Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By John Joseph Chin, Assistant Teaching Professor of Strategy and Technology, Carnegie Mellon University

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro could soon be convicted as a failed coup plotter.

Brazil’s Supreme Court is expected to deliver a verdict by Sept. 12 over charges that the former president and key aides plotted to overturn Bolsonaro’s 2022 election defeat to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Prosecutors allege that Bolsonaro and others discussed a scheme to assassinate Lula and incited a riot on Jan. 8, 2023, in hopes that Brazil’s military would intervene and return Bolsonaro to power.

Bolsonaro maintains his innocence. But if found guilty, he could face a lengthy prison sentence.

As political scientists who have documented the fate of hundreds of coup leaders in the book “Historical Dictionary of Modern Coups D’état,” we have collected a dataset of every coup attempt since the end of World War II. Bolsonaro could soon join the ranks of thousands of coup plotters who have been brought to justice.

But not all coup plotters are held accountable for their actions. And even when they are – it doesn’t necessarily mark the end of their political ambitions.

Coup and punishments

Plotting a coup is risky business. Some of those who attempt to seize or usurp power unconstitutionally are killed during their takeover bid, particularly when security forces loyal to the incumbent leader foil the attack. Christian Malanga, an exiled former army captain who led a violent attempt to seize power in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is one such example. He was killed in the ensuing shootout in May 2024.

But most leaders of failed coups survive.

And although they typically face punishment, the severity of consequences varies greatly; it often depends on whether the attempt is a self-coup, which is a power grab by an incumbent leader, or an attempt to oust a sitting government.

The most common fate of failed self-coup leaders in democracies is impeachment and removal from office, as occurred to Indonesia’s Abdurrahman Wahid in July 2001, Ecuador’s Lucio Gutiérrez in April 2005, Peru’s Pedro Castillo in December 2022, and South Korea’s Yoon Suk Yeol in April 2025.

Some coup plotters and their co-conspirators are charged in a court and, if convicted, sent to prison. Malanga’s American co-conspirators were ultimately sentenced to life in prison in April 2025.

A similar fate could befall Bolsonaro. A conviction in his case could mean 40 or more years in a Brazilian prison for the 70-year-old.

Still, it could be worse – failed coupists are often punished outside of independent courts, where the penalty is often more severe. Coup plotters have been summarily executed or sentenced to death by a military tribunal or a “people’s court.” The longtime Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko executed over a dozen junior officers and civilians after his government uncovered an alleged coup plot in 1978.

One recent estimate suggests 40% of coup conspirators suffer relatively light punishment. Many coup backers are simply demoted or purged from the government without facing trial or execution. An especially popular move is to send coup plotters into exile to discourage their supporters from mobilizing against the regime. Former Haitian president Dumarsais Estimé was forced into exile after his self-coup attempt failed in May 1950; he died in the U.S. a few years later.

Punishment doesn’t always end threat

The problem facing governments is that failed putschists pose a lingering political threat. Ousted leaders often plot “counter-coups” to return to power. For example, former president of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos, after being ousted in the 1986 People Power movement, masterminded coup plots from exile, though he never returned to power.

Some succeed, such as David Dacko, who returned from exile to grab power in the Central African Republic in 1979, but only with the help of French forces.

Even when convicted or exiled, coup plotters may be later freed. Some members of Brazil’s Congress have already introduced a bill that could grant Bolsonaro amnesty.

A few former failed coup leaders manage to come to power later. Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings led a failed coup in May 1979 but went on to seize power in subsequent coups in June 1979 and 1981; Hugo Chavez was convicted and jailed for leading a failed coup in 1992 but ended up being elected president in Venezuela in 1998.

The risk of coupists going unpunished

Only one failed self-coup leader, as designated in our dataset, has managed to retain office – from where he worked, critics say, to successfully dismantle democracy: El Salvador’s strongman, Nayib Bukele. In February 2020, amid a standoff with the political opposition, Bukele threatened to dissolve the legislature, bringing with him armed soldiers to occupy the legislative assembly.

Though Bukele temporarily backed down, he faced no legal or political backlash. His party won a legislative supermajority in 2021, and he won reelection in 2024. Bukele’s ruling party recently lifted presidential term limits, allowing him to potentially rule for life.

The good news about punishing unsuccessful coup plotters is that because they’ve failed, they do not have to be coaxed out of power. Thus, holding them accountable for their actions should deter future plotters from attempting the same thing. In contrast, for a leader who has done unsavory things while still in office – such as killing domestic dissidents or committing war crimes – the threat of punishment once they leave power can backfire by giving them a reason to fight to stay in power.

In the long term, failed coup leaders who escape punishment are more likely to make a political comeback.

When defeated at the polls, both Donald Trump and Bolsonaro tried to overturn the official results. Both attempted to alter vote totals after they had lost and block an election winner from being inaugurated.

But for Trump there was no censure or punishment, and he is now back in power, where he has weakened the checks and balances that we and other political scientists see as crucial for the preservation of liberty and growing economic prosperity.

In contrast, a conviction for Bolsonaro would make it unlikely he could follow the same path to political resurrection. Even if he’s eventually pardoned, a guilty verdict makes him ineligible to compete again for Brazil’s presidency.

Joe Wright received funding for research on coups from the National Science Foundation and the Minerva Research Initiative.

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

– ref. Brazil’s Bolsonaro may soon join ranks of failed coup plotters held to account − hampering the chance of any political comeback – https://theconversation.com/brazils-bolsonaro-may-soon-join-ranks-of-failed-coup-plotters-held-to-account-hampering-the-chance-of-any-political-comeback-264565

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sebastian Maslow, Associate Professor, International Relations, Contemporary Japanese Politics & Society, University of Tokyo

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has bowed to weeks of pressure from within his party and announced his resignation, less than a year after taking office.

His departure plunges Japan back into political uncertainty, reviving fears of a return to the revolving-door prime ministers who dominated the 1990s and late 2000s, before Shinzo Abe restored stability in 2012.

