Why people will vote against their own interests--

[Jackpine Radical]

We are often perplexed by people whose voting patterns seem to consistently run counter to their own good--why poor southerners vote for the most regressive Republicans, for example.

As a partial explanation of this phenomenon, I offer the following link. It's making the rounds on the psychology listserves this morning.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/spite-is-good-spite-works.html?from=homepage


Spite Is Good. Spite Works.

By NATALIE ANGIER
March 31, 2014

Reporting in February in the journal Psychological Assessment, Dr. Marcus and his colleagues presented the preliminary results from their new “spitefulness scale,” a 17-item survey they created to assess individual differences in spitefulness, just as existing personality tests measure traits like agreeableness and extroversion.

A total of 946 college students and 297 adults were asked to rate how firmly they agreed with sentiments like “If my neighbor complained about the appearance of my front yard, I would be tempted to make it look worse just to annoy him or her” or “If I opposed the election of an official, I would happily see the person fail even if that failure hurt my community” or “I would be willing to take a punch if it meant someone I did not like would receive two punches.”

…

From the survey and related experiments, the researchers determined that men were generally more spiteful than women and young adults more spiteful than older ones, and that spitefulness generally cohabited with traits like callousness, Machiavellianism and poor self-esteem — but not with agreeableness, conscientiousness or a tendency to feel guilt.

Dr. Marcus also identified circumstances that can provoke spiteful outbursts from otherwise temperate people: partisan politics, for example. (“If the other candidate wins, I hope the economy crashes.”) Or bitter divorces, like the husband who threw his savings into a trash bin, Dr. Marcus said, to avoid sharing any money with his ex-wife.

[hlthe2b]

1. some pretty 'sick' attitudes out there...

Maybe they will all be up for "Darwin awards" with that thinking?

[rrneck]

2. From the article...

Frank Marlowe, a biological anthropologist at the University of Cambridge, argued that what looks like spiteful behavior in the real world may really be a matter of image-making. He and his colleagues have used the ultimatum and similar games to study barter and exchange in a broad cross-section of non-Western cultures, including foragers, pastoralists and farmers. They found that no matter how hardscrabble the life or how much the players obviously could have used even a sliver of a potential award, game participants would reject a partner’s stingy offer indignantly, an apparent act of spite that left both empty-handed — at least for the moment.

In the context of politics I suppose the question would be, "What is being offered?" If respect is the currency of exchange condescendingly telling people how stupid they are would surely draw a spiteful response.

[Seeking Serenity]

11. I like this.

If respect is the currency of exchange condescendingly telling people how stupid they are would surely draw a spiteful response.

I agree. I HATE those types of arguments, that people are somehow voting against their own interests. It is condescension, paternalism and elitism in hyperdrive.

"Poor benighted bugger, you're too stupid to know what your real interests are, even if you think you do. Vote for me, 'cause I know what you need even if you don't. Who knows more about your life and your needs, you or me?"

That's a losing position, I'm sorry.

[iemitsu]

30. Of course you assume that people, who vote, are informed

well enough to vote in their own best interest.

[Seeking Serenity]

33. I assume that people know what their own interests are

even if I or you or anyone else disagree.

[iemitsu]

46. I think you are right about people knowing what their

interests are and I don't think it is my place to tell them that I know their interests better than they; however, it is not so clear that everyone has figured out what goals and policies might further their own interests.
By the way, I don't think this was always true. There was a time, not so long ago, when common sense (something most Americans had no matter their social/economic status), allowed folk to sift through information and figure out what worked well for them and what didn't.
Today many display little tolerance for accepted academic methodology, logical argumentation, or clear modes of thinking. There is no longer a clear and universally accepted body of evidence that guides our thinking and actions. People believe whatever or whoever they want to believe, without even engaging in any sort of analysis of the belief or of the evidence supporting or conflicting with that belief.
It does seem condescending to tell people that they don't know what they are voting for or that they are being duped by those who wish them harm. but it is only condescending when said to capable adults with the ability to fathom the system and issues which they are being asked to vote on. It is not condescension to correct a child or one misinformed or unfamiliar with the system he/she needs to help operate. Without attempting to correct people, who embrace untested and wacky ideas (those who often vote against their own interests) we cannot move forward into the future.
So what can we do?

[verwirrt]

34. Getting Close

This post is on the right track but missing the most critical component. Spite is a factor but not in why they vote against their interests. Spite is a factor in why they are reluctant to listen to anything any of us have to say in the first place. The reason for this is that in rural areas, especially the south, they are well beyond tired of hearing the constant ridicule and put downs. At this point they aren't listening out of spite that much is true. The worst thing you can do if you want to win an election is insult a potential voter.

However, that doesn't answer the question of why they vote against their interests because even with that issue in place many of them, contrary to what we like to think, actually do educate themselves on the issues to some degree. The answer to the question and underlying political problem for the Democratic Party is that these people are not voting against their self interests at least not in how they define their self interests. By the way, I speak from experience when I say telling them that their view of their own self interests is wrong results in the above mention spite issue. In their minds, self interest is best served by keeping other people out of their business. (Although the religious ones seem to often forget this works the other way too.) These people truly believe that they and only they are best suited to make decisions the directly effect them. They view even the most noble government mandates as authoritarian interlopers attempting to usurp their own self determination. Couple that with a mindset in which these people have given far too much credence to Heinlein's line about bread and circuses that you end up with people who genuinely believe that if government was kept to its bear minimum capabilities that the individuals who make up society would eventually address the issues that need to be addressing, oh and they have accepted that a necessarily long time frame for such an occurrence is an acceptable downside in the name of "freedom"

[Tunkamerica]

53. To your first point...

I am well beyond tired of people talking shit about the south. I see myself as liberal and generally open-minded, but some of these people with their south bashing have really turned me off. I used to try and argue, now I just see it as a character flaw that will, hopefully, die out some day. One thing I know for sure, we don't talk about Northerners the way they talk about Southerners.

(I will say that Boston is the least polite city I have been to out of 15 or so countries).

To your second point: Even as a liberal I kind of see the truth in this. I definitely think it's a real issue among some of my friends. General distrust of government exists where people feel that their best interests are not looked after by the people tasked with the responsibility. A lot of it is taught. My dad is a smart man, but his dad hated unions and so he does as well long after his dad's death. I worked for one of the few active unions down here and have a different view, but I understand his position. I have a friend who actively distrusts any and all things said or done by government. His dad was the same way. He picked it up and actually ran a little farther with it. I guess my point is that this sentiment takes multiple generations to build and will take multiple generations to dispel. Several generations of the south lived with the idea that the federal government was actively working against them, so it's only natural that several generations of trust would be required to end that feeling. I don't feel that trust has been felt often enough for that to happen. Of course, with the natural movement of people from one region to another the feelings get watered down and that may be the only real solution.

[DebJ]

3. As my Mom calls it "Bite your nose to spite your face". n/t

[Scuba]

4. Thanks Jackpine. Helps explain why people vote for Squatt Wanker.

[otohara]

5. Non Voters Like The Millions

who didn't vote in 2010 do exactly the same - on our side.

But they are just disgruntled and that's somehow different than this group.

[flamingdem]

6. It's probably some tribal remnant

Republicans know how to manipulate base emotions.

[iemitsu]

7. Interesting conclusions to this study.

Who knew that spiteful behavior led to reduced tolerance toward spiteful behavior, in groups that were not very spiteful in the first place, or that a spiteful action, on the part of one character, might lead to less spiteful actions directed at that character, over time?
Sometimes a "study" can clarify and provide focus, for what, in hindsight, seems obvious or maybe just put a new, and in this case, more positive, spin on what has always been considered childlike and negative behavior?
Makes me wonder just how much spite I ought to add to my daily interactions with others, to establish and nurture a healthy and balanced personality?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

21. Here's another

Although groups of excessively spiteful or selfish players quickly collapsed, and rigidly fair-minded societies were readily destabilized by influxes of selfish exploiters, the flexible sharers not only proved able to coexist with the spiteful types, but the presence of spitefuls had the salubrious effect of enhancing the rate of fair exchanges among the genials. By the looks of it, Dr. Smead said, “fairness is acting as a defense against spite.”

