hey Rob, it was a throw-away comment that stuck with me:
the man was offering a tongue-in-cheek answer to the question (why do so many people fall for lies and scams?) and I always thought there was some truth in it.
It's not statistical survey, it's not about means and medians and modes, it's an off-the-cuff comment on the gullibility of so many people, and to me, it's evidenced in the current belief among so many people that Trump won the election in 2020 and that the FBI was behind Jan.6. Of course it doesn't explain all the factors behind Trump-mania, but there's some degree of truth in it.
Trump and Vivek are the only two Presidential candidates that are not connected with the establishment. They are both anti-establishment. There are no Democrats that are not establishment. By establishment I mean connected to the ruling class corporatocracy. These are looters and rent seekers. Pimping their positions for status and wealth, but without producing anything of value. You can make all the claims about Trump, but the reason Russigate and all the continued government abuse of power against him is that he threatens the establishment. The breathless and intellectually dishonest claim that Trump threatens democracy is that he threatens the old establishment. You cannot vote Democrat today and then claim you are against theses things without massive hypocrisy.
There's an interesting argument in here that I can partially agree with, Frank. The party system has evolved in a way that produces a large amount of corrupt rent-seeking by elected officials. I think this is true.
There are several things I'd suggest limit the validity of your approach. First, I think political systems need to be evaluated in comparison with alternatives. Political structures in all countries at all times have generated corrupt rent-seeking. I agree with you that the degree has grown in the US and we should never endorse corruption, but I think you are greatly exaggerating the scale of it in world and historical context and dismissing the value we do get out of party-led government by denying it exists.
Second, I think the idea of endorsing a candidate solely because he is not part of a corrupt system without consideration for other elements is unpersuasive. In my view, Mr. Trump is a pathological personality whose disregard for party politics is overshadowed by his disregard for the Constitution, rule of law and due process, economic planning, foreign policy and diplomacy, and the electoral system, party-dominated or not. I do not believe it is wrong to say that Trump is a threat to democracy, and I don't think the fact that he is a threat to present corrupt rent-seeking means that his administration would be any less corrupt--I think his own example demonstrates that likelihood that it would be more corrupt. (I can'r really speak to Ramaswamy because we know little about him, but I have seen nothing that suggests he has the qualification to run the country, only to further divide it.)
There are many tens of millions of people--perhaps hundreds of millions--in the US who are in constructive or dependent ways strongly reliant on the federal government. To adopt a to-hell-with-it-burn-it all-down approach to government is to put all of them at risk while offering nothing but chaos in return. I can easily understand it as a gut feeling, and I share it to a degree. But although it may seem like pearl-clutching hypocrisy to you, I believe that Trump and the plans for a second term that he and his team have spoken of are by far the greatest threat to the wellbeing of people in this country in my lifetime. If we want to address the corruption in American government the only net-positive way to do that is by identifying and choosing constructive change. Destruction just destroys.
My understanding is that half the population is below the 'median', not the average, intelligence. They can be the same in some conditions, but hardly ever.
Thanks for the question, Greg. I've often been asked about the difference between the "average" (mathematically called the "mean"), the "median" and the "mode". All three are slightly different measures of so-called mid-points in sample populations.
The "average" (or "mean") value is calculated by simply dividing the total population in half; the "median" value is the actual mid-point number in that sample.
So in a sample population of, say, 200, 100 is the average value; but counting individual numbers, the median (the exact number that falls in the middle of the sample) may be 98, or 101.
So in small samples the average and the median may or may not align exactly, but in very large samples (like the US population of 350 million) the difference between average and median will be statistically insignificant.
The "average" value of the US population is 175,000,000 (half above this number, half below).
The "median" (actual mid-point) of the same population might be 175,000,025. Or 174,999,950. The median is not exactly the same as the "average" value, but statistically the difference is insignificant.
Fisher's Law is just a rough observation that in any large population, on any measurable characteristic, half the population will be above, and half will be below the "average" value.
ps, I hate statistics.
But I love Fisher's Law: it explains a lot of things.
Yes, Fisher's Law can explain some of this problem some of the time. However, I personally know some highly educated, highly successful, productive people who are Trumpers. My explanation is the lack of WISDOM...which includes discernment...and an unbiased open view, and a questioning mind, and an active moral compass.
thanks for your comments, Valerie, and I agree that "Fisher's Law can only explain some of the problem some of the time." And I too know highly educated, successful, intelligent people who are Trumpers. There are several such folks right here (Robert, Frank, and some others who we will probably hear from). The application of Fisher's Law to our current situation isn't so much about right or left political leanings, it's about people who are more or less inclined to join mass movements, cults, etc, where surrendering your critical thinking and accepting delusional thinking is the starting point. And to me, Trumpism is a cult - many (not all) of Trump's true believers have surrendered discernment, unbiased open view, questioning mind, and moral compass - they have surrendered their minds to the Higher Power of their cult leader. Fisher's Law simply suggests that demagogues understand this and find a broad base of support among gullible (less intelligent?) people who see the Mass Movement and the Leader as their path to success. It's an old playbook: give up your mind (and your money) and let me make your rich and smart and successful.
There are many other factors in the rise of Trumpism, and I'll be posting articles and reviews soon (like Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951) because my main goal right now is to try to understand the characteristics of Trump followers. It's a mixed bag, of course, and as you say, lots of very smart people are Trumpers. So I'd like to understand Trump's appeal to all of these different groups. Fisher's Law is just a provocative first stab at understanding Trump's appeal.
AW, I don't want to appear thin skinned, but am I the "Robert" you referred to as one of the Trumper folks here? If I am I should alert my family that they may need to refer me for multiple personality disorder treatment. (Does Medicare cover that?)
I hope they have WiFi at the Psych Ward so I can continue to participate here. . . .
Ha ha, what is the world coming to when an accusation of Trumperism leads to psychiatric care. And if Medicare covers it now, it won't after Trump gets in.
No Robert, I didn't figure you for a Trumper; rather, I'm appreciating your intelligent and open-minded contributions. Frank is our go-to Trump-Defender, although his defence is mostly of the Democrats-are-worse variety. Still, compared to the sycophantic yes-yes-yes echo chambers on other sites, all viewpoints are welcome and appreciated here.
I'm actually intrigued that an intelligent articulate person like Frank doesn't see the existential danger that Trump and his cronies pose for democracy.
Look at his "Men can have babies" complaint. It's about progressives who want to reinforce the idea that when a person transitions to male via hormones without surgery they are still capable of getting pregnant. So they are. In general, transgender people with that profile want to be regarded and addressed as men. Ok with me, and perhaps ok with Frank (I'd like to think so--I think it's basic etiquette to call and refer to people as they'd prefer, and I happen to think etiquette is extremely important in healthy social relations . . . and, by the way, for future reference, "Bob" would be good for me).