Whoever succeeds him must not only steady the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), but also restore public trust in a political system battered by scandals, factional infighting and rising voter scepticism about one-party dominance.

Why is Ishiba leaving?

Ishiba took office only last September, after Fumio Kishida stepped down amid a string of scandals.

He inherited a deeply troubled party. Kishida was forced out in 2024 after revelations of extensive ties between the LDP and the Unification Church. The church had long been controversial in Japan, but became even more so after Abe’s assassination in 2022 by a man who held a grudge against it. The church’s ties to the LDP were revealed shortly thereafter.

A slush-fund scandal further eroded public trust in the party. Ishiba promised reform and stricter accountability — but that stance angered many senior figures, especially those implicated in the scandals he sought to confront.

The LDP lost its lower-house majority soon after his election, followed by further setbacks, including a defeat in the July upper-house poll. Calls for Ishiba to quit grew louder, with party heavyweights warning of a split in the conservative base if he clung to power. Over the weekend, he finally surrendered.

Ishiba justified the timing by pointing to the risk of a political vacuum during ongoing trade talks with the United States. With an agreement on tariff reductions concluded last week, he yielded to critics without resorting to the traditional prime ministerial weapon of dissolving parliament to silence his rivals.

The decision may appear puzzling. Recent polls showed Ishiba’s popularity edging upward, suggesting ordinary voters were warming to him.

But his downfall underlines how much sway the LDP’s old guard still holds behind the scenes, prioritising internal discipline over electoral momentum.

Koizumi vs Takaichi

The leadership race is already underway, with a vote expected in early October. Two names stand out.

On one side is Shinjiro Koizumi, 44, son of former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi. Representing the party’s more liberal wing, he has previously expressed support for same-sex marriage and allowing married couples to use separate surnames – positions that set him apart in the LDP.

As agriculture minister in Ishiba’s government, he won recognition for tackling rising rice prices and pushing reform in a sector long tied to LDP patronage politics.

Charismatic and popular with voters, Koizumi has cultivated ties with the opposition Japan Restoration Party. This support could prove crucial in the LDP forging a new coalition or shoring up its minority government with its coalition partner, Komeito, which would still need opposition backing to pass legislation.

If chosen, he would become Japan’s youngest-ever prime minister.

On the other side stands Sanae Takaichi, a staunch conservative who finished runner-up in last year’s leadership race.

A self-styled heir to Abe’s legacy, she opposes same-sex marriage and dual surnames, favours constitutional revision to clarify to the role of the country’s Self-Defense Forces, and regularly stresses the need to strengthen Japan’s military posture.

She has likened herself to former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, calling for bold fiscal spending and monetary easing to drive growth.

If elected, she would become Japan’s first female prime minister, though her hardline positions could strain ties with coalition partner Komeito.

A TBS poll this week puts Koizumi and Takaichi neck-and-neck, each at 19.3%, while a Nikkei survey from August 31 gives Takaichi a slim lead at 23%, just one point ahead of Koizumi.

Other contenders may emerge, including Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi. Much will depend on the LDP’s choice of election format: whether rank-and-file members get a say, or only lawmakers in parliament.

Either way, candidates need the support of 20 members of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) to enter the race.

High stakes for Japan’s ruling party

The stakes could not be higher. With Ishiba’s departure, hopes of reforming the LDP have faded.

If the new leader fails to regain public confidence, the party risks falling victim to its own long dominance. To maintain power, it has been locked into defending the status quo, while new right-wing populist challengers, such as Sanseito, gain ground with anti-foreigner rhetoric.

With the next elections not due until 2028, Japan is entering another uncertain political chapter. Whether the LDP emerges strengthened or weakened will depend not just on who replaces Ishiba, but on whether the party can convince a sceptical public it is still capable of renewal.

Sebastian Maslow 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. Why did Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba resign? And who might replace him? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-japanese-prime-minister-shigeru-ishiba-resign-and-who-might-replace-him-264768

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University

What do world leaders talk about when they think we’re not listening? This week it was the idea of living forever.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping were caught off-guard at a military parade in Beijing discussing the possibility of using biotechnology to pursue immortality. In particular, Putin suggested repeated organ transplants could keep a person young forever.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The idea of lifespan extension is less outlandish, and less objectionable, than it might seem. But as a bioethicist, I do have some concerns.

Could transplants allow us to live forever?

Putin’s suggestion that we can achieve immortality via repeated organ transplants is almost certainly false.

One obvious question is where these organs would come from. Transplantable organs are a scarce medical resource. Using them to sustain the life of an ageing autocrat would deprive others of life-saving transplants.

However, Putin may have been envisaging lab-grown organs created using stem cells. This approach would not deprive others of transplants.

Unfortunately for Putin, while scientists can grow miniature “organoids” that model some aspects of human tissues, creating full-size transplantable organs remains far beyond current capabilities.

Even if, hypothetically, we had access to limitless replacement organs, ageing erodes our body’s general resilience. This would make recovering from repeated transplant surgeries – which are significant operations – increasingly unlikely.

Our ageing brains present an even deeper obstacle. We can replace a kidney or a liver without any threat to our identity. But we cannot replace our brains; whoever inhabits our bodies after a brain transplant would not be us.

---

Read more:
An artificial heart may save your life. But it can also change you in surprising ways

---

Other approaches

There may be better routes to increasing longevity.

Scientists have prolonged the lives of laboratory animals such as monkeys, mice and fruit flies through drugs, genetic alterations, dietary changes and cellular reprogramming (which involves reverting some of the body’s cells to a “younger”, more primitive state).

It’s always challenging to translate animal studies to humans. But nothing suggests human ageing is uniquely beyond modification.

In 2024, Putin launched a national project to combat ageing. Could Russia deliver the necessary scientific breakthrough?

Perhaps, though many experts are doubtful, given Russia’s fragile research infrastructure.

But Putin is not alone in funding longevity research. Breakthroughs might come from elsewhere – including, potentially, from major investments in anti-ageing biotechnologies from billionaires in the West.

Anti-ageing research could bring benefits

Whether they are authoritarian presidents or Silicon Valley billionaires, it’s easy to sneer at wealthy elites’ preoccupation with lifespan extension.

Death is the great leveller; it comes for us all. We understandably distrust those who want to rise above it.

But we need to disentangle motives and ethics. It is possible to pursue worthwhile projects for bad reasons.

For example, if I donate to an anti-malaria charity merely to impress my Tinder date, you might roll your eyes at my motivations. But the donation itself still achieves good.

The same applies to lifespan extension.

Anti-ageing research could have many benefits. Because ageing raises the risk of almost every major disease, slowing it could make people healthier at every age.

If we value preventing diseases such as heart disease, cancer and dementia, we should welcome research into slowing ageing (which could in turn help to reduce these problems).

Is seeking longer lives ethical?

Putin and Xi might seem less concerned with improving population health than with postponing their own deaths. But is it wrong to want longevity?

Many of us dread death – this is normal and understandable. Death deprives us of all the goods of life, while the prospect of dying can be frightening.

Nor is it suspect to want more than a “natural” lifespan. Since 1900, life expectancy in wealthy countries has risen by more than 30 years. We should welcome further improvements.

The most serious ethical concern about lifespan extension is that it will result in social stagnation.

Our views become increasingly rigid as we age. Young minds often bring new ideas.

If Taylor Swift is still topping the charts in 2089, many other musicians will miss out. And we will miss out on enjoying the evolution of pop music.

Music is one thing; morals are another. The 21st century is raising many new challenges – such as climate change and AI developments – that may benefit from fresh moral perspectives, and from the turnover of political power.

A Russia still ruled by Putin in 2150 will strike many as the starkest version of this worry. Fortunately, we need not be too concerned about a 200-year-old Putin. He is no longer young, and significant lifespan extension is probably decades away.

Still, the prospect of ageless autocrats should give us pause. We should welcome technologies that slow ageing and help us stay healthier for longer, while remembering that even good technologies can have bad effects.

If we succeed in dramatically extending lifespans, we will need to work out how to prevent our societies from becoming as static as some of the elites who lead them.

Julian Koplin 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. No, organ transplants won’t make you live forever, whatever Putin says – https://theconversation.com/no-organ-transplants-wont-make-you-live-forever-whatever-putin-says-264573

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meg Keen, Head of Pacific Research Program, Australian National University

It’s been a testing time for Pacific regional unity.

So far this year, there have been rifts between Cook Islands and New Zealand over security arrangements with China; New Caledonia and France over independence for the French territory; and among various Pacific nations over deep-sea mining.

Now, geopolitical tussles are buffeting the annual Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ meeting, held this week in Solomon Islands.

As regional leaders began preparing for their apex annual summit, there were disagreements over the regular dialogue with Pacific development partners held after the main meeting. Development partners include major outside powers such as the United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Japan, among others.

Last month, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele called off the meeting with these global partners. He argued that excluding outsiders will allow time to complete a review among members on how such external engagements occur.

However, most believe he was bowing to Chinese pressure to exclude Taiwan – Solomon Islands switched its allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019.

Chinese rhetoric against Taiwan is sharpening. Earlier this year, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in New Zealand was blunt about the inclusion of Taiwan in the Pacific Islands Forum:

Taiwan is a province of China […] and has no qualification or right to participate in Forum activities whatsoever.

At last year’s summit in Tonga, China’s special envoy to the Pacific, Qian Bo, flexed his diplomatic muscles and insisted on the removal of a mention of Taiwan from the final communique.

Even so, the PIF 1992 Honiara Declaration does sanction a Taiwan dialogue during the annual gathering for those wanting to meet on a bilateral basis — that arrangement has persisted for more than three decades.

Next year’s host Palau will reinstate the more inclusive status quo.

An official statement from Taiwan ahead of this year’s forum makes clear it is in the region to stay:

We firmly believe in the inclusive spirit of “The Pacific Way” [and…] look forward to ongoing participation in the PIF.

The Pacific pushes back

Most members are not happy with the exclusion of partner nations, but all are still coming this week and will work out their differences, as they have done in the past.

Tuvalu, Palau and Marshall Islands recognise, and have development partnerships with, Taiwan. They believe the exclusion of outside powers is a missed development opportunity. Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo has been clear:

We do not need the competition and conflict overshadowing our development agenda in the Pacific.

Even countries that recognise China worry about the cost of exclusion. Senior representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Samoa (all of whom are PIF members and will attend the summit) have expressed their disappointment in the decision to keep partner nations away.

The decision to call off the partner dialogue is divisive, but it is only a hurdle, not a hard stop. Those nations with diplomatic missions or visit visas to Honiara, including China, may well hold quiet bilateral meetings on the margins of the summit this week. However, Taiwanese representatives will not be present.

Setting the Pacific agenda

While exclusions and sharp reactions grab media headlines, much more crucial issues are on the summit agenda this year.

Climate change is top of the list. Buoyed by the recent Vanuatu-led triumph at the International Court of Justice, which ruled that states have a legal obligation to combat climate change, Pacific nations will look for more avenues to collectively seek climate justice.

Already Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa have submitted a resolution to the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the International Criminal Court) for a new crime of “ecocide” to be added in recognition of the irreversible damage to ecosystems from climate change.

They are also pushing hard for more money to deal with biodiversity losses, and ensuring a new “loss and damage” fund to help vulnerable states recover from climate disasters is effective.

Another high priority will be next year’s COP31 climate meeting, which Australia and the Pacific are proposing to co-host. This would be a chance to push harder for global climate action to speed up mitigation and adaptation. Pressure will be on Australia to deliver on its host bid promises, and for others to step up or out of the way.