[iemitsu]

29. I think that some fair-minded types need to develop some strategies associated with spite

to be used on spiteful people who infiltrate their fair-minded societies.
I really think that the authors of this study were working very hard to find something positive to say about spiteful acts and spiteful people.
In fact, I can't help but wonder if the study, and its conclusions, might have found life in a spiteful desire to elevate the role of spitefulness in civilized society.
Is there a corollary then, that suggests that without spiteful individuals the fair-minded community would, over time, become less fair-minded?
Thank goodness for spiteful acts and spiteful people for without them we would be subject to so much more spite.

[The2ndWheel]

8. I'm still not sure how someone votes against their own interest

People have the freedom to choose what their interests are. If someone votes out of spite, that's their interest.

[Lex]

10. To vote to have less of something yourself because you want to screw over others

out of spite is voting against your own interests.

[The2ndWheel]

22. According to someone who isn't the person casting that vote

If someone else gets to define your own interests, then they're not your own interests.

What if someone votes to have less of something themselves because they want to help others? Is that voting against your own interests? Should we be perplexed by that?

[Jackpine Radical]

13. That's totally circular.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

27. Excellent point. It's more about one's priorities...

and liberals have a habit of assuming Rs share our priorities. For example, I have a friend who fits the "voting against best interest" profile. But when pushed, the #1 priority for her is 2nd Amendment Rights and the fear that Dems are going to take their guns away.

[Lex]

12. Maybe some people think it's in their best interest to have low wages and no health care

because their priorities are having something else---like what I don't know.

[Lex]

16. Those are not mutually exclusive to decent wages and health care

so that's a non-starter.

[Lex]

28. They still aren't mutually exclusive even though people are been told they are.

That's just part of the ruse. The Republicans use fear and ignorance to make people think you have to have low wages and no health care in order to have decent national security or to be safe from crime.

That's just false.

[Lex]

36. I suppose Democrats could use scare tactics and the like

and sometimes I wish they would stoop to tactics used by the Republicans--but by and large they refuse to appeal to ignorance and fear in that way. It sure loses them votes.

[zeemike]

43. Or they could take a different approach

and offer them something positive to vote for instead of against...and not be defensive against the fear mongering attacks by the right.

I would like to see a candidate in a debate never answer any allegations against them but spend 100% of their time on purposing positive solutions to the problems that have populist appeal
for instance instead of defending government spending purpose a change in the tax laws in a bold way, like getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a National sales tax and using their time to explain just how it would work for them...and how it would be more fair to them.
Being defensive does not work and only fixes the problem in the mind as a problem.

[iemitsu]

47. Sales tax is regressive. Its in the interest of wealthy people,

who want to shift the tax burden to the poor, to propose a national sales tax.
I hope that would be part of the discussion.

[zeemike]

48. It does not have to be.

and the burden is now on the poor because as Leona Helmsly said "only the little people pay taxes"
They have all kinds of ways to get out of paying income tax and they do.
I prefer a Value Added Tax myself, where things are taxed when value is added...and then the rich would pay taxes anytime they spent money...a new vacation home, a new yacht, bling...all taxed...and things that poor people need like food could be exempt and the poor would not have to pay any tax at all.
There is nothing regressive about that...in fact it is the most progressive of any system.
As it is now, the working poor pay 30% and the investor class pay at most 20...and usually nothing at all.
And even corporations would pay tax if they bought anything at all, or payed the VAT tax on things they added value to.
The system we have now is rigged in favor of the rich and the burden is on the middle class.

But never wory, the PTB like it just the way it is, and they will keep it that way...and continue to cut their taxes and spend our money.

