Why Do People Choose the Way They Do?

Remove all ads!

There have already been a few threads started on the debates and their effects. I'm taking a more philosophical approach with this thread. I'm asking if a debate is really enough to change people's minds in the upcoming presidential election, and to examine why people vote the way they do.

I'll give a personal example here to sum up my feelings. My wife's best friend - who voted for Bush 4 years ago - said after the debate that while she thought that Kerry clearly won the debate, she will still be voting for Bush, because she feels that Bush will be the better president. She was unable to articulate why she felt that way, but basically her view is, "Bush is the better choice because I think he's the better choice."

It should further be noted that this woman is not the typical Bush supporter. She is 28 years old, married, and gave birth to her first child 11 months ago. She grew up in Maryland - historically a liberal state - was rather poor in childhood, but managed to beceome college educated and is now a typical middle-class American. She isn't one of those "get tough on terrorism" people, nor does she drive around in a pickup truck (they don't even own one), and she is opposed to deforestation programs and drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife areas. Given all this, you think this would be the perfect person who could be swayed onto Kerry's side in the upcoming election, and yet she's still sticking with Bush.

This leads me to two conclusions/observations:

1. People are extremely unlikely to change their opinions, even if the facts clearly indicate that their initial opinions of someone or something were misguided. Perhaps it stems from subliminally (or perhaps even actively) admitting that you are wrong - no one likes to do that.

2. People pick their presidential canidate if they can see something in the canidate that they also see in themselves.

Which brings me back to a major difference I see in the two canidates, although it is one that doesn't get nearly as much attention. For lack of better terminology, Bush makes his decisions based on a "gut feeling". That is to say, that he relies heavily on intuition to make his decisions. Obviously ruling in such a way is good only if your "gut feelings" are right nearly every time. Because of this, I think people who rely on intuition and "gut feelings" are more likely to vote for Bush. Conversely, Kerry seems to take a much more analytical approach to decision making. He takes in all the facts, and comes to a concensus opinion before taking action. As a result, I think that people who are more analytical by nature are more likely to vote for Kerry.

A side effect of this is that people who use "gut feelings" to make their decisions are less likely to change, or admit that they are wrong. An analytical person has a safety net in place - namely that the facts changed since they last analyzed them, and upon analyzing them again they may come to a different decision. On the other hand, a "gut feeling" person must have a fall guy on hand if things don't work out the way they thought they would.

And here's the thing - neither approach is clearly right or clearly wrong. In some instances, an intuitive approach may be better than an analytical one, and at other times, the analytical choice is clearly better. Kerry's measured approach costs you time - something that you may not always have, and would handicap him in a time that required swift action. Someone who goes with his "gut feeling" is not inhibited by this and can act quickly - however then you have to hope that the "gut feeling" is correct.

So what are people's thoughts on this? Is there anything short of a certified authentic, non-doctored up picture of Osama having a beer with either Kerry or Bush that is going to change your opinion in the upcoming election? Other than perhaps the swing voters and/or undecided voters do the debates serve any purpose in helping the country make a choice? And what do you think about this analytical versus intuitive theory?

 

I can tell you how it works for me. I have a well-attuned BS detector, so PR tricks don't really work for me. Thank you very much, I'm not going to fall for stuff I use myself. It doesn't count so much to me who has one it, but more like who had better arguments or, simply, who were the honest guy. Arguments are tricky. When they teach you rhetorics, they give you tasks like proving dogs are birds. After such training, thinking of a couple of nice-sounding "facts" to support your claims isn't really that hard.

What I don't like is dodging questions and changing the subject. What I hate is inconsistency and being in denial. I am an old-fashioned guy and I believe that sitting on the fence does bad things to one's vital parts. I don't like guys who vote against their own earlier decisions. Note: I appreciate the courage it takes to admit having been mistaken, I just don't like it when politicians try to be on both sides of one argument. How is someone who tells me stories to get my vote going to vote the way I'd like him to vote? Sorry, I'm not going to help vote someone in just so he could finally become the president, an MP, a mayor, whatever. In many cases this means I don't vote at all. And I don't just go make an invalid vote. It would still count against the quorum, which means it would contribute passively to validity of the choice that is made, whatever the choice is.

While I try not to judge, I make some analysis and I rely on my intuition for finding material to analyse. While I won't vote for someone just because my intuition says so, I don't really believe my logical reasoning to be infallible, so I guess the outcome is a mix of both analysis and intuition.

And I would never vote for a commie, no matter what. I consider them inherently untrustworthy and if I see I like something in their program, I give my particular views a careful review. There's also no voting for anyone in favour of abortion, homosexual marriage or euthanasia. Doesn't mean the opposing party or candidate automatically gets my vote, though.

 

Boy chev, it's good that you don't live in the U.S. You'd have a heck of a time picking a canidate given that:

Then you could not possibly vote for Bush.

Inconsistency: Can't possibly vote for Kerry.
Being in Denial: Can't possibly vote for Bush.

Can't possibly vote for Kerry.

Can't possibly vote for Bush.

Can't possibly vote for Kerry.

It appears that you wouldn't vote in the U.S. either. Of course, I still haven't touched upon birth control, abortion, same sex marriages, euthenasia, and anything else you may be morally opposed to that may actually trump everything else you said, which would only further indicate you couldn't possibly vote for Kerry.

 

I bet most people just vote according to the person they 'feel' would be the best person. Hence charisma is easily the most important quality required in a president. That may or may not be a good thing but that's how it is, especially in this TV dominated world.

 

I'm pretty much the same as Chev with my voting yet if I am indecisive I'll vote for the ruling party. If I can't foresee a better alternative to the current leader, I won't attempt to bring a new one in.

 

This reminds me of my grandparents. My grandmother always votes Democrat for better social security programs, while my Grandfather always votes Republican for lower taxes. They have been arguing about it since before I was born, and neither really care about the others concerns for the poor or the economy repectivly.

But basically I think that neither of them wants to admit that they are wrong.

But I think i have convinced my Grandfather to send a letter of protest to the RNC and vote libertarian(spelling?).

Maybe I should go into politics

 

I think it is very hard to change peoples opinion if the people in question really have any strong opinions. Most people dont. The only thing I think can change a person's views is for that person to change himself by education and/or experience.

When it comes to US politics it seems to me that Bush do have a few more gut and feeling supporters. He gets the evangelical vote simply because they view him as one of them, he could eat babies on live TV and they would still vote for him.

 

Oh, don't even get me started about how he talks to God - and those are his own words, not mine. God told him to attack Iraq evidently.