Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

The 2025 darts World Grand Prix is currently well underway. One of the favourites to win the title is Luke “The Nuke” Littler, who in January became the youngest World Champion in history at just 17-years-old.

Anyone who has beheld Littler’s stellar abilities on the darts circuit will have seen the exceptional talent he displays. But what does it actually take to become a professional darts player? Many may be wondering whether darts skills are simply innate in some people – or if Littler is just an exceptionally quick learner.

Elite technique requires a combination of both physical and mental athleticism. You need to have the skills to hit very small targets when stepping up to the oche, all while maintaining the mental strength needed to stay composed under pressure – knowing that even the smallest miss can have big consequences.

1. Coordination

There are lots of different ways in which coordination – one of the critical functions of our nervous system – lends itself to success in darts. Every single throw requires a smooth and accurate trajectory.

Coordination is controlled by the cerebellum, which is located at the back of the brain. This complex region, sometimes referred to as “the little brain,” helps regulate both fine muscle control and posture. It’s a key region when it comes to darts skills.

For instance, the cerebellum helps with hand-eye coordination. To hit a perfect 180, you’re aiming for that tiny treble 20 on the inner ring, three times over. It requires the player to set that target, judge the distance from the board and calculate an appropriate angle at which to throw. It’s also critical in the learning process of how to improve your aim over time.

Stance, posture and balance are paramount too, and also coordinated by the cerebellum. Even the slightest wobble can affect the trajectory of the dart on release.

2. Arm mechanics

A recipe for success also involves a honed and accurate throw.

The mechanics of a good throw include the transition between taking aim, the pullback move to gather energy, through to a smooth release and eliminating any jerks which might send the dart off course.

The chief muscle groups that allow for this are found in the
hand, wrist and forearm. They contain multiple smaller muscles which flex and extend the wrist and fingers. These are capable of working together to enable a wide variety of precise movements in gripping, aiming and releasing the dart.

It’s generally quite difficult to target these small muscles by working out in the gym, so this is where training through repetition is key to nailing the right throw.

The throw is also governed by rhythm: the target setting, the speed of the pullback stroke and the timing of the release.

Every professional dart player has their own throw technique. For instance, Phil Taylor demonstrated a fast, yet measured throw, while Luke Littler favours a relaxed, instinctive rhythm. But the individual rhythm all goes back to those intricate nerve pathways and the small muscles which coordinate it.

3. A ‘quiet eye’

Obviously vision is also fundamental to darts – but it’s not as simple as just regarding the board.

This is where the concept of a “quiet eye” comes in – where the eyes lock in upon the target just before a throw is made. A quiet eye ensures the gaze remains fixed upon the target, ensuring the throw is accurate.

A quiet eye is a technique important in many sports other than darts – including clay shooting, snooker and archery. A quiet eye lends important visual information to the motor system, which allows for maximum synchronisation between the brain and body.

Several studies have explored the effect the quiet eye phenomenon has on target sports and what underpins it. First, there’s evidence that shows expert players typically have a longer quiet eye phase than amateurs. Although this usually only amounts to half a second longer or so, this is still significant in coordinating between the brain and body, allowing the player to execute that perfect shot.

Second, the measured gaze of professional players appear to be more stable and unwavering – with no eye flicking or deviation from the target.

Through target fixation, critically timing their movements and repeating their shots, players can train their quiet eye.

4. The brain and body connection

The connection between brain and body appears to be key – and is exemplified by players who lost their ability in darts.

There’s actually a condition referred to as “dartitis,” which is defined by an inability to throw. Dartitis is often associated with stress, fatigue or burnout.

It can even affect top players – most notably multiple World Champion Eric Bristow, who had to retrain in order to play normally again after developing dartitis. This can involve going back to basics and rebuilding the throw – sometimes even switching to the other hand.

But if, like me, you’re completely devoid of any talent in darts, there are a few things you can do to give yourself a better chance of hitting a bullseye (instead of the wall or ceiling).

A few starting points for training involve establishing a good stance, grip and throw. Equipping yourself with the right kit is also essential. Then you can move onto blocking out all that external noise – mostly jeers from your mates at your feeble efforts.