But progressives feel that this implies that we should modify *all* relevant language uses so as not to convey any sense that trans men are "marginalized" or feel disrespected (a verb I really dislike). Maybe, maybe not . . . it's a stretch. I don't object to their proposing this, but I strongly object to passing negative judgment on people who feel this is not appropriate or who simply don't want to do it, and raising this to the level of censuring/coercing those who prefer not to alter traditional language patterns. Perhaps in time this will become an established norm, but pursuing that as a goal that requires social coercion is not only unjustified ethically (in my view), it is wildly counterproductive because people not engaged in "culture war" battles perceive it as cultural extremism (not just in my view--this call is empirical). Lose the bystanders at the battle and you've lost the war!
And, more than that, you've given folks like Frank who are alienated from American liberalism confirmation that liberalism is illiberalism in disguise. They see and portray this type of intolerant bullying as an existential danger as great as any presented by Mr. Trump and his followers. I'd argue it isn't, but if we're down to arguing which type of illiberalism is worse we've lost the war (that's twice in one post!).
I don't think Fisher's Law is very smart. (Could be my lack of intelligence!)
- Intelligence is not necessarily distributed on an even Bell Curve.
- The stupidest relatively could still be smart absolutely.
- Trumpists look stupid to non-Trumpists; non-Trumpists look stupid to Trumpists.
I know plenty of Trumpists who are, quite simply, smart, and their support of Trump is a mystery to me. I know others who aren't book-smart but who have intelligence well beyond mine in practical mechanics or empthetic understanding and skill in its expression. I know stridently anti-Trumpist people who couldn't pass a high school exam, and others who can prove to you with baroque intricacy that 9/11 was an inside job. Martin Heidegger was a Nazi; Peter Thiel is a Trumpist.
It's not smart to dismiss those who have fallen into beliefs you don't share as lacking intelligence, while tacitly assuming that those who share your beliefs are bright. It's smug, and smugness isn't a behavior that correlates well with intelligence, however that's defined.
What seems to me defining this endless political moment isn't any sorting according to intelligence, it's the spread of in-group insularity, screen based dopamine addiction, and apophenic thinking, which can affect people of all backgrounds and degrees of intelligence.
And those people in the wacky red-white-and-blue costumes are the same people you like when they write an insurance policy for you, return your lost cat, help your kid learn to swing a bat, chat with you about choices in a store aisle . . . If you press them on their costumes they can point to unkempt bearded guys with BAs in ragged t-shirts and dirty sandals yelling, "Fuck you, Nazis!" outside their rallies, with rings in their noses.
Robert, your thoughtful answer deserves a longer reply, but for starters, Intelligence, like every human characteristic, is indeed distributed evenly on a bell curve - especially when applied to large populations like hundreds of millions. (The question that might arise here is the definition of intelligence, as in Gardner etc, who argue for "multiple intelligences.") But what stuck with me all these years was the FACT that half of any large population is above (or below) the average/mid-point - and so the FACT that half the pop is below average intelligence always explained a lot to me in terms of those who are gullible and susceptible to false prophets like Trump.
AW, the actual distribution (as opposed to the theoretical one) is an empirical question, and the average=midpoint claim depends on those data. We do not have those data. (Measurements like IQ are based on test instruments designed to yield and be interpreted in terms of Bell curves, not to mention that they measure a construct, "intelligence," that is a substantially arbitrary selection of competencies that reflect value biases of the designers.) The theory that median=average for all human characteristics is assumption that is clearly false for many characteristics (for example, predisposition to sickle cell anemia--you get the idea). And, indeed, I was thinking of Gardner-type approaches to what "intelligence" means when I wrote. (Would you be confident predicting that US math savants break against Trump? My intuitive thought would be that such a group--highly intelligent in one important respect--would be more subject to apophenic thinking than others.)
And, again, even if it were a fact that half the population is above/below average (as opposed to median) intelligence, the idea that this explains any particular political movement is a really alarming notion. I spent years in a cross-ideological group meant to foster liberals and conservatives becoming well acquainted through civil conversation. One moment I'll never forget is the astonishment of a white, midwestern conservative at the idea that anyone could challenge the truth that the "Democrat Party" was based on the support of low-intelligence people--the type who live in the inner city. This was so obvious to her that she thought people like me were being willful in denying it. (Her father, by the way, retired as a full professor at an R1 university, and she herself is very articulate.) Her political priors dictate what and who she views as stupid, and since she thinks liberal policies are wildly wrong the success of the Democratic Party is easily explained to her by the stupidity of its constituency.
again, thanks for you very astute and thoughtful comments.
For example, whether "predisposition to sickle cell anemia" falls under any "average" law is thought-provoking.
On the other hand, what we might call "common characteristics" (height, weight, lifespan) clearly fall into above/below averages.
Now, whether "below average intelligence" is more prevalent in right-leaning rather than progressive-leaning groups is not the point: the original question Dr. Fisher replied to was related to gullibility and lack of critical thinking, and that is (I and others believe) a characteristic of people who are drawn to mass movements.
Hoffer, Eric Fromme, Hofstadter, etc have written comprehensive and insightful analyses on the "true believers" who join these mass movements, and I'm looking forward to posting the results of my studies here. Because it's not really a function of right/left slant in one's political ideology that we're talking about here; it's the characteristics of those who submit themselves to mass movements - ie, surrender their individualism to the group. Insight also comes from studies into cults - and I am not the only one seeing cult-like submission by many Trump supporters.
In essence, I'm not saying Fisher's Law has a right or left political inference; I'm saying that Trumpism is a cult-like mass movement, and those who join such movements are giving away their faculty of critical thinking - which is a hallmark of intelligence (ie, analysis, not taking things for granted). So, whether it's low intelligence or delusional thinking, I think Fisher's Law applies to many Trump followers. (Clearly not you or Frank, who have other rational reasons)
Fisher's Law is presented as an intentionally provocative opening salvo on my main interest: What are the Characteristics of Trump Followers?
FIsher's Law is an easy starting point, not because it's about right or left, but because it's about followers of a mass movement like Trumpism.
The other factors are more difficult to understand and apply, but I'm getting there. Just wanted to get Fisher's Law on the books.
And thanks again for engaging in this discussion. I know I'm learning a lot those who express alternate perspectives.
Interesting points, AW. I'm going to look at a few.
Take your inclusion of "lifespan" as a common characteristic. Of course, lifespans are all above or below average, but that's not the question: it's whether averages are displayed as Bell Curves such that average = median. Among lifespans, the tail of any Bell Curve begins with the first day of life. In the US, which in historical terms has an extremely high lifespan, 0.35% of all people die within 28 days (the current neonatal mortality rate). I'm sure you can see from this that lifespan can't conform to a Bell Curve, since the average lifespan in the US has well over 800 28-day periods, and any one of them including 0.35% of the total couldn't possibly be the end of a tail. Some common characteristics may roughly conform to Bell Curves, others do not. As I wrote before, IQ is measured via an instrument that distributes into a Bell Curve, and so cannot demonstrate the natural existence of such a curve. I know of no evidence that other forms of intelligence are distributed into Bell Curves, other than the presumption we make that they do, having no data one way or another. A theory's elegance doesn't make it true.
