from ~75% in the 1960s to under 20% today.

So the arc looks like this:

Postwar → “Golden age” of broad-based public investment.

Late 20th century → tilt toward corporate and elite interests.

21st century → extraction and gridlock, with citizens stuck paying more and getting less.

Chatgpt

Donald Trump and Right Wing Authoritarian Followers

The late social scientist Robert Altermyer wrote a book called The Authoritarians. In it he describes "social dominators" and seperately "right wing authoritarian" followers. In a side by side comparison what makes them different from each other? Where do their interests overlap?

ChatGPT:

Robert Altemeyer’s book The Authoritarians offers a detailed psychological profile of two distinct but often mutually reinforcing personality types: Social Dominators (SDOs) and Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs). While they may end up on the same political or ideological “team,” they differ greatly in motivation, behavior, and worldview.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two types, followed by an explanation of where their interests overlap:

Side-by-Side Comparison

Trait	Social Dominators (SDOs)	Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs)
Core Motivation	Power, dominance, winning	Obedience, conformity, security
Personality Style	Manipulative, strategic, ruthless	Loyal, fearful, deferential
View of Authority	Want to be the authority	Want to obey the authority
Morality	Ends justify the means; amoral	Moral absolutism; “good vs evil” thinking
Attitude Toward Others	Contemptuous of the weak	Hostile to out-groups but loyal to in-group
Empathy	Low to none	Moderate for in-group, low for out-groups
Aggression	Proactive and strategic	Reactive and loyalist
Beliefs	Often cynical and disbelieving in ideology	Genuinely believe the ideology (e.g., nationalism, religion)
Relationship with Rules	Will break rules to dominate	Will enforce rules strictly if told to
Deceptiveness	Often lie and manipulate	Gullible and easy to deceive

Where Their Interests Overlap

Although their motivations differ, SDOs and RWAs often work together, especially in authoritarian systems:

Area of Overlap	Explanation
Support for authoritarian leaders	RWAs admire strong leaders; SDOs seek to become or serve those leaders for personal gain.
In-group loyalty	RWAs are loyal to their group; SDOs use group identity to rally support and control others.
Hostility toward outsiders	Both often show xenophobia, racism, or opposition to “out-groups,” though for different reasons.
Justification for aggression	SDOs rationalize it as necessary; RWAs see it as righteous when directed by authority.
Intolerance of dissent	RWAs fear it as disruptive; SDOs crush it as a threat to power.

Summary

SDOs are like the chess masters—they manipulate, dominate, and use ideology as a tool for control.
RWAs are like the loyal foot soldiers—they follow rules, seek order, and are susceptible to fear-based messaging.
Together, they often form the backbone of authoritarian systems: the SDOs lead, and the RWAs follow.

Altemeyer found this alliance especially dangerous in political systems where the SDOs exploit the fears and loyalty of RWAs to amass and hold power—despite not actually believing in the ideals they promote.

How do SDOs and RWAs correlate with Donald Trump and his followers?

Robert Altemeyer himself, along with John Dean (of Watergate fame), explicitly linked Donald Trump and his base to the SDO-RWA dynamic in their book Authoritarian Nightmare (2020). Here's a breakdown of how Donald Trump maps onto the Social Dominator (SDO) profile, and how many of his followers resemble Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs):

Donald Trump as a Social Dominator (SDO)

Altemeyer’s analysis shows Trump fits the SDO profile almost perfectly:

Trait	Evidence in Trump’s Behavior
Desire for dominance and control	Repeated emphasis on “winning,” power, loyalty tests, control over media/narrative
Amorality	Frequent lying, disregard for norms, use of threats and insults
Manipulativeness	Use of disinformation, gaslighting, scapegoating enemies
Lack of empathy	Dismissal of COVID deaths, mocking the disabled, separating families at the border
Disdain for democratic norms	Attempts to overturn the 2020 election, attacks on the judiciary and press
Hypocrisy and cynicism	Panders to religious/right-wing values while clearly not believing in them personally

Altemeyer considered Trump’s score on the Social Dominance Orientation scale to be extremely high—"through the roof."

