Post by Optimus on Oct 7, 2017 19:27:37 GMT -5
The short answer is, "no." I ran across this article recently because I'm in the midst of a deep-dive into this type of research literature because I'm trying to cobble together a study in this area soon.
I'm sure I'm not alone here when I acknowledge that my first, gut reaction to Trump winning was to point the finger and characterize Trump voters as being motivated by blind racial and nativist bigotry. However, as much as I absolutely loathe the decision that Trump voters made, I started to give it more thought after hearing what non-old-white-male Trump voters were actually saying. I still don't really agree with a lot of what they were saying, but I at least started to understand the "why's" behind their decision.
And, I think it's important to try to understand the underlying motivations, thought-processes, and values that drove people to vote for Trump, so that more effective ways of trying to change their minds and win them over can be created. Simply pointing fingers and calling them names is both counterproductive and, frankly, stupid.
Anyway, there was a really good article on Quillette recently, written by Keith Stanovich from University of Toronto, that explains why Trump voters weren't technically "irrational" in the way they voted. He first starts by defining two types of rationality, "instrumental" and "epistemic:"
He then explains Trump voters via the context of these two types of rationality while also explaining how/when democrat voters do the exact same thing.
Another thing that I've often heard people on the left claim is that republican voters, "voted against their own self-interests." However, whether or not that's true, simply acting against one's own self-interest is not necessarily "irrational." It depends on what the person's goals and values are and how he/she rates the importance of each. Stanovich feels that this accusation is demeaning:
Anyway, it's a really good, and really LOOOONG article but for you that are interested in this type of thing, I strongly recommend taking the time to read through it.
quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/
I'm sure I'm not alone here when I acknowledge that my first, gut reaction to Trump winning was to point the finger and characterize Trump voters as being motivated by blind racial and nativist bigotry. However, as much as I absolutely loathe the decision that Trump voters made, I started to give it more thought after hearing what non-old-white-male Trump voters were actually saying. I still don't really agree with a lot of what they were saying, but I at least started to understand the "why's" behind their decision.
And, I think it's important to try to understand the underlying motivations, thought-processes, and values that drove people to vote for Trump, so that more effective ways of trying to change their minds and win them over can be created. Simply pointing fingers and calling them names is both counterproductive and, frankly, stupid.
Anyway, there was a really good article on Quillette recently, written by Keith Stanovich from University of Toronto, that explains why Trump voters weren't technically "irrational" in the way they voted. He first starts by defining two types of rationality, "instrumental" and "epistemic:"
Cognitive scientists recognize two types of rationality: instrumental and epistemic. Instrumental rationality is achieved when we act with optimal efficiency to achieve our goals. Epistemic rationality concerns how well beliefs map onto the actual structure of the world—that is, whether our beliefs are accurate, or true. A quick and memorable way to differentiate the two is to say that they concern what to do (instrumental rationality) and what is true (epistemic rationality). Of course, the two are related. In order to take actions that fulfill our goals, we need to base those actions on beliefs that are properly calibrated to the world.
He then explains Trump voters via the context of these two types of rationality while also explaining how/when democrat voters do the exact same thing.
Another thing that I've often heard people on the left claim is that republican voters, "voted against their own self-interests." However, whether or not that's true, simply acting against one's own self-interest is not necessarily "irrational." It depends on what the person's goals and values are and how he/she rates the importance of each. Stanovich feels that this accusation is demeaning:
In addition to being misplaced, leftists never seem to see how insulting this critique of Republican voters is. Their failure to see the insult illustrates precisely what they get wrong in evaluating the rationality of the Trump voters. Consider that these What’s the Matter with Kansas? critiques are written by highly educated left-wing pundits, professors, and advocates. Perhaps we should ask one of them whether their own vote is purely self-interested and for their own monetary benefit. They will say no, of course. And they will deny as well that their vote is irrational. Progressives will say that they often vote against their own monetary interests in order to do good for other people. Or they will say that their vote reflects their values and worldview—that they are concerned about the larger issues that are encompassed by that worldview (abortion legislation or climate change or gun restriction). Leftists seem unable to see that Republican voters—even lower income ones—may be just as attached to their own values and worldviews. The stance of the educated progressive making the What’s the Matter with Kansas? argument seems to be that: “no one else should vote against their monetary interests, but it’s not irrational for me to do so, because I am enlightened.”
The implicit insult in the Kansas argument often goes unrecognized, and, if I may use some cognitive science jargon here, it is a form of ‘myside’ bias. For example, leftists who work for nonprofit organizations are often choosing their values over monetary reward. And likewise, conservatives joining the military are often also choosing their values over monetary reward. The What’s the Matter with Kansas? argument seems to ignore or deny this symmetry. Many Republican voters with modest incomes cast a vote to help others rather than for their own monetary interests—precisely as do the progressive Democrats who find such Republican behavior puzzling. So no, neither the Kansas voters in Frank’s book, nor the Trump voters are voting against their interests, broadly—and correctly—defined. Even if part of the Kansas critique is correct (they are voting against their purely economic interests), these voters are not necessarily irrational because they may be sacrificing monetary gain in order to express their values or worldview.
The implicit insult in the Kansas argument often goes unrecognized, and, if I may use some cognitive science jargon here, it is a form of ‘myside’ bias. For example, leftists who work for nonprofit organizations are often choosing their values over monetary reward. And likewise, conservatives joining the military are often also choosing their values over monetary reward. The What’s the Matter with Kansas? argument seems to ignore or deny this symmetry. Many Republican voters with modest incomes cast a vote to help others rather than for their own monetary interests—precisely as do the progressive Democrats who find such Republican behavior puzzling. So no, neither the Kansas voters in Frank’s book, nor the Trump voters are voting against their interests, broadly—and correctly—defined. Even if part of the Kansas critique is correct (they are voting against their purely economic interests), these voters are not necessarily irrational because they may be sacrificing monetary gain in order to express their values or worldview.
Anyway, it's a really good, and really LOOOONG article but for you that are interested in this type of thing, I strongly recommend taking the time to read through it.
quillette.com/2017/09/28/trump-voters-irrational/
