This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/oct/23/us-presidential-debate-voters-choice-leader
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| US presidential debate: what really influences voters' choice of leader? | US presidential debate: what really influences voters' choice of leader? |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| With the final debate between Obama and Romney in the 2012 US presidential election campaign behind us, we can expect another inevitable onslaught of debate analysis, opinion polls, extreme scrutiny and hilarious Twitter hashtags. So I'd feel remiss if I didn't add to this. | With the final debate between Obama and Romney in the 2012 US presidential election campaign behind us, we can expect another inevitable onslaught of debate analysis, opinion polls, extreme scrutiny and hilarious Twitter hashtags. So I'd feel remiss if I didn't add to this. |
| This wealth of data arguably is a good thing: it suggests that there is a demand for it, and this in turn suggests a large number of people are actively interested in the politics that directly affects their lives. Voter apathy is often a concern (in UK politics at least), so anything that gets people interested should be encouraged. | This wealth of data arguably is a good thing: it suggests that there is a demand for it, and this in turn suggests a large number of people are actively interested in the politics that directly affects their lives. Voter apathy is often a concern (in UK politics at least), so anything that gets people interested should be encouraged. |
| However, so much analysis, discussion, dissection, interpretation and opinion is produced over every debate or other high-profile (or not) political event, it risks becoming largely meaningless. I'm not in charge of a global superpower (yet) so I can't say for certain, but I'd have guessed that articulately defending your policies in front of an audience (albeit a very large one) is not the most important facet of the job. | However, so much analysis, discussion, dissection, interpretation and opinion is produced over every debate or other high-profile (or not) political event, it risks becoming largely meaningless. I'm not in charge of a global superpower (yet) so I can't say for certain, but I'd have guessed that articulately defending your policies in front of an audience (albeit a very large one) is not the most important facet of the job. |
| And yet, the debates are portrayed as a crucial test of candidate suitability. The actions of animals in behavioural science labs don't come under this much scrutiny. When every sentence, gesture and stance (physical and ideological) can potentially result in a level of meticulous analysis that an electron microscope would consider "a bit invasive", what chance does any normal human have of getting an honest and accurate assessment of the useful facts in order to make a rational decision? I'd argue that it's "very little", bordering on "zero". They're likely to end up filtering the data in some way, and focussing on things that conform to their own views and principles, and if such a confirmation bias is used (by necessity) can a balanced decision based on the facts really be likely? | And yet, the debates are portrayed as a crucial test of candidate suitability. The actions of animals in behavioural science labs don't come under this much scrutiny. When every sentence, gesture and stance (physical and ideological) can potentially result in a level of meticulous analysis that an electron microscope would consider "a bit invasive", what chance does any normal human have of getting an honest and accurate assessment of the useful facts in order to make a rational decision? I'd argue that it's "very little", bordering on "zero". They're likely to end up filtering the data in some way, and focussing on things that conform to their own views and principles, and if such a confirmation bias is used (by necessity) can a balanced decision based on the facts really be likely? |
| This is undoubtedly going to get worse as time and technology progress. It's bad enough now with 24-hour news channels and the internet with all its inlets and outlets. Most media, seemingly terrified of the audience's attention wavering, focus on sound bites and brief clips, which risk losing the context and nuance of a 3-hour debate. Twitter is hardly any better in this regard. | |
| Who knows how bad it's going to get when more advanced technology becomes available? One can imagine the depth of analysis we'll have to deal with for the 2020 election debates. | |
| "At the 2 hour mark, the perspiration detection laser sweep revealed the Democratic candidate has 1.54 times the number of beads of sweat on his forehead than his rival, implying that he is over 50% more nervous than the opposition candidate when discussing the economy. However, when the Republican candidate belched at 94 minutes, the olfactory detection scanner in the podium revealed that he had recently eaten bacon, which is likely to lose him support among undecided Jewish voters." | "At the 2 hour mark, the perspiration detection laser sweep revealed the Democratic candidate has 1.54 times the number of beads of sweat on his forehead than his rival, implying that he is over 50% more nervous than the opposition candidate when discussing the economy. However, when the Republican candidate belched at 94 minutes, the olfactory detection scanner in the podium revealed that he had recently eaten bacon, which is likely to lose him support among undecided Jewish voters." |
| As facetious as this may sound, the reasons people actually vote for who they do can often be no more sophisticated and superficial. In a way, it's something of a contradiction to actively decide who will make decisions for you. Democracy is a relatively recent occurrence in terms of human cognitive evolution. If we're not adapted to make logical decisions based on the extensive socio-economic factors and variables we're presented with, how do we decide who we want in charge? | As facetious as this may sound, the reasons people actually vote for who they do can often be no more sophisticated and superficial. In a way, it's something of a contradiction to actively decide who will make decisions for you. Democracy is a relatively recent occurrence in terms of human cognitive evolution. If we're not adapted to make logical decisions based on the extensive socio-economic factors and variables we're presented with, how do we decide who we want in charge? |