Pacific nations also need better access to targeted funds to adapt to rising temperatures and sea levels. They are working to capitalise their own Pacific Resilience Facility to make communities disaster-ready. However, the ambitious aim to secure US$1.5 billion (A$2.3 billion) from the global community will be set back by the decision to exclude partner countries from the talks.

Working together to combat problems

Another priority on the PIF agenda is advancing economic integration. Supply chains, labour mobility and regional connectivity all need a boost.

For example, poor internet connectivity is hindering economic development, while inadequate infrastructure is impeding the movement of people, goods and information across the vast region.

With rising geopolitical pressures and donors crowding in to offer aid and curry influence in the Pacific, regional frameworks and rules of engagement need strengthening. Former PIF senior officials Sione Tekiteki and Joel Nilon argue:

By building on existing frameworks and creating a cohesive set of standards, the Pacific can assert its autonomy.

Significantly, the Blue Pacific Oceans of Peace Declaration will be launched at this year’s meeting — a move to advance Pacific sovereignty. It aims to prevent regional militarisation, keep the Pacific nuclear-free, and protect oceans from nuclear waste and degradation.

This reflects a determination to cooperatively manage transnational pressures such as ocean exploitation, pollution, and crime and security intrusions from foreign elements.

Tensions between global powers permeate all corners of the world, and the Pacific is no different. External players can pull at the fabric of regionalism, but PIF members are the threads that bind the region.

In the past, external pressures have led to improved collective management. The development of one of the world’s largest sustainable tuna fisheries is a good example. Let’s hope that will be true in the future and unity will hold.

Meg Keen leads the Pacific Research Program at the ANU which receives funding from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). All research conducted under this program is independent.

Meg Keen is a non-resident fellow of The Lowy Institute.

– ref. With global powers barred, can Pacific nations find unity at their annual summit? – https://theconversation.com/with-global-powers-barred-can-pacific-nations-find-unity-at-their-annual-summit-264331

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

Erin Patterson, having been convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria two months ago on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, has today received a life sentence from the trial judge, Justice Christopher Beale.

He ordered a non-parole period of 33 years. Given her age (50) and the 676 days she’s already spent in detention, this means Patterson will not be eligible to apply for parole until 2056, when she is in her 80s.

Erin Patterson’s story is now one of the most well-known true crime cases in Australia. Nine weeks ago, a jury found her guilty of poisoning her lunch guests in July 2023 at her home in Leongatha with foraged death-cap mushrooms she had baked into individual servings of Beef Wellington.

In sentencing, Justice Beale said he had no hesitation in finding Patterson’s offending falls into the “worst category” of murder and attempted murder.

So after months of media frenzy and myriad headlines, the sentencing now bookends the case, pending any appeal. Here’s how the judge reached his decision and what happens now.

A lengthy prison term

The life sentence was as expected, given Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy, did not oppose the prosecution’s bid for the maximum sentence for murder in Victoria.

The matter that exercised the judge’s mind, principally, in considering the sentence was the length of the non-parole period. The standard such period for murder in Victoria is 20 years.

If there’s more than one victim, however, the minimum non-parole period increases to 25 years.

While it’s possible to sentence a murderer to life without parole, it is very unusual.

In 2019, the judge who gave a life sentence to James Gargasoulas, the man who drove down Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, killing six people, set a non-parole period of 46 years.

What did the judge consider?

The factors taken into account in sentencing relate to the nature of the crime and the personal circumstances of the person convicted.

The final outcome is informed by principles that vary only slightly across Australia’s states and territories.

The main one here, arguably, was denunciation: the sentence needs to reinforce in the public mind the abhorrence of her conduct.

Indeed, there was no plea of guilty, and no remorse from Patterson at any time.

Moreover, when considering a non-parole period, a judge takes into account what is referred to as “proportionality”. This can be a limiting feature where there is lesser culpability, but an exacerbating feature where there are multiple deaths.

One might refer to it colloquially as a person receiving their “just desserts”.

In this instance, the judge was mindful of the fact there were four victims.

He was also mindful of Patterson’s “harsh” prison conditions, telling the court:

you have effectively been held in continuous solitary confinement for the last 15 months and at the very least there is a substantial chance that for your protection you will continue to be held in solitary confinement for years to come.

Deterrence, as a regular feature of the sentencing exercise, in this case becomes a companion to denunciation.

Rehabilitation was always unlikely to have any impact on the sentence, given the life term. There was no submission by defence counsel that his client had a diagnosed mental disorder or would benefit from any form of an ongoing remediation or restorative program.

Huge personal tolls

What dominated the submissions at the pre-sentence hearing in August were the victim impact statements.

In Victoria, such statements have been in place since 1994, but it has only been since 2005 that the court has been required to take account of the impact of the crime on any victim when sentencing.

Only since 2011 have victims been granted the right to read a statement aloud in court or have a nominated representative do so on their behalf.

In the Patterson pre-sentence hearing, the sole survivor of the meal, Ian Wilkinson, read his own statement and described the loss of his wife Heather. He said he felt “only half alive without her”.

Patterson’s estranged husband Simon did not attend the pre-sentence hearing, so his statement was read to the judge by a family member. His children, he wrote:

have […] been robbed of hope for the kind of relationship with their mother that every child naturally yearns for.

The Wilkinsons’ daughter, Ruth Dubois, also addressed the judge with her own statement. She highlighted the wider victims of the crimes, namely medical staff, investigators, shop owners (who had had their names scrutinised), mushroom growers, the health department and taxpayers.

“I am horrified,” she said, “that our family is even associated, through no choice of our own, with such destructive behaviour towards the community”.

Will there be an appeal?

Patterson’s counsel has 28 days in which to appeal. An appeal would either be against conviction or the sentence or both.

In relation to an appeal against conviction, defence counsel would need to establish that the trial judge made a mistake in admitting (or ruling out) certain evidence or failing to properly explain the defence case.

