I have been thinking a lot about thermostats and politics lately.
This thought pattern has been driven by two things:
I banned someone from my facebook page for the first time ever, and
Two separate books I have been reading discuss thermostats and politics.
The Facebook Ban
First, the facebook ban.
As you may know, I am a weekly guest on a local talk radio show. I discuss politics, political strategy, and the science behind politics. Over the past few months, I have ‘engaged’ in a ‘debate’ with a loyal listener.
I am all for free speech, debate, and the exchange of ideas. I enjoy it, I enjoy different perspectives, and I enjoy being challenged.
However, our ‘debate’ always seemed to denigrate with this listener to a bullying session rather than any attempt to learn from one another. The listener’s mind was made up, and if you didn’t 100% agree, began the attempt to beat you into submission with a volley of name calling, fallacies, and curated ‘proof’ from selected blogs.
The final straw was when the listener fabricated and attributed to me things I didn’t say in an attempt to make a point. Even when corrected, the listener wouldn’t stop. All of this being done mostly on my facebook timeline.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
-Winston Churchill
Finally, I had enough of the nonsense, shrill rhetoric, and name calling. I banned the listener. It has been the most peaceful, glorious week.
Schelling’s book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior, explores the relationship between individual’s decisions and their individual characteristics (micromotives) and aggregated social patterns (macrobehavior), and how these two influence each other. Because as we know from our previous studies, our observance of how people act is a powerful force on how we act. Schelling writes of ‘contingent behavior—behavior that depends on what others are doing.’
Ideology in America’s “main theme of this book, that when it comes to policy preferences, there are more liberals than conservatives. On average about 50% more Americans choose the liberal response (or the liberal end of a continuum) than choose the conservative response. Given a choice between left and right options for government activity, left prevails on average. And this pattern is robust. It will not matter what assumptions we make or what operations we perform. The picture will always be the same.”
So, one book about economics, the other book about political ideology and the disconnect in people’s stated political ideology and their policy preferences at an operational level of government.
When two separate and non-connected books (one authored by a Nobel prize winner) mention the same thermostat framework, it is time to place close attention.
Thermostats and Politics
The basic premises of both books is explained in Schelling’s Micromotives and Macrobehavior :
“The thermostat is a model of many behavior systems—human, vegetable, and mechanical.” (Schnelling)
“If the system is up to the task of attaining the desired temperature, it generates a cyclical process. The temperature rises in the morning to the level for which the thermostat is set—and overshoots it. It always does. The temperature then falls back to the setting—and undershoots it. It rises again and overshoots it. The house never just warms up to the desired temperature and remains there.” (Schnelling)
“The thermostat is smart but not very smart…. If the system is “well behaved” the ups and downs will become smaller and eventually settle on a steady wave motion whose amplitude depends on the time lags in the system.” (Schnelling)
Political Ideology, when writing about the study’s methodology expands this framework specifically to politics:
“In Wlezien’s conception, public opinion is mainly relative – a matter of more or less rather than absolutes.” (Ellis & Stimson)
“Public Policy Mood moves in the direction opposite to control of the White House and does so quite systematically.” (Ellis & Stimson)
“It tends to reach high points in either the liberal or conservative directions in the years in which out parties regain control. And then it moves steadily away from the winning and controlling party.” (Ellis & Stimson)
“Group A is left of Party “L.” Group B has preferences between the two parties. And Group C is to the right of Party “R.” But since only Group B changes in response to party control, it forms the longitudinal signal for the entire electorate. Thus the whole electorate acts, on average, as if it were entirely composed of Group B.” (Ellis & Stimson)
“Our conclusion is simple. Our best single understanding of why public opinion moves is that based on basic thermostatic response. Much political commentary, failing to take this fact into account, ends up looking to mystical and exotic sources to explain the commonplace. And much of that commentary sees the changes of the moment as harbingers of a different future, when the political landscape will be fundamentally different from what it currently is. But we know that the changes of the moment will be reversed as quickly as they came, as the public reacts against the ideological direction of the party in power.” (Ellis & Stimson)
Conclusions
Believe it or not, today’s extreme rhetoric can be explained as “normal” and in fact, completely predictable and expected.
In my opinion, today’s rhetoric is in response to two major items:
the extreme nature of the recent financial meltdown, and
the extreme nature of the expansion of government with Obamacare.
If you consider our political system to be explained by a ‘thermostat model’, today’s extreme rhetoric is simply Group C reacting in an attempt to regulate the political system.
Take solace that “Group B” will win- in time, and the system will regulate once again back towards some sort of equilibrium.
The Nest thermostat pictured above has gained a toehold in the market because the current thermostats are inefficient – our old thermostats aren’t that smart.