| Because humans do seem to always want someone in charge. Humans (and other primates) are social creatures and instinctively form groups with a hierarchical structure. The need for hierarchies and social standing are potentially hard wired into our brains, and our position in the hierarchy can affect our health and well being. And with any hierarchy, there is inevitably someone at the top. | Because humans do seem to always want someone in charge. Humans (and other primates) are social creatures and instinctively form groups with a hierarchical structure. The need for hierarchies and social standing are potentially hard wired into our brains, and our position in the hierarchy can affect our health and well being. And with any hierarchy, there is inevitably someone at the top. |
| For more primitive societies, the leader is likely to be the one who can control most others by being the biggest or strongest, the one you don't want to cross. But as any society gets more widespread and complex, so must the mechanisms to control the society by its leader. Religion undoubtedly played a part in this, making it possible to invoke an invisible deity who will punish those who break the social rules when nobody is around, via some ineffable methods. And anyone who can claim to represent the deity must be obeyed, for they are supposedly capable of things beyond you. | For more primitive societies, the leader is likely to be the one who can control most others by being the biggest or strongest, the one you don't want to cross. But as any society gets more widespread and complex, so must the mechanisms to control the society by its leader. Religion undoubtedly played a part in this, making it possible to invoke an invisible deity who will punish those who break the social rules when nobody is around, via some ineffable methods. And anyone who can claim to represent the deity must be obeyed, for they are supposedly capable of things beyond you. |
| In such tightly regulated hierarchies as religions and militaries, who ends up in charge is not a democratic decision; in these cases, membership of and acceptance by the organisation usually requires discipline and strict adherence to the rules, so who gets to lead is not a matter for debate. | In such tightly regulated hierarchies as religions and militaries, who ends up in charge is not a democratic decision; in these cases, membership of and acceptance by the organisation usually requires discipline and strict adherence to the rules, so who gets to lead is not a matter for debate. |
| The sort of free-thinking, intellectual types who read the Guardian science section may think themselves above such mindless adherence to authority figures, but that sadly may not be the case, even for more "enlightened" types. Milgram's infamous experiment, where everyday volunteers from normal backgrounds told to supply painful (but simulated, although they didn't know that) electric shocks to an unwilling victim, actually did so if commanded by a recognised authority figure (in this case, a scientist). | The sort of free-thinking, intellectual types who read the Guardian science section may think themselves above such mindless adherence to authority figures, but that sadly may not be the case, even for more "enlightened" types. Milgram's infamous experiment, where everyday volunteers from normal backgrounds told to supply painful (but simulated, although they didn't know that) electric shocks to an unwilling victim, actually did so if commanded by a recognised authority figure (in this case, a scientist). |
| One theory as to why this happens is that the subjects enter an "agentic state", where they feel responsibility for their actions rests with the authority figure, not them, no matter how distressing. This is one theorised mechanism for why people obey commands that lead to genocide. | One theory as to why this happens is that the subjects enter an "agentic state", where they feel responsibility for their actions rests with the authority figure, not them, no matter how distressing. This is one theorised mechanism for why people obey commands that lead to genocide. |
| But it's not a straightforward process. Give someone a uniform and a position of authority and they don't instantly get respect and obedience, as any traffic warden will tell you. | But it's not a straightforward process. Give someone a uniform and a position of authority and they don't instantly get respect and obedience, as any traffic warden will tell you. |
| Context appears to play a crucial role in the designation of someone as a 'good leader'. For example, authoritarian leaders tend to do better at times of crisis, which is why the more right wing establishments tend to try to convince people that crises are ongoing. During peaceful times, people tend to be more resentful at having their individual rights stripped from them when there's no imminent danger to justify this. | Context appears to play a crucial role in the designation of someone as a 'good leader'. For example, authoritarian leaders tend to do better at times of crisis, which is why the more right wing establishments tend to try to convince people that crises are ongoing. During peaceful times, people tend to be more resentful at having their individual rights stripped from them when there's no imminent danger to justify this. |
| Even on the minor level , context matters. Ministers trading criticisms of each other's records is usually dismissed as childish name calling. But Julia Gillard's blistering attack on her opponent's sexism has done her no end of good, politically. | Even on the minor level , context matters. Ministers trading criticisms of each other's records is usually dismissed as childish name calling. But Julia Gillard's blistering attack on her opponent's sexism has done her no end of good, politically. |
| There is an extensive body of research on the social and psychological factors that determine who and what makes a good leader. There are many conflicting theories, but one major one mentions the importance of 'presence', that vague but essential quality that makes someone more likely to be obeyed and followed without objection. Exactly how you'd quantify this is anyone's guess. | There is an extensive body of research on the social and psychological factors that determine who and what makes a good leader. There are many conflicting theories, but one major one mentions the importance of 'presence', that vague but essential quality that makes someone more likely to be obeyed and followed without objection. Exactly how you'd quantify this is anyone's guess. |