The former, a mistake about evidence, is the more common appeal ground.

Less likely is the latter appeal ground because it would be difficult for defence counsel to assert that his client’s case was given too little regard by the judge, given the amount of time (almost two days) Justice Beale devoted to explaining the defence case to the jury.

When appealing the length of the non-parole period, either counsel can argue the duration was either manifestly inadequate (a prosecution submission) or manifestly excessive (a defence submission). It remains to be seen if either side will pursue this option.

Whatever the case, there would not be too many observers surprised by the judge’s final determination.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Four victims, no remorse: Erin Patterson given a life sentence for mushroom murders – https://theconversation.com/four-victims-no-remorse-erin-patterson-given-a-life-sentence-for-mushroom-murders-264128

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ken M.P. Setiawan, Senior Lecturer in Indonesian Studies, The University of Melbourne

During Indonesia’s recent mass protests, the looted homes of politicians in Jakarta revealed unexpected victims: cats reportedly left behind or stolen as their owners fled for safety.

The cats have gone viral on social media. Their politician owners – celebrities-turned-MPs Uya Kuya and Eko Patrio of the National Mandate Party (PAN) – were accused of “abandoning” their pets. This is a framing they reject, arguing they just didn’t have any opportunity to collect them before fleeing looters.

Wherever the truth lies, images of these frightened cats rescued by concerned citizens have struck a deep chord in cat-obsessed Indonesia.

Protesters and netizens quickly came to view these incidents as symbolic of politicians’ betrayal of their duty toward society’s most vulnerable.

Pets are political

Cats are hugely popular in Indonesia, which boasts the highest rate of cat ownership in the Asia-Pacific.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim country, and the high status of cats in Islam may help explain why cats are so popular there.

Beyond the cultural significance of cats, however, the recent incidents also offer insights into the nature of political image-making in Indonesia.

The phenomenon of politicians using cats and other animals to bolster their popularity is of course not new, nor is it uniquely Indonesian.

From Winston Churchill’s wartime cat Nelson, to Bill Clinton’s cat Socks or Downing Street’s “chief mouser” Larry, politicians have long used pet cats to carefully curate their public images as warm, approachable, relatable and humane.

The prime example from Indonesia is President Prabowo Subianto and his rescue tabby cat Bobby Kertanegara.

Bobby boasts almost 1 million followers on Instagram. Images of Prabowo feeding, playing with, and cuddling him helped transform the former army general’s public image in the lead-up to last year’s presidential election. He went from strongman with a questionable human rights record to a cuddly, sweet, animal-loving grandpa.

Now Indonesia’s “first cat” Bobby gets wheeled around in a luxury pet stroller and has his own security detail. He makes appearances at state functions where he receives gifts from foreign leaders. This includes a bespoke scarf Bobby recently received from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka and former Jakarta governor and 2024 presidential candidate Anies Baswedan have also used their pets to bolster their public image in Indonesia.

The recent protests

The recent protests in Jakarta were triggered by a proposed rise in MP allowances but also by general resentment towards the political class.

Anger has intensified over coverage of politicians’ lavish lives, as ordinary Indonesians struggle with high living costs and youth unemployment rates.

During the recent protests, several high-profile politicians had their houses looted.

Kuya and Patrio were reported to have left behind their cats, some of which were taken by looters or rescued by concerned citizens.

While many of these claims have been disputed by the politicians, commentary on viral posts have asked: if politicians can’t take responsibility for their own pets, how can they be trusted to care for the citizens they are supposed to represent?

Political image-crafting

Social media attention for these cats soon triggered a response from their owners.

Both Kuya and Patrio refuted claims the cats were “abandoned”. They argue there was no opportunity to grab the cats when their homes were targeted for looting, with the animals fleeing on their own.

Both have appealed for their pets to be returned, which has received some support from netizens.

The damage to the politicians’ reputations, however, has been done.

In the age of social media, pets have proven to be a double-edged sword.

Once used to soften politicians’ images and generate public support, these cats have now been drawn into a narrative that positions politicians as uncaring and out of touch. They have become metaphors for what some see as the elites’ betrayal of the people.

These cat incidents also reveal the precarious nature of political image-crafting in the age of social media.

Where once social media enabled political pets to be used to drive public adoration, it has now become a vehicle for backlash.

Ken M.P. Setiawan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Board Member of EngageMedia, a nonprofit organisation that promotes digital rights, open and secure technology, and social issue documentary in the Asia-Pacific.

Charlotte Setijadi has previously received research funding from Singapore’s Ministry of Education and the Singapore Social Science Research Council. She is currently one of the co-convenors of the University of Melbourne’s Indonesia Forum.

Elisabeth Kramer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australia-based Indonesia Council and the Australian Consortium for In-Country Indonesian Studies (ACICIS).

– ref. How MPs’ ‘abandoned’ cats became the unexpected symbol of Indonesia’s protests – https://theconversation.com/how-mps-abandoned-cats-became-the-unexpected-symbol-of-indonesias-protests-264511

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

The U.S. government is justifying its lethal destruction of a boat suspected of transporting illegal drugs in the Caribbean as an attack on “narco-terrorists.”

But as an expert on international law, I know that line of argument goes nowhere. Even if, as the U.S. claims, the 11 people killed in the Sept. 2, 2025, U.S. Naval strike were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, it would make no difference under the laws that govern the use of force by state actors.

Nor does the fact that protests from other nations in the region are unlikely, due in large part to Washington’s diplomatic and economic power – and President Donald Trump’s willingness to wield it.

Protest is not what proves the law. Unlawful killing is unlawful regardless of who does it, why, or the reaction to it. And in regard to the U.S. strike on the alleged Venezuelan drug boat, the deaths were unlawful.

Domestic U.S. legal issues aside – and concerns have been raised on those grounds, too – the killings in the Caribbean violated the human right to life, an ancient principle codified today in leading human rights treaties.