When you speak of gullibility and lack of critical thinking as characteristics of people who are drawn to mass movements reflect on this: Christianity is the most successful mass movement in history. An atheist may well hold that faith in Christianity is the product of gullibility and a lack of critical thinking (perhaps not for Aquinas, but you get the idea), but does that mean that Christians are generally of below-average intelligence? If a non-Christian maintained this I have to confess I'd think that if they had above-average intelligence they were suspending its use in making this argument. By such a measure, at one point perhaps 90% of the US population would have been below average in intelligence.
I agree with much of what you say about cults, and while I was never an admirer of Hoffer, I was of Fromm and Hofstadter (and I keep meaning to go back and read Hoffer with an open mind). But what does this have to do with intelligence? I have an acquaintance who is the author of two books and a former viable political candidate. Talk to him about science and history and you can tell he's smart. He was a 9/11 Truther and now he's a Trumper and borderline QAnon follower (I haven't checked back recently). This has nothing to do with his IQ, anymore than John Nash's brilliance protected him against the type of apophenic delusion that QAnon exploits. Does anyone think Scientologists and Theosophists are unintelligent people, or that the 500 million people who worshipped Mao Zedong in the 1960s were all below average? Propensity towards cult membership and intelligence are independent variables. (My closest friend spent over a decade in a cult, traveling with it to live on three continents: his day job was as a computer scientist in high-powered physics laboratories.) There is a literature on extremism in general, and the chief factors involved tend to concern trauma or other affective features and cognitive issues (including degrees of neurosis and psychosis), cultural and socioeconomic priors (including drug and alcohol histories), and the specific circumstances that provide entry into an intense in-/out-group dynamic.
Of course there are people in the Trump cult who are unintelligent. Jordan Klepper makes a living getting us to laugh at them (and he's good at it). But whenever I look at his videos I see all the people whom he has not interviewed, and I have no doubt plenty of them didn't get on camera because when he approached them they said something like, "No, man. I know what you're doing and I'm not going to let you make a mockery of me just because I wear a costume when I join my friends to show I think liberalism is destroying America." And if they were smart enough to say that on camera, I'm sure Klepper's smart enough not to include that in his video.
So I think you're off track in trying to correlate intelligence with vulnerability to mass movements or cult appeal. It may seem comforting (and self-affirming) to write off Trumpists as simply intellectually inferior, but I think it's a misdiagnosis that leads to two dangerous corollaries: that we don't need to understand them with any depth or nuance, and that there's really not much we can do to change them because they're just not like (as good as) us. That's precisely what Trumpists think non-Trumpists think--they interpret it as a signature of fatuous elitism. Most of us are actually vulnerable to being swept up in political orthodoxies and developing deep parasocial identification with some leader-figure (and you see some of this on the extreme left in the US today)--there but for the grace of Whatever go we.
Robert, your reply here is why I'm doing this substack newsletter thing: to engage in civil discourse with people who disagree with me. And make me think, and re-think.
That Trump presents an existential danger to the US (and by extension, to the world) of that I have no doubt. We have seen and heard the man, and he has shown himself to be narcissistic, a pathological liar, willing to undermine democratic and legal institutions for his own benefit, as well as a brilliant rhetorician and master manipulator - all traits of dictators (see Ruth Ben Ghiat's "Strongmen" review here on the site).
The problem is that Trump is surrounded by enablers, apologists, and opportunists and followed by tens of millions of people (voters) - I can't do anything about Trump or his circle, so it's critical to me to try understand his follows - or rather the different "groupings" of his followers. Unintelligent and susceptible to false promises may be one group (Fisher's Law), but there are others - the alienated, the angry, the "patriots", the itchin'-for-a-fighters, etc.
Trump has cobbled quite a coalition who believe he will help/save/celebrate them and their issues, but to me he is a snake-oil salesman, taking advantage of all these groups, telling them what they want to hear, promising them what they crave - all in his self-serving effort to retain Power and avert the Consequences of his criminal actions.
So understanding the Trump followers is Job One. And as I said, Fisher's Law is just a provocative opening salvo.
For me, Hoffer's 1951 "The True Believer" also has relevance here, and is next up for review.
I don't really disagree with any of this AW. "Unintelligent and susceptible to false promises" would characterize a subset of any political following, even if that subset is lucky enough to latch onto a movement or leader whose promises are actually not generally false.
If you want to change people's minds you have to meet them where they are and be ready to show, if the occasion arises, that you're willing to change your mind if they make valid points. It doesn't mean you'll change their minds, but if you don't take that attitude it does mean that you won't.
One thing Trumpers know far better than people like me is how insufferable liberals and progressives can be. It's worth learning from them, because if we could address that it would provide a lot of leverage.
Jan-6 was an insurrection. Men can get pregnant. We will ban fossil fuels over climate crisis cult, cause massive inflation and claim a carring motive, we will keep the US involved in expensive and bloody foreign wars, we will claim support for the constitution while shredding first amendment and second amendment rights, we will threaten to pack the court, we will spend like drunken sailors adding massive national debt which also causes inflation "transitory", we will export working class economic opportunity to other countries like communist China, we flood the country with millions of illegal immigrants, we defund police and denigrate them as a scapegoat for decades of failed liberal policies in the black community, we are nearing 1 million homeless.
This is what "intelligent" gets us. I will take pragmatic wisdom over that any day. And the elite ruling class and over-educated class is not that.
Except that hardly any of those things have come to pass. Yes the US has debt is high, but attributing it to one President or party is irrelevant. The previous administration oversaw a massive debt increase due to tax cuts. You may like tax cuts but to say they don't contribute to debt is unrealistic. Yes, there is a lot of illegal immigration due to great poverty south of the border. But illegal immigration has existed under all administrations due to the fact that our agricultural industry depends on cheap labor as does our service industry. And illegal immigration is not new. It has existed under all administrations. Most likely governments are like oil tankards very useful and necessary to contain precious cargo, but difficult to change its structure and slow to move.
rritt, you've explained something very well here, that the unpleasant realities listed by Frank didn't start under Biden, and aren't Democrat problems, they're American problems - and none of the last four or five presidents have been able to solve them. In Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies" (1988) he describe 3 conditions that apply to our own times: (1) a "Runaway Train" of problems headed for catastrophe (inflation, homelessness, uncontrolled immigration, and is anyone even talking about climate change?) (2) "Dinosaur" governments and institutions (like the oil tankers you mentioned) that can't react or adapt to critical changes (what's being done about the existential global threat of climate change?) and (3) "House of Cards" where the collapse of any one critical infrastructure (banks? reliance on electronic communications?) could bring down the whole society.
These aren't Democrat or Republican problems, they're Global problems, but America is still one of the few major powers in the world (along with China and India) so what happens here matters everywhere - and my fear is that if Trump and Co regain the White House, then Tainter's trifecta of potential disasters becomes ever more likely.
