But even as Trump’s campaign has been blaming outside groups and allies for bad headlines, Trump himself has been vowing “retribution” against his enemies and ramping up his use of violent and authoritarian rhetoric, including saying he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his second term. He has also pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and has outlined an immigration agenda that includes militarizing the southern border and mass deportations.
They’re basically just saying they didn’t find the same results and that using exclusively physiological responses to indicate “real” feelings is a dubious assumption. They’re essentially calling for better studies that also involve reported cognition and sentiment (“conscious” responses).
That seems reasonable. It’s weird that the article buried that so far into the summary though!
Understood, and I appreciate the clarification, but it does damage, or at least work against, the credibility of most of the body of the article, so I would likely not have used it if I’d noticed that as I went through.
Why would it damage most of the article? That was only a clarification on one study or subpoint.