Killing in war and peacetime

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such treaty to which the United States is a party. Article 6 of the covenant holds: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Through rulings of human rights and other courts, it has been well established that determining when a killing has been arbitrary depends on whether the killing occurred in the context of peace or armed conflict.

Peace is the norm. And in times of peace, government agents are only permitted to use lethal force to save a life immediately. The United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials reinforce this peacetime right-to-life standard, noting “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The principle is also supported by the fact the U.S. has bilateral treaties regarding cooperation in drug interdiction. The Coast Guard has a series of successful Maritime Law Enforcement Agreements – known as Shiprider Agreements – with nations in the Caribbean and elsewhere. They commit U.S. authorities to respecting fundamental due process rights of criminal suspects. Such rights obviously do not include summary execution at sea.

Bypassing these bilateral and international treaties to dramatically blow up a ship not only violates law, but it will, I believe, further undermine trust and confidence in these or any other agreements the U.S. makes.

Flouting international law

In armed conflict, intentionally targeting an enemy vessel with lethal force is permitted, so long as the attack complies with international humanitarian law.

But it would be very difficult, in my opinion, for the U.S. to argue that it took action in the context of an armed conflict. In international law, armed conflict exists when two or more organized armed groups engage in intense fighting lasting at least a day. The U.S. started ignoring the definition of armed conflict when it began targeted killings of terrorism suspects with drones and other military means in 2002. War was raging in Afghanistan, but I would argue that killings in Yemen and elsewhere were not sufficiently tied to the fighting there to be lawful. The killings in Caribbean on Sept. 2 are a worse violation – they had links to no hostilities.

Organized crime groups of the kind the Trump administration alleges the boat members belonged to may be highly violent, but they are not engaged in armed conflict.

And while some armed groups waging war against governments do deal in drugs to pay for their participation in conflict, there is no evidence the gang that President Donald Trump purportedly targeted is such a group.

The term the Trump administration has used for the group is “narco-terrorist.” But that is not a recognized term under international law. As such, using it creates no exception to established principles on the right to life.

Nor does the right to life change depending on whether killings took place in territorial waters or on the high seas.

Given that the U.S. likely flouted international law, one could be forgiven for expecting the Trump administration to be held to account by the mechanisms that support the complex and comprehensive international legal system, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

But prosecuting alleged violations of international law is notoriously hard. And given the power of the U.S. government and the nature of the victims – members of an alleged drugs gang – the political will to hold Washington to account may be weak. Yet, the attack still presents an important opportunity to demand respect for international law and what it stipulates in regard to the right to life.

Mary Ellen O’Connell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. US obliteration of Caribbean boat was a clear violation of international ‘right to life’ laws – no matter who was on board – https://theconversation.com/us-obliteration-of-caribbean-boat-was-a-clear-violation-of-international-right-to-life-laws-no-matter-who-was-on-board-264568

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long considered the nation’s – if not the world’s – premier public health organization, is mired in a crisis that not only threatens Americans’ health but also its very survival as a leading public health institution.

The degree of this crisis was on full display during Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Sept. 4, 2025, testimony before the U.S. Senate.

In the hearing, Kennedy openly criticized CDC professionals’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying “the people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving.”

Kennedy’s hearing came on the heels of a contentious week in which Kennedy fired the CDC’s director, Susan Monarez, spurring 12 members of the Senate Finance Committee – including 11 Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders – to call on Kennedy to resign from his position.

At least four top CDC leaders resigned following Monarez’s ouster, citing pressure from Kennedy to depart from recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.

I am a teaching professor and public health professional. Like many of my colleagues, the disruption happening at the CDC in recent months has left me scrambling to find alternate credible sources of health information and feeling deeply concerned for the future of public health.

The CDC’s unraveling

These leadership shakeups come on the heels of months of targeted actions aimed at unraveling the CDC’s structure, function and leadership as it has existed for decades.

The turmoil began almost as soon as President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, when his administration enacted sweeping cuts to the CDC’s workforce that health experts broadly agree jeopardized its ability to respond to emerging health threats.

Trump used executive orders to limit CDC employees’ communication with the public and other external agencies, like the World Health Organization.

Within weeks, he ordered as much as 10% of the overall workforce to be cut.

Soon after, Kennedy – who was newly appointed by Trump – began undoing long-standing CDC institutions, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing all 17 of its members in a move that was widely denounced by health experts.

Critics pointed to a lack of qualifications for the new committee members, with more than half never having published research on vaccinations and many having predetermined hostility toward vaccines.

In June, more than 20 authoritative organizations, including the National Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, expressed serious concerns for the health impacts of overhauling the advisory committee.

How Monarez’s removal spurred the crisis

Public health leaders had cheered the July confirmation of Monarez as the CDC’s new director, seeing her nomination as a welcome relief to those who value evidence-based practice in public health. Monarez is an accomplished scientist and career public servant.

Many viewed her as a potential voice of scientific wisdom amid untrained officials appointed by Trump, who has a track record of policies that undermine public health and science.

In her role as acting director, to which she was appointed in January, Monarez had quietly presided over the wave of cuts to the CDC workforce and other moves that drastically reshaped the agency and weakened the country’s capacity to steward the nation’s health.

Yet Monarez had “red lines” that she would not cross: She would not fire CDC leadership, and she would not endorse vaccine policies that ran contrary to scientifically supported recommendations.

According to Monarez, Kennedy asked her to do both in an Aug. 27 meeting. When she refused, he asked her to resign.

Her lawyers pushed back, arguing that only the president had the authority to remove her, stating: “When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

Ultimately, the White House made her dismissal official later that evening.

An agency in turmoil

Further exemplifying and deepening the crisis at the agency, on Aug. 8, a gunman who had expressed anger over COVID-19 vaccinations opened fire on CDC headquarters, killing a police officer.

