neuroscientist explains what's happening with Trump supporters’ brains

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Senan wrote: ...the author is trying to explain Trump's success at gaining support in a completely unprecedented way.

LOL, Im sorry Senan but that is total crapola. This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to skirt the issues and instead go after the voting populace of a particular candidate and insult them for what they are standing for. If this was in any way a fair assessment then the author would be contrasting and comparing Democratic candidates as well. But he is not, hes attacking Republicans for being Republicans and trying to reduce them to blithering idiots that are just wrong about everything they believe because somehow their brains are inferior to a liberal and thus more enlightened brain.

I really do hope that John posted this in the interest of the "scientific Data" and not as an attack on conservatives (Something I'm not convinced of). After all we are here to discuss issues, not to insult people right?

This is not 'crapola' in the sense that no political candidate in the history of the United States has ever successfully campaigned in this manner, and yet Trump is doing just that. He is different and his supporters are acting differently as well. This is not politics as usual, and people want to know why this time, or this candidate, is different.

I would argue that Trump and his supporters cannot be compared in this way to Clinton and her supporters because Clinton is the political status quo. She acts exactly the way you would expect a politician to behave, according to precedent in this country. That is one of the biggest arguments against her and why Bernie Sanders gained the momentum that he did. People want to see something different, and guess what? Trump is different.

If you want to talk about skirting the issues, that is one of the most fascinating parts of this election. The Clinton's are especially good at spinning the issues their way because they are career politicians. They work the system, as most successful politicians do. That's what makes them successful politicians.

Trump has yet to even take a stand on most issues (*cough foreign policy *cough). He doesn't have to, and that is part of the enigma of Trump. Instead he focuses on the issues that get people riled up the most. That is exactly what this article is meant to shine a spotlight on. It cannot be denied that he is saying and doing things to intentionally inflame fears and prejudices that exist within his base. It also cannot be denied that he has made open threats against his opponent and certain groups of people he doesn't like. I'm not even judging him for this. It's just a thing that is happening and we all get to witness it.

If you are taking offense at the article, it could be because you are perceiving it as an attack, but that doesn't have to be the case. Citing research that only focuses on self identified conservatives (notice it doesn't say Republican unless referring to specific people) is meant to point out some possible reasons why conservatives are so willingly supporting an unconventional candidate. And it only refers to those who support Trump, not all Republicans or all conservatives.

Trust me, my friend, I for one do not believe that liberals have a monopoly on enlightenment. At this point, I question if anybody in politics is even interested in enlightenment any longer. And these are just my thoughts. I don't like Trump so I'm clearly biased as well.

Br. John wrote: Disclosure - I've voted since 1978. I've voted in every presidential election starting with 1980. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents.

I am interested in the science of the article but I'll say for the record that I don't see the small fingered vulgarian also known as Donald Trump as being a conservative or a Republican. Neither do many many many loyal faithful lifelong Republicans. Should I list them or will googling the matter do?

Let's remember that Libertarian Gary Johnson is a candidate and could be president easier than many believe because they have not considered this. If Gary Johnson Can Win His Home State He Could Be Elected President - https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/gary-johnson-elected-president-home-state-new-mexico/

So my belief that the Cheeto hued Caligula is a monster is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. It's not a condemnation of the Republican party or conservatism.

John you made some good points and good come backs to what I posted and your neutrality of voting is admirable. However I will say that simply because others have made similar mistakes does not mean that Hillary is not wrong in what she did nor does it change the fact that it would have landed me in prision for a long long time while I was in the military.

Further simply because Trump has tied to Russia does not mean he will potentially sell US interests to Russia while in office as it appears Clinton might have.

On the note of Hillary and the Bengazi issue I find this quote to be more telling of Clintons state departments inept handling:

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated, but President Obama nor Defense Secretary Panetta were not. The agenda included "action items" focused on a YouTube video; and other items containing the phrases “f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.”

The response to gun control so the same fearing mongering spin as Trump uses. There is no internet loophole all guns MUST got to an FFL unless transferred person to person in a state that does not require a private background check. It is already illegal for people with a DV conviction to buy a gun. The weapons of war thing is pure spin as no military uses the AR and further the 2nd amendment was written to PROTECT civilians having weapons of war. Lastly the whole keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill blah blah is just saying that she wants to strip rights without due process. Oh and then there is the laughable notion that a gun maker should be held liable for the misuse of their product when we cant sue Ford for the actions of drunk drivers. In short its all the same fear mongering spin that Trump is using.

In short I do not care for Trump but as I said he is a lot less toxic then Clinton in my eyes.

Above all, I hope that everyone who is legally able votes. If you can't stand any of the candidates then write someone in. Legally you can write anyone in you wish but the person has to be a natural born citizen of the United States and at least 35 years old on January 20, 2017 to take the office of president.

