See all content for easy acess to all

Link to legislators page:   Montana Legislature 

Eric  Albus  Eric.Albus@legmt.gov 406-648-7494 PO Box 289   

Brad  Barker  Brad.Barker@legmt.gov 406-426-1034 PO Box 1242   

Denise  Baum  Denise.Baum@legmt.gov 406-208-0345 PO Box 81112   

Becky  Beard  becky.beard@legmt.gov 406-479-3048 PO Box 85   

David  Bedey  david.bedey@legmt.gov 406-381-2059 PO Box 692   

Lyn  Bennett  Lyn.Bennett@legmt.gov 406-890-4468 PO Box 3017   

Marta  Bertoglio  Marta.Bertoglio@legmt.gov 14062821408 PO Box 294   

Kenneth  Bogner  Kenneth.Bogner@legmt.gov 406-916-9690 1017 Pleasant St   

Ellie  Boldman  Ellie.Boldman@legmt.gov 406-218-9608 1125 Helen Ave   

Larry  Brewster  Larry.Brewster@legmt.gov 406-670-0929 1216 Babcock Blvd   

Ed  Buttrey  Ed.Buttrey@legmt.gov 406-452-6460 708 Central Ave   

Ed  Byrne  Ed.Byrne@legmt.gov 406-871-6001 PO Box 503   

Mary  Caferro  Mary.Caferro@legmt.gov 406-461-2384 PO Box 668   

Bob  Carter  Bob.Carter@legmt.gov 406-788-0089 4299 Spurgin Rd   

Brian  Close  Brian.Close@legmt.gov 406-582-0478 1140 Cherry Dr   

Curtis  Cochran  Curtis.Cochran@legmt.gov 406-280-0081 177 Red Hill Rd   

Jill  Cohenour  Jill.Cohenour@legmt.gov 406-431-0912 2610 Colt Dr   

Thedis  Crowe  Thedis.Crowe@legmt.gov  PO Box 2114   

Mike  Cuffe  Mike.Cuffe@legmt.gov 406-293-1247 PO Box 1685   

Melody  Cunningham  Melody.Cunningham@legmt.gov 406-493-7279 PO Box 5872   

Willis  Curdy  Willis.Curdy@legmt.gov 14067280981 11280 Kona Ranch Rd   

Julie  Darling  Julie.Darling@legmt.gov 406-471-4125 PO Box 1933   

Scott  DeMarois  Scott.DeMarois@legmt.gov 406-560-6947 PO Box 220 

Lee  Deming  Lee.Deming@legmt.gov 406-671-2508 522 Fairway View Dr   

Mary Ann  Dunwell  MaryAnn.Dunwell@legmt.gov 406-461-5358 2811 Alexis Ave   

Neil  Duram  Neil.Duram@legmt.gov 406-471-2356 PO Box 1226   

Becky  Edwards  Becky.Edwards@legmt.gov 406-570-9427 PO Box 152   

Janet  Ellis  Janet.Ellis@legmt.gov  PO Box 385  

Jason  Ellsworth  Jason.Ellsworth@legmt.gov 406-360-0009 1073 Golf Course Rd  

Pete  Elverum  Pete.Elverum@legmt.gov 406-570-3755 PO Box 2033   

Daniel  Emrich  Daniel.Emrich@legmt.gov 406-781-3955 2112 6th Ave N   

John  Esp  John.Esp@legmt.gov 406-932-5662 PO Box 1024   

Sherry  Essmann  Sherry.Essmann@legmt.gov 406-876-0490 PO Box 80945 

Jodee  Etchart  Jodee.Etchart@legmt.gov 406-318-9773 PO Box 22014 

Terry  Falk  Terry.Falk@legmt.gov  PO Box 9484   

Dave  Fern  Dave.Fern@legmt.gov 406-212-0674 PO Box 4151  

Paul  Fielder  Paul.Fielder@legmt.gov 406-210-5943 PO Box 2558   

John  Fitzpatrick  John.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov 406-459-8407 PO BOX 994   

Chip  Fitzpatrick Sidney "Chip" Fitzpatrick Sidney.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov  PO Box 868   

Steve  Fitzpatrick  Steve.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov 406-750-6764 3203 15th Ave S   

