Trump’s Appeal: What Psychology Tells Us

Sixties Fan

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2017
53,599
10,411
2,140
[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

  • Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
  • Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
  • Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
  • His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.


It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.


 
[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

  • Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
  • Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
  • Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
  • His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.


It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.


Thanks. I look forward to reading the whole article.

To me, this phenomenon goes far beyond politics. This is cultural, sociological, anthropological. And, as I've said a zillion times, it's not about the person. It's about something much larger. Look to history: It's never about one person. It CAN'T be.
 
Thanks. I look forward to reading the whole article.

To me, this phenomenon goes far beyond politics. This is cultural, sociological, anthropological. And, as I've said a zillion times, it's not about the person. It's about something much larger. Look to history: It's never about one person. It CAN'T be.
It definitely has to do with people's beliefs, their financial issues, etc, etc. Elections always include much of what you wrote about, but has never been like this, before Trump decided to run for the Presidency.

The country has been totally changed, where threatening Poll workers and any officials want to become the norm to win any kind of elections or needs, by threats and bringing in guns. And this is mainly, actually all, done on the Republican side.

The psychology of Might over Right, is in full bloom with Trump supporters.
 
I don't care about Trump

The country is burning.

The world is burning.

That is what I care about

How about you?
Oh, I don't know. The world is always, always burning. Until it REALLY is, i.e., with nuclear bombs galore, it's a nothingburger relative to WWII. Even if the country dissociates into six nationlets, this is incredibly normal, and I've been amazed for some years now that it hasn't happened yet: after all, the British Empire and the Soviet Union already broke up.
 
It definitely has to do with people's beliefs, their financial issues, etc, etc. Elections always include much of what you wrote about, but has never been like this, before Trump decided to run for the Presidency.

The country has been totally changed, where threatening Poll workers and any officials want to become the norm to win any kind of elections or needs, by threats and bringing in guns. And this is mainly, actually all, done on the Republican side.

The psychology of Might over Right, is in full bloom with Trump supporters.
I couldn't figure out what you were, since I don't really read long OPs.

Okay, you're a leftist, got it.
 
It definitely has to do with people's beliefs, their financial issues, etc, etc. Elections always include much of what you wrote about, but has never been like this, before Trump decided to run for the Presidency.

The country has been totally changed, where threatening Poll workers and any officials want to become the norm to win any kind of elections or needs, by threats and bringing in guns. And this is mainly, actually all, done on the Republican side.

The psychology of Might over Right, is in full bloom with Trump supporters.
That's from the voices they choose to listen to. Everything has to be simple and binary. They're not going to tell these people to drop their egos, open their minds and put out some intellectual effort. There's no ratings or views in that. Success in their media means making them as paranoid and full of rage as possible, so that's what they give them, no matter what.

I've long thought that not nearly enough attention has been paid to the right wing media, from the day Limbaugh went national. This is now profoundly personal to them.
 
So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”
Salon was mostly right.

 
Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change?
Trump governed the nation far better than Biden has... and you speak of the rule of law when the law enforcers are breaking the laws in an attempt to undermine Trump and catch him in some kind of disqualification crime... if anyone is guilty of corruption its Joe Biden and his family....
Now since we have seen your copy and paste skills maybe you can tell us in your own words what Trump did that was anti Constitutional or illegal.....
Because in 7 years not one of you libs on this board have been able to answer that question....
 
Trump governed the nation far better than Biden has... and you speak of the rule of law when the law enforcers are breaking the laws in an attempt to undermine Trump and catch him in some kind of disqualification crime... if anyone is guilty of corruption its Joe Biden and his family....
Now since we have seen your copy and paste skills maybe you can tell us in your own words what Trump did that was anti Constitutional or illegal.....
Because in 7 years not one of you libs on this board have been able to answer that question....
It's a terrible mistake to ever, ever focus on "what they did" when a faction in power is trying to get rid of a rival. It's never about whether X was right or wrong, or what exactly happened or didn't happen, or any details at all. Across the world and across History it's only about one thing: getting rid of the rival that may knock the people in power right out of power.

Never get distracted by "what happened," I would say. Just watch to see whether the party in power manages to destroy their rival or not. And line up on the side you prefer.
 
It's cute that people believe it is "psychology" telling them something when it is but one man's opinion dressed up with an appeal to authority by CALLING it psychology.
Do I understand your understanding of psychology correctly?

Do you and others actually know what Psychology is ? What it is about? Or are you putting it in a negative context which has nothing to do with anyone's opinions about anything.

When someone can say anything which goes against the principles the country runs on, through the constitution and the Rule of law, and people believe it to the point of wanting to go 180 on all of it, what are all of these supporters looking for?

Do they understand that destroying the Constitution and the Rule of law as it has been for two centuries in the US also destroys the country and turns it into something else, like possibly a Dictatorship, like Poland, Belarus and others have become lately? How do you think that those countries went from Democracies to Dictatorship?

All of those countries went through the undermining of the media, the law, the police, their Homeland Security.


What is the psychology behind so many Republicans believing everything Trump has said since 2016 about the Media, the electoral process, Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA, the police, the Military ?


Do any of you understand what undermining any and all of those organizations can do to any country, as you may be aware that it has happened to others?

Are you, or anyone else, going to actually say that the Democrats are the ones who delegitimized the media, FBI, CIA, etc before Trump? That the Democrats were threatening and brandishing weapons here there and everywhere, as it has been happening in the past seven years?
 
[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

  • Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
  • Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
  • Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
  • His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.


It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.




I don't care about trumps personality. A lot of times he is pompous and arrogant and runs his mouth a bit much.