[iemitsu]

49. Perhaps a tax structure such as you describe would work and be more fair

than our current system but I live in one of the five states that has no income tax, and relies on sales and property tax for revenue, and the burden of tax falls much more heavily on the poor.
I guess any system will ultimately favor those who determine the rules applied to the system.

[arcane1]

39. They're "perceived as being weak" because republicans tell lies shamelessly n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Very fear oriented.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. That is a sort of

reducto relativio argument.

Small children often want to use dog droppings as modeling clay, play in the street and ingest small, sharp objects. Would you agree that their parents have no business judging what's in their best interest and thwarting their desires?

[Seeking Serenity]

18. There's the paternalism I mentioned upthread

You analogize grown-up, adult voters who do not vote the way either you think they should or I wish they would with small children. That they would have to be "corrected" as a parent would have to correct a small child?

I want to win their hearts and minds, not shower them with contempt because they don't think they way I do. Because I know the latter will NOT bring about the former.

[seveneyes]

17. Spite fills in the voids where love should reside

All too often that love component is missing. Where love is in place, spite can not take hold.

[polichick]

20. This doesn't take into consideration that there aren't many choices...

Sometimes people are just voting the lesser of evils.

Sometimes people are not voting because they don't want to be part of a corrupt system.

"Spite" quickly becomes frustration, hopelessness or any number of other things when you're talking about politics.

[KoKo]

23. Agree...it's more complicated.. n/t

[leftstreet]

26. One more reason half the eligible voters don't vote

And those who do for blue or red

So at any given time you're talking about less than 25%, and within that a percentage vote because they believe it's their duty...

Politicians don't represent ANYONE'S interests but the wealthy

[dr.strangelove]

31. I don't think it is voting against their interests

I think people just weigh factors or "interests" differently. I don;t vote for the dems because it benefits me financially. I make a good living and do not get the benefit of most of the economic policies I support. But morally I think the Democratic Party, more often than not, supports what I feel is just, so I tend to vote for that party. I suspect the "poor" southerners you are discussing may feel that the conservative right offers them far more support for their moral leanings than their financial. Which honestly is how I think it shoudl be. Vote with what you feel is right, not what will benefit you the most. While I wish more people would share my morality, specifically on equality of all citizens, I am content in seeing a clear trend toward my way of thinking over the past 70 years.

[iandhr]

35. LBJ said

"If you can convince the lowest white man he is better than the colored man he won't notice you picking his pockets."

[Lex]

37. He was correct. nt

[pintobean]

40. Welcome to DU

[prommie]

41. Trotsky also explained why, there are multiple reasons

He called such people lumpenproletariat, and described them to a tee. He probably could never have imagined the development of a society with so many of them, though.

[moondust]

42. Indoctrination, conformity.

Starting at a young age. A lifetime of carrots and sticks, mostly sticks. Peer pressure in schools and churches. Critical thinking discouraged.

[sailfla]

44. I stumbled across this Churchill quote

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

[kairos12]

45. It seems to me I could benefit greatly

by reading the attached article. However, I refuse because it would lead me to be less disagreeable and lead to a happier life. So there.

[Cha]

50. So many brainwashed masochists. Too bad they don't think enough of

themselves to want the best.

[joshcryer]

51. And the GOP is the best at channeling spite.

Hell, we cheered a government shutdown that hurt millions of workers, for no real reason, except to spite them. We lamented the Bush tax cut extension in exchange for unemployment benefits, out of pure spite.

[eridani]

52. Very few people vote for their interests. They vote for the kind of world they want to live in

So some poor people like living in a world where their asses get constantly kicked? Of course they do. They don't like being on the receiving end, but they don't want the game called off before they get their chance to do the kicking.

[reformist2]

54. It starts with hate. And then they say, 'if they're for something, we must be against it.'

It's the definition of reactionary. The funny thing is, their opinions depend utterly on own own - If we didn't have opinions, they wouldn't either... they literally wouldn't know what to think!