Pat  Flowers  Pat.Flowers@legmt.gov 406-580-0035 11832 Gee Norman Rd   

Mike  Fox  Michael.Fox@legmt.gov  PO Box 442   

Tom  France  Tom.France@legmt.gov 406-396-5085 5900 Thornbird Ln   

John  Fuller  John.Fuller@legmt.gov 4062534897 PO Box 7002   

Shelly  Fyant  Shelly.Fyant@legmt.gov 406-546-5633 33543 McLeod Rd   

Wylie  Galt  Wylie.Galt@legmt.gov 406-220-0157 PO Box 2   

Bruce "Butch"  Gillespie  Bruce.Gillespie@legmt.gov 406-949-4453 PO Box 275   

Jane  Gillette  Jane.Gillette@legmt.gov 406-868-1549 32 Riverview Rd   

Steve  Gist  Steven.Gist@legmt.gov 4062314050 339 1St St N   

Carl  Glimm  Carl.Glimm@legmt.gov (406) 751-7334 5107 Ashley Lake Rd  

Randyn  Gregg  Randyn.Gregg@legmt.gov 406-290-4407 PO Box 583   

Alanah  Griffith  Alanah.Griffith@legmt.gov 406-624-3585 PO Box 160748   

Derek  Harvey  Derek.Harvey@legmt.gov 406-490-5472 PO Box 3111   

Donavon  Hawk  Donavon.Hawk@legmt.gov 406-578-1233 PO Box 3791   

Denise  Hayman  Denise.Hayman@legmt.gov 406-579-1986 PO Box 6115   

Greg  Hertz  Greg.Hertz@legmt.gov 406-253-9505 PO Box 1747  

Caleb  Hinkle  Caleb.Hinkle@legmt.gov  PO Box 468  

 Jedediah  Hinkle  Jedediah.Hinkle@legmt.gov (406) 992-1686 1700 Drummond Blvd   

SJ  Howell  SJ.Howell@legmt.gov 406-531-4445 PO Box 8623   

Gregg  Hunter  Gregg.Hunter@legmt.gov 406-219-7590 PO Box 292  

Jamie  Isaly  Jamie.Isaly@legmt.gov 406-209-2568 27 Quinn Creek Rd   

Llew  Jones  Llew.Jones@legmt.gov 406-271-3104 1102 4th Ave SW   

Denise  Joy  Denise.Joy@legmt.gov 406-647-0337   

Jonathan  Karlen  Jonathan.Karlen@legmt.gov 406-851-9226 PO Box 2960  

Josh  Kassmier  Josh.Kassmier@legmt.gov 406-781-5386 PO Box 876   

Kathy  Kelker  Kathy.Kelker@legmt.gov 406-698-5610 2438 Rimrock Rd  

Steven  Kelly  Steven.Kelly@legmt.gov 4063090275 PO Box 2146   

Connie  Keogh  Connie.Keogh@legmt.gov 406-298-0985 PO Box 7542   

Emma  Kerr-Carpenter  Emma.KC@legmt.gov 406-894-0377 PO Box 22062   

Shane  Klakken  Shane.Klakken@legmt.gov 406-217-6107 PO Box 128   

Greg  Kmetz  Greg.Kmetz@legmt.gov 406-853-1636 70 Sprandel Ln   

Kelly  Kortum  Kelly.Kortum@legmt.gov 406-404-6643 PO Box 942   

Gayle  Lammers  Gayle.Lammers@legmt.gov 406-679-0020 137 S Heimat Rd   

Marc  Lee  Marc.Lee@legmt.gov 406-490-7500 PO Box 4308   

Dennis  Lenz  Dennis.Lenz@legmt.gov 406-671-7052 PO Box 20752  

Brandon  Ler  Brandon.Ler@legmt.gov 406-480-5687 11313 County Rd 338   

Denley  Loge  Denley.Loge@legmt.gov 406-544-5220 1296 Four Mile Creek Rd   

Kathy  Love  Kathy.Love@legmt.gov 406-360-1878 PO Box 417   

Jennifer  Lynch  Jennifer.Lynch@legmt.gov 406-491-7523 1312 Hobson Ave   

Forrest  Mandeville  Forrest.Mandeville@legmt.gov 406-690-1933 PO Box 337   

Shannon  Maness  Shannon.Maness@legmt.gov 406-925-3604 PO Box 701   

Theresa  Manzella  Theresa.Manzella@legmt.gov 406-546-9462 PO Box 1100   

Marilyn  Marler  Marilyn.Marler@legmt.gov 406-544-7189 1750 S 8th St W   

Ron  Marshall  Ron.Marshall@legmt.gov  840 S 1st St   

Eric  Matthews  Eric.Matthews@legmt.gov 406-600-1550 613 W Babcock St   

Tom  McGillvray  Tom.McGillvray@legmt.gov 406-698-4428 5346 Dovetail Ave   

Wendy  McKamey  Wendy.McKamey@legmt.gov 406-868-5006 33 Upper Millegan Rd   

Bill  Mercer  Bill.Mercer@legmt.gov 406-698-1671 PO Box 2118   

Tom  Millett  Tom.Millett@legmt.gov 406-212-3613 PO Box 1075   

Russ  Miner  Russel.Miner@legmt.gov 406-899-4514 1350 55th Ave S  

Braxton  Mitchell  Braxton.Mitchell@legmt.gov  PO Box 1765   

Valerie  Moore  Valerie.Moore@legmt.gov 406-385-7983 205 Poplar St  

Jacinda  Morigeau  Jacinda.Morigeau@legmt.gov 4062983416 2021 S Couture Loop   

Shane  Morigeau  shane.morigeau@legmt.gov 406-546-4290 10643 Upland Trl  

Luke  Muszkiewicz  Luke.Muszkiewicz@legmt.gov 406-461-0193 PO Box 1534   

Fiona  Nave  Fiona.Nave@legmt.gov 406-321-4602 38 Quinn Coulee Rd   

Cora  Neumann  Cora.Neumann@legmt.gov 406-210-7969 1301 E 6th Ave  

Anthony  Nicastro  Anthony.Nicastro@legmt.gov 406-794-8471 PO Box 23362   

Nelly  Nicol  Nelly.Nicol@legmt.gov 406-670-1745 PO Box 20692   

George  Nikolakakos  George.Nikolakakos@legmt.gov 406-823-0363 5112 4th Ave N #9  

Melissa  Nikolakakos  Melissa.Nikolakakos@legmt.gov 4062232380 5112 4th Ave N #9   

Mark  Noland  Mark.Noland@legmt.gov 406-253-8982 PO Box 1852   

Sara  Novak  Sara.Novak@legmt.gov 406-691-0069 2136 N Cable Rd   

Greg  Oblander  Greg.Oblander@legmt.gov 406-652-3553 3307 Grand Ave   

Andrea  Olsen  Andrea.Olsen@legmt.gov 406-543-2666 622 Rollins St   

Greg  Overstreet  Greg.Overstreet@legmt.gov 406-209-8592 300 Main St Ste 203   

Gary  Parry  Gary.Parry@legmt.gov 406-749-0543 PO Box 455   

Bob  Phalen  Bobby.Phalen@legmt.gov 406-939-1187 444 RD 222   

Christopher  Pope  Christopher.Pope@legmt.gov 406-581-8739 PO Box 6546   

Debo  Powers  Debo.Powers@legmt.gov 406-407-0787 PO Box 792   

James  Reavis  James.Reavis@legmt.gov 14064982185 PO Box 22301   

Matt  Regier  Matt.Regier@legmt.gov 14062845639 PO Box 9763   

Amy  Regier  Amy.Regier@legmt.gov 406-253-8421 PO Box 10466   

Linda  Reksten  Linda.Reksten@legmt.gov 406-471-8359 PO Box 1083   

Vince  Ricci  Vince.Ricci@legmt.gov 406-855-9153 3109 Forbes Blvd  

Melissa  Romano  Melissa.Romano@legmt.gov 406-461-0340 PO Box 6393   

Scott  Rosenzweig  Scott.Rosenzweig@legmt.gov 406-599-0719 PO Box 134   

Tyson T. Running Wolf  Tyson.RunningWolf@legmt.gov 406-845-2115 PO Box 377   

Jerry  Schillinger  Jerry.Schillinger@legmt.gov  PO Box 394   

Curtis  Schomer  Curtis.Schomer@legmt.gov 406-672-9846 PO Box 22234   

Lukas  Schubert  Lukas.Schubert@legmt.gov 14066096099 175 Hutton Ranch Rd Ste 103 PMB 102   

