Do you usually cough when you try to speak publicly?

And a mere appearance or perceptual experience of higher status does not guarantee that these things are worth it. Nor, to make a related point, is a mere appearance of higher status a guarantee that the subject possesses important or useful virtues; There is thus normative pressure on observers to refrain from doing things that might benefit the proud person, unless there is good reason to think that the person merits an enhanced reputation and the attendant benefits. As a result, we can see that whereas there is normative pressure for the individual to feel and display pride with respect to an expanded class of objects and events, there is normative pressure on observers to restrict their `judgements of merit' in some way, so that they do not give respect, attention and resources to those who do not deserve it. Seen in this way, there is something of a `normative arms race' between individuals who wish to expand the category of legitimate objects of pride, for reasons of self-esteem and enhanced social status, and observers who wish to restrict this expansion, for prudential reasons of their own. Compare the case of pride to another that has a similar structure and that reflects a similar tension between the costs and benefits of non-verbal expression of affect: the case of pain. As with pride, there seems like a distinctive and specific pain expression in humans, recognizable from an early age and across cultures. Now non-verbal expression of pain can have obvious value for the pained person: it signals that someone has suffered potential injury, that they might need assistance, either to remove the source of bodily damage or to facilitate healing and recovery. As Amanda Williams writes, `for the individual in pain and under threat, or during recovery, who expressed pain in the presence of observant allies, help and protection rendered could be crucial for survival'. Williams continues: `The counterpart of a distinctive and specific expression in the individual is its detection and correct interpretation by observers. Other times, these accounts are simply hacked to keep the owner from expressing their viewpoint. Here are some scary stats: 87 percent of countries make use of accounts controlled by humans. Stereotyping or name-calling: The idea or victim is given a terrible label, that is easy to remember and sounds pejorative. This way, the audience automatically rejects them without giving much thought to what the label represents. Examples of such labels: Tree-hugger, Nazi, Special Interest Group, Snowflake. Glittering generality or virtue words: These are words chosen to trick the audience into accepting people or ideas without thinking much about the facts before them. Examples: Organic, Sustainable, Scientific, Natural, Ecological. Deification: This is making an idea or person into a god of sorts. They paint them as sacred, holy, or special and above all laws and conventions. When the opposite of this person or idea is presented, they are painted as blasphemous.

In fact, with the whole Yanny and Larry debacle, younger people were more likely to hear Yanny, because their ears were better able to detect higher frequency sounds. Those who heard Laurel heard lower-frequency sounds. Just as our mind is impacted by the words it reads/hears/sees, so is our body. A study was conducted where participants were primed with words that were associated with old age (eg, wrinkles and Florida), and because they were impacted by it, they ended up walking at a slower pace than usual. There are many different types of priming in psychology, and each has its way of working, as well as different impacts61: Positive and Negative PrimingThis is how priming influences our processing speed. Positive priming leads to faster memory retrieval, while negative priming slows it down. Semantic PrimingThis is when words are sequenced logically and linguistically to lead to an association. For example, if you think of the word blue, the word sky might come to your mind quicker. Associative PrimingThis is when you use two stimuli where one is associated with the other. Judgement of pain in another person relies heavily on facial cues: brow lowering, eye blinking, cheek raise, and upper lip raise account for more than half the variance in ratings. These are used consistently by observers to judge pain in adults and in children (Craig et al. Watt-Watson et al. There is evidence of reasonably accurate identification of pain expression in adults and infants using the specific facial movements described above'. Given this, there will be some normative pressure for subjects to display pain behaviour even when they are not in pain, or to exaggerate pain expressions in cases where they are, when in the presence of allies. There is thus a prima facie case that doing so will enhance the subject's chances of receiving resources from others: in the form of assistance, sympathy, care and attention. However, and by the same token, there is also normative pressure for observers to limit their provision of these goods to only those who merit or deserve them. Care providers will thus have prima facie reason to pause before straightforwardly endorsing their rapid and automatic feelings of sympathy for those who seem to be in pain and to also restrict their `judgements of merit' in some way, so that they do not give sympathy, attention and resources to those who do not deserve it. As in the pride case, there is something of a normative arms race here as well: there is normative pressure on the subject towards non-verbal expression and normative pressure on the observer to resist this. Social functionalist accounts of pride, and of pain, thus highlight a particular practical problem, generated by reflection on the benefits and costs of expression of such things.

