Why Is There Any Support for Donald Trump in 2024?
There exists the question: Why are Americans supporting Donald Trump in the next presidential election when he is a threat to democracy?
There also exists the question: Why do people eat food that is not good for them?
In addition, there exists the question: Why was Socrates put to death by ancient Athens?
Not attempting any answers here to these questions, I put forth a couple of tools that can be useful in thinking about them.
Heuristics
Heuristics is a term that refers to the mental shortcuts we, along with animals, organizations, and even machines, employ to navigate our choices and solve complex problems swiftly. It's a quick-thinking strategy, a cognitive hack that helps us form judgments and make decisions quickly.
Derived from the Greek word "heurískō," meaning "I find, discover," heuristics are straightforward strategies honed through evolution and experience that allow us to grapple with uncertainty, form judgments, and find solutions to complex problems. Heuristics involve focusing on the most pertinent aspects of a problem to formulate a solution, and while they may not always be the most accurate, they are deemed "good enough" to address pressing needs in uncertain situations.
Heuristics is all about simplicity—distilling a problem down to its most relevant aspects to come up with an answer to a problem. It's the brain's way of saying, "Let's focus on what truly matters here." But here's the kicker: while these mental shortcuts aim to lead us to the most likely correct answers, they're not infallible. Heuristic processes are a bit like your friendly neighborhood guide in the world of uncertainty; they may not always be spot-on, but they're good enough to get the job done.
Or are they? Decisions shaped by heuristics aren't always the pinnacle of accuracy. They're pragmatic solutions tailored to meet immediate needs when faced with incomplete information. So, they might differ from the pristine answers derived from pure logic and probability. Think of heuristics as the practical sidekick, galloping in to satisfy pressing needs in the face of life's uncertainties.
Kahneman and Tversky
In the 1970s, social psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky ushered in a paradigm shift with their "heuristics-and-biases" program. Their work challenged the traditional view of humans as rational decision-makers. The now-famous "Linda problem" exemplified how our intuitive judgments can lead to recognizing cognitive biases.
Here's a brief description of the Linda problem:
Participants in the experiment are given a brief personality sketch of a fictional character named Linda. Linda is described as a 31-year-old woman, single, outspoken, and bright, with a passion for social justice. She majored in philosophy in college.
Participants are then presented with a list of several statements and asked to rank the probability of these statements being true. The critical part of the experiment involves two statements:
1. Linda is a bank teller.
2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
Participants are asked to rank the likelihood of each statement. The logical answer is that statement 1 is more likely to be true because it is a broader category. However, the experiment's results consistently show that a significant number of participants incorrectly judge statement 2 as more likely.
This result is known as the "conjunction fallacy." The fallacy occurs when people judge the conjunction of two events to be more probable than one of the events in isolation, contrary to the laws of probability.
The Linda problem shows the prevalence of cognitive biases and heuristics in decision-making. People often rely on mental shortcuts and may violate the principles of probability when faced with complex scenarios like the election of the next president of the United States, leading to irrational judgments.
However, Kahneman's research challenges the notion that these mental shortcuts stem from laziness. Instead, he proposes the paradoxical "less-is-more" effect, suggesting that heuristics can lead to more accurate decisions than exhaustive analyses. In the debate between emotion and logic, Kahneman says there are good reasons we make emotional decisions. His best-selling book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow,” argues there are two modes of thought. System 1 is fast, instinctive, and emotional. System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
The book identifies rational and non-rational motivations or triggers associated with each type of thinking process and how they complement each other. From framing choices to people's tendency to replace a difficult question with one that is easy to answer, the book summarizes several decades of research to suggest that people have too much confidence in human judgment.
Some examples of fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, and unconscious thinking include:
1. Determining that an object is at a greater distance than another
2. Localizing the source of a specific sound
3. Complete the phrase "war and …"
4. Associating the description 'quiet and structured person with an eye for details' with a specific job
System 2 is our slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious decision-making process. Some examples include:
1. Preparing yourself for the start of a sprint
2. Directing your attention towards someone at a loud party
3. Sustaining a faster-than-normal walking rate
4. Solving 17 × 24
Let’s move on to another idea that can be useful in analyzing how people make decisions: philosophical skepticism.