Joshua  Seckinger  Joshua.Seckinger@legmt.gov 14065996604 PO Box 1555   

Kerri  Seekins-Crowe  Kerri.Seekins-Crowe@legmt.gov 406-208-6587 480 Pinon Dr   

Tracy  Sharp  Tracy.Sharp@legmt.gov 406-407-2197 PO Box 548   

Laura  Smith  Laura.Smith@legmt.gov 406-426-3504 PO Box 1402   

Frank  Smith  Frank.Smith@legmt.gov 406-942-0615 PO Box 729  

 Jade  Sooktis  Jade.Sooktis@legmt.gov  PO Box 284   

Courtenay  Sprunger  Courtenay.Sprunger@legmt.gov 406-407-1151 PO Box 8315  

Ed  Stafman  Ed.Stafman@legmt.gov 406-640-3362 PO Box 305   

Peter  Strand  Peter.Strand@legmt.gov 406-579-5130 411 W Olive St   

Katie  Sullivan  Katie.Sullivan@legmt.gov 406-616-3914 PO Box 7853   

Russ  Tempel  Russ.Tempel@legmt.gov 406-265-0990 PO Box 131   

Tony  Tezak  Tony.Tezak@legmt.gov 4068425115 PO Box 907   

Mark  Thane  Mark.Thane@legmt.gov 406-552-3957 PO Box 692   

Morgan  Thiel  Morgan.Thiel@legmt.gov 406-480-6271 120 E Main St   

Eric  Tilleman  Eric.Tilleman@legmt.gov  701 Mountain View Dr   

Jeremy  Trebas  Jeremy.Trebas@legmt.gov 406-899-5445 PO Box 2364   

Paul  Tuss  Paul.Tuss@legmt.gov 406-945-0412 13 Spruce Dr   

Barry  Usher  Barry.Usher@legmt.gov 406-252-2888 6900 S Frontage Rd   

Shelley  Vance  Shelley.Vance@legmt.gov 406-587-8608 PO Box 1   

Sue  Vinton  Sue.Vinton@legmt.gov 406-855-2625 PO Box 236   

Mike  Vinton  Mike.Vinton@legmt.gov 406-855-3345 5115 High Trl Rd   

Ken  Walsh  Kenneth.Walsh@legmt.gov 406-596-0418 PO Box 483   

Susan  Webber  susan.webber@legmt.gov 406-450-1894 PO Box 1011   

Jane  Weber  Jane.Weber@legmt.gov 406-781-0741 PO Box 818  

 Jonathan  Windy Boy  Jonathan.WindyBoy@legmt.gov 406-945-1805 PO Box 250   

Zack  Wirth  Zack.Wirth@legmt.gov 406-750-5852 2020 Chevallier Dr   

Mike  Yakawich  Mike.Yakawich@legmt.gov 406-647-6391 PO Box 32004   

Zooey  Zephyr  Zooey.Zephyr@legmt.gov  PO Box 5213   

Katie  Zolnikov  Katie.Zolnikov@legmt.gov  PO Box 51343   

Daniel  Zolnikov  Daniel.Zolnikov@legmt.gov 406-444-4800 PO Box 50403    

Copy and paste to your email message to reach all legislators

     Eric.Albus@legmt.gov   Brad.Barker@legmt.gov   Denise.Baum@legmt.gov   becky.beard@legmt.gov   david.bedey@legmt.gov   Lyn.Bennett@legmt.gov   Marta.Bertoglio@legmt.gov   Kenneth.Bogner@legmt.gov   Ellie.Boldman@legmt.gov   Larry.Brewster@legmt.gov   Ed.Buttrey@legmt.gov   Ed.Byrne@legmt.gov   Mary.Caferro@legmt.gov   Bob.Carter@legmt.gov   Brian.Close@legmt.gov   Curtis.Cochran@legmt.gov   Jill.Cohenour@legmt.gov   Thedis.Crowe@legmt.gov   Mike.Cuffe@legmt.gov   Melody.Cunningham@legmt.gov   Willis.Curdy@legmt.gov   Julie.Darling@legmt.gov   Scott.DeMarois@legmt.gov   Lee.Deming@legmt.gov   MaryAnn.Dunwell@legmt.gov   Neil.Duram@legmt.gov   Becky.Edwards@legmt.gov   Janet.Ellis@legmt.gov   Jason.Ellsworth@legmt.gov   Pete.Elverum@legmt.gov   Daniel.Emrich@legmt.gov   John.Esp@legmt.gov   Sherry.Essmann@legmt.gov   Jodee.Etchart@legmt.gov   Terry.Falk@legmt.gov   Dave.Fern@legmt.gov   Paul.Fielder@legmt.gov   John.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov   Sidney.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov   Steve.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov   Pat.Flowers@legmt.gov   Michael.Fox@legmt.gov   Tom.France@legmt.gov   John.Fuller@legmt.gov   Shelly.Fyant@legmt.gov   Wylie.Galt@legmt.gov   Bruce.Gillespie@legmt.gov   Jane.Gillette@legmt.gov   Steven.Gist@legmt.gov   Carl.Glimm@legmt.gov   Randyn.Gregg@legmt.gov   Alanah.Griffith@legmt.gov   Derek.Harvey@legmt.gov   Donavon.Hawk@legmt.gov   Denise.Hayman@legmt.gov   Greg.Hertz@legmt.gov   Caleb.Hinkle@legmt.gov   Jedediah.Hinkle@legmt.gov   SJ.Howell@legmt.gov   Gregg.Hunter@legmt.gov   Jamie.Isaly@legmt.gov   Llew.Jones@legmt.gov   Denise.Joy@legmt.gov   Jonathan.Karlen@legmt.gov   Josh.Kassmier@legmt.gov   Kathy.Kelker@legmt.gov   Steven.Kelly@legmt.gov   Connie.Keogh@legmt.gov   Emma.KC@legmt.gov   Shane.Klakken@legmt.gov   Greg.Kmetz@legmt.gov   Kelly.Kortum@legmt.gov   Gayle.Lammers@legmt.gov   Marc.Lee@legmt.gov   Dennis.Lenz@legmt.gov   Brandon.Ler@legmt.gov   Denley.Loge@legmt.gov   Kathy.Love@legmt.gov   Jennifer.Lynch@legmt.gov   Forrest.Mandeville@legmt.gov   Shannon.Maness@legmt.gov   Theresa.Manzella@legmt.gov   Marilyn.Marler@legmt.gov   Ron.Marshall@legmt.gov   Eric.Matthews@legmt.gov   Tom.McGillvray@legmt.gov   Wendy.McKamey@legmt.gov   Bill.Mercer@legmt.gov   Tom.Millett@legmt.gov   Russel.Miner@legmt.gov   Braxton.Mitchell@legmt.gov   Valerie.Moore@legmt.gov   Jacinda.Morigeau@legmt.gov   shane.morigeau@legmt.gov   Luke.Muszkiewicz@legmt.gov   Fiona.Nave@legmt.gov   Cora.Neumann@legmt.gov   Anthony.Nicastro@legmt.gov   Nelly.Nicol@legmt.gov   George.Nikolakakos@legmt.gov   Melissa.Nikolakakos@legmt.gov   