Come for the id, stay for the superego.
The rational thing to do is acknowledge how irrational we all are.
There’s been a growing body of research in recent years that shows the way humans make decisions is far more complex than we used to think. Our physical and emotional states play a larger role than we you used to believe. Even our gut microbiome can play a role. It may actually be that emotions play the dominant role in our decision making. I use to be some what resistant to this theory. I like the idea that people will typically, all things being equal, make rational decisions. I’m not delusional, I’ve never thought everyone is rational all the time, but I believed, on the average, people were rational. That if you broke it down by percentage the emotional/logical ratio would show logic, at the bare minimum, at 51 percent. I know longer think that way.
If I were to put a number to on it now, we'd be lucky to hit 30 percent rationality. There’s a theory that all decisions are controlled by emotion/instinct and intellect exists only to justify decisions already made. I don’t think it’s quite that extreme, but it may be close. Obviously, people are individuals and everyone will have their own unique split of emotion/logic. The last few years have really opened my eyes to how very emotional the average person’s decisions are. Often decisions that would seem best left to intellect are the ones made most emotionally. Of course what TV show you like, or what kind of music you listen to is going to be a mostly emotional decision. Who you support for political office, or what Covid precautions to take are decisions probably best left to logic.
I think it’s important that we acknowledge how emotional our decision making process is. Logical arguments aren’t a very effective means of persuasion. Our emotional need for validation drives us to parrot ideas just to stay in good standing with our in-group. That’s frustrating on some level, but it makes sense. We evolved as social animals. It’s one of our most potent evolutionary advantages. Our survival as hunter-gatherers relied on group cohesion. There were, and still are, plenty of situations when going along with the group trumps making the most rational decision. If it risks social rebuke from our in-group, we’re going to naturally be very cautious about sharing new or uncertain ideas, to say nothing of ideas that just plain run counter to the group consensus.
We’re no longer living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. With the advent of modern technology, one would have hoped for a change in the impulses that dominated our lives back then. Unfortunately, our technological advancement has far outpaced evolution, so we are left with vestigial impulses and instincts for solving modern problems. Our current environment often rewards selfishness and brashness, where hunter-gatherer leaders are especially humble and quick to put others first. Confidence is important, but arrogance quickly checked. In such societies, authoritarian actions can lead to swift censure, ostracism, or even execution. Without that dynamic, leaders are able to use our emotions against us and play to our worst instincts. I think accepting that we are not the rational actors we think we are will enable us to communicate better what really matters us. Allowing us to understand ourselves better in the process.
If you feel disrespected by someone, the chances you’re going to listen to a rational argument they make is almost zero. I don’t know how many people actually acknowledge that about themselves. I know for a long time I didn’t really appreciate it about myself. I thought I could zero in on the rational and logical aspects of an argument and ignore the arguer. Not that I thought I was special, I just, like I eluded to earlier, tended to think most people, including myself, we’re usually rational. At least when it came to important things like politics. I now think the best way to persuade is to know someone as a person first. Making a rational argument to some rando on the internet is never going to change any opinion. It’s fantasy to think it will. Explaining your position to a person you know, that can have an effect. If nothing else it can expand your in-group. That was kind of the utopian ideal behind a lot of our current communication technology anyway.
The key to having a happy and fulfilled life has never consisted solely of rationality and logic. Maybe it’s time to quit fighting that fact when it comes to politics and start valuing what actually drives voters to vote for a candidate. Insist on leaders who demonstrate empathy and understanding. That doesn’t mean weak or unwilling to stand up for what they believe in. It means politicians who understand the other “sides” voters are people too. We as voters would do well to remember that also. We need to find that shared humanity and focus on those similarities. We should quit telling our political opponents why they are “wrong” and instead tell them why our views seem so right to us. Not why they are right for someone else, but why you feel and think the way you do. Reciprocate and listen to them, you may find that you share more then you expect. We need to insist the same of our leaders as well. The rational thing to do is acknowledge how irrational we all are and find a way to move forward together.