Understanding What and How
The recent election was disconcerting to me. Not so much because a particular party won, but because it seemed to me that for tens of millions of my fellow Americans (mostly decent people I’m guessing) a candidate’s personal character was not of sufficient importance to affect how they voted. What was I witnessing? The John Gotti effect?
I am fortunate enough to know some of those good people. Who they are and how they voted seemed so illogical to me so I asked if they would be willing to explain. Some of them were willing to. Across the board, I was astounded by their logic. I was especially interested by those in the Mental Health field, many whose clients have been on the receiving end of actions and attitudes represented by the leadership representing their party of their choice.
When I have trouble making sense of what I am seeing and I ask others and don’t get answers that satisfy me, I know that it just isn’t fitting into my world view; in this case what some human beings are capable of doing. As I am prone to do in situations like this, I turn to what research might have to say.
Science might have to tell me about how people make decisions like this. That search led me to the field of Moral Psychology and one book in particular, The Righteous Mind; Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathon Haidt. If you are, like me, wondering how or why something like this happened, you’ll find many answers and resources here, and in the field of Moral Psychology.
I don’t mean to spoil it for you, but the bottom line is that how and why people vote, land on religious issues (and most other things human beings do) ARE driven by and based on one’s emotions. Period. This is true for all of us, regardless of our left, right, independent, libertarian, neutral orientation, etc. Religious and political decisions ARE NOT driven by, based on, or representative of fact-sourced logic, intellectual reasoning, or rational thought, etc. This is true whether we are buying a car, a politician, a church, whatever.
We do, however, attempt (usually subconsciously) to cover for our emotionally based decision making with logic, reason, explanations, rationalizations, etc. Mansplaining isn’t limited to men.
This was not new information to me, and it doesn’t excuse, or mitigate the consequences of those choices people made in the last election, It does explain the futility of trying to use logic to understand a person’s political or religious choice(s).
I understand now, that when I asked the questions of those I spoke of above, their logical answers were nothing more than rationalizations used to justify their emotion-based choices. What I was hearing represented their “cover”. I want to emphasize that it is not just “them”; we all do the same thing. The important take-away for me is in situations when logic and emotions try to occupy the same space, logic and facts will always lose. They do not mix or play well together.
I know that we human beings are not capable of holding the feelings associated with emotionally charged events. The human body must have ‘relief.’ Behaviors (sometimes creating elaborate rational and narratives) are the vehicle for discharging them. We all have a need for safety, self-expression, belonging, connection, purpose, and autonomy. Behaviors are the way we satisfy those needs. This is all typically hidden from ourselves, and more transparent to others.
I was also reminded that emotions have the developmental level of (at most) a twelve-year-old human being. Feelings are not facts (but they are factual, as in they really, truly exist.) It isn’t that we so much intentionally hide this from others, we hide it from ourselves. It is difficult to know, and say “Look, I know my voting behavior doesn’t really make any sense, logically; I am just trying to feel better emotionally.”
The more we (and others) could know, admit, and say that to others, the better. Being able to do that, IS part of the answer to, “How do we talk about these, and other, difficult things.” If we knew of and admitted to the emotional, illogically based sourcing of our behaviors, the conversation could, would be, and is much more civil and productive, and is (suggested by research) an antidote to talking about difficult things with each other. And let’s not forget that the closer the person is to us and the more they matter to us, the less ability we have to hear, and to be listened to.
The reason that talking about things such as religion, politics, and half a dozen other taboo topics is so difficult (to the point that our culture has developed a “NO TALK” rule) is that we try to interact with each other using emotionally created behaviors, with logic. It never works. UNLESS the other person’s narrative, behaviors, or way of expressing their “reasoning” mimics ours. In those cases, the interaction is bonding. And also, blinding as Haidt suggests.
A significant factor in our not knowing and honoring this subject is our personal and societal abhorrence of this pesky part of ourselves; our emotional selves. Those who “sell” us things, including political parties and their candidates, know that we make the majority of our decisions from our emotional selves and use it to their advantage. Our lack of awareness of ourselves regarding this sets us up to be victimized.
They are experts at this like the Las Vegas performer who, as we are chatting with them, picks our pockets, except this time it is the politician, or salesman, or charismatic religious leader who takes advantage of us.
