Defining dehumanization broadly does not mean including everything

Published on May 14, 2022

Just like solving a jigsaw puzzle, we appreciate Paul Bloom’s engagement with our research on dehumanization and his valuable insights. In response to his critiques, we want to emphasize that defining dehumanization broadly does not mean including every aspect of it. It’s more like drawing a line between what falls within the scope and what doesn’t. Some of Bloom’s concerns seem to stem from misunderstandings or are actually points our model already addresses, while other criticisms seem to be restating our very own stance. It’s important to untangle these misunderstandings, just as one would unravel a knotted string. By doing so, we can shed light on the nuances of dehumanization and enhance our understanding. Further research and discussion will undoubtedly help us refine and expand upon our theory. Dive into the underlying research to explore the intricacies of dehumanization and join the conversation!

We are grateful to Paul Bloom [1] for engaging seriously with our work and providing us with the opportunity to further clarify the theorizing underlying our perspective on dehumanization [2]. Indeed, several of Bloom’s concerns are misunderstandings of our claims or are directly addressed by our model; other critiques restate our own position.

Read Full Article (External Site)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>