So it's essential to understand what's driving Trumpism, and Fisher's Law is a simple starting point. More complex discussions have to follow. The goal is to show reasonable Trump supporters that for all the problems facing America, and for all the weaknesses and criticisms of the left, another Trump term could be disastrous for everyone.
hey Frank, I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here, which is a good response to my button-pushing post. So if you're saying that the so-called intelligence of the left brought us to this point of mass nuttiness, then you've got a point. I can see why people think the Left has totally screwed things up - and you make a very good case for why they shouldn't be allowed to continue in office. That's because you're seeing the picture clearly (through your own lens, of course). But I do believe that demagogues like Trump exploit people who aren't as bright as you with false promises. I'm working on a serious piece about Who Are The Trump Supporters, and for staters, I do believe that there is a very large camp of followers who are either not-too-bright and/or delusional in their acceptance of Trump's lies.
Your argument about the not-too-bright and/or delusional Left rings true as well. But that's work for another day; for now, I'm trying to understand the mass appeal and fealty to Trump - because mass movements like Trumpism depend on masses of people who abandon critical thinking (ie, are willing to become stupid). Next up is a review of Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951) which looks at the masses who fell for Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's Communism - mass movements that didn't end well, but had huge followings. And to me, the first factor is giving up critical thinking and joining the mob, and so Fisher's Law was a starting point in understand our current mass movement of Trumpism. (Also meant as a probe; my wife suggested I put it under the Humor tab). There are of course other factors, and I'll get to them next. But thanks for your post: gotta say, you are convincing and persuasive in pointing out the decline of America - but I don't know if all the blame can be laid on the Dems, or whether things will improve under Trumpism.
But the goal here is to understand the various factors that explain Trump's mass appeal - that's what I'm trying to understand.
Oops. To continue: I think that part or all of the answer to your question is Trump and his loyalists are unwilling to and utterly terrified of introspection. Under NO circumstances can they look inside themselves for some truth because they believe to do so is “to open a can of worms” as one off the scale narcissist once put it to me.
yes, behind the locked vault are wonderful human gifts, but there are also some very nasty violent racist urges that Trump & company are literally celebrating and promoting; that's part of Fromm's analysis: people living unfulfilled lives are given someone to blame and someone to hate and permission to vent their resentments against the "vermin" who are "poisoning the blood" of America. Trump's theme is retribution; just the other day he said that if he loses any of his court cases there will be "bedlam and some very bad things will happen." Fascism is all about fear and intimidation and retribution. So, it's very hard to understand how "intelligent" people can't see through these psychopaths and how their message will only lead to violence.
That’s true about the violent, nasty racist urges in the locked vault as well. That’s the can of worms.
bottom line: I believe the key to their personalities is having been shamed as a very young child. I believe they suffered a very serious form of humiliation, and the rest of their life was spent manipulating and controlling their existence to avoid any possible repeat of that humiliation which was, in fact, worse than death could ever be.
An observation: Many of the people who follow Trump are alienated people who don’t socialize and make a lot of friends as a rule, so when Trump came along they found a family, a large, supportive extended family — a place where they could be themselves and be applauded for it. From that point on it was Trump who told them who to blame and where to direct their anger. For some this was the first acceptance they had ever known. For all these reasons I believe that only a few will be open enough to be responsive. You would first have to find a way to make them feel more wonderful than Trump and his followers do.
No, the blame is on the US political establishment as dominated by the managerial and ruling class. These are generally Ivy League over educated children of the upper class. I know them all well as I live among them. Today the Democrat party is their political home.
Again, I will take life wisdom and pragmatism any day over the insane and destructive ideas of the intelligentsia. Sure a bit of conspiracy theories... many that are proven correct later after having been denigrated by the more educated.
Speaking as a generalization which I don’t like to do for groups of people but...
I’m with you on the over-educated Ivy League, lace hanky sniffers. Not an ounce of sense or understanding of life on the ground floor. Their abilities are so limited. I’ve lived among them too. It’s a game of oneupmanship with them.
But these guys also have big influence, working behind the scenes as well as out front. So who, on the inside, can be trusted to work for the American people? Who ISN'T a Republican establishment hack?
Tump and Vivek. Maybe both hacks but both anti-establishment. Bernie was but they bought him off. Kennedy has some anti establishment perspectives. The establishment brands these men as kooks because they don’t toe the standard establishment line… and the voting sheeple are easily influenced on that while the establishment keeps looting the country to an empty shell.
"Jan 6 was an insurrection." It's an awkward term for a local event, but I remember a video from Ashley Babbitt's phone where she was marching to the Capitol and said she was with "a million" others. I think the rioters believed they were leading a mass movement capable of overthrowing what they believed was an illegitimate Congress. So, yes, it was an insurrection. If they'd been able to get to Pence and Pelosi perhaps no one would argue about the term.
"Men can get pregnant." Easy to ridicule, but everyone knows what it means. I'm on Frank's side here, but we can still treat trans people with fairness.
There is no "climate crisis cult," just a disagreement over science and policy, long-term and short. Calling climate concern a "cult" is as stupid as calling Trumpists "below average."
"Massive inflation." Frank, you're younger than I thought. I was an adult in America during the early 1980s--you should have been there! Biden's over-generous Covid bill almost surely added 2-3 points to the inflation that end-of-Covid rising demand and supply disruptions caused worldwide. A policy mistake to that degree. If that's disqualifying to you, so be it.
"Shredding 1st/2nd Amendment rights." The government has made no law restricting free speech. People no longer seem to understand what the First Amendment means. As for the Second, its scope has been massively (appropriate term here) broadened by the Supreme Court as the fruit of a brilliantly organized political movement. Let's not pretend this situation was actually related to original intent.
Yeah, they threatened to pack the court. Politically stupid. Biden shut it down. (Boo Biden!! . . .?)
Don't actually know any drunken sailors. Rise in national debt, end of FY 2017-2021 (Trump years): $8.18 trillion; end of FY 2021-2023 (first two Biden years): $4.74 trillion. Yeah, Biden's got a slight edge at that rate. Is that what a drunken sailor's like?
Export jobs to China? We've been reshoring them under Biden--not sure where this comes from. "We flood the country . . ." Really? "We" did this? That's like saying "Switzerland's government flooded the country with Jewish refugees during WWII." And, by the way, outside of Portland, briefly, no city actually defunded the police. (What a stupid slogan that was!! In a class with "Men can get pregnant.") In case you missed it, Frank, Biden raised Federal support for police budgets and called for states and cities to do the same.
Love the sarcasm and the humor
thanks Keith, some folks take me a little too seriously
If 50% are below average and, I assume 50% are above average, then that leaves 0% average?
hey Rob, it was a throw-away comment that stuck with me:
the man was offering a tongue-in-cheek answer to the question (why do so many people fall for lies and scams?) and I always thought there was some truth in it.
It's not statistical survey, it's not about means and medians and modes, it's an off-the-cuff comment on the gullibility of so many people, and to me, it's evidenced in the current belief among so many people that Trump won the election in 2020 and that the FBI was behind Jan.6. Of course it doesn't explain all the factors behind Trump-mania, but there's some degree of truth in it.
Tech note:
Entire article is assuming average is the median.