To me, being reminded of the above helps me understand how and why people, some of them the very same people who promote that they help people who have been traumatized, act in ways to further traumatize others. It also reminds me of how not to try to use logic when interacting with others.
What can I do?
Me being me, as a result of the last election, I would be wise to be conscious of the choices I have in terms of what to do when the things that the new regime promised to do becomes reality. They have told us exactly what to expect, in writing, no less. If there had been any doubt, the reality of the last few weeks has made it clear that I will be called on to do something. I won’t have to wait.
It doesn’t take AI or Siri to figure out what my choices are. All I need to do is review the different choices that the citizenry of the captive nations during World War II had and made. Their choices ranged from pretending nothing is happening, to minimizing the situation, to cooperation with the “authorities,” to collaboration with them, to be hired by them, to becoming part of the resistance, to conducting guerrilla warfare, to leaving the country, to actually giving up my own life in protest. All involve risk.
It is important for me to remember that my choice will be based on emotions not logic and that I don’t have to wait to decide. I am already choosing. I have always wondered what kind of German during World War II I would be. We are all about to find out.
I like what Martin Luther said. “If you want change, pick up your pen and write.”
It is not lost on me that he had no one to send what he wrote to. (Which by the way, resulted in creating the world of Protestantism.) So, not having a platform isn’t a very good excuse for me. He just nailed what he believed should change, to the door of a church. That’s what I am doing. I am aware of the risk in my (or you) doing anything.
It is not lost on me that without the average Afghan’s citizen support, the takeover by the Taliban could not have happened. The Ayatollah couldn’t have taken over control of Iran. It could be pretty easily argued that the results of our most recent national election was the American version of the same kind of takeover.
Part of the how and the why is that there are some things that are really not working here in America. Until we identify and begin effectively addressing them, what we just experienced will become the norm.
Calling All Mental Health Professionals. More than any group I can think of, mental health providers sadly have an incredibly unique opportunity (and, in my opinion, an ethical and moral responsibility) to make the world safer for those hammered emotionally by this last election. Tens of millions of them. Those people are/were/will be traumatized to some degree by the consequences of this election, and the events that are to follow.
I am not just crying wolf here. I have spoken with a fair number of them.
I propose we do our part in helping create safe spaces and places for them. I propose that we voluntarily and proactively identify ourselves, so that clients, prospective clients, and their loved ones can more easily determine whether they would feel/be safe with us or not.
I propose that we follow the lead of the brave individuals in our profession who already, upfront, and clearly let people know who they are beyond their degrees and certifications. “I am a Christian Counselor” is one example. For some folks, this indicates a potentially safe place for them. It lets others know; “This might not be a safe place or person for me.” At least it gives them a heads-up on what they might expect.
I would argue that the people who might come to us as clients would benefit from the same kind of information coming from us. I suggest that we let people know which political party we supported this year with our vote. The difference between the two major parties has never been more clear or important.
If I say, “I voted for the Republican Ticket,” or “I voted for the Democratic Ticket,” “I voted for …..( a candidate that represented another choice), or “ I didn’t vote.” I believe that would be immensely helpful. Transparency. No hidden agenda. No surprises. Safety. Honesty in advertising.
I then suggest that we say, “And my choice was driven by my…(name the emotion: some version or combination of anger, fear, sadness, happiness).
Then say nothing more. No attempt to use logic, rationality, excuses, explanations, justifications, etc.
Why? Science tells us that those are just a tissue thin wrapping that serves to hide our emotional truth. If they ask you about why you won’t tell them why you chose a certain path, teach them that such decisions are never based on logic, but strictly emotions.
That way we can model and teach them about what science says about such decision making. I think we owe that kind of transparency and modeling to those most vulnerable during these times.
Lawn mowers, leaf blowers, medicine come with advisory labels. There are tornado shelters, and safe houses. There are uniforms that inform. Home Depot and Hobby Lobby disclose their loyalty. Our turn.
A MESSAGE TO CURRENT OR PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS
If you or a loved one is a current client, or ever become one, I would suggest that you ask your provider if you haven’t already been told. How they respond to your inquiry will tell you what you need to know.
Let me now follow the Christan Counselor’s courageous example and my suggestion to other caregivers.
I voted for the Democratic ticket. The emotions that drove that decision were fear (8 on a 10 scale) and anger (5 on a 10 scale).
Comentarios