I think that even when persuasion is well-meaning it can also be see as manipulative. for example trying to get someone to quit smoking although it is for the smokers benefit and is usually accompanied with educational material you are also manipulating that person into thinking the same way your are and in the end trying to get the smoker to do what you want them to do regardless of how or why the smoker feels the way they do about smoking.

i dont think this is completely true because some people who portray a sense as if they are just acting can sometimes be their true personality. but i do agree that a lot of the time people do put on an act that is separate from how they normally act when at home or by themselves so its hard to discern the true feelings of the actor.

Although i think it is true that people with SAD are concerned with both negative and positive evaluations i definitely think the greater emphasis is placed on the negative aspect of an evaluation process because as humans and social creatures we prefer to be seen in a positive light although i can understand the anxiety in being evaluated positively because it does raise expectations that people may see as impossible to maintain. But being seen negatively can greatly dampen a persons self esteem and willingness to try to do better and may also create more anxiety as more pressure is placed on an individual to do better especially if they felt they did their best during the first evaluation. overall, SAD has both a negative and positive component with a greater contribution to anxiety from the negative component.

i think that instead of comparing ourselves to people similar to us, we tend to compare our selves to people we idealize or picture our selves being. such as a young over weight teen comparing themselves to a model causing them to feel self-conscious and less confident about themselves, but some people also have the ability to use those negative emotions and turn it into motivation to better themselves.

i think that saying people are able to make "accurate" inferences is a big stretch because you have so little information to go on when making an inference most of the time the only clue we have is the physical appearance of the individual. to me making an inference based on appearance is extremely inaccurate in most cases because you don't know the person you are analyzing therefore you don't know their habits or current life struggles. unless they are a prominent public figure its almost impossible to make an "accurate" inference of an individual whom you don't know.

i believe this to be partially true because you could have crazy self control when it came to snacks which as a child going into adulthood your less likely to be obese but if you don't have enough self control to get school work done versus going out with friends than you'll be more likely to procrastinate later in life making school work and completing goals in general harder to accomplish. so people who are good at self regulation are really only sometimes better off than others in life. to me it all depends on what aspect of your life your good at self-regulating.

i definitely think that especially in today's society sexual orientation is being seen more as a continuum rather than a bi-directional way of thinking. And with so many prominent figures in society coming out into the public light in regards to their diverse orientations its starting to force people to think in more dynamic and open ways when concerning an individuals sexual orientation and sex in general.

i believe that expressing gratitude to your significant other or anyone is the primary source of positive deposit. we express gratitude the most of all positive feedback's we give to each other as people on a daily basis.

giving love to children when they are babies is so important developmentally. babies are wired to expect happy faces and love, but when they are deprived of that love so early it can cause developmental delays. such as when romania was liberated from their communist government they discovered warehouses full of children which started the movement to adopt romanian children and it was later discovered that those children especially the older children suffered intellectual deficits because they didnt get the love and socialization they required.

i feel like when it comes to the interaction of individuals and the interaction of "like species" in general you cant survive without each other. just like humans are social creatures with other humans so are bees and other organisms with their species. but then what is the underlining need to be social for? i feel like it says in the article, the more social we are with each other the better likely hood for reproduction and establishing relationships and build "communities".

Even more than geographic distance I think functional distance is the key factor that brings people together and form meaningful ties. If i'm in the general location of someone all the time that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll become friends but if our paths frequently cross as well i'd be more inclined to form a relationship of some kind with that person. When it comes to online relationships and interactions its almost solely based on the frequency that you come across a particular individual that would make you more inclined to interact with them such as the frequency you see their profile or the frequency of times that you both are online.

It seems to me that normal people do see others who are attractive in a better light and also treats them differently than others. such as an attractive women getting pulled over for speeding but gets a warning instead. And i don't agree at all that attractive people are inherently trustworthy or innately intelligent just because of their looks they were biologically given. But from the eyes of less attractive people treating an attractive individual with more attention than others has an underling motive that more often than not is unconscious in origin.

I think that being socially connected is imperative not just for your personal well-being, but also your physical well-being. I've read an article about a group of people who withheld love and support from 1 group of infants and only provided support of their most basic needs. what they found was that the infants who received that emotional love and support thrived while the other group of infants who only received basic care didn't fair as well as the other children. and so with out our social ties and the emotional support we get from them I'd say we could safely assume that it would cause social, emotional, and behavioral problems later in life along with possible other physical changes deviating from the norm. The following article talks about some of those physical changes due to emotional isolation at infancy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infant-touch/

I agree that the traditional definition of family is too narrow. Just as he stated earlier the definition of a "traditional" family changes across time and culture. We, as Americans live in a country with people from almost every culture and so shouldn't it stand to reason that every family on your street could theoretically have a different definition of a "traditional" family. With that in mind does a "traditional" family exist? with so many variations of a traditional family how can we safely say what a traditional family is anymore because it isnt the same thing it was 200 years ago as it has evolved to what it is today. when i think of my traditional family i include all those who are closest to me including family members i simply claim with no kind of legal ties.