Average is usually not exactly the same as the median - sometimes quite different - and it is the median value that this article is about.
Mark, please see my answer to Greg (below) on the same question.
Trump and Vivek are the only two Presidential candidates that are not connected with the establishment. They are both anti-establishment. There are no Democrats that are not establishment. By establishment I mean connected to the ruling class corporatocracy. These are looters and rent seekers. Pimping their positions for status and wealth, but without producing anything of value. You can make all the claims about Trump, but the reason Russigate and all the continued government abuse of power against him is that he threatens the establishment. The breathless and intellectually dishonest claim that Trump threatens democracy is that he threatens the old establishment. You cannot vote Democrat today and then claim you are against theses things without massive hypocrisy.
There's an interesting argument in here that I can partially agree with, Frank. The party system has evolved in a way that produces a large amount of corrupt rent-seeking by elected officials. I think this is true.
There are several things I'd suggest limit the validity of your approach. First, I think political systems need to be evaluated in comparison with alternatives. Political structures in all countries at all times have generated corrupt rent-seeking. I agree with you that the degree has grown in the US and we should never endorse corruption, but I think you are greatly exaggerating the scale of it in world and historical context and dismissing the value we do get out of party-led government by denying it exists.
Second, I think the idea of endorsing a candidate solely because he is not part of a corrupt system without consideration for other elements is unpersuasive. In my view, Mr. Trump is a pathological personality whose disregard for party politics is overshadowed by his disregard for the Constitution, rule of law and due process, economic planning, foreign policy and diplomacy, and the electoral system, party-dominated or not. I do not believe it is wrong to say that Trump is a threat to democracy, and I don't think the fact that he is a threat to present corrupt rent-seeking means that his administration would be any less corrupt--I think his own example demonstrates that likelihood that it would be more corrupt. (I can'r really speak to Ramaswamy because we know little about him, but I have seen nothing that suggests he has the qualification to run the country, only to further divide it.)
There are many tens of millions of people--perhaps hundreds of millions--in the US who are in constructive or dependent ways strongly reliant on the federal government. To adopt a to-hell-with-it-burn-it all-down approach to government is to put all of them at risk while offering nothing but chaos in return. I can easily understand it as a gut feeling, and I share it to a degree. But although it may seem like pearl-clutching hypocrisy to you, I believe that Trump and the plans for a second term that he and his team have spoken of are by far the greatest threat to the wellbeing of people in this country in my lifetime. If we want to address the corruption in American government the only net-positive way to do that is by identifying and choosing constructive change. Destruction just destroys.
My understanding is that half the population is below the 'median', not the average, intelligence. They can be the same in some conditions, but hardly ever.
Thanks for the question, Greg. I've often been asked about the difference between the "average" (mathematically called the "mean"), the "median" and the "mode". All three are slightly different measures of so-called mid-points in sample populations.
The "average" (or "mean") value is calculated by simply dividing the total population in half; the "median" value is the actual mid-point number in that sample.
So in a sample population of, say, 200, 100 is the average value; but counting individual numbers, the median (the exact number that falls in the middle of the sample) may be 98, or 101.
So in small samples the average and the median may or may not align exactly, but in very large samples (like the US population of 350 million) the difference between average and median will be statistically insignificant.
The "average" value of the US population is 175,000,000 (half above this number, half below).
The "median" (actual mid-point) of the same population might be 175,000,025. Or 174,999,950. The median is not exactly the same as the "average" value, but statistically the difference is insignificant.
Fisher's Law is just a rough observation that in any large population, on any measurable characteristic, half the population will be above, and half will be below the "average" value.
ps, I hate statistics.
But I love Fisher's Law: it explains a lot of things.
Yes, Fisher's Law can explain some of this problem some of the time. However, I personally know some highly educated, highly successful, productive people who are Trumpers. My explanation is the lack of WISDOM...which includes discernment...and an unbiased open view, and a questioning mind, and an active moral compass.
That’s a very good explanation, Valerie.
thanks for your comments, Valerie, and I agree that "Fisher's Law can only explain some of the problem some of the time." And I too know highly educated, successful, intelligent people who are Trumpers. There are several such folks right here (Robert, Frank, and some others who we will probably hear from). The application of Fisher's Law to our current situation isn't so much about right or left political leanings, it's about people who are more or less inclined to join mass movements, cults, etc, where surrendering your critical thinking and accepting delusional thinking is the starting point. And to me, Trumpism is a cult - many (not all) of Trump's true believers have surrendered discernment, unbiased open view, questioning mind, and moral compass - they have surrendered their minds to the Higher Power of their cult leader. Fisher's Law simply suggests that demagogues understand this and find a broad base of support among gullible (less intelligent?) people who see the Mass Movement and the Leader as their path to success. It's an old playbook: give up your mind (and your money) and let me make your rich and smart and successful.
There are many other factors in the rise of Trumpism, and I'll be posting articles and reviews soon (like Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951) because my main goal right now is to try to understand the characteristics of Trump followers. It's a mixed bag, of course, and as you say, lots of very smart people are Trumpers. So I'd like to understand Trump's appeal to all of these different groups. Fisher's Law is just a provocative first stab at understanding Trump's appeal.
And thanks again for your comments.
AW, I don't want to appear thin skinned, but am I the "Robert" you referred to as one of the Trumper folks here? If I am I should alert my family that they may need to refer me for multiple personality disorder treatment. (Does Medicare cover that?)
I hope they have WiFi at the Psych Ward so I can continue to participate here. . . .
Ha ha, what is the world coming to when an accusation of Trumperism leads to psychiatric care. And if Medicare covers it now, it won't after Trump gets in.
No Robert, I didn't figure you for a Trumper; rather, I'm appreciating your intelligent and open-minded contributions. Frank is our go-to Trump-Defender, although his defence is mostly of the Democrats-are-worse variety. Still, compared to the sycophantic yes-yes-yes echo chambers on other sites, all viewpoints are welcome and appreciated here.
I'm actually intrigued that an intelligent articulate person like Frank doesn't see the existential danger that Trump and his cronies pose for democracy.
That IS intriguing to me as well. Or very puzzling.
Yup. We need to listen to Frank.
Look at his "Men can have babies" complaint. It's about progressives who want to reinforce the idea that when a person transitions to male via hormones without surgery they are still capable of getting pregnant. So they are. In general, transgender people with that profile want to be regarded and addressed as men. Ok with me, and perhaps ok with Frank (I'd like to think so--I think it's basic etiquette to call and refer to people as they'd prefer, and I happen to think etiquette is extremely important in healthy social relations . . . and, by the way, for future reference, "Bob" would be good for me).
But progressives feel that this implies that we should modify *all* relevant language uses so as not to convey any sense that trans men are "marginalized" or feel disrespected (a verb I really dislike). Maybe, maybe not . . . it's a stretch. I don't object to their proposing this, but I strongly object to passing negative judgment on people who feel this is not appropriate or who simply don't want to do it, and raising this to the level of censuring/coercing those who prefer not to alter traditional language patterns. Perhaps in time this will become an established norm, but pursuing that as a goal that requires social coercion is not only unjustified ethically (in my view), it is wildly counterproductive because people not engaged in "culture war" battles perceive it as cultural extremism (not just in my view--this call is empirical). Lose the bystanders at the battle and you've lost the war!