Many health workers attributed this directly to misinformation spread by Kennedy. The shooting amplified tensions and made tangible the sense of threat under which the CDC has been operating over the tumultuous months since Trump’s second term began. One employee stated that “the CDC is crumbling.”

Public health experts, including former CDC directors, are sounding the alarm, speaking out about the precariousness of the agency’s position. Some are questioning whether the CDC can even survive.

A crisis of trust

Even before the most recent shock waves, Americans said they were losing trust and confidence in CDC guidance: In April, 44% of U.S. adults polled said that they will place less trust in CDC recommendations under the new leadership. This would undoubtedly undermine the U.S. response if the country faces another public health challenge requiring a rapid, coordinated response, like COVID-19.

In addition to installing new members on the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy abruptly changed the recommendations for flu and COVID-19 vaccines without input from the CDC or the vaccine advisory committee, and contrary to data presented by CDC scientists.

Public health professionals and advocates are now warning the public that vaccine recommendations coming from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices may not be trustworthy. They point to the lack of credibility in the review process for the new committee, the fact that members have made statements contrary to scientific evidence in the past, and failure to apply an evidence-to-recommendations framework as compromising factors. Critics of the committee even describe a lack of basic understanding of the science behind vaccines.

Health impacts are being felt in real time, with health care providers reporting confusion among parents as a result of the conflicting vaccine recommendations. Now, those who want to be vaccinated are facing barriers to access, with major retailers placing new limits on vaccine access in the face of federal pressure. This as vaccination rates were already declining, largely due to misinformation.

The end result is an environment in which the credibility of the CDC is in question because people are unsure whether recommendations made in the CDC’s name are coming from the science and scientists or from the politicians who are in charge.

Filling the gaps

Reputable organizations are working to fill the void created by the CDC’s precariousness and the fact that recommendations are now being made based on political will, rather than scientific evidence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Gynecology have both released recommended vaccination schedules that, for the first time, diverge from CDC recommendations.

And medical organizations are discussing strategies that include giving more weight to their recommendations than the CDC’s and creating pathways for clinicians to obtain vaccines directly from manufacturers. These measures would create workarounds to compensate for CDC leadership voids.

Some states, including California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico, are establishing their own guidance regarding vaccinations. Public health scientists and physicians are attempting to preserve data and surveillance systems that the Trump administration has been removing. But independent organizations may not be able to sustain this work without federal funding.

What’s at stake

As part of its crucial work in every facet of public health, the CDC oversees larger-scale operations, both nationally and globally, that cannot simply be handed off to states or individual organizations. Some public health responses – such as to infectious diseases and foodborne illnesses – must be coordinated at the national level in order to be effective, since health risks are shared across state borders.

In a health information space that is awash with misinformation, having accurate, reliable health statistics and evidence-based guidelines is essential for public health educators like me to know what information to share and how to design effective health programs. Doctors and other clinicians rely on disease tracking to know how best to approach treating patients presenting with infections. The COVID-19 pandemic made clear the importance of laboratory science, a unified emergency response and rapid distribution of effective vaccines to the public.

One of the strengths of the American system of governance is its ability to approach challenges – including public health – in a coordinated way, having a federal level of cooperation that unifies state-level efforts.

The CDC has been the nation’s preeminent public health institution for more than eight decades as a result of its vast reach and unparalleled expertise. Right now, it’s all sitting at a precarious edge.

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

– ref. Kennedy hearing deepens crisis over dismantling of CDC leadership – health scholar explains why the agency’s ability to protect public health is compromised – https://theconversation.com/kennedy-hearing-deepens-crisis-over-dismantling-of-cdc-leadership-health-scholar-explains-why-the-agencys-ability-to-protect-public-health-is-compromised-264273

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Visiting Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University; Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

Thai politics is often chaotic. But this past week has been especially tumultuous, even by Thailand’s standards.

In a matter of days, Thailand has seen one prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, ousted by the country’s top court. And following a great deal of intrigue and horse-trading, a new prime minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, has finally been elected.

Anutin, a conservative tycoon who led the fight to legalise medicinal cannabis use, was elected by parliament after securing the backing of the progressive People’s Party in a surprise move.

Despite a leader being agreed on, there will be little stability in the new arrangement. Anutin will lead a shaky minority government, as many of his conservative values and policies are in direct opposition to those of his new backers.

The deal also requires a snap election within the next four months, once some constitutional questions have been settled.

The People’s Party has demanded Anutin commit to constitutional reform in exchange for its support. So, there is a chance democratic changes might finally be achieved. But Anutin could also renege on the deal once in power, if he can peel away enough MPs from other parties to sustain his government.

This would not be surprising. The country’s conservative forces have a long history of undermining the will of the people.

An all-powerful court

This political drama was put in motion after Paetongtarn Shinawatra was removed from office last Friday by the powerful and conservative Constitutional Court over violations of ethics standards.

Paetongtarn is the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself ousted by a military coup in 2006.

Since the Constitutional Court was established in 1997, it has toppled five prime ministers linked to the Shinawatra clan, in addition to dissolving 111 political parties, often linked to popular, pro-democracy politicians.

The court has dissolved three parties linked to the Shinawatras, as well as both progressive predecessors of the People’s Party. This includes Move Forward, which won the most seats in the last general election in 2023 but was prevented from taking power.

Thailand also has a history of military coups, with at least 12 over the past century. Not only was Thaksin’s government overthrown by a coup, so was his sister Yingluck’s government in 2014.

What did the People’s Party demand?

After Paetongtarn’s dismissal, the coalition government formed by Pheu Thai, the Shinawatra family’s party, and Anutin’s Bhumjaithai Party fell apart. In the political vacuum, the People’s Party emerged as kingmaker.

Despite its popularity, the People’s Party has been repeatedly stymied in its attempts to promote constitutional reform by the potent conservative forces in Thai society.

