Incentives and Belief Systems

[rousseau]

Was thinking today about the incentives requisite for a person to change their belief systems.

To take an unexpected angle, the argument starts with energy expenditure. All other things being equal and inert, it's easier to maintain a belief than to change it. For a person to disqualify their own beliefs they have to think about them, and thinking, researching, discussing, takes time and effort. So when a belief system exists, it's going to be sticky and lack inertia by it's very nature.

After that we have to start talking about incentives. What incentive do I have to change this belief system? At this point, I'd think that for many, incentives are strongly tied up in familial and tribal politics. If I live in a community that is predominantly pro-Trump, I don't really have any incentives to change my belief. This means that until it's obviously clear that Trump presents a danger to immediate well-being, in pro-Trump communities he's going to be looked at favourably. Because even without any evidence, the belief is by it's nature sticky, so when incentives push the belief in the wrong direction there's really no hope.

So I guess the phenomena of Trump, then, is mostly about creating an environment where poverty, ignorance, racism and the like can thrive in hot-beds around the country, and where people have incentives to support a guy who appeals to their ignorance and racist tendencies. The only thing that can truly break it is when Trump's policies hit their back-yard.

 

[fromderinside]

..., ah, but most of the voters who elected Trump come from unionists and ruralites, not similar groups. One believes in defend oneself from bosses and the other believes in don't rock the boat. Obviously Trump provided incentives for them to change. A perceived existential threat? In the sixties right after our first nuclear agreement I read that people in Ohio were on a shelter building rampage. They only heard USSR, piquing their fears?

 

[rousseau]

Yea, more and more I'm thinking the dis-reality bubble of conservative America and terrorism is much more impactful than most of us realize.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Beware that while ignorance does explain quite a lot of the Trump vote it's also I can only suspect the stark difference in objective living conditions between different parts of the U.S. that drove the Trump vote. People are not complete idiots and part of their motivation for voting Trump was probably very, very rational. And since nobody can claim to be fully informed you can't blame them. I'm saying that part of the solution is to have a more integrated society. Talking of people on the wrong side of your preferences as somehow defective in judgement seems to me to be very counterproductive and potentially dangerous in the long term.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Beware that while ignorance does explain quite a lot of the Trump vote it's also I can only suspect the stark difference in objective living conditions between different parts of the U.S. that drove the Trump vote. People are not complete idiots and part of their motivation for voting Trump was probably very, very rational. And since nobody can claim to be fully informed you can't blame them. I'm saying that part of the solution is to have a more integrated society. Talking of people on the wrong side of your preferences as somehow defective in judgement seems to me to be very counterproductive and potentially dangerous in the long term.
EB

I wouldn't say I'm highlighting only Trump supporters as defective, but rather that there's a tendency for people to hold on to their beliefs. I highlight Trump supporters, because in this case I think it's objectively clear that their judgement is in question. Are there real reasons why they've landed on the belief systems that they hold? Of course. Is their an explanation to why they aren't changing their beliefs? This is it.

Of course, their circumstances are a culmination of centuries of history, and not just this election cycle, so I don't know that the solution is framing arguments a specific way.

 

[ronburgundy]

Beware that while ignorance does explain quite a lot of the Trump vote it's also I can only suspect the stark difference in objective living conditions between different parts of the U.S. that drove the Trump vote. People are not complete idiots and part of their motivation for voting Trump was probably very, very rational. And since nobody can claim to be fully informed you can't blame them. I'm saying that part of the solution is to have a more integrated society. Talking of people on the wrong side of your preferences as somehow defective in judgement seems to me to be very counterproductive and potentially dangerous in the long term.
EB

What is counterproductive and dangerous is deny objective reality, and the reality is that any sincere support for Trump could only be done either via extremely defective judgment processes entailing serious self-delusion, or via extremely immoral motives.
I specify "sincere" to allow for the segment of Trump voters who were simply weak conformists who gave into the pressure in their social circles but never actually thought Trump would be a preferable President.

Trump is being exactly the type of President that every piece of widely available info about him clearly predicted he would be. Any claims of being surprised are either dishonest or the result of highly defective, self-delusional reasoning processes.
It is implausible that people who voted for him did not know that he is a xenophobic bigot and an 11 on the 1-10 scale of sexism. Many voted for him exactly for those qualities, because they share those qualities, and probably his general indecency a and insulting intolerance toward everyone outside his inner circle. There are plenty of bullies and others who generally are tired of polite society. This group could have voted for Trump "rationally" because are the traits they wanted in a President and Trump has them in spades.
The second group that could support Trump rationally are the very rich who basically care about no one and about nothing but their personal fortunes that they don't want to pay taxes on. They would have to be people who at minimum fully know about but are not bothered enough by all of Trump's immoral bigoted qualities that the first group knows about and endorses.
IOW, you can rationally support Trump only if you share one or more of his core aspects, either his tribalistic mentality is disregard for modern civility, or his amoral disregard for the well-being of others in myopic pursuit of personal wealth.

The other path to supporting Trump is via extremely defective reasoning that leads one to go against all available facts to believe that Trump and a GOP controlled congress and Judiciary will enact policies that harm their own wealth and restore the middle class and high-paying, low-tech, Union jobs. The level of cognitive defect required to produce such a conclusion purely via honest error is too great for this to be the case for more than a small % of people. Far more likely, it that their reasoning process was less "honest" and highly biased by a desire to believe Trump because they like him personally, which means they like his bigoted incivility enough that it biases their assessment of his absurd economic promises to them.