And, more than that, you've given folks like Frank who are alienated from American liberalism confirmation that liberalism is illiberalism in disguise. They see and portray this type of intolerant bullying as an existential danger as great as any presented by Mr. Trump and his followers. I'd argue it isn't, but if we're down to arguing which type of illiberalism is worse we've lost the war (that's twice in one post!).
I hope Frank sees this.
I don't think Fisher's Law is very smart. (Could be my lack of intelligence!)
- Intelligence is not necessarily distributed on an even Bell Curve.
- The stupidest relatively could still be smart absolutely.
- Trumpists look stupid to non-Trumpists; non-Trumpists look stupid to Trumpists.
I know plenty of Trumpists who are, quite simply, smart, and their support of Trump is a mystery to me. I know others who aren't book-smart but who have intelligence well beyond mine in practical mechanics or empthetic understanding and skill in its expression. I know stridently anti-Trumpist people who couldn't pass a high school exam, and others who can prove to you with baroque intricacy that 9/11 was an inside job. Martin Heidegger was a Nazi; Peter Thiel is a Trumpist.
It's not smart to dismiss those who have fallen into beliefs you don't share as lacking intelligence, while tacitly assuming that those who share your beliefs are bright. It's smug, and smugness isn't a behavior that correlates well with intelligence, however that's defined.
What seems to me defining this endless political moment isn't any sorting according to intelligence, it's the spread of in-group insularity, screen based dopamine addiction, and apophenic thinking, which can affect people of all backgrounds and degrees of intelligence.
And those people in the wacky red-white-and-blue costumes are the same people you like when they write an insurance policy for you, return your lost cat, help your kid learn to swing a bat, chat with you about choices in a store aisle . . . If you press them on their costumes they can point to unkempt bearded guys with BAs in ragged t-shirts and dirty sandals yelling, "Fuck you, Nazis!" outside their rallies, with rings in their noses.
Robert, your thoughtful answer deserves a longer reply, but for starters, Intelligence, like every human characteristic, is indeed distributed evenly on a bell curve - especially when applied to large populations like hundreds of millions. (The question that might arise here is the definition of intelligence, as in Gardner etc, who argue for "multiple intelligences.") But what stuck with me all these years was the FACT that half of any large population is above (or below) the average/mid-point - and so the FACT that half the pop is below average intelligence always explained a lot to me in terms of those who are gullible and susceptible to false prophets like Trump.
AW, the actual distribution (as opposed to the theoretical one) is an empirical question, and the average=midpoint claim depends on those data. We do not have those data. (Measurements like IQ are based on test instruments designed to yield and be interpreted in terms of Bell curves, not to mention that they measure a construct, "intelligence," that is a substantially arbitrary selection of competencies that reflect value biases of the designers.) The theory that median=average for all human characteristics is assumption that is clearly false for many characteristics (for example, predisposition to sickle cell anemia--you get the idea). And, indeed, I was thinking of Gardner-type approaches to what "intelligence" means when I wrote. (Would you be confident predicting that US math savants break against Trump? My intuitive thought would be that such a group--highly intelligent in one important respect--would be more subject to apophenic thinking than others.)
And, again, even if it were a fact that half the population is above/below average (as opposed to median) intelligence, the idea that this explains any particular political movement is a really alarming notion. I spent years in a cross-ideological group meant to foster liberals and conservatives becoming well acquainted through civil conversation. One moment I'll never forget is the astonishment of a white, midwestern conservative at the idea that anyone could challenge the truth that the "Democrat Party" was based on the support of low-intelligence people--the type who live in the inner city. This was so obvious to her that she thought people like me were being willful in denying it. (Her father, by the way, retired as a full professor at an R1 university, and she herself is very articulate.) Her political priors dictate what and who she views as stupid, and since she thinks liberal policies are wildly wrong the success of the Democratic Party is easily explained to her by the stupidity of its constituency.
again, thanks for you very astute and thoughtful comments.
For example, whether "predisposition to sickle cell anemia" falls under any "average" law is thought-provoking.
On the other hand, what we might call "common characteristics" (height, weight, lifespan) clearly fall into above/below averages.
Now, whether "below average intelligence" is more prevalent in right-leaning rather than progressive-leaning groups is not the point: the original question Dr. Fisher replied to was related to gullibility and lack of critical thinking, and that is (I and others believe) a characteristic of people who are drawn to mass movements.
Hoffer, Eric Fromme, Hofstadter, etc have written comprehensive and insightful analyses on the "true believers" who join these mass movements, and I'm looking forward to posting the results of my studies here. Because it's not really a function of right/left slant in one's political ideology that we're talking about here; it's the characteristics of those who submit themselves to mass movements - ie, surrender their individualism to the group. Insight also comes from studies into cults - and I am not the only one seeing cult-like submission by many Trump supporters.
In essence, I'm not saying Fisher's Law has a right or left political inference; I'm saying that Trumpism is a cult-like mass movement, and those who join such movements are giving away their faculty of critical thinking - which is a hallmark of intelligence (ie, analysis, not taking things for granted). So, whether it's low intelligence or delusional thinking, I think Fisher's Law applies to many Trump followers. (Clearly not you or Frank, who have other rational reasons)
Fisher's Law is presented as an intentionally provocative opening salvo on my main interest: What are the Characteristics of Trump Followers?
FIsher's Law is an easy starting point, not because it's about right or left, but because it's about followers of a mass movement like Trumpism.
The other factors are more difficult to understand and apply, but I'm getting there. Just wanted to get Fisher's Law on the books.
And thanks again for engaging in this discussion. I know I'm learning a lot those who express alternate perspectives.
Interesting points, AW. I'm going to look at a few.
Take your inclusion of "lifespan" as a common characteristic. Of course, lifespans are all above or below average, but that's not the question: it's whether averages are displayed as Bell Curves such that average = median. Among lifespans, the tail of any Bell Curve begins with the first day of life. In the US, which in historical terms has an extremely high lifespan, 0.35% of all people die within 28 days (the current neonatal mortality rate). I'm sure you can see from this that lifespan can't conform to a Bell Curve, since the average lifespan in the US has well over 800 28-day periods, and any one of them including 0.35% of the total couldn't possibly be the end of a tail. Some common characteristics may roughly conform to Bell Curves, others do not. As I wrote before, IQ is measured via an instrument that distributes into a Bell Curve, and so cannot demonstrate the natural existence of such a curve. I know of no evidence that other forms of intelligence are distributed into Bell Curves, other than the presumption we make that they do, having no data one way or another. A theory's elegance doesn't make it true.
