Think About How You Think and Vote

This blog post is written on September 29, 2020, a few hours before the first Trump-Biden televised debate.  Private and public speculation has been frenzied and frantic.  Some have suggested or implied that the fate of America, even of the planet, will be determined by the presidential election—“the most important election in our history.”  Democrat and Republican partisans are employing every influence trick to nudge, scare, or bludgeon you to vote their way.

I am not in that business.  Rather, I have a modest suggestion that is easier said than done: think, really think, for yourself.  Since neither you nor I have the time or expertise to parse every essential detail required to make the best voting decision, I limit myself to briefly discussing two related topics.

First, let’s consider an often mentioned but rarely practiced mental activity – mindfulness.  Our simple working definition is mindfulness as your being aware of what is happening to you internally and externally.  For instance, when you see a Biden or Trump advertisement do you reflexively nod or shake your head, smile or snarl?   If your response precedes any point that the advertisement proffers, you are not being mindful.  Of course, you can justify your affirming or negating reflex by indicating – correctly – that the ad is meant to get your vote independent of its truth value.  You can justify that instinctive, mindless agreement or disagreement with any bit of information about Trump or Biden, regardless of its source or validity.  As you may have experienced, many family or friend feuds have their origins in the affirming or negating reflex that makes any political discussion useless and/or contentious.

Why the absence of rationality?  Chang, J., Kuo, C., Huang, C. et al. (2018) approach the issue indirectly by considering both reactive and proactive cognitive control mechanisms.  The former refers to thought that is “top-down” in the sense that our preexisting thoughts overwhelm our interpretation of present information such that they stifle the incoming information.  The latter is the opposite – bottom-up - in the sense that incoming information is processed before preexisting thoughts significantly impact it.   The study in question found that high mindfulness individuals were able to evidence adaptive reactive and proactive cognitive control whereas low mindfulness ones relied excessively on proactive control. 

This finding leads us to a second often-mentioned concept – confirmation bias.  As you probably know, confirmation bias causes us preferentially to seek information that reinforces our current beliefs and to avoid information that contradicts them.  That is, confirmation bias is exclusively top-down/proactive.

Mindfulness, then, is most often an advantage in virtually all mentation.  Do you tend toward mindfulness?  Psychologists would like to be able to differentiate those who do from those who do not.  Toward that end, Altizer, Ferrell, and Natale (2020) investigated mindfulness and personality types.  They concluded that mindfulness was more prominent in “well-adjusted” persons, since they are inclined to cope adequately with stress.  Similarly, mindfulness tended to be higher in ambitious persons, but only those whose ambition included a high level of positive human relationships.  The Altizer group proposed that mindfulness was less present in overly cautious, defensive, and excitable persons.

What does all this say regarding the Biden-Trump election?  The obvious conclusions are that we would do well to be as mindfully open-minded as possible, and by refraining insofar as possible from confirmation bias.  You can facilitate those processes by:

1.  Taking a deep, stress-reducing breath when confronted with election ads and other influencers, animate or inanimate.

2.  Considering how your election attitudes are affecting your personal well-being and your interpersonal relationships.

3.  And by trying to reduce your defensiveness.

A final point about which I never have seen research, but that deserves it: selective mindfulness.  By that I mean being attentive and rational about one feature of reality and not about another closely related feature.  Applying the idea to the election, that would concern being mindful about a democrat or republican, but not about the opposite-party candidate.  Please think about whether selective mindlessness applies to you, and about how it could influence how you decide to vote.

References

Altizer, C. C., Ferrell, B. T., & Natale, A. N. (2020). Mindfulness and personality: More natural for some than others and how it matters. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. Advance online publication.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000189

 Chang, J., Kuo, C., Huang, C. et al.   The Flexible Effect of Mindfulness on Cognitive Control.  Mindfulness 9, 792–800 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0816-9

Obfuscate, Inundate, Intimidate

 Only one issue poses a greater threat to American democracy than racial discord.  Only one issue poses a greater threat to the well-being of every American than does racial discord.

