A fascinating psychological experiment could explain Donald Trump’s rise

[applegrove]

A fascinating psychological experiment could explain Donald Trump’s rise

by John B. Judis at Vox

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/17/10323956/trump-fear-of-death

"SNIP..............



The key to understanding Trump’s appeal may lie in the works of the late anthropologist/philosopher Ernest Becker. In his Pulitzer Prize–winning book The Denial of Death, Becker contended that a fear of death shapes in very basic ways our being in the world. He says the fear of death contributes to a literal and figurative quest for immortality through religion, parenting, and the production of what we hope are lasting works.

It can fuel a fascination with heroes who defied death and celebrities whose fame will live after them. And in certain circumstances, it can also influence our moral and political judgments. It can make us less tolerant and even fearful of different ethnic groups, religions, and nations, creating a sharp gap between "us" and "them," and it can strengthen our support for strong and charismatic leaders who will protect us against them. The San Bernardino massacre may have been one such circumstance, and the fear of death it awakened may help explain Trump’s sudden rise in the polls.

Three psychologists — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski, who met as graduate students in psychology at the University of Kansas in the mid-1970s — were inspired by Becker’s work. Over the past 25 years, they have tried to prove his theory about the fear of death through practical, real-life experiments. The editor of a professional journal had advised them that if they wanted other psychologists to take Becker’s ideas seriously, they would have to demonstrate their validity through experiments.

How the fear of death plays out in real life

In 1989, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski devised the first of what would be scores of successful experiments. This one was intended to show that a fear of death could lead to harsh moral judgments. The psychologists recruited 22 Tucson municipal court judges. They told the judges they wanted to test the relationship between personality traits and bail decisions, but for some of them, they inserted in the middle of a personality questionnaire two exercises meant to evoke an awareness of their own mortality. (One exercise asked them to "briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you.&quot Then they asked the judges to set a bond in the hypothetical case of a prostitute who a prosecutor warned was a flight risk. The judges who did the mortality exercises set an average bail of $455; those who did not do the exercises set an average of $50, which was the prevailing rate in Tucson.



...............SNIP"

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Interesting study ...

I think the premise can extend to the rise of Bernie, as well.

(Note to Jury: this is NOT suggesting any similarity with respect to Bernie and trump's policies or political agenda. Rather, I am speaking to Bernie's "charismatic, bold self-confidence" that makes feel he will protect "us" from "them", i.e., the 99% from the 1%.)

[applegrove]

2. Oh I agree. There is actually a war going on...the 1% attacking

everybody else for the last 40 years. So true. But I think Hillary is a strong leader in that fight for the 99% aswell as Bernie. I guess you and I differ there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Actually, we don't disagree ...

the article also reports related studies indicate that those subjected to mortality reminders are attracted to effusive, bold self-confident leaders that make them feel special over leaders who expressed task-orientation and effectiveness (i.e., competence), or those that expressed the importance of share responsibility, relationships, and working together.

In my estimation, both, the M O'M and HRC campaigns focus on their individual task-orientation and effectiveness; whereas, Bernie's campaign focuses on the struggle.

[applegrove]

5. I think Hillary is a mixture of all three types I really do. Admittedly

she is charismatic if you listen to what she says rather than wwith bold statements and physical attributes alone. To me she is a fighter. And the fight is on and has been since 2012.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Again ... We agree ...

if you listen to what she says rather than wwith bold statements and physical attributes alone.

That suggests listening for "task-orientation" and "competence"; rather than, "bold self-confident" ... reassurance of saving the "us" from the "them" statements.

And the same holds for O'Malley.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

4. A French philosopher might explain it thusly (and it's awesome)

(Roland) Barthes is a French philosopher who died in 1980. But his work may hold the key to understanding Trump’s popularity and his staying power.

Barthes is best known for his work in semiotics, the study of signs and symbols. But he wasn’t limited to lengthy, esoteric treatises. Rather, Barthes published much of his work in short, accessible pieces breaking down elements of popular culture. The New York Times described Barthes as the godfather of the TV recap.

His most famous essay, published in his 1957 book Mythologies, focuses on professional wrestling. Could an essay about professional wrestling hold the key to understanding Trump’s appeal? It’s worth noting that, before he was a presidential candidate, Trump was an active participant in the WWE. In 2013, Trump was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame.

