Take the results of a classic study from 1967. Participants were told to read an essay about "Castro's Cuba," where half of the essays took a pro-Castro stance and the other half were anti-Castro. Additionally, half of the readers were told that the essayists had freely chosen their positions, whereas the other half were told that the position had been assigned by a course instructor. Unsurprisingly, when participants thought that the essayist had chosen a position of his/her own volition and they were then asked how pro- or anti-Castro they perceived the writer to be, they believed that the essayist held the stance that he/she endorsed in the essay. However, the truly shocking result emerged for those who read the no choice essays -- the essays that had supposedly been crafted by writers who had been assigned a position to endorse, meaning their essays couldn't really indicate anything truly meaningful about their actual underlying opinions. Even though the readers knew perfectly well that the position had been assigned by an instructor, they were still more likely to ascribe the endorsed stance to the writer's own personal opinions. On a scale of 10 (extreme anti-Castro) to 70 (extreme pro-Castro), people who read a pro-Castro essay rated the essayists at approximately "60" on average if they knew that the writers had chosen to advocate for that position...but they still rated them at around a "44" if they knew that they had not chosen that position of their own volition. Less than the 60, for sure -- but far above the "23" rating for those who had been "assigned" to write an anti-Castro essay.
This phenomenon has been termed the fundamental attribution error. When we see someone behave a certain way, we are automatically biased towards forming immediate dispositional (trait-based) attributions for their behavior. Fake-Trebek knows all of the Quiz Show answers because he is smart. The essayist wrote a pro-Castro essay because she is pro-Castro. That driver cut you off because he is a jerk. That girl who walked into class 40 minutes late is lazy.
Castrol Edge Professional V 0W-20 1 Liter
Of course, Fidel Castro was still there, approaching forty years of dictatorship over impoverished Cuba, so he could still bask in the praise of his clueless, "useful idiot" (as Lenin said) American supporters.
Quentin Letts on Comrade Corbyn's big day | Daily Mail Online
( probably would have detected an animus projection.) This was an unhelpful bit of falseness, not to mention humorlessness, with which to burden her case for capitalism.
Even gasbag Castro would have told him to wind it up
Judyth’s story implicates quite a lot of people in the plot to kill Castro – and then Kennedy – andvirtually all of the people she implicates have had a more-or-less prominent place in JFKassassination conspiracy books.
QUENTIN LETTS on Comrade Corbyn's big day
Yet another anti-Castro Cuban, and a favorite conspiracy suspectbecause his group had an office at 544 Camp Street, the address that Oswald put on some of theleaflets he handed out in New Orleans. Both Smith and his group had been gone from 544 Campfor over a year by the time Oswald arrived in New Orleans.