Mark.Noland@legmt.gov   Sara.Novak@legmt.gov   Greg.Oblander@legmt.gov   Andrea.Olsen@legmt.gov   Greg.Overstreet@legmt.gov   Gary.Parry@legmt.gov   Bobby.Phalen@legmt.gov   Christopher.Pope@legmt.gov   Debo.Powers@legmt.gov   James.Reavis@legmt.gov   Matt.Regier@legmt.gov   Amy.Regier@legmt.gov   Linda.Reksten@legmt.gov   Vince.Ricci@legmt.gov   Melissa.Romano@legmt.gov   Scott.Rosenzweig@legmt.gov   Tyson.RunningWolf@legmt.gov   Jerry.Schillinger@legmt.gov   Curtis.Schomer@legmt.gov   Lukas.Schubert@legmt.gov   Joshua.Seckinger@legmt.gov   Kerri.Seekins-Crowe@legmt.gov   Tracy.Sharp@legmt.gov   Laura.Smith@legmt.gov   Frank.Smith@legmt.gov   Jade.Sooktis@legmt.gov   Courtenay.Sprunger@legmt.gov   Ed.Stafman@legmt.gov   Peter.Strand@legmt.gov   Katie.Sullivan@legmt.gov   Russ.Tempel@legmt.gov   Tony.Tezak@legmt.gov   Mark.Thane@legmt.gov   Morgan.Thiel@legmt.gov   Eric.Tilleman@legmt.gov   Jeremy.Trebas@legmt.gov   Paul.Tuss@legmt.gov   Barry.Usher@legmt.gov   Shelley.Vance@legmt.gov   Sue.Vinton@legmt.gov   Mike.Vinton@legmt.gov   Kenneth.Walsh@legmt.gov   susan.webber@legmt.gov   Jane.Weber@legmt.gov   Jonathan.WindyBoy@legmt.gov   Zack.Wirth@legmt.gov   Mike.Yakawich@legmt.gov   Zooey.Zephyr@legmt.gov   Katie.Zolnikov@legmt.gov   Daniel.Zolnikov@legmt.gov    

Senator Tim Sheehy: https://www.sheehy.senate.gov/ bottom of page   

Senator Steve Daines: https://www.daines.senate.gov/services/email-steve/     

Representative Troy Downing: https://downing.house.gov/address_authentication?form=/contact/email-me   

Representative Ryan Zinke: https://zinke.house.gov/address_authentication?form=/contact 

I got sent to a page that indicated he did not take out of district messages    

Most of our human problems, not caused by nature are the result of our emotions in relationship to other people or environment. Most of those are due to negative reasoning. Once a person understands that fully, the simplest answer is to intend to be mindful of others and nature. The only thing that stands in the way of our working together is our emotions. Below is the partial explanation.

Conformity is the tendency to align one’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of a group around them. Studies suggest that conformity may evolve in childhood and become stronger with age. The need to belong to a group and conform is presumed to be genetic. This often leads us to imitate what others do while following the majority opinion, and conforming to the common standards of behavior that are implicitly agreed upon by society.  The positive side of conformity helps to give us a sense of belonging, an opportunity to be part of a group that we approve of while helping us with our communications, interactions, following instructions, social norms, ethics, and rules through cohesiveness. So conformity helps us to form a sense of identity and security.

On the negative side, conformity can stifle creativity and lead people to give in to destructive peer pressures. A negative consequence of group conformity is the formation of outgroups or groups that we view as fundamentally different from us. Outgroup bias is a form of cognitive bias that causes us to hold negative attitudes toward outgroups. These negative behaviors can also lead to mob mentality, gangs, terrorism, and war.

Some examples of negative group bias and negative conformity are;

•  The Stanford Prison Experiment: A famous psychological study that showed how ordinary people can conform to the roles of prisoners and guards, and behave in cruel and abusive ways.
• The Milgram Experiment: Another famous psychological study that showed how people can conform to the authority of an experimenter, and inflict electric shocks on a learner, even when they hear screams of pain. A real life example is thee Abu Ghraib prison scandal was a case of human rights violations and war crimes committed by US soldiers and intelligence officers against Iraqi detainees in 2003 and 2004. The abuse included physical and sexual torture, humiliation, and killing 
• The Jonestown Massacre: A tragic event that occurred in 1978, when over 900 members of a cult called the Peoples Temple committed mass suicide or murder, following the orders of their leader, Jim Jones.
• The Rwandan Genocide, a horrific event that occurred in 1994, when over 800,000 people, mostly from the Tutsi ethnic group, were killed by the Hutu majority, who were incited by propaganda and hate speech.
• The genocide in Gaza 2023. A massacre of civilians in Israel subsequently led to an Israeli attack on Palestinians. 
• Problems associated with biodiversity and climate change have led to a cognitive bias in opposition and climate denialism.