No.  The issue is not politics, per se.  Blame does not lie exclusively with Democrats or Republicans.  The best way, I believe, for me to describe the threat is with a current example.  You can judge its relevance and meaning for yourself.

Our example includes two protagonists.  Wikipedia introduces them as follows:

Donna Lease Brazile (born December 15, 1959) is an American political strategist, campaign manager and political analyst who served twice as acting Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). She is currently a Fox News contributor, and was previously a CNN contributor until her resignation in October 2016, after leaking CNN's debate questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in the 2016 United States presidential election.

 

Tammy K. Bruce (born August 20, 1962) is a conservative American radio host, author, and political commentator. Earlier she had been president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women. She is currently an on-air contributor to Fox News Channel and host of Get Tammy Bruce on Fox Nation.

 

I believe we safely can conclude that both ladies are accomplished, intelligent, educated, high-profile, and imbued with clout.  Unfortunately, they exemplify the threat of most concern to me.  Listen to their discourse (and I use the term loosely) that followed the Republican National Convention, and you will know why.

On the first night of the 2020 Republican National Convention, Fox and Friends television host, Brian Kilmeade, interviewed Donna Brazile and Tammy Bruce together.  To really appreciate the “gory details” you should view the video.  There is no way that I can provide more than a glimpse of the bloodbath. 

Ms. Bruce began one segment with a defense of President Trump.  Among other things, she said that he has sacrificed “… everything as has his family to change this nation and get her back on her feet so we as Americans can live lives that best suit us.”  Bruce lamented that “no Democrat has spoken out” about the violent demonstrations that ravaged United States cities.

Ms. Brazile countered “… sounds like I will never be an American in your world.  Because after 400 years, my family cannot walk out of the house without fearing violence.”

Ms. Bruce defended her comment, replying “No one is saying that!” To which Brazile countered, “Yes, you are.  What you do is ignore the pains of people who are hurting, you ignore the pains of people who just want to breathe.”  When Bruce again tried to clarify, Brazile interrupted, remarking “Don’t be so condescending and patronizing! To tell me that I cannot tell my story. Tammy, the story of people who are struggling to live and breathe are just as important as the story of one man.”

Exasperated, Bruce asserted, “She doesn’t want to answer” to which the incensed Brazile replied, “It’s offensive when you say that.”

Attempting to get an answer out of Ms Bruce, Kilmeade asked her: “Did you ignore 400 years?” but Ms Brazile instead quickly interjected “Yes, she did!” and added “She’s ignoring it because they don’t see it.”  Brazile then continued, “Tammy, I see it every day. Brian, you got me up this morning to have me listen to this diatribe from someone who does not live my existence and does not recognize my existence. You do not recognize my existence, Tammy.”  Bruce defended herself with “And you haven’t recognized mine or anyone else’s.  We’re all at the same table as Americans.”

 This example involves highly political characters.  But, as noted from the start, the issue is infinitely more important than politics.  The issue, of course, is communication, in general, and problem solving communication, in particular.  The principal characters in the drama could not be more capable of civil discourse.  In theory, at least, they are communication experts who eminently should be able to employ discourse to resolve disagreement.  Their use of language unequivocally reveals discourse as a weapon.  The strategy truly is to obfuscate, inundate, and intimidate—in this case, with Donna Brazile being the major obfuscator, inundator, and intimidator.  I remind you that you need to see the video to appreciate that.  You also might be interested to read what Brazile said on March 18, 2019 entitled, “Donna Brazile: Why I am excited to join Fox News and take part in a civil - and sensible – debate.”

The truth is that I don’t care who you believe is the major or minor perpetrator in the aforementioned mixed martial arts contest.  My concern is that the combatants were professional communicators and women.  You might jump on me (as in mixed martial arts) for the latter, but do a reality check and you will find incontrovertible proof that women USUALLY are more civil and more anger-restrained than men.  If professional communicator women cannot engage in rational verbal problem solving, what is the chance for androgen-infused, alpha male (or aspiring alpha males) to do so?

