The Scientific Theory of the Deservingness Heuristic

The Scientific Reason Some Americans Don’t Want Brittney Griner Home From Russian Prison.

Dartmouth College's John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, told Insider that her research suggests that "how someone came to be in need of assistance affects whether or not the public thinks that person should receive it."

This phenomenon, she said, is called the "deservingness heuristic."

newsofcanada.net...

Collectivism at its finest, because "Science"

This pamphlet from the Humanity Bureau will explain everything...

/discuss?

a reply to: iamthevirus

From your link:

many compatriots of the two-time Olympic gold medalist are opposed to the Biden administration’s attempts to kill her. to secure. freedom by negotiating a prisoner exchange with the Kremlin.

The way the article is written is too convoluted to understand, let alone discuss. I think the author is suggesting other countries have no right to expect visitors to obey their laws, and if an American gets caught breaking them they should get a free pass....like they do at home.

a reply to: iamthevirus

A "deservingness heuristic" is not what my opinion is based on. I see it only in terms of it being illegal to attempt to smuggle any amount of cannabis into Russia and "I forgot" and "I had a prescription" are not valid defenses and her punishment is what a straight, white male would also likely receive for this offense. The liberals are the ones saying she deserves to be freed because she is a black, gay famous woman.  If you try to smuggle your prescribed Adderall into Japan, you will be arrested, found guilty and sent to prison because it is strictly prohibited. Officials there will not care if you "need" to take it. She could easily be facing an even harsher penalty if she had smuggled two cannabis cartridges into Indonesia. It's simple. Follow the laws of any country that you visit.

a reply to: nugget1

Could be one of two reasons it's a bit awkward.

1 - It's BS™ disguised as science = Shcmience™.

2- It's written in Canadian, so you'll need to put-on yer Canadian spectacles, crack open a Molson™, and take a shooter of maple-syrup, to figure-out what it's all aboot !

I myself was not too focused on the particular single issue as applied to this case.

To me it is a more broad scoped social issue which could be applied to domestics issues as well such as in a collectivist society where we all come together and use group-think.

Hence my thin veiled stab at a dystopian future I feel we may be headed for.

These kind of ideas have normally been a bit taboo, kind of like discussing eugenics and approaching it from a scientific perspective.

I do believe that is how most Communist and Socialist societies begin to condition their populace to group-think.

The folks reading that article are seeing the headline, seeing an AA and reading the words "deserving" and "science"

Maybe articles are so poorly written now a days for that specific purpose, that is all they wish the reader/glancer to take away from it... /the message

I originally read the article somewhere else maybe Yahoo but it is popping up on aggregation sites... I wasn't aware when I copied the link that it wasn't the site I was reading on.

a reply to: tamusan

In short...

You/Others being deserving of something even if it is violations of human rights... is being at the determination of "others" whoever that may be? All that really needs done is to be told that it is by the will of others (the majority)

eg; if you don't contribute enough society will send you to new eden.

a reply to: Nothin

a reply to: iamthevirus

My comment was also influenced by an article I had read today telling me that my opinion is because I do not believe she deserves to be free because I am using this theory to make my decisions about her case. I find it perfectly reasonable for law-abiding people to expect laws to be equally enforced against perpetrators and believe this entire concept is being pushed to hold up their message that Briner is being wrongfully persecuted over political issues. I think they must want it to reinforce their "bad Russia" narrative. It would be a dangerous precedent if we let them tell us that race, sexual identity, or other reasons should influence whether or not someone should be punished for breaking the law. If they are successful in clouding guilt with this line of thinking, it could eventually even be used to excuse pedophiles' actions.

A wise politician once told me something along the lines of: we can't do a damned thing about the laws in communist China. I think that applies to the Griner case or any other case in any other country.

a reply to: tamusan

It quite possibly serves a dual purpose, (double-think) "two opposing ideas and accepting them both"

What I've gleaned from it was of an ideology, a leftist ideology being introduced into the psyche of the average yahoo surfer and headline ingester.