Practice makes perfect. Both mental and physical training are needed to be a champion darts player.

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Darts: the surprising amount of athletic skill it takes to hit a bullseye – https://theconversation.com/darts-the-surprising-amount-of-athletic-skill-it-takes-to-hit-a-bullseye-266730

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damien Short, Director of the Human Rights Consortium and Reader in Human Rights, School of Advanced Study, University of London

Three environmental defenders – people who take action against the exploitation of natural resources – are murdered or disappeared somewhere in the world every week. The latest report by Global Witness, an NGO that investigates environmental and human rights abuses, has recorded more than 2,250 such cases since 2012.

The vast majority of the 146 land and environmental defenders killed in 2024, according to the report, were murdered in Latin America. Many were opposing large-scale mining, logging or agribusiness projects.

Colombia recorded the highest number of deaths, with 48 defenders killed across the country. But Guatemala proved the most dangerous country per capita, with 20 killings that year. Indigenous people and small-scale farmers in Latin America are particularly exposed. Their lives and livelihoods place them in direct conflict with extractive and criminal interests.

Afro-descendant communities there face the same elevated risk. Many, including Brazil’s Quilombola communities, hold collective ancestral territories and have safeguarded forests and rivers for generations. This custodianship makes them targets.

Women accounted for approximately 10% of victims in 2024, with cases concentrated in Mexico. And multiple attacks killed entire families, including children, suggesting systematic intimidation rather than isolated violence.

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

In a conflict-affected context, or a situation where information is tightly controlled, killings and disappearances are hard to document. Families and witnesses also often stay silent for fear of reprisals. Impunity compounds the problem.

The Global Witness report notes that in Colombia, where environmental defenders have been at risk for decades, only 5% of killings since 2002 have resulted in convictions. Without justice, deterrence is absent, and cycles of violence continue.

Violence against environmental defenders also persists because it works. Removing a community leader, for example, can disrupt resistance for months or years. For corporations, defending against a lawsuit that arises due to violence against environmental defenders costs less than losing a mining concession. And for governments dependent on resource revenues, silencing critics preserves foreign investment.

According to the Global Witness report, nearly one-third of the murders in 2024 were linked to criminal networks. State security forces were directly implicated in others. This dual threat of criminal violence and official complicity is enabled in part by a shrinking ability for people to participate freely in public life.

Civicus, an alliance of civil society organisations that works to strengthen citizen action and civil rights globally, rates more than half of the countries where defenders were killed as “repressed” or “closed”. This means the authorities actively restrict freedoms of association, assembly and expression.

Violence is predictable in such environments. Defenders face not only physical attacks but also criminalisation, harassment and strategic lawsuits designed to exhaust resources and silence dissent. Ecuador demonstrates how quickly this repression can escalate.

In September 2025, the government charged people protesting fuel subsidy cuts and mining expansion with terrorism and froze the bank accounts of dozens of environmental activists without warning. Efraín Fueres, an Indigenous land defender, was shot and killed by security forces during the protests.

The Ecuadorian government is also moving to rewrite the country’s constitution, the world’s only charter recognising nature’s intrinsic rights, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking. But defenders say the real aim is to eliminate legal barriers to extractive industries.

Regional protection

Regional protection mechanisms do exist. But they remain incomplete. The Escazú agreement, a binding treaty signed in 2018 covering Latin America and the Caribbean, requires that states guarantee public access to environmental information, ensure meaningful participation in decisions and actively protect defenders.

Eighteen of the region’s 33 states have ratified the agreement. In April 2024, parties also adopted an action plan that includes free legal aid for defenders, legal training and monitoring through to 2030.

Whether Escazú can reduce killings depends on implementation. Brazil and Guatemala, both high-risk countries where defenders face lethal threats, have not ratified the treaty. Without participation from the deadliest jurisdictions, regional frameworks offer limited protection.

Protection mechanisms frequently fail, not because they are poorly designed but because they operate within systems that structurally favour extractive industries. Police assigned to protect defenders may be drawn from the same units that secure mining sites or suppress protests.