Let me be clear: women are not responsible for men. Females are responsible for their own civility and verbal problem solving, and so are males. Whenever someone on "our side" of either sex uses obfuscation, inundation, or intimidation  to win a point, I hope we can refrain from encouraging them.  Instead, we need to promote honest, rational problem solving that offers a chance to reach consensus that improves the well-being of all Americans.  

       

References:

Donna Brazile battles Fox pundit Tammy Bruce: 'You do not recognize my existence    August 25, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZbrlR5VkrU

Donna Brazile on joining Fox News as a contributor  

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/donna-brazile-why-i-am-excited-to-join-fox-news-and-take-part-in-a-civil-and-sensible-debate

Tear Down the Statue of Liberty ?

So-called American "progressive" politicians and intelligentsia often use a light metaphor to encourage everyone to see what they want them to see.  They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that we need to shine a bright light to illuminate whatever they define as true.  Many of the same progressives praise or ignore when Ivy League students turn out the lights on those who attempt to introduce ideas that they oppose.  For instance, they closed down Condoleezza Rice's 2014 Rutgers University commencement speech and the 2017 "Stand Against Fascism" speech of University of Oregon President Michael Schill.

Since elite Americans are in a mood to "enlighten" the populous by encouraging young people to tear down statues, maybe they should turn on Lady Liberty on which is inscribed, "I lift my lamp beside the golden door". After all, Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, the French sculptor who created it reportedly had "...cultivated friends and clients among republican activists, monarchical nostalgics, and the powerful Napoleonic elites of the Second Empire" (nps.gov, 2020).  And, as all intelligentsia should know, "The Second French Empire (French: Second Empire), officially the French Empire (French: Empire français), was the Imperial Bonapartist regime of Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870, between the Second Republic and the Third Republic, in France. Historians in the 1930s and 1940s often disparaged the Second Empire as a precursor of FASCISM"  (Wikipedia 2020). Reasoning as the iconoclastic mob does, one could argue that the presence of the Statue of Liberty inadvertently “elevates” its fascist creator, and, therefore, Lady Liberty should be torn down.

But no present day leader would try to dim the lights of knowledge. Wouldn't they support truth tellers, such as those who write for the widely respected New York Times (NYT) that publishes "All the News That's Fit to Print"?  The NYT is so open to diverse ideas that they specifically hired a journalist, Bari Weiss, who said that she was chosen "with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home." (Weiss, 2020).   But because Bari just couldn't keep her unpopular opinions to herself, she soon suffered such unrelenting harassment there that she felt compelled to quit her job.

In her resignation letter to the Times, she explained,

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

So, Bari Weiss apparently was felt to be too harsh toward some NYT party-line topics.  She was too defiant for the New York Times who wanted her to shut up and write what they believe is "all the news fit to print."

The Times is just one example of an American elitist, progressive group that controls the reins of power.  They decide which statues to erect and which to tear down.  They determine where to shine the light and where to snuff it out.  These are the very people who rail against Fascist book burning, Soviet history revisionism, and Chinese communists' tendencies to crush all dissent.  They are quick to condemn anyone who opposes them, but support mobs who do their bidding by tearing down our statues, burning our cities, and attacking law enforcers in the process.  Of course, American "progressive" politicians and intelligentsia don't have to worry about anarchy, since they live in guarded enclaves far from the maddening crowd.  It is okay with progressives when inner-city citizens daily suffer urban riots and chaos, as long as that helps progressives win elections and promote their agendas.

References

Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi
https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/frederic-auguste-bartholdi.htm

Second French Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire

Weiss, B. (2020) Resignation letter to the New York Times.  https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Does Society Value You As Much As It Does An Athlete?

Everyone has the right to voice their opinions about virtually anything.  Not everyone has the opportunity to voice their opinions on a platform that guarantees a worldwide audience.  Everyone has the right to make a living.  Not everyone has an opportunity to make a living that is about 127 times the salary of the average citizen.