When you speak of gullibility and lack of critical thinking as characteristics of people who are drawn to mass movements reflect on this: Christianity is the most successful mass movement in history. An atheist may well hold that faith in Christianity is the product of gullibility and a lack of critical thinking (perhaps not for Aquinas, but you get the idea), but does that mean that Christians are generally of below-average intelligence? If a non-Christian maintained this I have to confess I'd think that if they had above-average intelligence they were suspending its use in making this argument. By such a measure, at one point perhaps 90% of the US population would have been below average in intelligence.
I agree with much of what you say about cults, and while I was never an admirer of Hoffer, I was of Fromm and Hofstadter (and I keep meaning to go back and read Hoffer with an open mind). But what does this have to do with intelligence? I have an acquaintance who is the author of two books and a former viable political candidate. Talk to him about science and history and you can tell he's smart. He was a 9/11 Truther and now he's a Trumper and borderline QAnon follower (I haven't checked back recently). This has nothing to do with his IQ, anymore than John Nash's brilliance protected him against the type of apophenic delusion that QAnon exploits. Does anyone think Scientologists and Theosophists are unintelligent people, or that the 500 million people who worshipped Mao Zedong in the 1960s were all below average? Propensity towards cult membership and intelligence are independent variables. (My closest friend spent over a decade in a cult, traveling with it to live on three continents: his day job was as a computer scientist in high-powered physics laboratories.) There is a literature on extremism in general, and the chief factors involved tend to concern trauma or other affective features and cognitive issues (including degrees of neurosis and psychosis), cultural and socioeconomic priors (including drug and alcohol histories), and the specific circumstances that provide entry into an intense in-/out-group dynamic.
Of course there are people in the Trump cult who are unintelligent. Jordan Klepper makes a living getting us to laugh at them (and he's good at it). But whenever I look at his videos I see all the people whom he has not interviewed, and I have no doubt plenty of them didn't get on camera because when he approached them they said something like, "No, man. I know what you're doing and I'm not going to let you make a mockery of me just because I wear a costume when I join my friends to show I think liberalism is destroying America." And if they were smart enough to say that on camera, I'm sure Klepper's smart enough not to include that in his video.
So I think you're off track in trying to correlate intelligence with vulnerability to mass movements or cult appeal. It may seem comforting (and self-affirming) to write off Trumpists as simply intellectually inferior, but I think it's a misdiagnosis that leads to two dangerous corollaries: that we don't need to understand them with any depth or nuance, and that there's really not much we can do to change them because they're just not like (as good as) us. That's precisely what Trumpists think non-Trumpists think--they interpret it as a signature of fatuous elitism. Most of us are actually vulnerable to being swept up in political orthodoxies and developing deep parasocial identification with some leader-figure (and you see some of this on the extreme left in the US today)--there but for the grace of Whatever go we.
Robert, your reply here is why I'm doing this substack newsletter thing: to engage in civil discourse with people who disagree with me. And make me think, and re-think.
That Trump presents an existential danger to the US (and by extension, to the world) of that I have no doubt. We have seen and heard the man, and he has shown himself to be narcissistic, a pathological liar, willing to undermine democratic and legal institutions for his own benefit, as well as a brilliant rhetorician and master manipulator - all traits of dictators (see Ruth Ben Ghiat's "Strongmen" review here on the site).
The problem is that Trump is surrounded by enablers, apologists, and opportunists and followed by tens of millions of people (voters) - I can't do anything about Trump or his circle, so it's critical to me to try understand his follows - or rather the different "groupings" of his followers. Unintelligent and susceptible to false promises may be one group (Fisher's Law), but there are others - the alienated, the angry, the "patriots", the itchin'-for-a-fighters, etc.
Trump has cobbled quite a coalition who believe he will help/save/celebrate them and their issues, but to me he is a snake-oil salesman, taking advantage of all these groups, telling them what they want to hear, promising them what they crave - all in his self-serving effort to retain Power and avert the Consequences of his criminal actions.
So understanding the Trump followers is Job One. And as I said, Fisher's Law is just a provocative opening salvo.
For me, Hoffer's 1951 "The True Believer" also has relevance here, and is next up for review.
I don't really disagree with any of this AW. "Unintelligent and susceptible to false promises" would characterize a subset of any political following, even if that subset is lucky enough to latch onto a movement or leader whose promises are actually not generally false.
If you want to change people's minds you have to meet them where they are and be ready to show, if the occasion arises, that you're willing to change your mind if they make valid points. It doesn't mean you'll change their minds, but if you don't take that attitude it does mean that you won't.
One thing Trumpers know far better than people like me is how insufferable liberals and progressives can be. It's worth learning from them, because if we could address that it would provide a lot of leverage.
Jan-6 was an insurrection. Men can get pregnant. We will ban fossil fuels over climate crisis cult, cause massive inflation and claim a carring motive, we will keep the US involved in expensive and bloody foreign wars, we will claim support for the constitution while shredding first amendment and second amendment rights, we will threaten to pack the court, we will spend like drunken sailors adding massive national debt which also causes inflation "transitory", we will export working class economic opportunity to other countries like communist China, we flood the country with millions of illegal immigrants, we defund police and denigrate them as a scapegoat for decades of failed liberal policies in the black community, we are nearing 1 million homeless.
This is what "intelligent" gets us. I will take pragmatic wisdom over that any day. And the elite ruling class and over-educated class is not that.
Except that hardly any of those things have come to pass. Yes the US has debt is high, but attributing it to one President or party is irrelevant. The previous administration oversaw a massive debt increase due to tax cuts. You may like tax cuts but to say they don't contribute to debt is unrealistic. Yes, there is a lot of illegal immigration due to great poverty south of the border. But illegal immigration has existed under all administrations due to the fact that our agricultural industry depends on cheap labor as does our service industry. And illegal immigration is not new. It has existed under all administrations. Most likely governments are like oil tankards very useful and necessary to contain precious cargo, but difficult to change its structure and slow to move.
rritt, you've explained something very well here, that the unpleasant realities listed by Frank didn't start under Biden, and aren't Democrat problems, they're American problems - and none of the last four or five presidents have been able to solve them. In Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies" (1988) he describe 3 conditions that apply to our own times: (1) a "Runaway Train" of problems headed for catastrophe (inflation, homelessness, uncontrolled immigration, and is anyone even talking about climate change?) (2) "Dinosaur" governments and institutions (like the oil tankers you mentioned) that can't react or adapt to critical changes (what's being done about the existential global threat of climate change?) and (3) "House of Cards" where the collapse of any one critical infrastructure (banks? reliance on electronic communications?) could bring down the whole society.
These aren't Democrat or Republican problems, they're Global problems, but America is still one of the few major powers in the world (along with China and India) so what happens here matters everywhere - and my fear is that if Trump and Co regain the White House, then Tainter's trifecta of potential disasters becomes ever more likely.