Prosecutors tasked with investigating attacks often depend on governments whose economic prospects rely on the very projects defenders oppose. Judges hearing cases against corporations, for example, may face political pressure when ruling against major investors. Around half of judges in Latin America are political appointees.

Mining and logging companies also fund local employment, infrastructure and sometimes entire regional economies. This creates dependencies that make meaningful accountability nearly impossible. Even well-intentioned protection schemes cannot compensate for the fact that defending land often means obstructing projects that generate revenue for underfunded state institutions.

There is also a critical legal gap at the international level. When severe environmental destruction occurs during peacetime, existing law struggles to hold individuals accountable.

The International Court of Justice addresses state responsibility but cannot prosecute individuals. And while the International Criminal Court prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression, environmental harm outside armed conflict falls beyond its reach.

A growing coalition led by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa is urging recognition of ecocide as a fifth international crime under the Rome Statute. The proposed definition, developed by an independent expert panel in 2021, would criminalise “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge of a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”.

This would create personal criminal liability for individuals in positions of authority whose decisions lead to mass environmental harm. The theory is that when individual decision-makers face prosecution risk, projects relying on violence and intimidation become personally dangerous to authorise.

Ecocide law would not replace existing regulation or regional treaties but would serve as a backstop when harm reaches catastrophic scale. For defenders, the promise is accountability that reaches beyond hired security to the individuals who profit from or politically enable destruction.

People will always stand up for the places that sustain them. If environmental defenders can operate without fear, everyone benefits. Protecting environmental defenders is not idealism, it is the most pragmatic investment a civilisation can make.

Damien Short is a member of the Green party in the UK.

– ref. Environmental defenders are being killed for protecting our future – the law needs to catch up – https://theconversation.com/environmental-defenders-are-being-killed-for-protecting-our-future-the-law-needs-to-catch-up-266396

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jacques Hartmann, Professor of International Law and Human Rights, University of Dundee

Withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), once a fringe idea, has become a defining issue for political parties. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who previously opposed leaving, has now said the Conservatives will take the UK out of the convention if they win an election.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has arguably made an ECHR exit central to its political identity. Even the Labour government has said it could reform the convention, or change how UK courts interpret the law.

The case for leaving is often framed as one of “sovereignty”, particularly in relation to immigration laws and deportation powers.

Politicians argue that the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the ECHR, overrides “the will of the British people” and that democratic legitimacy demands withdrawal.

But evidence shows that “the people” don’t actually want to leave.

We examined more than a dozen opinion polls conducted by polling agencies, such as YouGov, since 2013. The first, that year, found 48% in favour of withdrawal and 35% in favour of remaining in the ECHR. A year later, the public was evenly split (41% leave, 38% stay), and by 2016, following the Brexit referendum, 42% said Britain should stay in the ECHR while 35% wanted to leave. Since then, the balance has shifted steadily towards remain.

By 2023, half of respondents said the UK should remain a member, while only around a quarter favoured leaving the ECHR. A poll from June 2025 produced similar results: 51% in favour of staying, 27% for leaving and 22% unsure.

The most recent YouGov data, published October 8, found that 46% of the public are opposed to leaving the ECHR, and 29% say the UK should withdraw.

Even when polls tie the ECHR to issues such as deportations to Rwanda, support for withdrawal among the general public has not exceeded 38% since 2014.

Conversely, when respondents were given more nuanced options, support for withdrawal fell. In a 2024 survey, outright support for leaving was just 16% when respondents were offered alternatives such as “always abide by the ECHR even if that frustrates Parliament” or “remain committed to the ECHR but give Parliament the final word”. With such options, 66% supported some form of continued engagement with the ECHR.

What is also clear from the polling is that Conservative and Reform voters are much more in favour of leaving the ECHR than Labour and Liberal Democrats voters. In the June YouGov poll on this issue, 54% of Conservative voters and 72% of Reform voters were in favour of leaving the ECHR while 75% of Labour and Liberal Democrats voters were against leaving.

The general results from polling are reinforced by parliamentary petitions. Since 2023, at least seven petitions have called for withdrawal from the ECHR or a referendum on membership. None has come close to the 100,000 signatures required for debate.