_{Can anyone justify someone being guaranteed a worldwide audience whenever they want to comment about virtually anything?  Can anyone justify someone making 127 times the national salary?  If you are a “world-class” athlete, the answers are “yes” and “yes.”  And the world-class athletes can do so because you and I enable them to.  We listen to world-class athletes spout off about anything as long as they do so with passion.  We pay big bucks to watch them in stadia, or on pay-for-view television.  Our complicity emboldens them to believe that their athletic prowess makes them capable of knowing what is right, wrong, and what “ordinary people” should believe.} 

_{An article by Jeff Zillgitt and Mark Medina of USA Today (October 17, 2019) is relevant here: “LeBron James' controversial comments 'furthers his brand power in China.'”  For those of you who missed it, James had chastised Daryl Morey, General Manager of the Houston Rockets basketball team for tweeting, “Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong” when the People's Republic of China forcefully crushed dissent against the communist government.   LeBron replied to the tweet by claiming that Morey was “misinformed or not really educated on the situation” and that Morey’s comments could “put people’s livelihoods at risk.”  James apparently was speaking from his heart.  To quote Zillgitt and Medina, “LeBron James has deep, lucrative ties to China because of his partnership with Nike, which does considerable business there, both as a manufacturer and apparel seller.  The global superstar who plays for the Los Angeles Lakers has traveled to the country 15 times since he signed with the sports apparel company 16 years ago and has visited several Chinese cities promoting physical fitness, education, basketball as a unifier and of course Nike.”}

_{Obviously, I am not writing to influence you about China or even about LeBron, per se.  I simply want you to think about what many societies explicitly or implicitly value.  The financial side of the values issue is starkly obvious in the chart below:}

<sub>Notice, for instance, that the column entitled Citizen Income % of athlete for India is .000.  That is because the true number would skew the chart.  The average Indian citizen actually makes .000374074074074074 of the income of the average Indian Premier League player.  What do you think about that?  And what do you think is fair for any athlete to earn, especially since when professional athletes are interviewed they often say something like, “I love this game.  I love it so much I would play even if I had to do so for free."

You may be someone who advocates social, racial, ethnic, or gender equality.  What if we were to give athletes an income reasonably higher than average, and allocate the remainder of their previous exorbitant incomes to programs that promote the well-being of everyday citizens?</sub>

Reference

Zillgitt & Medina (2019).  LeBron James' controversial comments 'furthers his brand power in China'.  October, USA TODAY

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2019/10/17/lebron-james-nike-china-revenue/3989915002/

Democrat Values

Liberals are forever denouncing Republicans as racists who stereotype black people.  They claim that all blacks, just as all people, are individuals who should be “permitted” to make their own choices—as long as black people make the choices that liberals require.  For instance, below is an exerpt from a recent Joe Biden interview:

https://news.yahoo.com/joe-biden-tells-popular-radio-host-you-aint-black-if-considering-voting-for-trump-154645383.html

Joe Biden tells popular radio host 'you ain't black' if considering voting for Trump

by

Brittany Shepherd National Politics Reporter         Yahoo News May 22, 2020.

Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested Friday morning that an African-American radio personality “ain’t black” if he was questioning whether he should support the presumptive Democratic nominee over President Trump in the general election.

After an aide interrupted the interview to say that the former vice president was running short on time, Charlamagne tha God asked that Biden pay the studio a visit the next time he’s in New York.

“It’s a long way until November,” he said. “We’ve got more questions.”

“You’ve got more questions?” Biden replied. “Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

  

The above quote is totally consistent with Joe Biden language.  You might remember, for instance, that Biden used stereotyping language regarding Barack Obama in 2007 when the two were competing for the United States Democratic presidential nomination.  Jack Tapper from ABC wrote about it, and I quote once more:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2838420&page=1

A Biden Problem: Foot in Mouth

By JAKE TAPPER

February 27, 2008, 11:16 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007 — -- Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., the loquacious chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who launched his presidential campaign today, may be experiencing an ailment not entirely unknown to him: foot in mouth disease.

Biden is taking some heat for comments he made to the New York Observer, in which he said of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a rival for the nomination: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." 