So it's essential to understand what's driving Trumpism, and Fisher's Law is a simple starting point. More complex discussions have to follow. The goal is to show reasonable Trump supporters that for all the problems facing America, and for all the weaknesses and criticisms of the left, another Trump term could be disastrous for everyone.
hey Frank, I'm assuming you're being sarcastic here, which is a good response to my button-pushing post. So if you're saying that the so-called intelligence of the left brought us to this point of mass nuttiness, then you've got a point. I can see why people think the Left has totally screwed things up - and you make a very good case for why they shouldn't be allowed to continue in office. That's because you're seeing the picture clearly (through your own lens, of course). But I do believe that demagogues like Trump exploit people who aren't as bright as you with false promises. I'm working on a serious piece about Who Are The Trump Supporters, and for staters, I do believe that there is a very large camp of followers who are either not-too-bright and/or delusional in their acceptance of Trump's lies.
Your argument about the not-too-bright and/or delusional Left rings true as well. But that's work for another day; for now, I'm trying to understand the mass appeal and fealty to Trump - because mass movements like Trumpism depend on masses of people who abandon critical thinking (ie, are willing to become stupid). Next up is a review of Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951) which looks at the masses who fell for Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's Communism - mass movements that didn't end well, but had huge followings. And to me, the first factor is giving up critical thinking and joining the mob, and so Fisher's Law was a starting point in understand our current mass movement of Trumpism. (Also meant as a probe; my wife suggested I put it under the Humor tab). There are of course other factors, and I'll get to them next. But thanks for your post: gotta say, you are convincing and persuasive in pointing out the decline of America - but I don't know if all the blame can be laid on the Dems, or whether things will improve under Trumpism.
But the goal here is to understand the various factors that explain Trump's mass appeal - that's what I'm trying to understand.
“But the goal here is to understand the various factors that explain Trump's mass appeal - that's what I'm trying to understand.”
Oops. To continue: I think that part or all of the answer to your question is Trump and his loyalists are unwilling to and utterly terrified of introspection. Under NO circumstances can they look inside themselves for some truth because they believe to do so is “to open a can of worms” as one off the scale narcissist once put it to me.
And behind that locked vault is where the creative urge, deep respect and humility lie-- the very things that engage critical thinking.
yes, behind the locked vault are wonderful human gifts, but there are also some very nasty violent racist urges that Trump & company are literally celebrating and promoting; that's part of Fromm's analysis: people living unfulfilled lives are given someone to blame and someone to hate and permission to vent their resentments against the "vermin" who are "poisoning the blood" of America. Trump's theme is retribution; just the other day he said that if he loses any of his court cases there will be "bedlam and some very bad things will happen." Fascism is all about fear and intimidation and retribution. So, it's very hard to understand how "intelligent" people can't see through these psychopaths and how their message will only lead to violence.
About the threat of bedlam. I do not believe there will be bedlam and I’d like that bluff to be called and confidently, and soon. We must not wait.
That’s true about the violent, nasty racist urges in the locked vault as well. That’s the can of worms.
bottom line: I believe the key to their personalities is having been shamed as a very young child. I believe they suffered a very serious form of humiliation, and the rest of their life was spent manipulating and controlling their existence to avoid any possible repeat of that humiliation which was, in fact, worse than death could ever be.
An observation: Many of the people who follow Trump are alienated people who don’t socialize and make a lot of friends as a rule, so when Trump came along they found a family, a large, supportive extended family — a place where they could be themselves and be applauded for it. From that point on it was Trump who told them who to blame and where to direct their anger. For some this was the first acceptance they had ever known. For all these reasons I believe that only a few will be open enough to be responsive. You would first have to find a way to make them feel more wonderful than Trump and his followers do.
Intelligence has almost nothing to do with it. Except the intelligent are more likely to use logic.
No, the blame is on the US political establishment as dominated by the managerial and ruling class. These are generally Ivy League over educated children of the upper class. I know them all well as I live among them. Today the Democrat party is their political home.
Again, I will take life wisdom and pragmatism any day over the insane and destructive ideas of the intelligentsia. Sure a bit of conspiracy theories... many that are proven correct later after having been denigrated by the more educated.
Speaking as a generalization which I don’t like to do for groups of people but...
I’m with you on the over-educated Ivy League, lace hanky sniffers. Not an ounce of sense or understanding of life on the ground floor. Their abilities are so limited. I’ve lived among them too. It’s a game of oneupmanship with them.
They have no grasp of the thread of being and believe the truth is whatever they want it to be.
Aren't Steve Bannon, Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis and a whole wagon load of other Republicans also "Ivy League over-educated children of he upper class"?
I can't believe it when these guys go after the "high education elites"! These guys ARE the same elites they're bashing.
Yes they are. They are Republican establishment hacks.
Good, we agree on that.
But these guys also have big influence, working behind the scenes as well as out front. So who, on the inside, can be trusted to work for the American people? Who ISN'T a Republican establishment hack?
Tump and Vivek. Maybe both hacks but both anti-establishment. Bernie was but they bought him off. Kennedy has some anti establishment perspectives. The establishment brands these men as kooks because they don’t toe the standard establishment line… and the voting sheeple are easily influenced on that while the establishment keeps looting the country to an empty shell.
"Jan 6 was an insurrection." It's an awkward term for a local event, but I remember a video from Ashley Babbitt's phone where she was marching to the Capitol and said she was with "a million" others. I think the rioters believed they were leading a mass movement capable of overthrowing what they believed was an illegitimate Congress. So, yes, it was an insurrection. If they'd been able to get to Pence and Pelosi perhaps no one would argue about the term.
"Men can get pregnant." Easy to ridicule, but everyone knows what it means. I'm on Frank's side here, but we can still treat trans people with fairness.
There is no "climate crisis cult," just a disagreement over science and policy, long-term and short. Calling climate concern a "cult" is as stupid as calling Trumpists "below average."
"Massive inflation." Frank, you're younger than I thought. I was an adult in America during the early 1980s--you should have been there! Biden's over-generous Covid bill almost surely added 2-3 points to the inflation that end-of-Covid rising demand and supply disruptions caused worldwide. A policy mistake to that degree. If that's disqualifying to you, so be it.
"Shredding 1st/2nd Amendment rights." The government has made no law restricting free speech. People no longer seem to understand what the First Amendment means. As for the Second, its scope has been massively (appropriate term here) broadened by the Supreme Court as the fruit of a brilliantly organized political movement. Let's not pretend this situation was actually related to original intent.
Yeah, they threatened to pack the court. Politically stupid. Biden shut it down. (Boo Biden!! . . .?)
Don't actually know any drunken sailors. Rise in national debt, end of FY 2017-2021 (Trump years): $8.18 trillion; end of FY 2021-2023 (first two Biden years): $4.74 trillion. Yeah, Biden's got a slight edge at that rate. Is that what a drunken sailor's like?
Export jobs to China? We've been reshoring them under Biden--not sure where this comes from. "We flood the country . . ." Really? "We" did this? That's like saying "Switzerland's government flooded the country with Jewish refugees during WWII." And, by the way, outside of Portland, briefly, no city actually defunded the police. (What a stupid slogan that was!! In a class with "Men can get pregnant.") In case you missed it, Frank, Biden raised Federal support for police budgets and called for states and cities to do the same.
And there are a LOT of these people out there, which is why I am so worried about the upcoming election.
Thanks Abe. Food for thought.