In his essay, Barthes contrasts pro wrestling to boxing.

This public knows very well the distinction between wrestling and boxing; it knows that boxing is a Jansenist sport, based on a demonstration of excellence. One can bet on the outcome of a boxing-match: with wrestling, it would make no sense. A boxing- match is a story which is constructed before the eyes of the spectator; in wrestling, on the contrary, it is each moment which is intelligible, not the passage of time… The logical conclusion of the contest does not interest the wrestling-fan, while on the contrary a boxing-match always implies a science of the future. In other words, wrestling is a sum of spectacles, of which no single one is a function: each moment imposes the total knowledge of a passion which rises erect and alone, without ever extending to the crowning moment of a result.

In the current campaign, Trump is behaving like a professional wrestler while Trump’s opponents are conducting the race like a boxing match. As the rest of the field measures up their next jab, Trump decks them over the head with a metal chair.

Others in the Republican field are concerned with the rules and constructing a strategy that, under those rules, will lead to the nomination. But Trump isn’t concerned with those things. Instead, Trump is focused on each moment and eliciting the maximum amount of passion in that moment. His supporters love it.

The key to generating passion, Barthes notes, is to position yourself to deliver justice against evil forces by whatever means necessary. “Wrestlers know very well how to play up to the capacity for indignation of the public by presenting the very limit of the concept of Justice,” Barthes writes.

Trump knows how to define his opponent — China, “illegals,” hedge fund managers — and pledges to go after them with unbridled aggression. If, in making his case, he crosses over a line or two, all the better.

For a pro wrestler, energy is everything. A wrestling fan is less interested in what is happening — or the coherence of how one event leads to the next — than the fact that something is happening. On that score, Trump delivers. He is omnipresent on TV. When he can’t make it in front of the camera, he’ll simply call in. When he’s not on TV, he’s tweeting boasts, insults, and non-sequiturs. When he runs out of things to tweet, he retweets random comments from his supporters.

Along those lines, Trump’s favorite insult — which he has employed repeatedly against Jeb Bush and, more recently, Ben Carson — is that his opponents are “low energy.”

Frenetic action is suicidal for a boxer, or a traditional politician. But Trump is not bound by those limitations. The crazier things get — Trump suggesting a popular Fox News host asked him a tough question because she was menstruating, for example — the more Trump’s supporters love it.

It is obvious that at such a pitch, it no longer matters whether the passion is genuine or not. What the public wants is the image of passion, not passion itself. There is no more a problem of truth in wrestling than in the theater.

This analogy reveals why the attacks on Trump are so ineffective. Recently, Rand Paul and others have taken to calling out Trump as an “entertainer,” rather than a legitimate candidate. This is as effective to running into the middle of the ring during Wrestlemania and yelling: “This is all fake!” You are correct, but you will not be received well.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/14/3701084/donald-trump/

[farleftlib]

7. Fascinating! I didn't know about his connection with WWE

but it makes so much sense. He does have that schlocky, over-the-top, crass insult delivery like "professional" wrestlers. Thanks for posting this.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

8. I'm 51 and at some point, not sure exactly when, probably 10 years ago or so, I began having...

...panic attacks at the thought of dying. Before then, I didn't give it much, if any, thought. And there was a period when I could not mentally handle anything depicting or related to death, especially violent death, because it literally rocked my world to see/think about it. That has eased a bit but the specter of death/dying is with me every single day.

There is almost never a night when, while dozing off, I feel like I might be dying and I violently force myself back awake. At this point my mind is filled with fear and I can at times jump right up on my two feet and feel myself all over, making sure I'm still alive. Then, stark panic, with my heart pounding so fucking hard I'd swear that, though I'm not dead, I'm surely about to be so from a heart attack.

It's become a routine, if not normal, part of my life now.

[applegrove]

9. Are you sure it is not sleep apnea? That can be deadly. A cousin's husband had it and didn't know.

He now sleeps with a machine that is quiet and forces air into his lungs. Apnea gone. So too the risk of death. I sometimes wake up because I can't get a breath if I sleep on my back. Perhaps there is a physical cause to your waking up? Just in case.

[kairos12]

10. I once had a philsophy professor tell me that Becker's book was the most important he ever read.

I've had a go at it. I read in bits and pieces.