El Fin !  There is nothing more to add to this blog.  The quotes speak for themselves.

Where Were the Nudges?

We all know that flu is a killer and that every year we are advised to “get your flu shot.”  A February 26, 2020 Centers for Disease Control report indicated 45 million flu cases in the United States during the 2017-2018 influenza season, including about 810,000 flu-associated hospitalizations and about 61,000 flu-associated deaths.  The flu strains almost never are exactly the same as in the previous year, so the shots are never reliable.  For 2017-2018 the overall vaccine effectiveness against influenza A and B viruses was 40%.

Before continuing with this blog, I need a preface for those who did not read my book, Justifiably Paranoid: Resisting Intrusive and Malicious Influences.  In it I described “nudging” which is the government practice of trying to manipulate the environment to cause people to do what officials believe is “good for them.”  The practice began in England and the United States.  Now there are more than 60 government and international agencies trying to nudge their often unsuspecting citizens.  You probably would agree with some of the nudges, such as ones to “encourage” you to save for retirement.  But you might recoil from others, such as one that imposes an excessive tax on your favorite alcoholic beverage.

Because 2017 motor vehicle accidents in the United States were responsible for about 20,000 less deaths than influenza, one would think that nudging would have focused more vigorously on flu than it has.  Before the current pandemic, never in my life did I hear of any government program that advised hand washing or social distancing during flu season.  That government failure is especially disturbing not only because of the relative ineffectiveness of influenza inoculations, but also because flu onslaughts are inevitable, have occurred every year for centuries, and are significantly mitigated by simple behavioral changes.  Maybe, going forward, governments will do more yearly than ask us to get a questionably useful flu shot.  Perhaps comprehensive, creative healthful anti-flu government nudging will be on the agendas of at least 60 plus governments.

COVID-19, War, and Us

For once, virtually all layers of the United States government and all political parties are speaking with one voice.  They tell us emphatically that we are at war with COVID-19, and that we must sacrifice to defeat this “invisible enemy.”  Like most people, I fully agree with recommendations from those authorities.  You have heard them a thousand times already.  A very abbreviated version of general COVID-19 prevention guidelines, posted on cdc.gov, for instance, advises:  Clean your hands often; Put distance between yourself and other people; Stay home if you’re sick; Cover coughs and sneezes; Wear a facemask if you are sick; Clean and disinfect.   At this point in the pandemic, those nationwide general guidelines have been superseded by more stringent state and local requirements.  According to the New York Times (Sarah Mervosh, Denise Lu and Vanessa Swales, March 31, 2019), “… at least 265 million people in at least 32 states, 80 counties, 17 cities, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are being urged to stay home.”

Predictably, the virus is exacting a significant toll on our mental health.  The deleterious effects are depicted below:

Mental Condition	some, little, or  none of the time
hopeful about the future	51%
nervous, anxious	43%
trouble sleeping	23%
depressed	24%
lonely	21%
physical reaction thinking about the pandemic	19%
United States Pew Research Center Survey	March 19-24, 2020

The Pew study is not surprising.  We have no firm sensed of when this threat will end.  Our incomes have been compromised.  Our freedoms have been restricted.  We cannot recreate or travel as we would like.  We can’t access all the material resources that have come to depend upon So, personal experience and available evidence rationalized our reference to being at war.  But maybe it is time for a little perspective that might provide at least some therapeutic benefit.

I could cite a thousand examples of more difficult situations to make my point.  Because its horrors and hardships are both too familiar and too temporally remote to most Americans, there is little value in mentioning World War II.  Instead, for a people under siege, think about the Kurds, an indigenous Mesopotamian population whose “quarantine” began at the end of World War I after the Allies reneged on their proposal to provide a homeland.  Since then the Kurds have been subjected to never ending battles and persecutions.  David Stavrou made the point in a November 26, 2019 Haaretz article entitled, “The Slaughter in Syria Still Goes On.”  To quote an interview with Bejan Rashid, an eyewitness to the catastrophe, “I saw many who were killed and many who were injured … Most of the injured were missing arms or legs or were hit by shrapnel. I tried to help the children and the elderly people first. The thing that’s hardest to forget was a girl, about 8 years old, who was sitting by her dead brother, trying to wake him up.”

