David DeSteno

@daviddesteno

Psychological Scientist, Author, Occasional Feature/Opinion Writer. Studying the Science of Compassion, Trust, and Self-Control to Enhance the Greater Good.

Boston
davedesteno.com
ಜೂನ್ 2010 ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿದ್ದಾರೆ
68 ಫೋಟೋಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ವೀಡಿಯೋಗಳು ಫೋಟೋಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವೀಡಿಯೋಗಳು

ಟ್ವೀಟ್‌ಗಳು

ನೀವು @daviddesteno ಅವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಹಿಡಿದಿರುವಿರಿ

ಈ ಟ್ವೀಟ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಲು ನೀವು ಖಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಬಯಸುವಿರಾ? ಟ್ವೀಟ್ ವೀಕ್ಷಣೆಯು @daviddesteno ಅವರ ತಡೆತೆರವುಗೊಳಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ

  1. ಪಿನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ಟ್ವೀಟ್
    ಡಿಸೆಂ 29,2017

    A better route to maximizing both your resume & eulogy virtues this coming year. My new piece for and a precis for my new book

    10 replies 65 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆಗಳು 137ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  2. 14 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ

    Truly fascinating, thoughtful, & balanced read: "The idea that animals are conscious, long unpopular in the West, has lately found favor among scientists who study animal cognition." takes a journey into depths of the animal mind in

    1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 7ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  3. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 9

    Some more evidence showing the ways an interaction between science and religion can pay off in terms of discovery.

    1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 5ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  4. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 8

    An important discussion worth a listen.

    We're excited to share this fascinating conversation on rethinking time that was part of with and a stand-out group including , Kimberly Wade-Benzoni of , and Laurie Paul
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  5. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 7

    A legacy as a professor should be measured as much by eulogy virtues (e.g., kindness, fairness) as resume ones (e.g., h-factor). Otherwise we’re perpetuating a damaging system. The most important lesson I learned from my advisor ⁦⁩.

    2 replies 6 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆಗಳು 20ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  6. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 7

    folks. Dave is a master at this. Highly recommend seeking him out if you’re interested in writing for mass media.

    Not holding official op-ed office hours at but my DMs are open if anyone wants to chat about writing for the general public this week in Portland.
    6ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  7. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 6

    Sensitivity to disgust "explains 4 to 13 percent of the variation in a population’s ideology," says . Great piece in on how disgust shapes views of morality & politics.

    6 replies 81 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆಗಳು 187ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  8. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 6

    After all, religions have been using techniques like cognitive dissonance, meditation, motor synchrony, etc. to impact the mind for centuries before we scientists figured out what those things do. Who's to say there's not more there to investigate?

    1 reply
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  9. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 6

    I agree we won’t learn much from dogma. But being open to scientifically testing ways religious practices shape thought & behavior (for good or ill) can be fruitful. True enlightenment thinking means putting ideas to empirical test, not rejecting out of hand.

    What Can Science Learn from Religion? Steven Pinker 's answer in today's eSkeptic & his full response to Sunday's OpEd by (bonus: Rebecca Goldstein on why the Sabbath is not what you think).
    1 reply 1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  10. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 5

    The time for a dialogue between science & religion is right. Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science agrees that it can benefit both sides. Not sure why some of my scientist friends are so resistant to engage in respectful discussion.

    Congrats to & others for being quoted in ! "A yearning for a science-religion synergy is growing in some circles." And while "science and religion do not need each other to function," they can benefit from each other.
    2 replies 1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 8ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  11. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 5

    “The exact nature of the connections between religious participation, happiness, civic engagement and health remains unclear and needs further study.” It’s worth using science to determine why religion correlates with happiness. Via

    1 ಇಷ್ಟ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  12. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 5

    This reminds me of the old finding by Donald Green and colleagues showing that the supposed orthogonality of positive and negative mood was due to method variance. An important point for scale design.

    This Grit-S scale design flaw can lead to spurious two-factors loadings. But this does not reflect a true underlying two-factor structure. Instead, this reflects a statistical artifact, which is often called “artifactors,” that produce a spurious multiple-factor structure. 4/7
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    1 reply 1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 2ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  13. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 4

    An important op-Ed on compassion fatigue. It may partially depend on how tired/burned out you feel in general, and thus whether you feel you can be efficacious in dealing with more caring.

    2ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  14. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 4

    Templeton, like many foundations, funds issues they care about. People are free not to like what they fund. But let's not use it to disparage work. After all, is a major funder of , & there's little more that's important to good science than being open.

    7ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  15. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 4

    Just to be clear, yes I, like many scientists, have funding from Templeton (as I've had it from NSF and NIH) since & appear concerned by this. But, I did not write this piece for Templeton (or was funded by them for it). It's my scientific view.

    1 reply 9ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  16. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 4

    Science is the arbiter of fact. But to reject out of hand the study of religious techniques to shape the mind (for good or for ill) is tribal, not enlightenment, thinking. Scientists should be open to testing techniques, but not dogma. ⁦⁩

    1 reply 1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 3ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  17. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 4

    As I say in my piece, I am not an apologist for religion. I’m simply suggesting that behavioral science might profit from studying some of the tools religions use to nudge the mind (for good or for ill). Science is arbiter of truth, but ideas can come from anywhere.

    A fixture in modern intellectual life (see Enlightenment Now) is the intellectually woolly apologetic for religion (abetted by Templeton funding). Latest in NYT quotes me but omits most of my actual response. "What Science Can Learn From Religion"
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    3ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  18. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 3

    Science is the arbiter of fact. But what’s needed is open and respectful discussion from both sides. In response to point, is being welcomed into some seminaries. Got cut from my article in for space reasons

    surfeit of articles titled "what science can learn from religion" would prefer "what religion can learn from science"
    1 reply 1 ಇಷ್ಟ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  19. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 3

    For those interested, the research on ritual in secular context I described in my piece comes from great work by and Mike Norton from Jane Risen from , and colleagues.

    1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 3ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  20. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 3

    Many have asked me for more info on Formation Project mentioned in my article. It’s still in beta, but more about its origins can be found here

    3ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು
  21. ಫೆಬ್ರವರಿ 2

    Truly interested in your thoughts. I agree science must be the arbiter of fact, but would you say it's fair (& potentially fruitful) to study tools of religion scientifically, as they've been using tools like meditation, cognitive dissonance, etc for millennia?

    1 ಮರುಟ್ವೀಟಿಸುವಿಕೆ 2ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ಈ ಥ್ರೆಡ್ ತೋರಿಸಿ
    ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸು

@daviddesteno ಅವರು ಇನ್ನೂ ಟ್ವೀಟ್ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ.

ಲೋಡಿಂಗ್ ಸಮಯ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

Twitter ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಮೀರಿರಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ಷಣಿಕವಾದ ತೊಂದರೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಿರಬಹುದು. ಮತ್ತೆ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ Twitter ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ.

    ಇದನ್ನೂ ಸಹ ನೀವು ಇಷ್ಟಪಡಬಹುದು

    ·