While election day is just around the corner Kamala Harris and Donald Trump were in a dead heatPollsters and experts look for clues to predict the outcome.
But what if the answer lies not in political data or campaign strategies, but in the instincts of a primitive part of the human brain?
New research I conducted in rhesus monkeys shows that when it comes to decisions like voting, people are not nearly as rational as they would like to believe.
It’s easy to associate instinctive responses—such as the fight-or-flight response or reflexively pulling away from a hot surface—with the primitive motive of survival. But humans also have a rational brain that can gather and weigh evidence, thinking thoughtfully rather than relying on knee-jerk reactions. Why that rational brain seems to be hijacked by primitive instincts in situations where rationality would serve people better is one of many reasons my neuroscientific colleagues and I have been studying rhesus monkeys for the past 25 years.
These monkeys are remarkably similar to humans genetically, physiologicalAnd behaviorally. These similarities have allowed researchers to make incredible medical breakthroughs, including the development of vaccines against polio, HIV/AIDS and COVID-19as well as deep brain stimulation treatment for Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders.
My research into candidate preference is part of an overall focus on improving scientists understanding of the ability to Dealing effectively with others and dealing with social conflictsthe neural circuits who support it and how these circuits can deteriorate due to illness or external factors such as inequality – all to better support those affected by these challenges.
The power of first impressions
Previous research has shown that both adults and preschoolers can do this accurately predict the election outcome after quick exposure to candidate photos. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that our primitive brain drives us to quickly form first impressions based on physical appearance – after all, it was the key to survival.
However, researchers do not yet understand why this bias persists. New research with rhesus monkeys has provided some answers.
In the study, currently under review in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, we showed pairs of monkeys from candidate photos of the US gubernatorial and senatorial elections, and they correctly predicted the outcomes based solely on visual features.
Specifically, the monkeys spent more time looking at the loser than at the winner. This ‘viewer bias’ not only predicted election results, but also the candidates’ vote share. Monkeys tended to look at the candidates with more masculine facial features – and these were the candidates who were more likely to win in the real election. The prominence of the jaw had a direct relationship with vote share.
Previous research helps explain the monkeys’ gaze bias. When monkeys were shown images of unfamiliar but powerful male monkeys, they looked at them only briefly, presumably because monkeys interpret staring as a sign of aggression. But their gaze lingered when they showed a low-status male or female monkey.
Those preferences were on full display when we showed the macaque photos from the most recent races involving Donald Trump. Their gaze preference, driven by primitive instincts, declared the winners. The monkeys looked the longest at the Democratic opponent in the battle between Trump and Hillary Clinton. There was less gaze bias in the match with Joe Biden. And the monkeys spent about the same amount of time watching Trump as they did Harris. That means that of the three most recent Democratic candidates, based solely on visual cues, the monkeys predicted that Harris would have the best chance of beating Trump.
An evolutionary hangover
Our findings suggest that voters respond instinctively to signals of physical strength – instructions that are equally clear for our simian relatives. This “evolutionary hangover” illustrates how traits and behaviors once essential for survival persist even when they are no longer relevant.
The macaques’ ability to predict winners based on physical traits alone challenges the idea that humans have evolved beyond superficial judgments in leadership selection. For those who pride themselves on rational decision-making, especially in crucial decisions such as voting, it is a surprising discovery.
Clearly, people’s choices are not based solely on visual cues. However, the evidence suggests that such factors may be more influential than you think. When you enter the voting booth, part of your brain may tap into old instincts and subconsciously evaluate who looks like he or she can best lead the tribe.
Stay rational, not primary
Increase awareness of this primary preferences is the first step in it reducing their influence.
Political campaigns already exploit these instincts by emphasizing a candidate’s physical strength and assertiveness. As voters, we can counter their efforts by using our rational brain’s ability to understand and evaluate their policies and experiences – something our primitive ancestors could not do.
Techniques for choosing rationally rather than instinctively include exposing yourself to diverse perspectives, actively challenging your assumptions, and considering the long-term outcomes of policies. Such deliberate steps toward making informed decisions take on new importance when you understand how your brain can be influenced by outdated preferences at the ballot box.
Of course, voters are not macaques. But the underlying instincts that humans share with our primate relatives can still subtly shape our decisions.
Recognizing the role of these age-old signals can help people become more conscious about how they exercise their power in the voting booth. As democracy evolves, people’s understanding of how to interact with it must also change.
This article was originally published on The conversation Through Michael Platt bee University of Pennsylvania. Read the original article here.
Learn something new every day
Leave a Reply