Most Kurds, I bet, would be eager to switch places with me, right now.

There are Americans, too, who have experienced conditions worse than the ones I am now.  The late John McCain was one.  In 2008, he recounted some details of his five and one-half years as POW in North Viet Nam.  I need mention only a few to give you the idea. Consider his physical condition.  As a result of his plane being shot down, McCain suffered a broken right leg, broken right arm in three places, and a broken left arm.  From the time he was captured, he underwent frequent physical abuse and torture, including beatings with and without objects.  Most of his injuries never were treated medically, such that any bone that healed did so without being set properly.  For most of his five and one-half year imprisionment, McCain remained in a windowless, unbearably hot, tin-roofed room, only ventilated by two 6 inch by 4 inch holes.  He was fed a starvation-level diet.  His social condition was not the greatest, either.  McCain often was placed in solitary confinement, once for more than two consecutive years.  His only diversions were the games he played in his mind and the communist propaganda books given to him by his captors.  Just for the record, it was Senator John McCain who in the 1990s successfully lobbied the federal government to reestablish normal bilateral relations with Viet Nam.

Like most Americans, I feel hassled and frightened by COVID-19, and I complain often about how it has interfered with my lifestyle.  We must muster every resource and support every neighbor to counter this pandemic. Some of us also might choose to speak metaphorically about being at war, but we--especially those of us from wealthy countries--should not delude ourselves into believing for one minute that we truly are suffering anything remotely similar to the ravages of war.  When, as it will be, COVID-19 is behind us, our houses and towns will not be rubble.  We will not be starving. We will not be refugees.  To know real war, we would need to live through its longstanding horrors, such as ones endured by the Kurds or by John McCain.  All we need to do right now to control the virus is to follow commonsense mitigation recommendations.  That is tough, but not too tough.      

References

McCain, J. Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account Jan 28, 2008, at 11:00 A.M.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account

Mervosh, S., et al.  See Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at HomeUpdated March 31, 2020  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html

Stavrou, D.  Nov 26, 2019 4:27 PM.  The Slaughter in Syria Still Goes On
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-the-slaughter-in-syria-still-goes-on-1.8187413

Politicians: Masters of Deceit

It’s my favorite season—voting season—when I’m challenged to find some kernel of truth in the rampant lies voiced by many politicians.  The most entertaining time occurs after primaries when the loser discounts all the scurrilous aspersions that they recently had heaped upon their same-party primary competitors.  In essence, the former candidate implies that they were not being fully honest about their same-party opponent during the campaign, but NOW that the election is over, the citizenry can trust everything they, themselves, say and do.  Could they be hoping to derive some benefit from their political campaign retractions?  Might they, for instance, be pandering for a coveted position in the new administration?  Or am I being too cynical?   

The electorate, too, mostly forgives lies that occurred during the primaries, conveniently forgetting all the preceding “partisan bickering” concerning their party’s representatives and “lining up behind” the party’s general election candidates.  We might conclude that voters ignore the lies to maintain some semblance of their own self-respect, and that would be a reasonable conclusion.  On the other hand, it might not be the gullibility of the electorate so much as the prevarication skills of the politicians that promotes the “all lies are forgiven” orientation.  By looking at research regarding “masters of deceit” we can evaluate whether it applies to professional politicians.

A study called, Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars (Verigin, et al. 2019) is instructive.  To extrapolate from that research, we need to entertain the reasonable assumption that successful prevaricating politicians have not recently developed their craft.  Neither should we imagine that their lies are limited exclusively to formal election campaigns and speeches.  They likely practice their deception skills in their everyday lives with everyday people.  If so, that would be consistent with the Verigin results.