Deep Skepticism
There are two versions of skepticism. The street version has a healthy amount of doubt about anything fanciful, such as parapsychology or astrology. The other is the philosophical version of skepticism, which questions the very possibility and extent of human knowledge. Philosophical skepticism is often mixed with discussions on empiricism and rationalism. While empiricists emphasize the importance of sensory experience, skeptics may question the reliability of such experiences. Rationalists, on the other hand, may encounter skepticism regarding the certainty of pure reason.
Philosophical skepticism differs from ordinary skepticism in that it even rejects knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense and seem to be very certain. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as radical doubt and is often adopted as a thinking tool rather than a practical, real-life position. However, this tool naively becomes a political position or an ideology at various points in history. Humans have been known to proclaim that one does not know that “the earth is round" or that "the sun will come out tomorrow.” Occasionally, philosophical skepticism becomes a position commonly adopted by people in everyday life. This deep form of skepticism appears to be on the rise among populations around the globe today, coinciding with a new wave of populism.
Skepticism began, as most philosophical viewpoints, with the Greeks, namely Pyrrus. But, as I say, it has revived at various points throughout history. In their celebration of emotion and individual experience, the romantics often grappled with the uncertainties of existence. Still, one must note that this romantic skepticism was not a rejection of all truths but an acknowledgment of the limitations of human understanding. Romantic literature frequently reflected a skeptical view of established norms and societal structures. In works such as "Prometheus Unbound," writers like Percy Bysshe Shelley challenged the authority of established institutions, questioning the very foundations of power and control.
Romanticism's emphasis on imagination and emotion inherently involved a skepticism toward rationalism and empirical reductionism. The romantics embraced a holistic, intuitive understanding of the world that transcended strict adherence to empirical evidence.
Nature is a central theme in romantic works. While romantics celebrated the sublime beauty of nature, they also recognized its indifference and, at times, its destructive forces, fostering a skeptical view of the universe's benevolence. The romantics celebrated the unique perspective of each individual, acknowledging the inherent complexity and subjectivity of human existence.
In contemporary political discourse, a modern-day version of deep skepticism manifests as a distrust of institutions and political elites, particularly evident in the current populist political movement. Some Americans, for the first time, are expressing a deep distrust of long-standing political structures such as democracy itself. This skepticism is directed not only at political elites but also at international institutions, trade agreements, and global cooperation, reflecting a desire to prioritize national interests over global alliances.
This extends to mainstream media, with some Americans expressing doubts about the objectivity and truthfulness of major news outlets. This skepticism has given rise to alternative media sources that claim to provide a “fair and balanced" narrative, often resonating with those who feel disenfranchised by mainstream journalism. Some Americans exhibit skepticism by engaging with conspiracy theories that challenge official narratives. These can range from doubts about the legitimacy of elections to suspicions about global agendas, fostering a sense that the truth is no longer what it was and is intentionally obscured by powerful forces.
Beyond politics, we have recently witnessed a cultural skepticism that challenges prevailing norms and values. This can be observed in debates around social issues such as race and sexuality, where some Americans question the motives behind cultural shifts and resist what they perceive as societal elites imposing their values.
Philosophical skepticism is often based on the idea that no matter how certain one is about a given belief, one could still be wrong about it. This denial of knowledge is usually associated with the demand that one should suspend one's beliefs about the doubted proposition. This is how those who once believed in democracy may now doubt it.
The best challenge to philosophical skepticism is to ask the following question: If there is no knowledge, how can skeptics be sure of their skepticism? In questioning all foundations of knowledge, one undermines any position at all.
In summary, human decision-making is a complex process that involves both emotions and reason. In addition, a new revival of deep skepticism threatens our most valued political and epistemological institutions. By recognizing this skepticism as not a philosophical tool but a political ideology, we can and must confront and oppose it.