What I do like is what he wanted behind the bombastic personality. I care about his stats and what he did.

I liked these things off the top of my head.

He pushed against the spread of low income housing. I don't want low income housing near me because it brings the people with it I don't want near me. I live in a semi rural area and overall it's peaceful and everyone around me I am comfortable with because they are similar to me.


He sped up generic drug approval meaning people could much cheaper medications much faster.

He based 5g technology off of our own technology instead of using all Chinese made technology that they had access to.

He tightened rules for asylum and tightened our border. Which as we have seen in the past 18 months doing the opposite has catastrophic results that damages the whole country.

He did a lot lot of good in the middle east. He recognized Jerusalem and Israel, he moved American embassys and fostered a better feeling out of them. He also ripped isis a new ass and he negotiated and set up our pull out of Afghanistan.

He got nato alies to kick in 12 billion for our collective security.

He was tough on china and recognized our dependence on them and sought to break away from them.

He punished companies that tried to move out of America.

He pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and gave us wonderful energy independence while we sought to work on alternatives for energy.

He ended foreign aid to the tune of 400 million to countries like el Salvador, Honduras and other countries that were sending their criminals here. He did that and they took them back and stopped sending more.

And most of all. He brought back the idea of loving America and wanting it to be strong, encouraged people to take pride in America and what it once stood for. He stood for love of America and to love what originally made it such a great country. He supported families and hated crime.

There is a lot more but I don't care about his personality, I care about what he actually does.
 
[ Knowing how to rally people and voters and supporters to one's side is not the same as eventually governing well and fairly. Governing depends on following the Constitution and the Rule of Law. How much did Trump follow the Constitution and the Rule of Law, how much of either did he attempt to change for his own interests and not those of the country? How much do his supporters know about the Constitution and Rule of Law he so often attempted to change? ]


Behind his unforeseen success in the 2016 election was a masterful use of group psychology principles

  • Donald Trump's rallies enacted how Trump and his followers would like the country to be. They were, in essence, identity festivals.
  • Trump succeeded by providing a categorical grid—a clear definition of groups and intergroup relations—that allowed many Americans to make sense of their lived experiences.
  • Within this framework, he established himself as a prototypical American and a voice for people who otherwise felt voiceless.
  • His rivals did not deploy the skills of identity leadership to present an inclusive narrative of “us.” In that context, Trump had a relatively free run.


It is easy and common to dismiss those whose political positions we disagree with as fools or knaves—or, more precisely, as fools led by knaves. Indeed, the inability of even the most experienced pundits to grasp the reality of Donald Trump's political ascendency in the 2016 presidential race parallels an unprecedented assault on the candidate and his supporters, which went so far as to question their very grip on reality. So it was that when a Suffolk University/USA Today poll asked 1,000 people in September 2015 to describe Trump in their own terms, the most popular response was “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb,” followed by “arrogant” and “crazy/nuts,” and then “buffoon/clown/comical/joke.” Similarly, Trump's followers were dismissed in some media accounts as idiots and bigots. Consider this March 2016 headline from a commentary in Salon: “Hideous, Disgusting Racists: Let's Call Donald Trump and His Supporters Exactly What They Are.”

Such charges remind us of Theodore Abel's fascinating 1938 text Why Hitler Came into Power, but first let us be absolutely explicit: We are not comparing Trump, his supporters or their arguments to the Nazis. Instead our goal is to expose some problems in the ways that commentators analyze and explain behaviors of which we disapprove. In 1934 Abel traveled to Germany and ran an essay competition, offering a prize for autobiographies of Nazi Party members. He received around 600 responses, from which he was able to glean why so many Germans supported Adolf Hitler. Certainly many essays expressed a fair degree of anti-Semitism and some a virulent hatred of Jews. In this sense, party members were indeed racists or, at the very least, did not object to the party's well-known anti-Semitic position. But this is very different from saying that they joined and remained in the party primarily or even partially because they were racists. Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.

We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump. Some, undoubtedly, were white supremacists. All were prepared to live with his racist statements about Muslims, Mexicans and others. But are racism, bigotry and bias the main reasons people supported Trump? Certainly not. We argue instead that we need to analyze and understand the way he appealed to people and why he elicited their support.

Moreover, we need to respect those we study if we want to understand their worldview, their preferences and their decisions.

To understand how Trump appealed to voters, we start by looking at what went on inside a Trump event. For this, we are indebted to a particularly insightful analysis by journalist Gwynn Guilford, who, acting as an ethnographer, participated in Trump rallies across the state of Ohio in March 2016. We then analyze why Trump appealed to his audience, drawing on what we have referred to as the new psychology of leadership. Here we suggest that Trump's skills as a collective sense maker—someone who shaped and responded to the perspective of his audience—were very much the secret of his success.


Adapted from Why Irrational Politics Appeals: Understanding the Allure of Trump, edited by Mari Fitzduff, with permission from ABC-CLIO/Praeger, Copyright © 2017.

Editor’s note: All but the last section of this article was written before Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, making its insights all the more remarkable. It was updated for Scientific American Mind.


Holy Shit!


Cliff_Notes_Your_Post.jpg



For millions of people, it is really this simple:

1. Not Hillary Clinton

2. Not a career politician

Most people hate the fucking cocksucking establishment and want it destroyed.

Simple
 
establishment = deep state = career pols
The post I was going to write.. thx.
It is so funny and at the same time arrogant and dismissive of these motherfuckers to think that Trump is leading everyone around. Quite the opposite. He is merely a symbol. A representation of severe dissatisfaction with the bullshit coming out of DC.
 

Forum List

Back
Top