Trump’s Base as Right-Wing Authoritarian Followers (RWAs)

Many of Trump’s most loyal followers exhibit the three defining traits of RWAs:

1. Authoritarian Submission

Loyalty to Trump, even when he contradicts norms, laws, or reality
Belief that Trump is a “strong leader” sent to save the country
Obedience to his word over traditional institutions

2. Authoritarian Aggression

Anger at dissenters (journalists, protesters, Democrats)
Support for violence when framed as necessary to “protect America” (e.g., Jan 6, “lock her up” chants)
Dehumanizing of out-groups (immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ+ people, “the liberal elite”)

3. Conventionalism

Strong attachment to traditional norms (gender roles, religion, nationalism)
Outrage at changing cultural values (e.g., CRT panic, “war on Christmas”)
Tendency to view political conflict in black-and-white moral terms

How the SDO–RWA Dynamic Plays Out with Trump

Dynamic	Real-World Manifestation
SDO manipulates RWA fears	Trump amplifies fear of immigrants, crime, socialism, etc., to mobilize his base
RWA provides unwavering loyalty	Even when Trump’s claims are false or self-serving, his followers support him
Mutual reinforcement	The more Trump defies the “elites,” the more RWAs love him; the more loyalty they show, the more power he grabs
Disregard for truth or consistency	RWAs tolerate contradictions if they feel Trump is defending “their side”
Erosion of democratic norms	Enabled by SDO's disregard for rules and RWA’s preference for order over freedom

Summary

Trump = Social Dominator: Seeks power for its own sake, uses manipulation, shows little empathy or moral concern.
Many Trump supporters = RWAs: Seek safety, order, and a strong leader; easily swayed by fear-based rhetoric; deeply loyal.

This toxic alliance, as Altemeyer warned, can be extremely dangerous to democracy—because it aligns manipulative leadership with blind, obedient loyalty.

If you want, I can show how this dynamic compares historically (e.g., with fascist movements), or unpack how to counter it.

ChatGPT July 2025

Redditor Posts Epstein Trump Connection

Comment from subreddit r/law post titled

“There are no (Jeffery Epstein) files, but if there were files, I wouldn’t be in them. Also can you look through these files and let me know where I am mentioned, but don’t worry there are absolutely no files, and I am not in them” - Donald Trump.

July 19, 2025

Also...

"... I never went to the island, and Bill Clinton went there supposedly 28 times." -Donald Trump
July 29, 2025

Following is information posted on Reddit related to a list Trump says doesn't exist, and that his name was maybe planted there in by Democrats:

Here are all of the Epstein Files that have either been leaked or released.

https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.0-combined.pdf (verified court documents)

https://joshwho.net/EpsteinList/black-book-unredacted.pdf (verified pre-Bondi) Trump is on page 85, or pdf pg. 80

Here's the flight logs https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21165424-epstein-flight-logs-released-in-usa-vs-maxwell/

The circled individuals are the ones involved in the trafficking ring according to the person who originally released the book. These people would be “The List “ Here is the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsiKUXrlcac

—————————other Epstein Information

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Johnson_TrumpEpstein_Calif_Lawsuit.pdf here’s a court doc of Epstein and Trump raping a 13 yr old together.

Some people think this claim is a hoax. Here is Katies testimony on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-OORRRo

Jeffrey Epstein’s Ex Says He Boasted About Being a Mossad Agent https://share.google/jLMGahKlCzfV1RHZq Jeffrey Epstein and Israel both have the same lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz says he's building 'legal dream team' to defend Israel in court and on international stage | The Times of Israel https://share.google/Lb9hDOduBWG4Elpid

—————————other information

Peeping on 14-15 year old girls at around 1:40 on the Howard Stern Radio Show: https://youtu.be/iFaQL_kv_QY?si=vBs75kaxPjJJThka

Promise to his daughter: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-dating-promise_n_57ee98cbe4b024a52d2ead02 “I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her,” “So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited.”