The most recent, which remains open until January 2026, had fewer than 19,000 signatures at the time of writing. By contrast, a petition against digital ID cards quickly amassed 2.8 million signatures.

The evidence is clear: withdrawal commands neither majority support nor political urgency.

The paradox of popular democracy

For its critics, the ECHR embodies foreign interference. Strasbourg judges are cast as overriding Westminster’s authority and undermining sovereignty. That framing is powerful in political campaigns, particularly when attached to emotive issues like asylum or terrorism.

But if democracy means following “the will of the people”, the evidence does not support the claim. At most, over the past decade, only a quarter of the electorate has supported leaving the ECHR.

And even if public opinion did shift, there is a deeper question: should such constitutional decisions rest on fluctuating majorities at all?

The ECHR was created after the second world war precisely to prevent democracy from collapsing into unchecked majority rule. Britain played a leading role in drafting it, ensuring that popular sovereignty would be balanced by entrenched rights.

Read more:
Treaties like the ECHR protect everyone in the UK, not just migrants

That is why human rights protections are deliberately counter-majoritarian, safeguarding individuals and minorities from the excesses of majority impulses.

Yet today’s political rhetoric often inverts that logic. By invoking the language of popular sovereignty to justify withdrawing from the ECHR – despite evidence that the public does not support it – politicians risk undermining the very stability those rights were designed to protect. This is an especially serious concern for the UK, which lacks the constitutional safeguards found in many other democracies.

A large share of respondents to the polls examined were “unsure” about withdrawal – ranging from 15 to 25% across the surveys. It’s therefore possible that true support for remaining in the ECHR may be higher than headline polls imply.

The latest YouGov survey asked respondents how much they know about the ECHR, and found just 5% of respondents claimed to know “a great deal” about the convention, while 49% said they do not know very much, and 15% said they know nothing at all.

Research shows that attitudes towards human rights grow more positive as knowledge of human rights increases. A Scottish Human Rights Commission study in 2018 found that indifference often masks confusion rather than hostility.

The Independent Review of the Human Rights Act in 2021 reached a similar conclusion, stressing that greater public understanding of human rights institutions strengthens support.

This is why it is important for people and politicians to understand that conventions like the ECHR are not just about migrants and asylum seekers. They protect the rights of everyone in matters that affect us all – from privacy at home and fair treatment in court, to freedom of speech, protection from discrimination and dignity in care.

The growing political momentum for withdrawal from the ECHR is not matched by popular demand. Instead, politicians are proposing to amend Britain’s constitutional order in the name of “the people” while ignoring what a majority of people actually want, undoing constitutional safeguards and democratic institutions in the process.

The lesson of postwar Europe is clear: constitutional safeguards against majority rule are not an obstacle to democracy, but one of its foundations. To abandon them would not only place the UK alongside Russia and Belarus – the only European states outside the ECHR – but also risk repeating the very errors the convention was created to prevent.

Jacques Hartmann has received external research funding from a range of government and charitable sources, including the European Commission (Horizon 2020), NordForsk, the British Academy, and private foundations such as Dreyer’s Trust and the Max Sørensen Foundation. None of these funders had any role in the conception, research, or writing of this article, which was undertaken independently and without specific project funding.

Dr Edzia Carvalho has received funding from the British Academy, the Scottish Government, the Carnegie Foundation, and FIDH. None of these funders had any role in the conception, research, or writing of this article, which was undertaken independently and without specific project funding.

Dr Samuel White has previously received funding from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He represents the Law Society of Scotland on the Scottish Government’s Human Rights Incorporation and Implementation Oversight Board; this article is written in a personal capacity.

– ref. Do British people want to leave the ECHR? What a decade of polls reveals – https://theconversation.com/do-british-people-want-to-leave-the-echr-what-a-decade-of-polls-reveals-266682

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Penelope Hannant, Assistant Professor in Educational Inclusion, University of Birmingham

Whether and when to use the label “dyslexia” has been a perennial debate in education.