The rise of authoritarianism is a global phenomenon that is happening in the present day, when many people are supporting leaders who are oppressive, corrupt, or violent, and who undermine democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Ashe Conformity study

In the original Conformity study, Solomon Ash arranged to have participants match the length of a line with one of three comparison lines. However, they were surrounded by confederates who gave the same wrong answer on some trials. The first study revealed that, on average, 33% of participants and 38% in the 2nd study conformed incorrectly to the majority opinion across all the 12 critical trials. Moreover, 75% of the participants conformed at least once. This showed that people would discount their own perceptions in favor of conforming to the group. The study also demonstrated that people trusted following a group more than they were certain of what they witnessed as truth.  In 2023, the study was replicated yielding very similar results. 

“Much of the time, it is in the interest of the individual to follow the crowd, but in the social interest for individuals to say and do what they think best” - Cass Sunstein

According to Sunstein, "When people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes. And when such groups include authorities who tell group members what to do, or put them into certain social roles, very bad things happen."  ― pg 2 Cass Sunstein "Going to Extremes."

Conformity can potentially reduce the motivation and opportunity to think critically.   

When people conform, they often rely on the opinions or judgments of others, rather than their own reasoning or evidence. People may also avoid challenging or questioning the group’s views, for fear of being rejected or punished. This can lead to a loss of individuality, creativity, and curiosity.

Different cultures have their own norms and expectations, which create a sense of harmony within each group. However, these norms and expectations can vary widely across different cultures and groups. The word culture implies conformity to the group’s standards. The pressure to conform in Asian countries, for instance is greater than in countries like the U.S., Australia, U.K. and New Zealand where there is more support for individuality. 

Critical points to understand:

As we grow older, the pressure to conform increases. Sunstein points out that people who have uncertainty tend to moderate and avoid extremes while surrounding oneself with like-minded people tends to lead to confirmation bias and greater susceptibility to extremes. Sunstein reported "You will become more confident that you are correct and be more likely to move in an extreme direction." "The power of conformity and cascades has deep implications for political polarization." 

 Sunstein defines social cascades as “large-scale social movements in which many people end up thinking something, or doing something, because of the beliefs or actions of a few early movers” (Sunstein, 2023, p. 34). So many people end up thinking, believing and acting, based on the beliefs and actions of others of choice or others they trust. He refers to informational and reputational cascades. 

• Informational cascades: People rely on the information conveyed by others or from people in the group that they trust, rather than their own private information. 
• Reputational cascades:  People infer how others will judge them based on their beliefs or actions. People want to avoid being criticized or ostracized by their preferred group members while attempting to gain their approval and respect.

One factor that is apparent to me with regard to group cohesiveness and conformity is that the impact of emotional attachment to a chosen group may influence a person's emotional feelings regarding their relationships to others and to the environment based on the influence to conform to norms and standards of the preferred group.  That attachment can lead to emotional reasoning favoring a chosen group instead of actively seeking out independent truth, and reason for making the best decisions. One way to avoid those hazards mentioned above is to use critical thinking skills. In Wikipedia under conformity, it is stated, "With the appropriate environmental influence, conforming in early childhood years, allows one to learn and thus, adopt the appropriate behaviors necessary to interact and develop "correctly" within one's society. So clearly, teaching critical thinking skills and an understanding of negative groupthink while discouraging participation in groupthink is essential to every child's healthy development.

Conformity can potentially reduce the motivation and opportunity to think critically. When people conform, as stated they may rely on the opinions or judgments of others, rather than their own reasoning or evidence. People may also avoid challenging or questioning the group’s views, for fear of being rejected or punished. This can lead to a loss of individuality, creativity, and curiosity. And that leads to groupthink.

Normative conformity is a term used in psychology to describe the tendency to behave in certain ways in order to be accepted by a group and to avoid being rejected. Studies indicated that "in situations where the group is clearly wrong, such as when they give an incorrect answer to an obvious question, some people will still conform to the group’s answer, even if they know it is wrong."(Wikipedia, conformity). Conformity will be motivated by normative influence; the participants will conform in order to be accepted by the group.    

There was clear evidence that in Nazi Germany people conformed because they wanted to avoid being rejected, persecuted, or executed by the authorities or their peers. But also because they were influenced by propaganda, fear, and group pressure.  This resulted in a massive violation of human rights and a devastating war that cost millions of lives.  

Social media:

Social media has been the platform for group polarization, making it easier for people to be radicalized and to participate in like-minded thinking potentially leading to extremes. "With the Internet, it is exceedingly easy for each of us to find like-minded types." pg 81 Cass Sunstein "Going to Extremes."

• In Myanmar, Facebook was used to spread disinformation and hate speech against the Rohingya minority, which contributed to the persecution and genocide of the ethnic group.
• In the U.S., social media platforms were used to organize and mobilize the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to overturn the presidential election results.
• In India, social media platforms were used to spread rumors and incite mob violence against people accused of kidnapping children or slaughtering cows.
• In Nigeria, social media platforms were used to amplify the #EndSARS protests against police brutality, but also to spread misinformation and propaganda that fueled tensions and violence.
• In France, social media platforms were used to radicalize and recruit members of terrorist groups such as ISIS, who carried out several deadly attacks in the country.

 
Critical thinking (Wikipedia): is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in an objective and rational way.  (Click here to go to positive reasoning - critical thinking)

Groupthink is not a fallacy, but rather an informal fallacy that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people make irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. It is important to recognize the situations in which groupthink is most likely to occur, such as when groups feel threatened or when decision-making is rushed. But groupthink and groupthink hysteria are psychological phenomena that occur when people in a group conform to a common opinion or belief, sometimes at the expense of their own critical thinking or rationality. Individual reactive nature is the tendency to change one’s behavior or attitude based on the presence or expectations of others. These concepts are related because they both involve the influence of social pressure and the desire for acceptance or belonging.  Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling that arises when one’s actions or beliefs are inconsistent with one’s values or self-image.  To reduce this feeling, people may either change their actions or beliefs to match their values or self-image, or rationalize their actions or beliefs to justify the inconsistency.  groupthink and individual reactive nature can both result from the motivation to avoid or reduce cognitive dissonance.   Groupthink hysteria is an extreme form of groupthink that involves collective fear, anxiety, or panic mostly is the explanation for all of the groupthink behaviors listed below. In a nutshell, it is collective negative reasoning or bias resulting in negative emotional reasoning. So, in one sense, the negative behavior is mostly a consequence of not recognizing alternate or better options. It can also be influenced by individual reactive nature, as people may react more strongly or emotionally to a perceived threat or danger when they are in a group. 