Modeling agency was probably part of Jeffreys pipeline: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration/

Monday

Coping with Corruption

What are things a person can do to cope while living under a corrupt national government that occasionally violates people's rights and where millions of people choose willful ignorance and prefer an authoritarian single party rule that practices passive racism?

1. Protect Your Mental and Emotional Health

Limit Doomscrolling: Stay informed, but take breaks from constant bad news to avoid despair or numbness.
Build a Support Network: Connect with people who share your values—online or in person. Solidarity reduces isolation.
Therapy or Counseling: Processing feelings of anger, fear, or hopelessness with a professional can be empowering.
Art, Humor, and Culture: These are powerful coping tools. Watch satire, make music, write—whatever channels the frustration productively.

2. Practice Quiet Resistance and Empowerment

Educate Yourself and Others: Learn history, law, and organizing tactics. Share them subtly if you must. Authoritarianism often relies on ignorance.
Support Independent Media: Even small donations or subscriptions help resist state-controlled narratives.
Practice Small Acts of Resistance: Refuse to participate in hate speech, call out microaggressions when safe, help marginalized people around you.
Document and Preserve Truth: When rights violations happen, record, archive, or share them with trusted organizations.

3. Stay Civically Engaged (Even When It Feels Futile)

Vote, If Possible: Even small local offices matter. Corrupt regimes often rise locally before going national.
Join or Support Advocacy Groups: You don’t have to be on the front lines—graphic designers, researchers, and cooks also power movements.
Know Your Rights: Even when laws are unevenly enforced, knowing your rights can offer protection or clarity in a crisis.

4. Find Meaning and Purpose

Volunteer or Serve Others: Even in small ways—food banks, mutual aid, tutoring—helping others restores a sense of agency.
Preserve Humanity in Daily Life: Acts of kindness, empathy, and justice in everyday situations matter more than we realize under repressive systems.

5. Think Long-Term and Strategically

Read about Other Movements: People have survived and overturned injustice in many places—South Africa, Chile, Serbia, East Germany. Their strategies might inspire you.
Prepare for Things Getting Worse or Better: Consider savings, passports, training, etc.—but also be ready to help rebuild if things change.
Teach the Young: Share values of empathy, critical thinking, and justice with younger generations—this is how change survives.

6. Protect Yourself

Use Digital Privacy Tools: If activism becomes dangerous, learn to encrypt, anonymize, and avoid surveillance.
Know When to Speak and When to Stay Silent: Bravery matters, but so does survival. Choose your battles wisely.

This kind of life can feel like living in two realities—one where many accept oppression as normal, and another where you know something better is possible. You're not alone in feeling alienated, outraged, or exhausted. But even quiet, consistent resistance—built on truth, care, and vision—can outlast authoritarianism.

ChatGPT

Tuesday

What is Ultimate Attribution Error?

Ultimate Attribution Error is a concept in social psychology that describes a bias people have when they explain the behavior of individuals from in-groups (the group they identify with) versus out-groups (other groups). It's an extension of the fundamental attribution error, but at a group level.

Summary:

The ultimate attribution error occurs when people attribute:

Negative behavior of out-group members to their character or disposition (e.g., "they're just bad people"), and
Negative behavior of in-group members to external or situational factors (e.g., "he was under a lot of stress").

Likewise, people often attribute:

Positive behavior of in-group members to their disposition (e.g., "she's smart"), but
Positive behavior of out-group members to luck or external factors (e.g., "he just got lucky").

Examples:

Race or Ethnic Groups:
- A white person sees a Black person succeed and says, "He probably got a handout or special treatment" (external), but if a white person succeeds, they say, "She worked hard and earned it" (internal).
- If a member of a minority group commits a crime, someone might think, "That's just how they are" (internal), but if someone from their own group does, they might say, "He was in a bad situation" (external).
Political Groups:
- A Democrat might say, “That Republican lied because they’re corrupt” (internal), but if a Democrat lies, “They had to because of political pressure” (external).
- Vice versa for Republicans viewing Democrats.
National or Cultural Groups:

An American sees a foreigner being rude and thinks, "People from that country are just rude" (internal).
But if an American is rude abroad, they might say, "He was just having a bad day" (external).