Examples: God-given right to. Gaia, Mother Earth. Transfer (Virtue or guilt by Association): A respected symbol that has authority, prestige, and is sanctioned is also used right along with a different argument or idea so it appears to be just as acceptable. Examples: University Seal, American Flag, Medical Association Symbol (or something akin to it). Testimonial: A respected personality, or someone who is loathed, comes up to say that a product or an idea is good or bad. This way, the public doesn't look at the facts, but only focuses on the character of the person describing the idea or product. Plain folks: This is a method of convincing the audience that an ideal is actually good because this same ideal is upheld by other people just like you. They will use phrases like, Most Americans. Bandwagon: This is when the media wants you to accept what they're saying, by letting you know if you don't, you'll be missing out on some great benefits. This is used a lot in advertising. For example, the word cat can be associated with the word mouse or dog. By thinking of Pepsi, you may also think of Coke. Those are words that are often linked together in our memory, and if one of the two words appears, the subject is likely to respond much faster when the second word appears. Repetition PrimingThis happens when a stimulus and response are paired repeatedly. That way a subject is more likely to respond quickly each time the stimulus appears. Perceptual PrimingThis involves stimuli that are similar in form. For example, a word such as tea will get a faster response if it is preceded by sea because the words sound similar. Conceptual PrimingThis is when the stimulus and the response are related through concepts. For example, if you think of desks you will think of a chair, if you think of cushions you could think of pillows because the words lie in the same conceptual category. Masked Priming

How might this problem be resolved? Here our thoughts about pride might be guided by our thoughts about the pain case. For one important area where those who observe pain expression adopt a particular practical measure in order to restrict `judgements of merit' is that of medicine. Here it is not uncommon for the `gate-keepers' of medical resources, namely the prescribing physicians, to give painkilling medication to patients who display pain behaviour only when such behaviour is thought to be associated with or indicative of physical injury or damage. Physicians are (notoriously) reticent to prescribe painkilling drugs on the basis of verbal reports, or non-verbal expressions, alone, that is, where there seems no plausible correlation with bodily damage. And physicians often adopt this strategy knowing full well that many forms of genuine pain - such as kinds of neuropathic or chronic pain - are not correlated with bodily damage or injury. Nor is such a policy restricted to physicians. Parents often chide young children by stating `stop crying, you're not hurt', or refuse to take seriously expressions of sudden onset pain and suffering from their teenage children on a school morning. Flatmates and co-workers are reticent to take up the slack of those who profess to being unwell but who fail to show the symptoms of illness. In such cases, observers adopt the pragmatic strategy of not assisting unless there is a sign of injury or illness. You'll hear phrases like, Be the first among your friends, Act NOW! Miss it, miss, out! This is the next big thing. Ask yourself if anyone else among your friends actually want sot to buy into the garbage you're being sold to snap out of that trance. Artificial dichotomy: The media will try to get you to accept there are only two sides to a problem, and each side needs to be accurately represented for us all to make an honest evaluation. This dupes you into thinking there can be one only right way of looking at things. This works by simplifying reality, and then distorting it, to the media's advantage. Consider the controversy of evolution versus intelligent design. A hot potato: this is a question or a statement that is untrue and designed to elicit anger so that the opponent can be surprised and embarrassed. AN interviewer may leave discussion and veer off on a tangent to ask, Do you still have issues with your husband?

This is when a certain part of the initial stimulus is hidden with marks. Even though the whole stimulus is not visible, it can still get a response. For example, blurring people's faces on television to respect their privacy doesn't take away from the message. Our entire process of priming actions and thoughts happens unconsciously. We do it without even realizing what's happening to us. This shows that despite our arguments, we are not always in control of our actions, judgements, and choices. Social and cultural conventions often dictate the way we behave. A research conducted by Kathleen Vohs shows that the concept of money itself was enough to prime people to act selfishly. This has its implications on our lives, too, as our society is filled with triggers that prime money, a reason why many of us don't behave in altruistic ways. Mainstream media has recognized the importance of priming and uses it to manipulate our buying behaviors and even our political viewpoints. Mere expression - whether verbal or non-verbal - is not enough to ground a genuine belief that someone needs assistance, sympathy and attention. Can we identify a similar pragmatic strategy in the case of pride? I think that we can and that the relevant identifiable measure is indeed agency. Moreover, I think that we (as observers) use this measure to safeguard ourselves against exploitation and loss even though we know that sometimes expressions of pride that reflect reduced-agency ideals are perfectly legitimate - indeed, in much the same way that medical practitioners know that expressions of pain that are not correlated with bodily damage are perfectly legitimate. The parallel claim is this, therefore: we are motivated to endorse our rapid and immediate perception of enhanced status only if we think that such status reflects the agency and responsibility on the proud person's part. By internalizing a tendency to endorse only those perceptions of enhanced status that reflect agency, we lower the risk of wasting our resources on those who do not merit them and by the same token raise the possibility of our benefitting from forming alliances and the like with the proud person. This is true even though we are aware of the possibility of sometimes losing out in this way - just as medical practitioners are aware of the possibility that by not prescribing painkillers there is a risk of the subject suffering needlessly. But the link with agency is a helpful rule of thumb that we can utilize as a strategy to minimize our risks when dealing with expressions of pride. The normative pressure to regard C1 cases of pride as somehow more genuine or legitimate than C3 cases of pride thus stems from a pragmatic or practical principle that observers have good reason to adopt. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES