The psychology of voting

[nmoira]

Salon had an interesting article this morning on the psychology of voting. (I don't know how Salon handles visitors anymore; they used to have non-subscribers watch a short ad). Here's the introduction (which is all I can paste and stay within the 250 limit):

 

"Let's make sure that there is certainty during uncertain times" -- George W. Bush, 2008

 

 

 

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

 

 

 

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

 

 

 

In the current presidential election, a major percentage of voters are already committed to "their candidate"; new arguments and evidence fall on deaf ears. And yet, if we, as a country, truly want change, we must be open-minded, flexible and willing to revise our opinions when new evidence warrants it. Most important, we must be able to recognize and acknowledge when we are wrong.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, cognitive science offers some fairly sobering observations about our ability to judge ourselves and others.

 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

This is bothersome. But I'm just as appalled by the voters who seem swayed by whatever the last thing they heard was. The voters who mark ballots based on what they were handed as they walk into the polls. The voters who ask for a sample party ballot and vote based on that rather than the actual records of the candidates. I spent one election as one of the volunteers handing out literature. I can't begin to tell you how unprepared many voters were to make a decision on races and issues on that ballot.

 

Somewhat related: I was at a community festival this summer and a long time incumbent congressman was working the crowd. Most of his exchanges seemed to be limited to just a handshake and his introducing himself. I had great fun getting him to explain himself. Just asking him what office he held threw him off balance (I guess he's used to everyone just KNOWING). Then I asked him what his three greatest achievements in office were. Then I asked him what his priorities were if he were reelected. Then I pressed him when I got soundbite, non-answers. I'm telling you, this is great fun. [And for what it's worth, I knew quite well who he was, and generally vote for his party despite not thinking highly of him]

[Jenny in Florida]

Most people tend to feel a whole lot more secure and "right" when they can think in absolutes: Things are right or wrong. Period. You're either with us or against us. Period.

 

Life's easier that way. None of that pesky thinking.

 

Some of the smartest people I know are the ones who are all too painfully aware of what they don't know and don't yet understand. And I have a whole lot more respect for someone who admits that up front and is open to learning than I do for someone who claims to have "the facts" and just wants to bludgeon me with them.

 

Thanks for posting this article. It actually ties in with a conversation my husband and I have been having off and on for several years. We have two unusually bright kids. Statistically, even with the most generous estimates of distribution within the population, they should have to search pretty far and wide to find other kids who are even in their ballpark. However--and despite the fact that we don't participate in any organizations for such kids--each of them has managed to acquire a little group of others "like them."

 

And the process just fascinates me. One of my kids will walk into a situation--dance class, day camp, theatre rehearsal, etc.--without knowing any of those kids in advance and somehow manage to walk out having made friends with the other smart ones. And it's often just so fast. My kid might not even have talked to most of the other kids. He or she is just drawn to the other child by some force.

 

When my son walks out of a new group for the first time talking about the boy he met that day that he really likes, I inevitably find out later that the child is in the gifted magnet school or some other thing. The funniest example of this I can think of off the top of my head is the most recent birthday party my son attended. Only when I was chatting with the birthday boy's mom after the fact did it occur to me that literally every child at that party had been identified as intellectually gifted.

 

So, I think that may be part of why so many of the most capable folks they interviewed in that study assumed that everyone "gets it." I suspect that's because pretty much everyone they know does.

 

And it may also be why some of the folks at the other end of the scale didn't recognize their own limitations: They, too, tend to group with others who are "like them" and therefore don't realize how limited they are.

 

Well, none of that was particularly coherent, was it? And I've probably managed to offend people, too.

 

Let me state for the record that I do not think intellectual giftedness equates to increased worth. As I always tell my kids, it's mostly a quirk of genetics, no more significant to your worth as a human being than your eye color, and pretty much meaningless unless you choose to do something meaningful with it.

 

Honestly, I just think it's interesting.

 

Again, thanks! I'm forwarding the link to my husband.

 

Edited to add: I especially love this quote from the article:

 

Your red is not my red.

 

I remember when I was a kid one day suddenly wondering whether everyone else saw the same color I did when I saw blue or green or whatever. It occured to me that we could actually be seeing something entirely different but giving it the same name, just because when we were toddlers and learning our colors, someone pointed to it and told us that was "blue." For all I knew, what I called "blue" could be what my best friend called "red," but we'd never be able to figure it out because we lacked the ability to see through each other's eyes. It actually really freaked me out for a while, because it made everything in the world seem uncertain. I remember trying to explain my concern to my mother, but she basically just told me I was being silly and to quit worrying about it. Nice to know, all these years later, that I'm not the only one who wonders about that stuff.

[elizabeth]

http://www.amazon.com/State-Confusion-Political-Manipulation-American/dp/0312373066 This is a great book written by an attorney and former Pres of APA on this very issue-he calls it gaslighting as per the film where reality is so distorted that the human mind seeks certainty and the conflict due to cognitive dissonance is unpleasant so folks follow blindly questioning little in order to think that they have certainty and knowledge regarding reality. It is a great read and I think you would find it interesting. Many of his theses have been given brilliant clarity of late...http://www.amazon.com/State-Confusion-Political-Manipulation-American/dp/0312373066

[Zelda]

There are more theories on why people vote the way they do than could be covered here. Most of those theories will be biased one way or the other. None of them, even the less biased ones, will provide the definitive reason. I hate to see any one of them presented as fact. There's not a LOT of science behind political science.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

One of my kids will walk into a situation--dance class, day camp, theatre rehearsal, etc.--without knowing any of those kids in advance and somehow manage to walk out having made friends with the other smart ones. And it's often just so fast. My kid might not even have talked to most of the other kids. He or she is just drawn to the other child by some force.

 

I have had similar experiences. As a matter of fact, my dd and dh ran into another friend from dance this weekend at the park. The girls rode a ride together, and my dh said it was amazing that they just met recently but were holding hands and acting like best buds. This evening, I saw her mom was reading a book on giftedness and I chuckled.

 

My dh and I walk around shaking our heads on a regular basis. Some people can be so closed-minded. However, I often find that those people are generally unhappy or insecure. Pointing fingers and spending a great deal of time complaining about others seems to help take the focus off of their own problems.

 

I also do not suffer fools gladly, and neither does my dh or dd. It is very very hard for us to smile and nod sometimes. But, I always try to come out of those experiences with some additional understanding than what I came in with. It is sometimes hard to show compassion in those situations.

 

Some of my best friends are those who disagree with me, but at least they can present valid reasons for what they think. I find too many people do just blindly believe the loads of crap they are fed on a daily basis.

 

I saw on the news today that something like 20% of people described African Americans as "complaining". Things like that make me ashamed to call myself a human being.

[Jenny in Florida]

http://www.amazon.com/State-Confusion-Political-Manipulation-American/dp/0312373066 This is a great book written by an attorney and former Pres of APA on this very issue-he calls it gaslighting as per the film where reality is so distorted that the human mind seeks certainty and the conflict due to cognitive dissonance is unpleasant so folks follow blindly questioning little in order to think that they have certainty and knowledge regarding reality. It is a great read and I think you would find it interesting. Many of his theses have been given brilliant clarity of late...http://www.amazon.com/State-Confusion-Political-Manipulation-American/dp/0312373066

 

Oh, wow, this looks really interesting. Unfortunately, neither my library nor any of my local bookstores seem to have a copy in stock. Drat. Now I have to go order it!

[nmoira]

Oh, wow, this looks really interesting. Unfortunately, neither my library nor any of my local bookstores seem to have a copy in stock. Drat. Now I have to go order it!

You might want to give your library a call first. It's "in process" at mine because it's a relatively new title.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

There are more theories on why people vote the way they do than could be covered here. Most of those theories will be biased one way or the other. None of them, even the less biased ones, will provide the definitive reason. I hate to see any one of them presented as fact. There's not a LOT of science behind political science.

 

There are some good theories on how people do analysis of subjects that could probably apply to politics as well as to other topics. For example, once someone has developed a theory or an analysis of a situation, it takes much more input to get them to change their mind than to form the theory in the first place. So if you have some input that indicates that person x is a drug dealer/terrorist/annoying neighbor, it will take much more positive input to change that impression.

 

Under normal circumstances I would be able to reach out and grab a book to tell you the name for this bias. Unfortunately my house is in month-before-move-mode and I have thousands of books piled in corners and leaning against every open wall. There is a paper here on the topic of cognitive bias and analysis that discusses this. And despite being a government publication, it looks like its written on a pretty readable level.

 

I think that part of the issue with our elections is that different people approach them differently.

Some have a set of principles and look for the candidate or party that will advance the largest portion of this set without holding back portions that they feel are non-negotiable.

But other people vote based on emotion, which could be on an affinity with one candidate or a rejection of the other. In my mind, this is where campaigning resembles sales, with an appeal to emotional responses.

Still others see voting as an opportunity to be on the side of the winning team; they may be influenced by endorsements, signs or polls.

I think that there may even be voters who see party affiliation as a sign of personal identity. They vote the way their family, workplace, church or ethnic group tends to vote because to do otherwise feels like a betrayal of their identity.