I sometimes scan the headlines myself to see what's being fed the masses.

Hitler started in Germany first, deeming anyone a drain on the greater good such as mentally disabled and beggars or whatever... loading them into school busses and gassing them with the exhaust before later moving on to specific ethnic groups such as the Jews.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Agreed that even it is a big hefty stinking pile of BS™ :
They're still gonna sell it ;
And folks are still gonna buy it.

They buy the presentation, or the package : forgetting every time that nothing ever lives-up to the Hype™.

Not the first time that they convince the public that a criminal is a Hero™ ...

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: iamthevirus

A "deservingness heuristic" is not what my opinion is based on. I see it only in terms of it being illegal to attempt to smuggle any amount of cannabis into Russia and "I forgot" and "I had a prescription" are not valid defenses and her punishment is what a straight, white male would also likely receive for this offense. The liberals are the ones saying she deserves to be freed because she is a black, gay famous woman.  If you try to smuggle your prescribed Adderall into Japan, you will be arrested, found guilty and sent to prison because it is strictly prohibited. Officials there will not care if you "need" to take it. She could easily be facing an even harsher penalty if she had smuggled two cannabis cartridges into Indonesia. It's simple. Follow the laws of any country that you visit.

What if someone would have left it at home had they been reminded to check the law? It's a simple mistake.

Is it a 9 years in prison mistake for something basically harmless?

A couple of vape cartridges.. for personal use because it isnt enough to sell. Obviously the law does not have room for circumstances and details, because if it did, the amount of a drug and what kind of drug it was would and should make all of the difference regarding the sentence.

But, none of that matters to you. It's not about race, political affiliation or sexual preference, not at all. It's about following the rule of law perfectly, whatever the law may be, regardless of any circumstance.

Perfect how clean and easy that is, opinions about all of the details dont matter. If the sentence were 20 years, life or death, same thing applies.

The law explicitly said that eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was punishable by death.

She knew her camera was on when she made it and ate it, how'd the video get on tiktok?

If she dies, she dies.

originally posted by: Thrumbo
The law explicitly said that eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was punishable by death.

She knew her camera was on when she made it and ate it, how'd the video get on tiktok?

If she dies, she dies.

I am certain if we apply this ideology and methodology here back home then we could cure all of our societal ills.

Trust the science.

a reply to: Thrumbo

Don't get me wrong here, because I have no animosity or ill will toward Brittney, and I do feel sorry for her, especially considering that she will probably be too old to play basketball professionally when she gets out. I also do not find cannabis products to be all that big of a deal. But what can we, as foreigners, do about the laws of another country? Just because cannabis is legal in many states in the U.S. does not mean that other countries need to honor our laws over theirs. There are countries where smuggling small amounts of drugs could get you more than 9 years in prison. For example, you can be legally prescribed Adderall in the U.S. but face much more than 9 years in prison for smuggling it into Japan or even just possessing it there. It's their country, so they make the laws, not you and I.

Perfect how clean and easy that is, opinions about all of the details dont matter. If the sentence were 20 years, life or death, same thing applies.

What other details matter here? Because making a simple mistake often does not even excuse the breaking of the law in the U.S.

It's about following the rule of law perfectly, whatever the law may be, regardless of any circumstance.

Yeah, that sums it up. I do not break any laws that I am not willing to face the consequences of. Some cities in the U.S. have become way too soft on crime, and where is that getting them? Businesses are closing and people with money are leaving, which is drying up the tax dollars those cities need to function. I don't care why someone steals from a store or craps on the sidewalk, but only that they did, and I expect them to be punished in a way that will deter them from doing it again.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: nugget1


It's written in Canadian, so you'll need to put-on yer Canadian spectacles, crack open a Molson™, and take a shooter of maple-syrup, to figure-out what it's all aboot !

That gave me a chuckle