The Verigin group, in fact, did find that self-reported good liars have well-practiced, strategic approaches to deception.  As one would expect, they lie more often than average people do, and they lie to a more varied group of people.  Moreover, the lies have become second nature to the point that many of them are inconsequential.  They frequently lie about topics that most people would not consider worth the effort.  Successful liars have implicit and/or explicit lying formulas.  Most present their misinformation in uncomplicated language that appears reasonable.  To make the lies less apparent, they often are preceded and followed by other related information that is obvious and true.

So, it is in character that many politicians who had spoken so convincingly against their competing same-party opponents are quick to reverse themselves afterwards.  And they are as glib in their retractions as they were in their previous indictments.  They certainly seem to embody many of the "good liar" characteristics recounted above.  The most accomplished political liars are well-practiced, lie more often than average people do, and lie to a more varied group of people.  If you watch them carefully, you will notice that they typically have implicit and/or explicit lying formulas.  Most present their misinformation in uncomplicated language that appears reasonable.  Moreover, to make the lies less apparent, they often are preceded and followed by other related information that is obvious and true.

But don't take my suggestions at face value.  Observe the most successful politicians on your own.  See whether they are or aren't good liars.  And if you have the time and inclination, read the section of my Justifiably Paranoid book (McCusker, 2019) that describes the "dark triad" personality type that is very common among powerful politicians.

References

Brianna L. Verigin ,Ewout H. Meijer,Glynis Bogaard,Aldert Vrij (2019).

Lie prevalence, lie characteristics and strategies of self-reported good liars
Published: December 3, 2019https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225566
Plos One 

McCusker, P.  (2019). Justifiably Paranoid: Resisting Intrusive and Malicious Influences.
Seattle: Amazon.

Uncommon Sense

We and others often preface our remarks with "It's a no brainer" or "You don't have to be a rocket scientist" when attempting to underscore the obviousness of an opinion. That tendency is a variant of what Daniel Kahneman (2013) calls System 1 thinking - fast, automatic, sometimes unconscious thoughts.  System 1 thinking is not too distant from intuition.  All of this suggests that we mostly prefer not to think too deeply about things.  And, not thinking too deeply usually is sufficient for coping with routine, low-risk activities of daily life.  On the other hand, System 1-like thought can lead us into trouble when activities are non-routine and/or risky.

Duncan Watts (2011) shares the aforementioned concerns, although he refers to them as errors of "common sense."  He cites, for example, a 1940s study by sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld in which respondents were deceived to believe that most rural recruits adjusted better to the army than did urban ones.  Those thus told concluded post hoc that the result was obvious, mentioning, for instance, rural men's comfort with outdoors and weapons, among other things.  However, the study actually found the opposite - that urban men adjusted better than rural ones.  So, common sense failed the empirical test.

Please do not conclude that Watts endorsed learning from history as an antidote to relying on common sense.  Rather, he wrote, and I agree, that "lessons" from history often are no more applicable than is common sense.  Every event is unique, if only in its context.  You may have heard that generals spend their time trying to prevent the previous war and financial institutions, the previous financial crisis.  And neither succeed in preventing the ones that ultimately occur.

No significant issue that appears in your consciousness is a "no brainer."  You are conscious of the issue because it has the potential to affect your wellbeing.  Even something as routine and trivial as whether you should have a second slice of cake is worth your deliberate consideration.  If you are aware of an impending decision, your choice should follow after you think the issue through.  Thinking about your history of cake eating also is insufficient.  There have been times when your daily diet and/or exercise regimen impacted the second piece of cake decision in a positive direction and others in a negative direction, neither of which might apply currently.  Whether you had a second piece last week might be totally irrelevant presently.

Your current condition is what matters.  The more you mindlessly continue to persist in self-defeating behaviors due to your reliance on "common sense" opinion or your history, the more you reinforce those negative behaviors, and the harder it will be to make healthful choices in the future.  The relevance of common sense and your history should be weighed after, not before, you have thought through the presenting issue within its current context. 

References

 Kahneman, D.  (2013),  Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Penguin.

Watts, D. (2011). Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us.  New York: Crown.