#Compassion

Recent psychology hints that warmth, honesty, and compassion are not always the deciding factors in how people judge leaders. Emotional appeal can be just as persuasive, or even more so, than factual accuracy or moral consistency. For Thai readers, this has practical implications as public figures rely on energy and storytelling to sustain support.

Trust and empathy were long considered core leadership traits. Yet contemporary research indicates that affective impact often sways opinions, shaping everything from workplace dynamics to voter choices. In Thai contexts, charismatic speakers—whether in politics, media, or community groups—can build loyal followings even when their statements lack rigor. This pattern mirrors a global trend toward prioritizing personal style and emotional resonance over clear facts.

Affect overrules virtue—recent psychological research is challenging the long-standing belief that honesty, warmth, and compassion are universally valued traits in leaders and individuals, showing that emotional appeal can be equally, if not more, persuasive. This finding holds sobering lessons for Thai society and global democracies, as new evidence reveals why these virtues sometimes take a back seat to style, energy, and emotional resonance.

For years, trustworthiness and empathy were seen as essential personal qualities, especially in politics and public life. According to recent scholarly work such as that cited by Psychology Today, qualities like honesty and caring once formed the bedrock of how leaders were judged and supported, shaping everything from workplace relationships to voter decisions (psychologytoday.com). However, as new evidence and expert commentary suggest, affective—or emotional—impact now increasingly sways opinions, sometimes eclipsing the importance of fact-checking and moral consistency.

A new international study identifies a brain region that helps decide how generous we are toward friends versus strangers. Researchers from Germany and South Africa found that damage to the basolateral amygdala (BLA) reduces sharing with anyone outside one’s closest circle, while generosity toward close friends remains relatively intact. The study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sheds light on the biological roots of kindness and self-interest and could inform understanding of social disorders.

A groundbreaking international study has pinpointed a specific region in the brain responsible for deciding how generous we are with friends versus strangers. Researchers from Germany and South Africa have discovered that damage to the basolateral amygdala (BLA) sharply reduces our willingness to share with anyone outside our closest social circle—while generosity toward close friends stays intact. The findings, published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer intriguing new insights into the biological roots of kindness and selfishness, and may have implications for understanding social disorders.