"Class interests"?

Yes. As I responded below to your fellow right-winger, Hajduk, when he made a similar remark:

Such a comment can only come from a politically and scientifically uneducated mind. Consider that literally thousands of studies have demonstrated that both physiological and psychological health outcomes are strongly predicted by socioeconomic status (SES) (a phenomenon called the "SES-health gradient"). Since quality of life is determined by one's position in the socioeconomic hierarchy, this means that all people have objective class interests (whether they realize it or agree, or not). Thatcher's class interests, which entail the preservation of the socioeconomic inequalities that she benefited from, are objectively hostile to yours.

Decent people respect the rights of others - their right to life, their right to liberty, their right to property. When possible they'll even go out of their way to help their neighbors.

First of all, is this how you would describe the capitalist ruling class and the misguided folk who stupidly or otherwise maliciously support their interests (conservatives), or do you deny that such a class even exists and instead believe that we live in an egalitarian, cooperative, harmonious, fairy-tale world?

Secondly, these sentiments were also expressed by Thatcher, almost verbatim, in her rhetoric as quoted by Hajduk in his initial reply to me. It is interesting how you people share the exact same fantasies.

it's also true that everything ultimately comes down to the decisions of individuals - just as every physical object in the world is ultimately made up of atoms.

As I also explicated to Hajduk when he made the same claim:

It seems like you are implying that organized, complex, dialectical systems cannot possibly exist, simply because they comprise distinct, separate elements. Again, not only is this position (derived from a crude atomistic philosophy) wholly unscientific, but it is also clearly fallacious
...
This idea of "exogenous" factors merely "influencing" psychology in a simple, immediate, temporally causative fashion is highly ignorant. To be sure, as evidenced by Aristotle's formulation of four distinct types of causes, phenomena (especially cultural-psychological traits) are exceedingly more complex than this. Culture is not a mere "exogenous influence" on psychology. Rather, as I stated, psychology, being fundamentally and thoroughly cultural, functions to support cultural systems, as integral elements of these systems. Culture is therefore a final cause, in the Aristotelian sense, of psychology; psychology's telos and raison d'être are to bolster cultural systems. This is similar to how the telos of a woodpecker's beak is to bore holes into trees; yet, we would not say trees are an immediately preceding, temporal cause of their beaks.

Incidentally, in light of this it is easy to see why our capacity to organize complex societies, which are vital to the species' survival, evolved. Without individual human psychology evolving as a means to support our collective survival, our species (whose physical constitution is relatively fragile, vulnerable to most environments, and unequipped with anatomical features adapted to specific purposes in particular biomes) would have long gone extinct.

Anyway, again, your hyperindividualistic, atomistic reductionism here is unscientific and fallacious.
...
...human psychology's telos is to support the cultural systems that are vital to the species' survival. In other words, personal acts are driven (nay, generated) by culture, for culture.

If individuals refuse to comply with the diktats they receive from others, there can be no tyranny.

This is such a ruthlessly idiotic statement, amazingly even more so than Hajduk's claim that the COVID pandemic, as it has manifested today, is wholly attributable to a single dumbfuck's decision to eat bat soup.

Do you seriously believe that simply refusing to obey authority protects people from social sanctions? According to this absurd "logic," slaves can simply walk away from their captivity. The emancipation of American slaves did not require a full-out civil war involving the deaths of almost three-quarters of a million people, because all slaves had to do was casually stroll out of their masters' property. Given that you most likely do not in fact believe this nonsense, it is unclear why you bothered to utter it. It is just so incredibly stupid that I almost feel insulted.

As for Margaret Thatcher, no doubt she wasn't perfect but she was a far sight wiser than anyone who I have ever heard talk about "class interests".

How do you figure? Also, even if true, what relevance is wisdom here? Hitler was arguably "wise," as well. However, this has no import as to whether he was a decent person, or if he had any scientific acumen.

Your worldview is contradictory. First, you stated that you only care about decent folk, defined as those who respect people's rights to life, liberty, and property (typical liberal bullshit, mind you). Now, you are hypocritically expressing apologia for Thatcher, whose policies decimated all three for the British masses during her tenure. Like rightists in general, you only care about rights in the abstract in favor of concrete realities. To you people, the abstract right to life takes precedence over the objective conditions that either generate an oppressive, miserable existence or foster fulfillment; the abstract right to liberty is more important than concrete economic systems and norms that ultimately suppress various freedoms, especially as a function of social position; and the abstract right to property, which in practice is only enjoyed by a select few, matters more than actually securing property for everyone, or else instituting its collective (as opposed to private) ownership.

You intellectually and morally bankrupt, delusional clowns live in a fantasy world completely divorced from material reality and actual, important, concrete issues. Evidently, you do not actually give a shit about humanity's wellbeing, notwithstanding your insincere lip service (thoughts and prayers!) to the contrary.

And if you want to defer to the field of Psychology, don't forget that it was psychologists who provided the intellectual impetus and support for the dehumanization and abuse of pedophiles by governments and populations around the world. It was the lies and incompetence of psychologists (often difficult to distinguish from one another) that provided the official narratives that are used against us.

Oh, I am well aware that mainstream psychology largely fulfills a conservative (oppressive) function in society. Actually, this is precisely why I oppose biodeterminism, a soft form of which (the "genetic predisposition" hypothesis) is one of the mainstream's central tenets. By explaining that human psychology is fundamentally cultural, I am not deferring to mainstream psychology, which unequivocally denies this.

Why do you give the field credit knowing how badly it screwed THAT up?

This is an overgeneralization fallacy. In reality (which, like Hajduk, I know you are hostile to), psychology is a highly theoretically diverse field, some of whose subdisciplines are mutually incompatible. By rejecting the entire field just because some practitioners are fuckups, you are naively and prematurely (ignorantly) throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also worth noting that ideas about psychology can be informed by other fields, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, and even philosophy.

Consider that while psychology has been thoroughly right-wing in many respects, it has also gathered useful data and from them generated important insights, and in some ways has even been progressive. Indeed, the subdiscipline of critical psychology works to identify, address, and ameliorate oppressive elements contained in its mainstream counterparts.