When all is said and done, after examining the root problem as “evil” or “narcissism” or “shameless self-interest” or “Christian nationalism” or some other very accurate explanation, isn’t the simple truth that they’re dumb as rocks?
Give you a trivial example: the other day, Speaker Mike Johnson referred to something or other as “gilded gold.” The similarity of the two words would be a sharp clue to the speaker, you’d suppose, that maybe he’s being redundant (and that “gilded gold” is maybe not a thing) but no. And I understand that everyone makes verbal slipups from time to time-- even well-educated linguists will commit a faux pas now and then when speaking off the cuff, but this is more than “now and then” or “from time to time,” much more. It’s more like “all the time”—Trumpers seem spectacularly inept at managing the niceties of the English language, which I take for a sign of intelligence in general. even those Trumpers like Johnson who’ve been speaking publicly for decades. They’re just not that smart.
And sure, some of it might be deliberately put on—I have a hard time believing that Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana isn’t blanking on everything he learned about intelligent discourse while studying at Oxford and that he isn’t affecting a Colonel Cornpone accent and sensibility. And of course non-Trumpers commit all sorts of verbal atrocities every hour of every day. But in general, the ability to express oneself articulately and with occasional eloquence is a reliable sign of intelligence which Trumpers seem almost to a person to lack entirely.
I need nothing more than to hear Trump himself talking for three minutes to come away convinced, whatever the content, that I’ve taken smarter dumps than him. His political success has convinced Americans that it’s okay to be dummies—more than okay, they feel they should proudly show off their lack of understanding, and should revile those capable of expressing their thoughts precisely and well.
So are we overthinking the problem here in attributing it to other root causes like ideology or psychological disorders? The thoughtful serious people have, after 250 years, been thrown out of power by the unruly dummies, and the unruly dummies are PISSED!
People I work with have college degrees including master’s degrees and are in the heart of middle class. They are intelligent and most of their views are well thought out. Yet they supported Trump. The bizarre part is that will ignoring all of Trump’s issues, they focused on what they felt were Harris’ fault that in all honesty were minor at best. And they never took into account that while Trump had been campaigning for four years Harris was a last second replacement; so while Trump’s entire set of policies were
Deport the browns
Implement Christian Sharia law
Anything anti-Muslim
They decried that Harris had no policy positions to her campaign. When I told people that I have heard Harris speaking live twice and as expected from a practicing lawyer her prepared speeches were really good, I was told that I was wrong because they saw 10 second sound bites from Fox. So why the deliberate blindness? It’s the economy. Like Bush 1 found out, the number one concern of Americans is their pocket book. So when Trump talks about how he has a plan to end inflation and Harris didn’t (except she did), people voted for the person they wanted to be correct.
That’s not my point. They can be explained by other processes I mentioned, such as ideology or psychological disorders (or in your example hardcore economic philosophies) but I’m saying that without the dummies, such voters would be nowhere. Instead of Making America Great, Trump has appealed successfully to Make America Dumb, which all previous candidates for President have disdained to do. He campaigned on Not Only Is It OK to be Stupid, Now It’s Gonna Be Mandatory. (And for those of you who don’t understand what “mandatory” means, that’s the correct position!)
Where was he born? Where was he raised? Exactly how many years did he spend at Oxford? I honesty don’t know these answers.
I do know that when I was working at a company selling medical sensors and software, I had a fascinating chat with a neuroscientist. He was clearly briliant. He was able to explain his work in a way I could understand. His Canadian accent was so thick that Wolverine was refined and upper class in comparison.
Dishonesty and hatefulness are common traits, plus spiteful and selfish. Can’t decide if they are naturally cruel or simply don’t realize how cruel they are.
Sure, it’s the real thing. It’s more the dumb content I’m pointing out. He just plays up the rural hick accent for popular appeal–it’s just window dressing.
No it’s mostly a mix of peer pressure, fear of learning that they were complicit in harming the country, and (because of those two) being careful to avoid any information that isn’t highly edited to protect them from concern.
I’m going to risk going afoul of the ethos – if not the rules – of the board:
How did ChatGPT answer the question, 'What characteristics make a person vulnerable to demagoguery?'
Demagoguery refers to the use of emotional appeal, manipulation, and rhetoric to gain power or influence, often by exploiting fears, prejudices, and divisions within society. Some individuals may be more vulnerable to the influence of demagogues, who often use divisive language and promises to manipulate public opinion. Several factors contribute to making someone more susceptible to demagoguery:
1. Emotional Instability or Vulnerability
High stress or anxiety: People experiencing significant stress, fear, or anxiety (e.g., due to economic hardship, political instability, or personal challenges) may be more susceptible to demagogic appeals that promise simple solutions or scapegoats for their problems.
Emotional appeal: Demagogues often tap into strong emotions (fear, anger, frustration, or a sense of injustice) to sway people’s opinions. If someone is emotionally charged or struggling with uncertainty, they might be more likely to follow leaders who seem to offer certainty and relief.
2. Lack of Critical Thinking Skills
Limited education or media literacy: People who have difficulty analyzing information critically or discerning credible sources are more likely to be swayed by misleading rhetoric. A lack of education or the inability to evaluate arguments based on evidence can make a person more vulnerable to demagogic rhetoric.
Trust in oversimplified narratives: Demagogues often provide simplistic explanations for complex issues, offering easy answers in exchange for loyalty. If individuals don’t have the tools to critically engage with these explanations, they may find them appealing.
3. Group Identity and Social Influence
In-group vs. out-group dynamics: Demagogues often use us vs. them rhetoric, appealing to people’s loyalty to a specific group (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, or religion) and exploiting tribalism. If individuals strongly identify with a particular group, they may be more susceptible to messages that play on their group’s fears or grievances.