| Social psychologist Robert F Bales posited two classes of leaders: task leaders (who excel at initiating and directing behaviour to get a job done) and socio-emotive leaders (who lift spirits and provide psychological well-being to a group). Seeing as politicians need to be elected in order to start directing behaviour and completing the jobs of governing, they invariably fall into the latter category. | Social psychologist Robert F Bales posited two classes of leaders: task leaders (who excel at initiating and directing behaviour to get a job done) and socio-emotive leaders (who lift spirits and provide psychological well-being to a group). Seeing as politicians need to be elected in order to start directing behaviour and completing the jobs of governing, they invariably fall into the latter category. |
| Whatever you think of George Osborne's fare dodging or Nick Griffin's alarming Twitter behaviour, the fact remains that a significant number of people felt comfortable enough with them to elect them into office. Feel free to find this alarming, I know I do. | Whatever you think of George Osborne's fare dodging or Nick Griffin's alarming Twitter behaviour, the fact remains that a significant number of people felt comfortable enough with them to elect them into office. Feel free to find this alarming, I know I do. |
| It's worth pointing out that much of the leadership research cited in the literature is from a Western society perspective, and focuses on narrow areas such as business and small groups (both easily accessible to research). So any conclusions made may not be readily applicable to society in general, which is obviously far more complex and chaotic than any one group | It's worth pointing out that much of the leadership research cited in the literature is from a Western society perspective, and focuses on narrow areas such as business and small groups (both easily accessible to research). So any conclusions made may not be readily applicable to society in general, which is obviously far more complex and chaotic than any one group |
| With so many variables in play, perhaps it is naïve to expect any one politician to be able to effectively control and direct the extensive and ever-changing needs of a society of millions. Even religions recognise this, typically referring to an omnipotent deity who is running things. Monotheistic religions keep it vague with some omnipresent super being, but I prefer the Hindu approach, where they believe the world is run by thousands of gods, with about six arms each. Makes sense, India is a busy place after all. | With so many variables in play, perhaps it is naïve to expect any one politician to be able to effectively control and direct the extensive and ever-changing needs of a society of millions. Even religions recognise this, typically referring to an omnipotent deity who is running things. Monotheistic religions keep it vague with some omnipresent super being, but I prefer the Hindu approach, where they believe the world is run by thousands of gods, with about six arms each. Makes sense, India is a busy place after all. |
| But modern politics essentially asks voters to consider all the potential ramifications of one individual or group of individuals being in charge of a society and all the variables and complications this entails. The human mind is unlikely to be able to do this without years of study in the area, so will inevitably revert to what it knows; deciding according to group influence, personal ideology, even physical preference like height, facial expressions and gender . | But modern politics essentially asks voters to consider all the potential ramifications of one individual or group of individuals being in charge of a society and all the variables and complications this entails. The human mind is unlikely to be able to do this without years of study in the area, so will inevitably revert to what it knows; deciding according to group influence, personal ideology, even physical preference like height, facial expressions and gender . |
| You may argue that the latter isn't such a big deal, that you could probably fill binders with the number of powerful women you can think of, but the sad fact is that positions of authority in numerous fields are still male-dominated. Perhaps men have been in charge for so long that most people see it as the norm now, and assume there must be a logical reason for it? Damned if I know what it is, though. | You may argue that the latter isn't such a big deal, that you could probably fill binders with the number of powerful women you can think of, but the sad fact is that positions of authority in numerous fields are still male-dominated. Perhaps men have been in charge for so long that most people see it as the norm now, and assume there must be a logical reason for it? Damned if I know what it is, though. |
| So it's no wonder that, when confronted by a bombardment of facts and data that mean little or nothing about issues they can't really relate to, people will vote according to things they can grasp. Politicians know this, the media know this, which is maybe why so much time and effort is spent on seemingly irrelevant details like photo opportunities and correct phrasing; these are the things many people will relate to, and so could win an election. Ergo, they're not irrelevant after all. | So it's no wonder that, when confronted by a bombardment of facts and data that mean little or nothing about issues they can't really relate to, people will vote according to things they can grasp. Politicians know this, the media know this, which is maybe why so much time and effort is spent on seemingly irrelevant details like photo opportunities and correct phrasing; these are the things many people will relate to, and so could win an election. Ergo, they're not irrelevant after all. |
| If we ever are visited by aliens and they utter the classic request "Take me to your leader", I hope they are the patient sort, because that's going to take some working out. | If we ever are visited by aliens and they utter the classic request "Take me to your leader", I hope they are the patient sort, because that's going to take some working out. |
| Dean Burnett prefers to interact with his puny minions via the medium of Twitter @garwboy | Dean Burnett prefers to interact with his puny minions via the medium of Twitter @garwboy |
Previous version
1
Next version