The Social Animal Quotes

“Aronson's first law:

People who do crazy things are not necessarily crazy.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally
and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human.
Society is something in nature that precedes the individual. Anyone who
either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need
to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.
Aristotle
Politics, c. 328 BC”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“The person who is easiest to brainwash is the person whose beliefs are based on slogans that have never been seriously challenged.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“... the more similar a person seems to you in attitudes, opinions, and interests, the more you like the person. Opposites may attract, but they don't stick.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“Thus, if passionate love is like cocaine, then companionate is more like a glass of fine wine - something delicious and pleasurable, but with fewer health palpitations and less mania.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“What do Hitler's inner circle, Nixon's close advisers, and NASA administrators have in common, aside from the fact that they made terrible decisions? Each was a relatively cohesive group isolated from dissenting points of view.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“News is a form of entertainment.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“For example, a teenager may dread going to school with a pimple on his forehead or on a bad hair day because "everyone will notice". Thomas Gilovich and his associates have found, however, that such worries are often greatly exaggerated.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“Perhaps more people would be inclined to take action if, like the stereotypical terrorist, global warming had a moustache.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“A befolyásolhatóság legegyértelműbb személyiségváltozója az önértékelés. A meggyőzés célját szolgáló közlés jobban hat arra, akit az az érzés hat át, hogy nem felel meg, mint arra, aki elégedetten szemléli önmagát. Ez eléggé érthető, elvégre, ha valaki nem szereti saját magát, vélekedéseinek sem tulajdonít túlságosan nagy értéket. Ebből következik, hogy amikor gondolatait kétségbe vonják, nem fog makacsul ragaszkodni hozzájuk. Tudjuk, hogy az emberek arra törekednek, hogy ismereteik a valóságnak megfelelőek legyenek. Ha Sam a saját véleményétől eltérő közlést kap, amennyiben magas az önértékelése, el kell döntenie, hogy mikor lesz inkább igaza: ha álláspontját megváltoztatja, vagy ha továbbra is kitart az eredeti mellett. Ily módon konfliktust élhet át, ha nem ért egyet egy magas fokon hitelt érdemlő kommunikátorral. Ha viszont Samnak alacsony az önértékelése, akkor jóformán nem él át konfliktushelyzetet – miután nem tartja túlságosan nagyra önmagát, úgy érzi, jobb esélye van arra, hogy igaza legyen, ha elfogadja a közlő állításait.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal

“Anyone who is awake nowadays knows that Republicans and Democrats seem to disagree on most issues — and neither side seems able to be persuaded by the other. Why? After analyzing the data from 44 years of studies and more than 22,000 people in the United States and Europe, John Jost and his associates86 have concluded that these disagreements are not simply philosophic disputes about how, say, to end poverty or fix schools; they reflect different ways of thinking, different levels of tolerance for uncertainty, and core personality traits, which is why conservatives and liberals are usually not persuaded by the same kinds of arguments. As a result of such evidence, some evolutionary psychologists maintain that ideological belief systems may have evolved in human societies to be organized along a left–right dimension, consisting of two core sets of attitudes: (1) whether a person advocates social change or supports the system as it is, and (2) whether a person thinks inequality is a result of human policies and can be overcome or is inevitable and should be accepted as part of the natural order.87 Evolutionary psychologists point out that both sets of attitudes would have had adaptive benefits over the millennia: Conservatism would have promoted stability, tradition, order, and the benefits of hierarchy, whereas liberalism would have promoted rebelliousness, change, flexibility, and the benefits of equality.88 Conservatives prefer the familiar; liberals prefer the unusual. Every society, to survive, would have done best with both kinds of citizens, but you can see why liberals and conservatives argue so emotionally over issues such as income inequality and gay marriage. They are not only arguing about the specific issue, but also about underlying assumptions and values that emerge from their personality traits. It is important to stress that these are general tendencies. Most people enjoy stability and change in their lives, perhaps in different proportion at different ages; many people will change their minds in response to new situations and experiences, as was the case in the acceptance of gay marriage; and until relatively recently in American society, the majority of members of both political parties were willing to compromise and seek common ground in passing legislation. Still, such differences in basic orientation help explain the frustrating fact that liberals and conservatives so rarely succeed in hearing one another, let alone in changing one another’s minds.”
― Elliot Aronson, The Social Animal