What America needs politically is a Nest thermostat, but until that time calm down and relax. Unfortunately, today’s shrill politics is an overheating of the system, soon to self-regulate.
During each odd number year, I set a goal to get better at my political science craft. Part of that goal is reading. Odd number year = take advantage of some down time = goal of 50 books related to political consulting. In 2013, I exceeded the goal by 5. #humblebrag
I believe the job of a political consultant is to study how people make decisions and then figure out how to affect the decision making process. This means our area for study is wide and vast.
In attempting to categorize the areas of concentration of my reading, I’ve come up with Behavior Decision Making, Cognitive Brain, Game Theory, Political Psychology, Advertising, Neuromarketing, Branding, Argumentation, and Philosophy.
I would say that this year’s main focus was on attempting to read more about how the brain works, makes decisions, and ways to potentially influence voters.
When people find out about my reading goal, I am often asked for recommendations.
Here you go:
Alex’s Fancy 2013 Top 10 12 Reading List for Political Consultants
(Note: The links provided are NOT affiliate links. They exist only for your convenience.)
Regardless of what the title says, this is not an introduction. There is math, lots of math, lots of advanced math. It is not for the faint of heart, and approximately 57% of the math went over my head. The part I did retain was fantastic.
A great anthology on political behavior, group relations, theoretical approaches, and change politics. I admit, I only skimmed the International Relations section.
I loved, loved, loved this book. In fact, I wrote an entire blog piece about it. Essentially this book tells us that in agreement with cognitive studies that issues mean little in the voters decision making process. Again, a novel methodology to studying the issue.
An absolute must read. This book takes a deep dive in Romney / Obama, separating the “political science truth” from the talk show pundits’ “truths”. If you are interested in the science of politics and what really happened in 2012, you should read this book.
If there was ever a book I read this year that made me read every single footnote, it was this one. This is fascinating stuff, but it also carries over into your clients’ request for “big data.”
While this book contains practical methods to critical thinking, the major revelation in this book is that our minds are liars. This book started my year long journey into biases, cognitive research and humility. If you consider yourself a true political analyst, you must do some meta-thinking about your biases and adopt some methodologies to counter them. If the smartest analysts in the world implement methodologies to attempt to minimize bias, political consultants should also.
While this book is additional reading into the two major systems of the brain and how our brains fool us, the book’s other key insight is the importance of metaphors. It uses the perfect metaphor for the two system brain: the rider and the elephant. This one metaphor wrapped up all the research and reading of cognitive biases into one simple to understand package; thus stressing the need for metaphors. Eureka moment! It has the added bonus of adding to our understanding of human nature and the concept of happiness.
This was the one book that allowed me to pull together “Alex Patton’s grand unified theory of political communication.” I had just completed reading the book and was ruminating on it while doing a 50 mile bike ride. Then came the Eureka moment, the proverbial lightning strike. I had to stop my bike and find my phone voice recorder as soon as possible. Yes, it was that dramatic. The book is dry and academic, but for me it was the most important book I read this year.
This book significantly changed the way I think about and make sense of the world. It is a discussion of how highly improbable events have massive influence on our lives. Once you read this, you can no longer give ‘guarantees’ and you become aware of the fact that “you don’t know what you don’t know.”
What does screenwriting have to do with politics? EVERYTHING. Political Consultants are story tellers, and there is no better book on the structure of stories and how to tell better ones. Looking how to construct a hero narrative? Look no further, read this.
Read this in college, and Zaller’s four axioms have stayed with me ever since. I normally re-read this every other off year for a refresher.
Final Words
Noting that political consulting has few professional credentials other than reputation, it is imperative that we take ownership of improving our craft. If you are still relying on decades of accumulated rules of thumb, I think you should make a change in your behavior.
Our minds are tricky little devils, and we owe it to our clients to get better.
Happy New year, and I hope the cycle is prosperous for you and your family.
However, it is a very interesting read and I strongly suggest you take a gander.
The main question I (the author) set out to answer is, which view of democracy best reflects modern reality? Do citizens lead politicians on policy? Do they judge them on performance-related characteristics? Or do they merely follow politicians?
The author’s conclusion(s)?
Voters for the most part focus on what the author calls performance-related characteristics, such as previous success in office and trustworthiness.
The voter thinks: “This politician has the personal traits I think a politician should have. This politician has done a good job in previous political positions.” In this view, citizens don’t directly lead politicians on policy, but they do lead on performance, throwing out incompetent or corrupt incumbents.
Most of the time voters apparently failed to judge politicians on policy—at least during campaigns.
At times, however, public policy did interest the masses. In these unusual cases, politicians appeared to follow voters.