Peer influence: People are often influenced by those around them. If someone is in a social circle or community where demagogic rhetoric is popular, they may be more likely to adopt similar beliefs, even without critically examining them. Echo chambers on social media can also reinforce these tendencies.
4. Perceived Loss of Control or Power
Feeling marginalized or powerless: When people feel that they have lost control over their lives or are disenfranchised, they may seek strong leaders who promise to restore their status, provide solutions, or take drastic action. Demagogues often prey on this sense of disillusionment and offer a sense of empowerment, even if that empowerment comes at the expense of others.
Economic insecurity: Economic hardship, job loss, or fear of social decline can make people more receptive to the idea of someone promising to fix the economy or restore their previous way of life, even if the solutions offered are extreme or unrealistic.
5. Lack of Exposure to Diverse Viewpoints
Echo chambers and social isolation: People who primarily expose themselves to information sources that confirm their existing beliefs (whether through social media, TV, or community) are less likely to encounter alternative perspectives. This lack of exposure to diversity can make individuals more prone to accepting the narrative of a demagogue, especially if that narrative aligns with their biases or emotions.
Social isolation: People who feel disconnected from a broader community or who are socially isolated may be more likely to latch onto a charismatic figure who offers a sense of belonging or purpose.
6. Cognitive Biases
Confirmation bias: People tend to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Demagogues exploit this bias by providing rhetoric that reinforces existing prejudices or fears, making their message seem more valid.
Availability bias: When people hear emotional or dramatic stories about threats or dangers, they may overestimate their likelihood or severity. Demagogues often amplify fear by highlighting isolated incidents, making it easier for individuals to believe in exaggerated threats.
Groupthink: When an individual is surrounded by others who think alike, they may be less likely to question the group’s beliefs or rhetoric. This can create a snowball effect where a demagogic figure gains more support through group conformity.
7. Desire for Simplicity or Certainty
Need for cognitive closure: Some people have a higher need for certainty and closure, which means they are uncomfortable with ambiguity or complexity. Demagogues often provide clear-cut solutions to complex problems, making it appealing to those who prefer simple answers rather than engaging with more nuanced, multifaceted issues.
Frustration with complexity: In times of rapid social, political, or technological change, people may become overwhelmed by the complexity of modern life. Demagogues exploit this by offering direct, oversimplified solutions that seem easier to understand and more within reach.
8. Charismatic or Persuasive Leaders
Charisma: Demagogues are often charismatic individuals who have the ability to charm, persuade, and influence others. They can be seen as strong, decisive leaders who seem to “get things done,” which makes them appealing, especially to those who feel disillusioned or insecure.
Rhetorical skills: Demagogues are often skilled orators who know how to speak to people’s emotions and manipulate their beliefs using rhetoric, repetition, and appeals to fear, anger, or nationalism.
Conclusion:
People who are more vulnerable to demagoguery often share certain characteristics, such as emotional instability, cognitive biases, a lack of critical thinking, and a sense of social or economic insecurity. Demagogues exploit these vulnerabilities by appealing to emotions, offering simplistic solutions, and leveraging group dynamics. Education, exposure to diverse perspectives, and strengthening critical thinking skills are some of the best ways to guard against falling prey to demagogic influence.
I don’t know that pushing reductivity to its limits offers much value here. People can be complicated. Even the analysis of simple people can be complicated.
My brother has a bona fide genius IQ. He’s also a MAGA. The ‘why’ doesn’t lend itself readily to a short answer.
What I’m suggesting is that it IS a significant lack of raw intelligence, as best as they might be accurately measured. It’s a lot of other things, too, as others have pointed out, but I wonder what the difference really is. I used to think it was negligible, but not any more.
Assume IQ is a valid measure (and let’s not into the ways IQ tests suck, please–it’s just a hypothetical for illustration’s sake.) If 100 is the average, I’ll suggest (for starters) that MAGAs will be come in under three digits and Harris supporters at over three digits. And of course, I’ve heard Harris voters who couldn’t fight their way through a compound-complex sentence, and Trump voters who could sing the birds out of the trees–that’s not the point. The point is , we used to have a more or less equal distribution of the dummies in both parties. Now they’re overwhelmingly MAGA.
I think there were far more people dissatisfied with the state of things than we realized. When enough people are so deeply dissatisfied you tend to see extremism come to the forefront. I think that explains Trump more that stupidity.
Of course not. This entire thread is based on my perception that all the stupid people have joined up with MAGA, which is a change for me.
And I’m sorry I brought up Kennedy’s accent, which was an afterthought and essentially irrelevant. It’s not the rural accent that’s a sign of stupidity, it’s his affecting and playing it up that is an appeal to stupidity. It’s pretending he doesn’t understand what an intelligent person is testifying to that is designed to win the votes of people who think “Yeah, I don’t understand either what that fancy-pants professor is trying to double-talk his way out of,” when it’s fairly simple, and very clear, discourse that some poor scientist is trying to engage Kennedy in in his testimony.
And I won’t. You may of course draw any conclusion you want to draw.
But I don’t need evidence to speculate about a possible answer to an open question. I’m not even sure if intelligence can be quantified (though we do it every day) and if it can how it correlates with articulate expression and eloquence (though I certainly behave as if they are very closely related), but if both of those assumptions are correct, as I believe (without any handy evidence to support them), then the problem is that we are dealing with people who think of their essential stupidity as a virtue, not a problem.
The only conclusion I can draw is that you are unwilling or unable to provide evidence.
No, you don’t. But, especially on the SDMB, you do need evidence if you want anybody to take your speculation seriously.
You said it yourself.
Even if we believed both of your unproven assumptions to be correct, they do not support your conclusion. Those assumptions do not prove that Trump supporters know they are stupid, or that they “think of their essential stupidity as a virtue”.