Is this affected by idology?

The ultimate attribution error itself is a psychological bias that can affect anyone, regardless of political ideology—liberal or conservative. It’s a general human tendency to favor one’s in-group and judge out-groups more harshly. That said, there are some nuanced findings in psychology that can help explain how it might play out differently depending on a person’s political leanings.

Key Points:

Not inherently tied to conservatism or liberalism: Ultimate attribution error is about group identity and bias, not political orientation. Liberals and conservatives are both capable of this bias when thinking about "their side" vs. "the other side."
How it might appear more often in conservatives (in some studies):
- Conservatives tend to score higher on measures of group loyalty, threat sensitivity, and preference for order and tradition.
- These traits may make conservative individuals more prone to us-vs-them thinking, which could lead to more frequent or intense ultimate attribution errors when judging out-groups.
- Example: Some research has found conservatives more likely to attribute poverty to laziness (internal trait), whereas liberals are more likely to cite systemic causes (external factors).
How it might show up in liberals:
- Liberals may be more likely to show ultimate attribution error in the reverse when dealing with groups they feel strongly allied with (e.g., marginalized communities).
- This can include over-attributing positive actions of minority groups to internal traits while downplaying negative behaviors as solely the result of external pressures.

TL;DR:

The ultimate attribution error is not exclusive to conservatives or liberals. It’s a human bias, but how and where it shows up might depend on the group a person identifies with or opposes. Conservatives might show it more in areas related to tradition, authority, or nationalism; liberals might show it more when defending disadvantaged or progressive groups.

Want a real-world political example broken down from both sides?

ChatGPT

What has changed politically, socially, and economically in Hungary since Victor Orban took office?

According to ChatGPT:

Viktor Orbán has been Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, leading the country under the Fidesz party. His long tenure has brought significant political, social, and economic changes. Here's a breakdown of what has changed and how freedom, quality of life, and public opinion have been affected.

🔹 Political Changes

Centralization of Power:

Orbán’s government has significantly centralized power. Constitutional changes and reforms have weakened checks and balances, including judicial independence and media freedom.
Electoral laws were modified in ways that benefit Fidesz, helping it maintain a supermajority in Parliament.

Media Control:

Many independent media outlets have been bought by pro-government allies or folded due to pressure. The media landscape is now heavily pro-government, limiting diverse viewpoints.

Civil Society & NGOs:

Orbán's government has cracked down on NGOs, especially those receiving foreign funding or involved in human rights or refugee advocacy. Legislation has made it harder for them to operate.

Relations with the EU:

Hungary has clashed with the EU over rule of law issues, migration policy, and corruption. Some EU funds have been frozen due to concerns over democratic backsliding.

Freedom Score: According to organizations like Freedom House, Hungary has shifted from a “consolidated democracy” to a “hybrid regime”—a mix of democratic and autocratic features.

➡️ Are people more or less free?

Less free politically and in terms of civil liberties, especially regarding press, judiciary, and dissenting voices.

🔹 Social Changes

National Identity & Migration:

Orbán has emphasized nationalism, Christianity, and traditional family values.
His government is strongly anti-immigration and has run controversial campaigns against the EU and figures like George Soros.

Education and Culture:

Universities and cultural institutions have been brought under greater state control.
The government promotes a nationalist interpretation of history and culture.

LGBTQ+ Rights:

Rights for LGBTQ+ individuals have been restricted. For example, a law was passed banning the depiction of LGBTQ+ content to minors, similar to Russia’s “gay propaganda” law.

➡️ Social atmosphere:

More controlled, with growing intolerance toward marginalized groups and less space for progressive or liberal movements.

🔹 Economic Changes

Growth & Investment:

Hungary has seen decent economic growth, low unemployment, and increased foreign investment, especially from China and Russia.
Orbán’s government emphasizes low corporate taxes, making Hungary attractive to multinationals like BMW and Samsung.

