Myths of the Crazy Ape #2: When In Doubt, Choose (Vote) Your Gut-Feeling

During a recent public television appearance, the New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that given two candidates with equal qualifications, anyone in doubt about who to vote for should vote according to their gut-feeling.

Brooks claims that's democracy at work.

That's a popular idea -- and as ridiculous as many other popular ideas. Throughout the history of the human species, gut-feelings have led whole populations astray, produced more misery than we can imagine, and gut-feelings are of course responsible for the current presence in the White House of a man who ought to be in some other job more befitting his attributes. Unfortunately, too many people voted their gut-feelings about the current President -- and learned about his attributes only much later.

Gut-feelings have given the world more bad leaders than good leaders. The basis of a democracy is an enlightened electorate, not an electorate that votes its gut-feelings.

An enlightened electorate means an electorate consisting of people who have enough relevant information to judge their individual self-interest.

Most politicians don't like the idea of people voting on the basis of relevant information that enlightens the intellect and judgment. Gut-feelings are easier to manipulate.

The problem with gut-feelings is that they're usually based on sensory illusions, thrusts and drives of the older parts of the brain, scars of personal emotional history, and simple silliness.

A thousand years ago, while looking out the window of a church bell-tower at the landscape and asked what the Earth was like, Medieval people voted their gut-feelings and said, "Flat!"

In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, popular gut-feelings led to serious witch-hunts. Given an accused, one method of distinguishing a witch from a non-witch was to tie the hands and feet of the accused and throw her into a body of water. If she sank and drowned, the gut-feeling was that she had to be a witch; if she floated, her innocence was proved by demonstration.

In 1914, the major nations of Europe used their gut-feelings about national (tribal) pride, valor, and masculinity to start a war (World War I) that killed many millions and left pride, valor, and masculinity rotting in ditches all over the Continent.

In 1933, the German people voted with their gut-feelings to put into power a gang of lunatics, the Nazis, who succeeded in reducing German life and intellectual heritage to mounds of rubble -- in addition to tying on the backs of the German people guilt for the slaughter by the lunatics of millions all over Europe.

Politicians know the power of gut-feelings -- in fact, they often depend on the gut-feelings of voters to get themselves elected to office. The campaign handlers of candidates do their best to "package" their candidate. Packaging is an idea that comes out of the advertising business. If you're selling soap, and you're in competition with six other companies that are also selling soap essentially identical to your own product, you can increase your market share by clever packaging that appeals to the gut-feelings of consumers. The gut-feeling appeals of the campaigns of political candidates are essentially the same as the appeals of soap manufacturers and their advertising agencies.

So what's to be done when you're faced with two political candidates with apparently similar credentials, abilities, and promises, and you can't decide what to do? Should you vote your gut-feeling?

Remember the history of populations and mobs voting their gut-feelings.

If you're faced with two candidates who you believe are truly equal for the job, the most rational act is to choose one at random. Toss a coin in the voting booth.

Tossing a coin is more rational (and less dangerous) than voting your gut-feeling.

David Brooks is wrong. Allowing the old part of our brain to determine our political destiny is why we're still the Crazy Ape species.

Comments

[lvogt]

Gut feeling is how demagogues manipulate mobs.

[DanAgin]

Dear Folks,

Much thanks for your responses, but please don't think I'm against inspiring leaders. What's important is that there be more than just inspiration. I support Obama against Clinton, and have supported him all along.

Dan Agin

[David Horton - Huffpost Blogger]

Good stuff Dan. I think you will find though that the test for witches was the opposite (and therefore so much worse) than you say. That is if you floated you were obviously a witch and would be pulled out and burnt at the stake. If you sank and drowned you therefore weren't a witch (otherwise you would have saved yourself), but what can the accusers do? "Oops, sorry about that madam" doesn't seem to cover it somehow. It is Catch 22 long before Joseph Heller.

Oh and not only was Bush elected by gut (beer gut) feelings, hasn't he proudly said that he governs by them too?

[DanAgin]

My apologies about the witches. The floaters were indeed branded witches. I suppose the problem was to save the sinkers before they drowned. I suspect younger women, usually with higher bone density, would sink, while older women past menopause, with lower density, would float and then be killed.

Dan Agin

[ray3]

This is interesting to me because I think some people have very developed intuitive thinking, there are people who credit scientist, artists, writers,mathematicians, with having exceptional skills in this area that enable them to innovate and invent because they have flashes of understanding that they can then prove scientifically, but the understanding starts with intuitive thinking. Intuitive thinking should not be confused with reactionary defensive thought they are very different. I think Obama is a very thoughtful innovator and I think people are responding to his innovative, compassionate and intuitive thinking.

[fairwitness]

Thanks for the reminder, Dan. It is indeed so much easier to just let the lizard brian make your decisions for you--then you can be George Bush and defy anyone to judge them because, after all, you "went with your gut" and that's unassailable evidence that you must be right--or at least innocent (my god, his parents must have hammered him hard as a child to be so fearful of being judged wrong about anything...).

[Dap]

Dear Dr. Agin,

A timely and eloquently expressed essay/post. Agape.

[JasonEverettMiller]

I disagree with this whole premise. When you judge a leader and their ability to inspire change it is much more about gut-feeling in combination with an understanding of who they are and what they have done.

At the end of the day, you gut is makes much more sense as a toss-up than a coin. At least by choosing you gut, or intuition if your prefer, you know that your subconscious is involved in the decision.

Obama '08! Endorsed by both my head and my gut!