To minimize the risk of groupthink, it’s critical to allow enough time for issues to be fully discussed and for as many group members as possible to share their thoughts. When dissent is encouraged, groupthink is less likely to occur. It is important to evaluate each individual based on their own actions and merits rather than making assumptions based on their political affiliation or beliefs such as voter suppression or taking away someone’s right to vote based on their political affiliation or beliefs that is generally considered unfair and undemocratic. An informal fallacy is a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the form of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their content and context.   The concept of groupthink was first introduced by Irving Janis, a social psychologist, in his classic study Victims of Groupthink in 1972. He defined groupthink as "a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action". Signs of groupthink

• perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible—believing it can do no wrong.
• believing the group is morally correct.
• self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus.
• the quashing of dissenting group members’ opinions.
• the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views. (Bush,  avoidance of truth regarding WMD)
• perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members.
• holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others’ with differing viewpoints (Janis).

The Milgram experiment, showed that people can obey an authority figure to the point of potentially harming others, demonstrating the dangers of conformity to a group. 

Other studies involving conformity can be found here at  Frontiers | Social Conformity in Immersive Virtual Environments: The Impact of Agents’ Gaze Behavior (frontiersin.org.). 

Critical points to understand:

By definition, "groupthink" is the cohesion of its members, applying pressure from within toward harmony and conformity that discourages creative thinking, resulting in dysfunctional and irrational decisions that require, according to Wikipedia "individuals avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions."  That position is opposite and contrary to the "Problem-Solving Model" on this website that suggests being open to a universe of possibilities to solve problems, otherwise known as "brainstorming." So, the greater the propensity to conform the less likely critical thinking will occur, potentially resulting in extreme behaviors. 

Group polarization:

 Group polarization is a psychological phenomenon in which the beliefs, attitudes, and decisions of groups tend to be more amplified or more extreme than those held by individual group members. The phenomenon is shaped by personal experiences, informational insights, and the emotional need for social acceptance and conformity.  Group polarization is the phenomenon that people tend to adopt more extreme positions when they are in groups of like-minded others, as opposed to when they are by themselves or exposed to different opinions.  That definition is the same as mob behavior.  Group polarization can have important implications for understanding decision-making in various social and political contexts. So, groups holding similar beliefs and positions before they congregate will confirm their bias when they get together and become more extreme after meeting.   It would appear to me that under those circumstances there is already a predisposition that is reinforced by like-minded individuals that encourages the person to act when they might not otherwise do so alone. In other words, like-minded people in groups give permission for extremist behaviors. Reasons suggested:

• Social comparison: People tend to evaluate their own beliefs by comparing them to those of others in the group. If they find that their views are different from the group norm, they may adjust them to fit in and gain approval.
• Persuasive arguments: People are exposed to more arguments that support their initial position and fewer arguments that challenge it when they interact with like-minded peers. This can strengthen their confidence and conviction in their views.
• Social identity: People may identify themselves with a certain group and adopt its values and attitudes as part of their self-concept. This can increase their loyalty and commitment to the group and make them more resistant to opposing views.
• Informational influence: People may learn new information or insights from other group members that reinforce or extend their existing views. This can make them more knowledgeable and persuasive about their position.
• Diffusion of responsibility: People may feel less accountable or responsible for their individual decisions when they are part of a group. This can reduce their risk aversion and make them more willing to take extreme actions.

Genocide:
"When you have been prepared in the right way by the radios and the official advice, you obey more easily, even if the order is to kill your own neighbor." As members of a group meet and move toward extremist views, the Salient feature that tends to unify and bond extremists is often their emotional ties or attachment to each other more than the reasoning for a cause. The group may lose members as they move toward extremist views. But those who remain usually also have stronger cohesive bonds or attachments with each other.

possible ways to manage group polarization,

• Encouraging respectful, constructive, and empathetic communication that fosters mutual understanding, learning, and cooperation.
• Provide balanced resources, information, and perspectives that challenge the group’s views and preferences.
• Foster a culture of tolerance, diversity, and critical thinking that values different opinions and experiences.
• Take a silent ballot before any group discussion to avoid conformity pressure and social comparison.
• Ask people to do some writing and reflecting about their values before group discussions to reduce emotional attachment and bias.
• Choose words carefully, hedging claims, and emphasizing areas of agreement to avoid triggering emotional reactions, stereotypes, or conflicts.

Mob Behavior/herd mentality:  A mob is a large group of people, especially when the group is disorganized or unruly usually with a common cause or purpose that can lead to herd mentality, potentially resulting in violence or illegal acts. Mob behavior, herd mentality, or deindividuation is an example of individuals influenced by the larger group, social norms, and the desire to fit into the group in a manner that the individual might not otherwise behave outside of the group. Mob behavior can be seen in different situations, such as protests, riots, sports events, or disasters. This is another example of group conformity. 

Religious groupthink: 

According to Sunstein people often conform to the expectations of their religious communities, even if they do not fully agree with them, because of the benefits of belonging and the costs of dissenting. He has also examined how religious traditions can evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, and how they can influence or be influenced by legal rules and institutions

“Trauma bonding” is a term used to describe relationships formed under heightened negativity (shared pain) and often at a young age. Leaders of hate groups exploit this vulnerability using collective fear and insecurity of their members as a catalyst to persecute others.  

Groupthink is common in religion for these reasons;  

• Religion often involves a strong sense of group identity and loyalty, which can make people more likely to conform to the norms and expectations of their religious community.
• Religion often appeals to emotions and values, which can make people less likely to question or challenge their beliefs or actions, especially if they feel that they are doing good or following a higher purpose.
• Religion often faces opposition or criticism from other groups or sources, which can make people more defensive and resistant to change, or more hostile and aggressive towards outsiders
• Religion often relies on authority figures or sacred texts, which can make people more obedient and less independent in their thinking, or more prone to rationalize or justify their decisions.
• People may adopt religious beliefs or practices without critically examining them, just because they want to conform to their group or leader.
• People may ignore or rationalize evidence that contradicts their religious views, or dismiss alternative perspectives as evil or misguided.
• People may suppress or persecute those who question or challenge their religious doctrines or authorities, or feel threatened by outsiders or minorities.
• People may engage in harmful or violent actions in the name of their religion, believing that they are doing the right thing or fulfilling a divine plan.