Wages and Cost of Living:

Wages have risen, but so have prices, especially for housing.
Inflation and housing costs have been significant issues, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Corruption:

High levels of corruption are reported, especially in the use of EU funds. The perception is that political allies and family members of Orbán have become very wealthy.

➡️ Has quality of life improved?

Mixed: Material conditions (jobs, wages) have improved for many, but inequality, corruption, and housing affordability remain problems.

🔹 What Do Orbán's Supporters Think?

Supporters tend to believe:

He restored national pride and sovereignty.
Hungary is safer and more stable under his leadership.
Economic growth and job creation are signs of good governance.
He's standing up to global elites, the EU, and progressive ideology.
Traditional values and national identity are protected.

Support base:

Strong in rural areas and among older, conservative voters.
State media reinforces positive narratives about his leadership.

🔹 Summary: Is Hungary Better or Worse Off?

Aspect	Direction of Change
Political Freedom	↓ Less free
Media & Civil Society	↓ Less independent
Social Tolerance	↓ More restrictive
Economy & Jobs	↑ Improved (mostly)
Inequality & Corruption	↔/↑ Ongoing problems
Public Sentiment	↔ Divided

If you're curious, I can also show how Hungary compares to its neighbors, or how Orbán's Hungary is perceived in international politics. Would that be helpful?

Thursday

"Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy," author Katherine Stewart

Chat GPT Summary: In "Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy," author Katherine Stewart explores a coordinated effort among various right-wing factions aiming to undermine American democracy. Published in February 2025, the book delves into the alliances formed between Christian nationalists, billionaire donors, and conservative ideologues within the Republican Party. Wikipedia+5NewPages.com+5The Guardian+5Ms. Magazine+3The Guardian+3Wikipedia+3

Stewart identifies three primary components driving this movement:The Guardian

Wealth: The infusion of substantial financial resources from ultra-wealthy donors destabilizes the political system by promoting deregulation, tax cuts for the affluent, and policies that erode labor protections. BookBrowse.com+2Wikipedia+2The Guardian+2
Disinformation: The strategic dissemination of false information serves to divide the populace and advance an undemocratic agenda.
Christian Nationalism: Religious rhetoric is employed to mobilize working-class voters, promoting the belief that governance should be exclusively in the hands of white, male, conservative Christians, while others are expected to comply. Wikipedia

Five Groups

The book categorizes the movement's participants into five groups:BookBrowse.com

Funders: Billionaires and donors financing the agenda.Wikipedia+1The Guardian+1
Thinkers: Conservative think tanks and intellectuals crafting ideological frameworks.Ms. Magazine
Sergeants: Activists and enforcers promoting the movement's goals.Ms. Magazine+1The Santa Barbara Independent+1
Infantry: Conservative voters and grassroots supporters.Wikipedia
Power Players: Leaders and politicians implementing the strategies.Wikipedia

Stewart emphasizes that the funder class is religiously diverse, encompassing not only evangelicals but also Catholics, Jews, and atheists. The Guardian+5Wikipedia+5Ms. Magazine+5

Throughout her investigation, Stewart highlights the movement's exploitation of contemporary issues such as immigration, gender roles, and economic anxiety to further its objectives. She underscores the strategic and well-organized nature of these efforts, contrasting them with the less coordinated pro-democracy forces. The Santa Barbara Independent+1The Guardian+1The Guardian+1Ms. Magazine+1

Despite the alarming findings, Stewart offers a message of hope, urging pro-democracy advocates to organize and strategize effectively in response. She believes that a majority of Americans support democratic principles over authoritarianism and emphasizes the need for persistent effort to protect democracy. The Guardian

"Money, Lies, and God" has received critical acclaim for its thorough research and compelling narrative. Publishers Weekly describes it as "an urgently needed background on the 2024 election results," while Kirkus Reviews calls it "an impassioned takedown of a 'militant minority.'" NewPages.com+2Wikipedia+2BookBrowse.com+2BookBrowse.com+1Wikipedia+1

Overall, the book serves as a clarion call to recognize and counteract the forces threatening American democracy.

ChatGPT