Now allow me to see if I can depress anyone by pointing out that none of us (unless someone here is one of the 535 people who will be elected an elector) is actually voting for anyone for president. If you're not old enough to remember the election in 2000 you should look it up.

Unless you live in a few particular states ....

The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-battleground-states-224025#ixzz4GslkyYuW
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

On a related note, I intend to make a killing next year selling, "Don't blame me, I voted for Br John" T-shirts. Beat the rush; reserve yours now.

Br. John wrote: Above all, I hope that everyone who is legally able votes. If you can't stand any of the candidates then write someone in. Legally you can write anyone in you wish but the person has to be a natural born citizen of the United States and at least 35 years old on January 20, 2017 to take the office of president.

Now allow me to see if I can depress anyone by pointing out that none of us (unless someone here is one of the 535 people who will be elected an elector) is actually voting for anyone for president. If you're not old enough to remember the election in 2000 you should look it up.

Unless you live in a few particular states ....

The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-battleground-states-224025#ixzz4GslkyYuW
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

This I agree with. Though I do not think Johnson can win even though I am a libertarian. I know honestly that I am part of the issue of those that vote for the two major parties that they do not like because its a "waste" otherwise. Maybe I should just vote properly this election and vote for the third party I actually believe in even and not the lesser of two evils.

I'd say there is no way Johnson can win by getting a majority of the electoral votes in this election. But what if the election of the president is decided by the House of Representatives? If no candidate gets at least 270 electoral votes then The House elects the president from among the top three people (assuming three people received electoral votes. If it's a tie 269 - 269 then it's between the top two. If no candidate gets a majority Johnson only needs to win any one state to be in the running for election by The House.

Each state votes within itself then casts one vote per state. If the votes within the state tie then the state casts no vote. Of course if there is a tie in The House election the Vice President will act as President until The House finally elects a President or until the next election.

Whew!

As long as one thinks of things as, "will my vote count or will it be wasted?" the broken two-party system will always hold the country in its grip. If more people vote for the candidate they genuinely think will do the best job, the better chance we have of one day breaking out of it. American politics shouldn't be as simple as who to root for (or against) in a game of football between two different teams.

Side note: please research your local candidates and vote thoughtfully in local elections. Those have at least as much weight as, if not more weight than, the presidential election everyone is talking about.

Just to add a side note on the Benghazi situation. We have two aircraft carrier battle groups in the Med and Persian Gulf at any given time that could have responded.

We have ready alert deployment aircraft that can launch in less than 5 minutes within 500 miles of Benghazi.

We have teams standing by to deploy in response to crisis like this that could have been there in hours. I deployed with a team from Europe to Uganda (3000 miles) in less than 8 hours to secure a site under President Clinton in the late 90s.

Leadership inaction won that day. No one would make the call.

That being said everyone should vote who is able to vote. With all the people we have in this country, it is just sad that we have such poor choices.

Senan wrote: This is not 'crapola' in the sense that no political candidate in the history of the United States has ever successfully campaigned in this manner, and yet Trump is doing just that. He is different and his supporters are acting differently as well. This is not politics as usual, and people want to know why this time, or this candidate, is different.

I would argue that Trump and his supporters cannot be compared in this way to Clinton and her supporters because Clinton is the political status quo.

Sure if that political "status quo" is a corrupt, lying, criminal I would agree. There has been scandal after scandal and conspiracy after conspiracy. Bill is a serial rapist and she lies for him and covers it up, She mishandled secret documents and lied about it, she has gotten countless Americans killed and lied about it, She helped give Iran Nukes, She has sold uranium to the Russians and personally raked in millions doing it while all the time telling you to your face that she will help you get income equality. How can you begin to trust that? I find it amazing that anyone would ignore her and Bills track record and just go "Well shes my choice for President"!

Even with all that aside, There is nothing you are going to say that will take the focus off the fact that this article is in the poorest of taste. It is nothing more than a left wing bashing session on conservative positions that is disguised in a barely wrapped veil of flimsy science. Just look at the quotes I posted in my first post in this thread for proof of that.

Now I have to commend John because he has since posted a new article that does a MUCH better job of discussing the differences between liberal and conservative mindsets. It actually discusses things from a more pure scientific standpoint and it is not condescending nor insulting and it discusses BOTH sides equally with no insults to either. Imagine that!

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/115550-what-s-wrong-with-liberals-and-conservatives

That article is what this article should have been. This article is nothing more than a rag. So as you can see, in fact yes, Trump supporters CAN be compared to Clinton supporters when done in a proper context by a real scientist, not a hack.

Honestly, I have strong views that fall on both Conservative side and the Liberal side and it would be awesome if someone would come along that represented a mindset with the ability to see both sides of every issue and listen to both sides of an argument and then take a fair and balanced approach to each issue. Instead we have this deeply polarized two party system where Trump is a result of Anger and Clinton is a result of the only other choice standing. That's not right. If the American People would just get their act together and come together as one voice and stop acting like sheep and just following along with whatever the path of least resistance was we would reject BOTH of these candidates and find someone (or group of someones) who truly represented a balance and fair approach to our political turmoil, one that could bring true compromise to our nation.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.

Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.

And if one is under the illusion that they have sufficient or even superior knowledge, then they have no reason to defer to anyone else’s judgment.

despite the authors implication that he himself is immune from this effect, this critique is equally applicable to all candidates supporters
you can find examples in each group, and i expect the percentages to be fairly close actually
iit seems obvious to me that clinton is just as untrustworthy as trump is incompetent and yet she has a lot of people behind her who ignore this

but this isnt what got me to respond, this is:

Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening.

for someone whose entire position rests on establishing his own intellectual credibility, this is a fatal misuse of language: he has proven himself, with this one single line, to be either too biased, or too dumb, for his opinion to be trusted (which we should assume is true of everyone imo, most especially ourselves lol)

yes it is true that conservatives tend to have a higher fear response than liberals - but "exaggerated" is a misrepresentation of that finding

A classic study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals.

which means that the alligator is more likely to eat the liberal lol these sorts of adaptations have their uses and to try to hurl it at people as an insult in order to support your own candidate is not helpful to science or cultural understanding, its just another barb in your arsenal

this kind of writing is the problem - almost everyone who is supposed to be informing us and leading us seems to be either a liar or an idiot, or both, and thats why our system sucks

A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

maybe disturbing images should disturb people?

spend a few days reading about the genocides in rwanda and darfur and bosnia, and what daesh is doing in iraq and syria, and see if you arent disturbed

thats all i really what i wanted to say originally - i dont like the psychology findings to be used as they were in the article because i feel he is distorting them to his own agenda and i wanted to comment on that

but since i am here lol, i will go on with this: i dont support trump or hillary and i dont know which will be worse for our country
i feel like they are each others only chance aka the only reason either of them has a chance is because they are running against the other

i consider hillary to be quite a bit more sinister, but also far more intelligent and much, much more competent as a politician

trump is a wild card, and i think there is no way to predict the kind of damage he would do - it might just be baffooning his way through a term and his lack of any political savy or wit will mean that he accomplishes little but also ruins little, or he might be the cause of nuclear attack from some lunatic representing any number of foreign powers, simply because he is a loudmouthed, short sighted imbecile -which he clearly is lol

this is the most heartbreaking election of my life so far

Br. John wrote: What interests me are the four ideas about belief and behaviour. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. Hypersensitivity to Threat. Terror Management Theory. High Attentional Engagement.

What do y'all think of them?

i think the d/k effect is an insight we should use to challenge the value of our own conclusions, rather than using it as a weapon against others with whom we disagree

i think terror management has truth to it, but is not the whole truth; actually i think its an over-simplification that is only popular because it makes people feel clever and superior lol

certainly people can experience existential crisis, but it is easy enough to say of death "there is nothing at all" and that is as reassuring as "heaven" and much more justifiable - certainly it was no LESS justifiable 150,000 years ago

i would say that once we started talking about the possibility of eternal damnation, we actually made our existential crisis even worse, so there goes that theory lol

think that humans have the ability to accept uncertainty as a basic condition of existence and face it with courage and dignity: thats one of the pinnacle "missions" or challenges of being a human actually imo

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction with entertainment and reality TV.

the way i would express this is that we (modern western culture) are so permeated - intellectually corrupted, to be honest- with entertainment and the sensationalism of entertainment media, that we simply dont respond to simplicity or calm thoughtfulness

our education is really terrible, and our cultural sophistication is exasperatingly low
and the result is that the nation itself is deteriorating into general belligerence and cynical disassociation

and there certainly are major financial interests who gain from this in various ways - how deliberate it is i dont claim to know, but there is certainly a connection between civic stupidity and civic vulnerability to corruption and parasitism

To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch.
With Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

i think that there is a small (but not statistically insignificant) percentage of trumpers who fall into this category

Of course these explanations do not apply to all Trump supporters. In fact, some are likely intelligent people who know better, but are supporting Trump to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and Hillary Clinton that their vote for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington.

i think thats an even smaller group, but yeah probably some here too

So what can we do to potentially change the minds of Trump loyalists before voting day in November?

in short: a better candidate

but exactly what that means to me when i say it is another post

what i will say is that there are people who support trump for legitimate reasons - they believe he is sincere and that he has the courage to make decisions because he thinks theya re the right decisions rather than because he owes it to someone or he is afraid of someone

thats his real appeal right there imo and you cant fault people for being attracted to it in todays political climate

what i think his supporters dont want to acknowledge is that hes an idiot lol
i mean not like mentally retarded idiot but like - would be a laughingstock as a chess player, engineer, writer, or philosopher

he is good at promotions - i think thats where he shines