Some religions teach children and adults about the persecution of Jesus, his followers, and discrimination against nonbelievers. They may encourage the security of religious groups when facing fears or difficult times rather than teaching personal empowerment and reasoning. Common fallacies of reasoning are just-world reasoning, the assumption people get what they deserve, and that the world is fair,  fallacy of composition, the assumption that what is true for one part of a group is true for the whole group, and fallacies of false equivalencies, two things that are very different are equivalent. These fallacies are used to promote discrimination and retribution for those who fall victim to false reasoning, accelerating blame toward others in any outgroup.”

So, when individuals feel that their self-worth is tied to the group, they may be more likely to conform to the group’s norms and standards and develop attitudes and beliefs about an out-group, even if they disagree with them. 

According to a Pew Research Center report, religious beliefs and practices are often closely tied to social and cultural factors such as race, ethnicity, and education. The report also found that religious affiliation is strongly correlated with political and social attitudes, with members of different religious groups often holding different views on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and the role of government in society.

Gang groupthink: A gang is a cohesive group of people sharing common interests, identity, and purpose that also commonly engage in violent activity, often associated with a collective vision of invulnerability.  There is a fine line between normal aggressive biological changes and psychological development that affects behavior and cognition, during adolescence years and adolescent disorders like YMS (Youth Male Syndrome). They are influenced by factors such as hormones, brain maturation (F-25 yrs., M-30 yrs.), personality, and environment. They can result in increased risk-taking, impulsivity, emotionality, competitiveness, creativity, curiosity, and adaptability. So that gang activity are social and cultural phenomena that involves mostly young males engaging in risky and violent behaviors, often to gain status, resources, or mates. They are influenced by factors such as peer pressure, social context, cultural norms, and economic conditions. They can result in increased violence, aggression, and crime, but also in social bonding, identity formation, and collective action.  Gangs/terrorist: Gangs and terrorists both operate in a clandestine or subversive manner, but gangs usually have a local or regional scope, while terrorists usually have a political or possibly religious cause and operate on a national or global reach. Religion can be a factor of either. Homophily is a factor, "birds of a feather flock together."

Political groupthink:  

Keep in mind that political reasoning may be motivated reasoning or emotional reasoning that may be putting party interests over the best interest of the people (democracy). So, there may be a significant difference between political groupthink and a well-reasoned response that is seeking truth in the best interest of people. Most people do not necessarily critically think about the best-reasoned response as much as they rely upon heuristics (mental shortcuts) to support a party.  Thus, conforming to the group rather than putting in the time to think out the best-reasoned response. 

A clear recent example of political conformity is a report that indicated 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners said that Biden’s win was not legitimate, even though multiple reports stated otherwise with exhausted documentation. See the information in the summary this page. Clearly, there was no interest in taking the time to check out the facts.

Political groupthink occurs when a group of people who share a common political ideology or affiliation prioritize harmony and conformity over critical thinking and rational decision-making. Political groupthink can lead to biased, irrational, or unethical actions and outcomes, as the group members ignore and dismiss any information, evidence, or opinions that challenge or contradict their views. Political groupthink can also result in dehumanizing or demonizing the opposing groups (outgroups) or parties, and reducing the complexity and diversity of political issues and solutions.

Some of the factors that can contribute to political groupthink are:

• High stress and time pressure: the group faces a crisis, threat, or deadline that requires a quick and decisive response, and does not allow for careful deliberation or consultation
• High group cohesion and loyalty: the group has a strong sense of identity, solidarity, and commitment, and values the group’s goals and interests over the individual’s
• Isolation from external sources of information and feedback: the group limits or filters its exposure to alternative or opposing views, and relies on its own sources or echo chambers
• Lack of diversity and expertise in the group: the group consists of people who have similar backgrounds, experiences, perspectives, and beliefs, and lacks people who have different or relevant knowledge or skills
• Dominant or charismatic leaders: the group has a leader who has a strong influence or authority over the group, and who expresses his or her preferences or expectations clearly and persuasively
• Organizational culture and norms: the group operates within a system or structure that encourages or rewards conformity, consensus, and loyalty, and discourages or punishes dissent, criticism, and innovation

Some of the symptoms of political groupthink are:

• Illusion of invulnerability: the group is overly confident and optimistic, and takes excessive risks
• Collective rationalization: the group rationalizes away any warnings or contradictory information that might challenge its assumptions or decisions
• Illusion of morality: the group believes that its decisions are morally correct and superior, and ignores any ethical or moral consequences
• Excessive stereotyping: the group stereotypes and dehumanizes its enemies or competitors, and underestimates their capabilities or intentions
• Pressure for conformity: the group pressures and silences any dissenting members, and creates an illusion of unanimity
• Self-censorship: the group members censor their own doubts and objections, and do not express them to the group
• Illusion of unanimity: the group members mistakenly assume that everyone agrees with the group’s decision, and do not seek out or consider any alternative views
• Mindguards: the group appoints some members to protect the group from any adverse or conflicting information or opinions from outside sources

Some of the consequences of political groupthink are:

• Poor decision-making: the group makes decisions that are based on incomplete or inaccurate information, and do not consider the possible outcomes or alternatives
• Irrational actions: the group acts impulsively or emotionally, and does not evaluate the costs and benefits of its actions
• Ethical violations: the group violates the laws, norms, and values of society, and harms others or itself
• Strategic failures: the group fails to achieve its goals or objectives, and faces resistance or retaliation from its opponents or authorities

Therefore, it is important for political groups to prevent and overcome groupthink, by using some strategies, such as:

• Encouraging critical thinking and constructive dissent
• Seeking diverse and independent sources of information and expertise
• Establishing clear and transparent decision-making processes and criteria
• Creating a culture of learning and accountability
• Fostering ethical and moral awareness and responsibility

The 2020 election was the most secure in history:

This was supported by the Brennan Center of Justice in an article dated  December 11, 2020, and according to the Department of Homeland Security (CISA). The 2020 US election was “the most secure in American history" according to , CBS,CNN, Fox and Homeland Security.  The Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating executive committees also issued a joint statement that this year’s election (2020) marked “the most secure in American history” The statement was made in response to baseless claims of widespread voter fraud in key battleground states by President Trump. They further added there was no voting system “deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or in any way compromised.” Add to that there were 60 court cases, the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnel, Bill Barr, the Department of Justice confirmed that there was no evidence of problem with the 2020 election.