In exchange for supporting Anutin’s rise to prime minister, the People’s Party laid out several key conditions for the new government:

• it must dissolve parliament within four months and hold a new election

• it must organise a referendum, if required by the Constitutional Court, to allow parliament to amend the constitution

• if no referendum is required, it must work with the People’s Party to expedite the process of moving towards drafting a new constitution.

The People’s Party also committed against joining the new coalition government or taking any ministerial seats in cabinet.

This plan would allow the People’s Party to put forward its candidates for prime minister at the snap election, which it is restricted from doing in the current parliamentary vote by the constitution.

---

Read more:
Explainer: why was the winner of Thailand’s election blocked from becoming prime minister?

---

Thaksin flees again

Adding to the political turmoil, 76-year-old Thaksin Shinawatra abruptly left the country on his private jet on Thursday, heading for his mansion in Dubai.

Thaksin, who had previously spent 15 years in self-imposed exile to avoid legal charges, was acquitted in late August over charges he violated Thailand’s oppressive lèse-majesté law. Under Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code, anyone found guilty of insulting the monarchy can receive up to 15 years in jail.

His acquittal initially suggested that a détente between the Shinawatras and conservative forces supporting the military and monarchy may have been back on track. But the removal of his daughter from office suggested these forces were keen to demonstrate they still held powerful cards.

Thaksin had been due to return to the Supreme Court next week in a separate case that could have seen him jailed. He said on social media he would return to Thailand for the court date on Tuesday, but whether he does so remains to be seen.

Where to now?

If the agreement between Anutin and the People’s Party holds, Thailand could see some movement towards constitutional reform, followed by a new election.

The People’s Party will likely win any election held, but whether its leader will be allowed to become prime minister is another question.

Since its predecessor was dissolved in 2024, its MPs have softened their rhetoric over reforming the lèse-majesté law. But there is little doubt conservative forces in Thailand still see the progressive policies and supporters of the party as a threat to their privileged status in society. They can be expected to use all means at their disposal to ensure the party doesn’t assume power.

Given the turmoil, another question is whether the military will step in, as it has in the past, to take control.

When asked about the military’s potential role in the current political negotiations, the Second Army commander said “the military has no plans for a coup”.

This will hardly be reassuring to Thais who have lived through more coups and removals of governments than they can count.

Adam Simpson 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. Thailand has another new prime minister and an opening for progress. But will anything change? – https://theconversation.com/thailand-has-another-new-prime-minister-and-an-opening-for-progress-but-will-anything-change-264332

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dragan Rangelov, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Swinburne University of Technology

Imagine a game show where the host asks the contestant to randomly pick one option out of three: A, B or C.

After the contestant chooses, say, option B, the host reveals one of the remaining choices (say C) does not contain the prize. In the final step, the contestant is asked whether they want to change their mind and select the remaining option A or stick with their original choice, B.

Dubbed the Monty Hall problem after an American game show host, this famous puzzle has entertained mathematicians for decades. But it can also tell us something about how the human mind and brain function.

Why do some people choose to change their minds while others stick with their first choice? What would you do and what might your choice reveal about your mind?

Choosing when to change

Research on changes of mind uses the concept of “metacognition” to explain when and how mind changes occur. Broadly speaking, metacognition refers to psychological and biological processes that inform us about how well we are doing the task.

In a sense, metacognition is that inner voice telling us we are either on track or that we should try harder.

Intuitively, changes of mind may be triggered by low confidence in our initial choice. Yet, when my colleagues and I reviewed the research on changes of mind about a range of different kinds of decisions, we found many studies showing people change their minds less often than you might think. This was surprising, given how often we feel uncertain about our choices.

On the other hand, when people do choose to change their mind, it is often for the better. This ability to accurately gauge whether to change your mind is referred to as metacognitive sensitivity.

Our research has found people often make better decisions about whether to change their minds when they are put under time pressure.

Understanding more about how we decide to change our minds may lead to ways to train our minds to make better choices.

Our brains show when we will change our minds

Another interesting question about changes of mind is when do people choose to change their minds. The answer to this question might seem obvious, as people can change their minds only after they have made the first choice.

To find out more about this process, we measured people’s brain activity before they even made their initial choice in a laboratory task that involved answering questions about moving images on a screen. We successfully predicted changes of mind seconds before they took place.

These findings suggest brain activity that predicts changes of mind could be harnessed to improve the quality of the initial choices, without needing a change of mind later. Training based on this brain activity may help people in sensitive professions such as health or defence make better choices.

Why don’t we change our minds more often?

Research on metacognition has provided robust evidence that changes of mind tend to improve choice outcomes. So why are people so reluctant to change their minds?

There are at least two possible reasons. First, deciding to change your mind is typically a result of making extra cognitive effort to analyse the quality of the initial choices. Not every decision requires that effort, and most everyday choices can be good enough rather than perfect.

For example, choosing a wrong brand of orange-flavoured soft drink will probably not significantly impact our wellbeing. In fact, consumer research shows buyers tend to report higher product satisfaction when offered fewer choices, a phenomenon called “the paradox of choice”. This suggests having more choices and, therefore, greater opportunity to change one’s mind may be more cognitively effortful.

Second, frequent changes of mind may signal personality traits that are not socially desirable. Meaningful and fulfilling interpersonal relationships rely on the ability to predict and rely on another person’s actions.

Erratic and frequent changes of mind could negatively impact relationships and people may avoid doing this to improve their social integration.

The future of changing your mind

The science of changes of mind is an exciting field of research, developing at a fast pace.

Future developments in the field might focus on identifying specific brain activity markers of subsequent correct changes of mind. If reliable and valid markers are found, they could be harnessed to help people become experts on when they should change their minds to achieve better professional and social outcomes.

Oh, and coming back to the Monty Hall problem: if you ever do find yourself offered this choice by a game show host, you should definitely change your mind. In this scenario, for mathematical reasons, switching away from your first pick will double your chances of winning.

Dragan Rangelov 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. What actually happens in your brain when you change your mind? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-happens-in-your-brain-when-you-change-your-mind-263907