Some experts and academics argue that there is too much focus on the diagnosis of dyslexia, rather than on providing support for all children who struggle to learn to read. Others argue that children with the most significant difficulties have to fight to get the recognition they need.

Public figures, including celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, have called for all children to receive early screening for dyslexia.

We work together as researchers in psychology and education, with expertise in how children learn to read, dyslexia, neurodiversity, and how children with special educational needs should be supported. While calls for universal dyslexia screening are well intentioned, we believe this approach could lead to more problems than solutions.

One concern is the lack of accuracy in many screening tools, which can result in unclear or misleading outcomes.

Literacy difficulties are complex. Dyslexia is just one of many possible reasons a child might struggle with reading and writing. Focusing too narrowly on dyslexia risks missing other important learning needs.

Screening also has other limitations. A dyslexia screener is a tool used to flag potential indicators of dyslexia, which may involve one or more approaches such as teacher observations, structured audits, questionnaires or digital assessments. It offers only a brief snapshot of a child’s abilities, rather than a full picture of how they learn.

Another crucial issue is what happens after screening. Without enough resources to follow up on screening results, teachers, parents and children may be left feeling frustrated and unsupported.

If there’s no clear plan for what happens next, it can raise expectations without delivering real help. This can leave families and educators disillusioned and children without the support they need to succeed.

We both strongly believe in the value of a dyslexia diagnosis in the right context. One of us (Julia Carroll) recently led a project to gain consensus about the most appropriate definition of dyslexia and the best approach to assessment.

On the basis of this research, we believe a multi-phase process should be used. For younger children, the focus should be on needs rather than diagnosis. Extra help should be available for any children starting to fall behind. Some of these children will progress well. Others will continue to struggle, and an assessment for dyslexia may be warranted.

This approach relies on a thorough understanding of a child’s needs, rather than prematurely categorising young children.

Holistic approaches

One of us (Penny Hannant) has developed a broad-based questionnaire to measure and aid development in early schooling. By gathering information about a child’s development, such as how they respond to sounds, move their body, react to sensory input and process what they see, we can build a clearer picture of what kind of support they might need.

This approach allows for teachers to intervene before educational gaps emerge, offering a more refined and responsive foundation for learning.

A full profiling of strengths and weaknesses is also crucial to diagnostic assessment. Recent research indicates that developmental disorders such as dyslexia tend to have multiple causes, and that there is a great deal of overlap between different disorders.

Research suggests that a significant proportion of children with dyslexia also meet criteria for developmental language disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which can significantly influence how dyslexia develops.

This means that any diagnostic process must take into account the whole child rather than relying on narrow or isolated criteria. To ensure this, schools need in-house specialists who are equipped to conduct holistic assessments and guide tailored support. A well-informed diagnosis not only helps children do better at school, but means they can continue to get the right support as they transition into adulthood.

Penelope Hannant is on the board of trustees with PATOSS, the dyslexia charity.

Julia M. Carroll receives funding from the Education Endowment Foundation and from the Economic and Social Research Council. She is on the board of trustees with PATOSS, the dyslexia charity.

– ref. Without proper support, a diagnosis of dyslexia risks being just a label – https://theconversation.com/without-proper-support-a-diagnosis-of-dyslexia-risks-being-just-a-label-264153

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett University

From Disney’s Scrooge McDuck and Cruella de Vil to DC Comics’ Lex Luthor to and Mr Burns in the Simpsons, there are plenty of examples of wealthy people using their money and power in evil ways. But is there any truth to the stereotype that rich people are mean?

There are many rich people who act benevolently, including philanthropists who give a lot of their money away. However, research in psychology has found a clear link between wealth and unethical behaviour, including an increased tendency to cheat and steal.

One study found that wealthy upper class people were more likely to have a selfish focus on their interests. Conversely, another study found that people from lower social classes were more likely to feel compassion for other people’s suffering.

Researchers have also established that drivers of expensive cars are less likely to behave altruistically than other drivers. They are less likely to slow down to let pedestrians cross or to let other drivers join the road.

They are also more likely to drive aggressively and disobey traffic rules. One study found that the likelihood of the drivers slowing down to let pedestrians cross the road decreased by 3% for every US$1,000 (£738.50) that their car was worth.