The Washington Post: In response to an article by the Post "voter-fraud overwhelmingly targeted minorities and democrats,

 “Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University professor who has written a book on voter fraud, said she was unsurprised there have been so few convictions, since studies, election audits, and reporting have consistently shown that voter fraud is rare.”

“At best, these ‘election integrity’ units, are for show, designed to placate far-right election denialists in the conservative base,” Sawyer said. “At worst, they are used to justify new voting restrictions (1,230 proposed restricted laws listed below) and to intimidate people especially racial minorities from exercising their right to vote.”

Why was there a sudden change after the 2020 election in proposed voter laws?

Proposed voter restriction laws increased from 2020 to 2021 by 7.72 times.

10/23 - 325  restrictive voting b

Fully understanding this website is all about resolving human problems.

How much of our human problems, from personal problems to gangs and war, as well as environmental concerns, are due to factors like oversight, ignorance, cognitive bias, or deliberate malfeasance? How significant is conformity and groupthink a major problem in our society?  One study in 2018 revealed we may believe the lies we tell within as little time as 45 minutes.  And that problem is especially true of older adults.  

In my opinion, gangs, mobs, terrorists, wars, religions fighting religions, destruction of human rights, and the right to vote are all motivated by negative reasoning or negative bias likely originating from childhood, a significant negative event, or a collection of negative events making it difficult to reason alternative positive or alternate options.                      

Emotional reasoning: Any strong emotion regarding reason is usually a sign that the 

emotion needs to be looked at and identified a root cause, the truth, not confirmation bias, and managed. Negative thoughts or words can lead to amygdala hijacking, which is when the amygdala overrides the rational part of the brain and triggers the fight, flight, or freeze response. This can impair one’s ability to think clearly and act appropriately.

Some sources that explain this phenomenon are:   For example, one study found that reading negative words activated the amygdala and increased the perception of threat . Another study showed that imagining fearful scenarios activated the amygdala and increased anxiety. A third study demonstrated that verbalizing negative emotions reduced the activity of the amygdala and increased the activity of the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in rational thinking  

 1healthline.com psychcentral.com bing.com4healthline.com psychcentral.com verywellmind.com en.wikipedia.org healthline.com psychcentral.com bing.com 

Groupthink 2023:

Almost a third, 30% of Americans still believe the 2020 election result was fraudulent, according to nbcnews.com while (93%) of Democrats say Biden won the election fairly, 68% of Republicans say “he won due to voter fraud."   There is a lot of supporting evidence.

Facts 2020: Election was the most secure in history

This was supported by the Brennan Center of Justice in an article dated  December 11, 2020, and according to the Department of Homeland Security (CISA). The 2020 US election was “the most secure in American history”, CBS,CNN, Fox and Homeland Security. The Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating executive committees also issued a joint statement that this year’s election (2020) marked “the most secure in American history”. They further added there was no voting system “deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or in any way compromised.” Add to that there were 60 court cases, the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnel, Bill Barr, the Department of Justice confirmed that there was no evidence of problem with the 2020 election.

Another example in March 2021 of Groupthink analysis of misinformation across the United States, Europe, and Mexico showed that anywhere from 15% to 37%—believed misinformation about COVID-19. “About two-in-three U.S. adults (64%) say fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion about the basic facts.” Many Americans Believed Fake News Is Sowing Confusion, according to Pew Research Center. The Ashe conformity study demonstrated that nearly 75% of the participants in the conformity experiments went along with the rest of the group at least one time. A new revisit to the old study yielded very similar results, suggesting that a high percentage of people will conform to two or more people.

So many of these problems are likely due to groupthink or conformity to the group norms rather than independently searching out truth mostly because of what we want to believe (confirmation bias) leading to cognitive bias rather than checking for truth and facts.  A survey found that half of US adults say made-up news and information is a very big problem in the country today, and about two-thirds say it causes a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues and events. 

1verywellmind.com2pbs.org3harbormentalhealth.com  

According to a study conducted by researchers at The University of Western Australia, misinformation is especially likely to stick when it conforms to our pre-existing political, religious, or social point of view. This means that if you believe something for political or religious reasons, it’s far harder to change a person’s mind and have them understand a fact that differs from that person’s opinion. The report notes that efforts to retract misinformation often backfire. The research found that contrary to common wisdom, trying to correct misinformation actually may lead to the strengthening of an erroneous belief. The researchers found that it is extremely difficult to dislodge strongly held beliefs through rational or logical methods. This was found to be especially true for social, religious, and politically-held beliefs. It is likely that the time it takes for people to catch up and find out the truth varies depending on the individual and the situation.

The circularity of Emotional reasoning (downward spiral):

The Psychological health of faulty reasoning can lead to negative thinking patterns and cognitive distortions, that can exacerbate symptoms of depression and anxiety-related disorders. Faulty reasoning can also contribute to the formation and endurance of stereotypes, which can lead to discrimination and prejudice. In addition, faulty reasoning can cause people to maintain their beliefs even in the face of evidence that contradicts them, leading to the persistence of false beliefs and misinformation. Finally, faulty reasoning can affect the recall of memories by altering the content of what we remember, leading to a newly formed, cobbled-together recollection that does not accurately reflect reality. 

 verywellmind.com psychcentral.com share.upmc.com4theconv 

Altering the circularity of reasoning:

To break the circularity of faulty reasoning requires:
1.   Being open to alternative viewpoints and perspectives, even if they contradict one’s own beliefs  

2. It is important to be aware of common fallacies of logic, negative reasoning, emotional reasoning, cognitive biases and logical fallacies, like confirmation bias, the illusory correlation, and the sunk cost fallacy, as these can lead to faulty reasoning and circularity.

3. One must be open to the thought of being wrong.

4. It’s also important to be open to new information and to critically evaluate the evidence for and against one’s beliefs.

To know what is positive, it helps to know what doesn't work.

 1practicalpie.com2logical-fallacy.com3thoughtco.com4englishgrammarnotes.com
 

Fully understanding this website is all about resolving human problems.