I was inpired to write this after reading the article by neuroscientist Bobby Azarian, in RawStory+ How Trump supporters’ brains prevent them from changing their minds.

Consider this excerpt from the article:

A seminal study by social psychologist David Amodio and colleagues at New York University suggests that the typical conservative is not likely to be convinced by something as simple as a logically persuasive argument. For some conservatives, it’s like asking them to change the color of their eyes. A progressive worldview cannot pierce their psyche because being dogmatic is programmed into the fabric of that worldview. It is not just that they are “stubborn”; their brains are actually wired to resist things that are new and different. So, you could say they lack “free will” when it comes to their voting decision. When we speak of free will in a modern sense, we are talking about the personal agency that enables one to override ingrained biases and consider alternative perspectives.

Azarian concludes:

Persuading the conservatives intending to vote for Trump is not about convincing them with logic; it is about understanding and navigating their innate preference for stability and tradition. By recognizing the inherent gravitation toward consistency, we see that the presentation of facts or data might not be the most persuasive tool. Effective persuasion demands an approach that’s strategically empathetic. Rather than challenging the core of their beliefs head-on, it’s far more effective to frame arguments in a way that resonates with their intrinsic values — stability, tradition and consistency. Narratives and stories that weave in those facts that resonate with their core values will be more compelling. Presenting change not as a rupture, but as a natural evolution of the existing order, can be a more palatable and effective narrative. 

To truly sway Republican voters, we must employ more than just arguments. It demands a properly balanced mix of genuine empathy, clever communication strategy and a basic grasp of the neurocognitive biases shaping their perspectives. 

In the end, the outcome of the election may well hinge on our ability to navigate the cognitive labyrinth of the conservative mind.

Among the comments to the article, this pessimistic one by Bill Vincent stood out:

This article states the obvious. It provides no practical guidance on how exactly to change the mind of Trumpers. None. The fact is, the only person that can bring themselves out of a cult is that person. They are the one that got themselves into this pretzel logic authoritarian mess. They have to sort themselves out of it. Naming/shaming doesn’t work. Logic doesn’t work. Anger doesn’t work. Violence doesn’t work. They have to figure it out themselves. And that happens very slowly, over time, for some. Not for most. Being in a cult is like being in a warm, cozy bathtub full of poison. It may be poison, but it feels good and getting out is too much discomfort. A person has to face that discomfort before they will ever escape the cult.

Reading Azarian’s article brought to mind the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz. In the first book he joined Dorothy on her journey to Oz to see the wizard hoping he could give him a brain which readers assume he lacked. He accompanied Tin Man (aka the Tin Woodman) who wanted a heart and the Cowardly Lion who wanted courage.

While like most people I was familiar with the first Oz story but didn’t know L. Frank Baun also wrote about about the Scarecrow in a subsequent book which explains that he had a brain all along and the Tim Woodman was a character in many other Oz books.

The Scarecrow is a character in the fictional Land of Oz created by American author L. Frank Baum and illustrator W.W. Denslow. In his first appearance, the Scarecrow reveals that he lacks a brain and desires above all else to have one. In reality, he is only two days old and merely naïve. Throughout the course of the novel, he proves to have the brains he seeks and is later recognized as “the wisest man in all of Oz,” although he continues to credit the Wizard for them. He is, however, wise enough to know his own limitations and all too happy to hand the rulership of Oz to Princess Ozma and become one of her trusted advisors, though he typically spends more time having fun than advising.

Wikipedia

If only Trump supporters had the brains that were capable of evolving so they would become as wise as the Scarecrow eventually did.

In fact, if only they could get the heart the Tim Man eventually discovered he had:

The Wizard turns out to be a “humbug” and can only provide a placebo heart made of silk and filled with sawdust. This is enough to please the Tin Woodman, who, with or without a heart, was all along the most tender and emotional of Dorothy’s companions (just as the Scarecrow was the wisest and the Cowardly Lion the bravest). When he accidentally crushes an insect, he is grief-stricken and, ironically, claims that he must be careful about such things, while those with hearts do not need such care. This tenderness remains with him throughout the series, as in The Patchwork Girl of Oz, where he refuses to let a butterfly be maimed for the casting of a spell.^[2]

When Dorothy returns home to her farm in Kansas, the Tin Woodman returns to the Winkie Country to rule as emperor. Later, he has his subjects construct a palace made entirely of tin — from the architecture all the way down to the flowers in the garden.

Wikipedia

What this all boils down to is that the survival of American democracy may depend on enough voters currently supporting Trump getting functioning brains so they will figure out Trump is selling them snake oil and compassionate hearts so they feel empathy for the people Trump demonizes.

More or less unrelated (unless you consider Trump having dementia as an aspect of neuropolitics): I posted this illustration (which I put together) on X and more than 11,000 people viewed it.

Read all Stressline blogs