But it’s not just that these people are bad drivers. A study by Finnish psychologists found that owners of luxury cars had a higher prevalence of negative personality traits such as being disagreeable, stubborn and lacking in empathy.

In simple terms, it seems that rich people are less likely to be altruistic.

What could explain this link? Perhaps wealth turns people bad, isolating them from others and making them more selfish. Or is it that people who are already ruthless and selfish are more likely to become extremely wealthy?

One way of clarifying this is to think in terms of what psychologists refer as dark triad personalities. These are people who have combined traits of psychopathy, narcissism and machiavellianism (acting immorally to get power). These traits – which all involve selfishness and low empathy – almost always overlap and can be difficult to distinguish from one another. They exist on a continuum in the population as a whole.

Research shows that dark triad personalities tend to possess higher levels of status and wealth. A study following participants for 15 years found that people with dark triad traits gravitated towards the top of the organisational hierarchy and were wealthier.

In line with those findings, according to some estimates, the base rate for clinical levels of psychopathy is three times higher among corporate boards than in the overall population. Research also indicates that young people with dark triad traits are more highly represented on business courses at university or college.

Why do mean people seek wealth?

In my view, the correlation between wealth and nastiness is quite easy to explain. In my book The Fall, I suggest that some people experience a state of intense psychological separation. Their psychological boundaries are so strong that they feel disconnected from other people and the world, which can come with a lack of empathy or emotional connection.

One effect of this state of disconnection is a sense of psychological lack. People feel incomplete, as if something is missing. In turn, this generates an impulse to accumulate wealth, status and power, as a way of compensating.

On the flip side, people who feel a sense of connection others and to the world don’t feel a sense of incompleteness and so don’t tend to have a strong desire for power or wealth.

At the same time, a lack of empathy can make it easier to attain success. It means you can be ruthless in your pursuit of wealth and status, manipulating and exploiting others. If other people suffer as the result of your actions – and lose their livelihood or reputation – it doesn’t concern you as much. Without empathy, you can’t sense the suffering you cause.

So psychological disconnection has two disastrous effects: it generates a strong desire for wealth and status, together with the ruthlessness that makes wealth and success easily attainable.

Wealth and wellbeing

Of course, I’m not claiming that all wealthy people are mean. Some people become wealthy by accident, or because they have brilliant ideas, or even because they want to use their wealth to benefit others. But given the factors described above, it is not surprising that there is a high incidence of meanness among the wealthy.

The studies cited above imply that the link seems to be proportional, in that the more wealthy a person is, the more likely they are to possess dark triad traits. And we know that most dark traits, such as psychopathy are linked to similar or lower levels of happiness to others. An exception is a certain type of narcissism, called grandiose narcissism, which is linked to higher happiness.

A great deal of research in psychology has shown only a weak correlation between wealth and wellbeing. A 2010 study by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton found that happiness increased in line with income up to around US$75,000 (£54,9612) a year (equivalent to US$110,000 in 2025). However, this is where the correlation ended. According to the study, after US$110,000 a year, it doesn’t matter how rich you become; it won’t make you any happier.

Newer research, however, has found slightly different results. A recent study by Kahneman and colleagues indicated that happiness continues to increase with income for a proportion of rich people – but not for an unhappy minority. A 2022 study also found that the threshold at which happiness plateaus depends on the country – in societies with greater inequality, there was a higher threshold.

What’s more, another study by Kahneman and other colleagues found that, for people who were preoccupied with striving for financial success, life satisfaction actually decreased as income increased.

Overall though, evidence suggests that wealthy people are unlikely to attain the contentment they seek through money alone. Their wealth and status don’t take away their sense of incompleteness.

This might be another reason why extremely rich people tend to act unethically – as their sense of disconnection grows stronger. In contrast, research shows a strong link between altruism and wellbeing. So perhaps that is where we should focus our attention – not on becoming rich, but becoming kind.

Steve Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Research suggests rich people tend to be more selfish – but why is that? – https://theconversation.com/research-suggests-rich-people-tend-to-be-more-selfish-but-why-is-that-265794