Incumbents facing widespread public concern on issues that disadvantaged them responded strategically, adopting policy stances that mollified the public,
Instead of finding that policy issues influenced votes, the reverse was usually found : voters first decided to support a particular politician, then adopted that politician’s policy views.
WOW! When you put these findings together and take in the possibility that the author’s hypotheses are true, it has wide spread implications for how we run campaigns.
No, this is not a book review and I am skipping the math, additional nuances of the research, and more importantly the methodology, but let’s just agree that his findings warrant a much larger discussion.
However, this research would appear to confirm the recent flood of additional research about the cognitive abilities of our brain.
We are busy voters and our brains attempt to streamline life for us by creating shortcuts, habits, and heuristics. Why would issues be any different?
President Obama Illustration
A perfect example of this research is President Obama and his ’emerging’ stance on gay marriage.
In the first campaign, how many Democrats did you know who did NOT AGREE with President Obama’s then OPPOSITION to gay marriage, but voted for him regardless?
Put another way, gay people, who desperately wanted to get married voted for a President in direct opposition to gay marriage, and then rationalized an answer to solve this dissonance.
However, when the issue reached a critical mass inside the Democratic caucus, what did President Obama do? He simply switched positions.
Yes, some activists that are single issue voters, who care passionately about almost exclusively this issue, may have stayed home and not voted in the reelection campaign or not donated (probably the larger concern). The point is the number of these voters are so incredibly small.
Most Democrats, for whatever reason, decided they liked President Obama for reasons they may not even understand, and they were voting for him, come hell or high water. When they didn’t care much about an issue or they had no opinion, they adopted the opinion of their chosen politician.
Another example? Remember back to the debate on Obamacare or even during the Supreme Court hearings – a lot of these voters didn’t really know the first darn thing about Obamacare. The people that wrote the law don’t even know what is in it or how to implement it; however, ask an Obama supporter if they were “for” it, most will answer emphatically yes! They adopted their President’s stance on the issue. Just don’t ask them why.
I am not saying as campaign professionals that we can ignore issues. The people who participate in primaries, volunteer for campaigns, and donate to campaigns will care about issues.
However, we will need to change our focus and get our candidates and even issue campaigns to tell better stories that pack an emotional punch. These stories can’t be just a litany of policy points.
I have a Dream, NOT a 10 point plan!
In fact, I propose issues only be used to illustrate larger themes of values and character. In other words, Issues are subordinate to the story, and the story is about competence.
When I attempt to explain all of this to candidates or their campaign managers, their initial reaction always seems to be ‘horror’ or ‘disgust’.
I then point them to a poster I had made for the office. The poster is of Martin Luther King, Jr. standing on Washington’s mall during a small, little speech he gave.
The caption?
” It was ‘I have a Dream’, not ‘I have a 10 point plan.’ “
Conclusion
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
However, If the candidate persists (especially my conservative candidates), I may point them to an additional quote in the study:
Ozean was surprised and honored to be mentioned in Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of their “Consulting blogs to bookmark”
Ozean Media Political Consulting Blog
Ozean Media itself is not exclusively a political consulting firm, but part of its focus is on Republican political campaigns. The firm devotes a section of its blog to political consulting, and frequently posts updates on topics relevant to the consulting world. Be sure to check out the Friday posts where the blog goes in search of a “Eureka” moment.
I must admit, I think I may be maturing or mellowing in my age.
The past year/18 months has been a period of intense study in an attempt to answer the question “How do people REALLY make decisions, especially political decisions?”
This has lead to a more intense reading period than I can remember even while in college. It has lead to books and scientific papers on behavior decision making theory, statistics, Bayes statistics, cognitive thinking, irrationality, biases, political branding, story telling, critical thinking tools, Neuromarketing and philosophy.
It has been a true meta-experience, and “Thinking about thinking” has lead to an incredible personal and professional journey.
Distilled, here is what I am learning:
Our brains are complex, incredible and a big fat gigantic liar sitting atop our shoulders.
Essentially a synthesis of all the literature I have read is that we bump along life taking shortcuts that allow us to make sense of our world and unless we expend tremendous effort and are aware of our mental short cuts, we don’t do much heavy thinking. Even when we think that we are making a major decision, we are often making most decisions at a sub-conscience, affective, irrational level and then “confabulate” (my absolute new favorite word) a story in order to rationalize our decisions.
In fact, we have to force ourselves to do heavy thinking and even THEN, our brains still try and cheat and take short cuts.
For a very long time, I have been blissfully operating under my very own set of biases: personal and professional. Combine these biases and shortcuts with a healthy dose of ‘expertise’ and you had a person that did not deal well with ‘amateurs’ in the political field.
I was easily frustrated, dismissive, and impatient with others when it came to political and campaigning suggestions.
Then I spent a 18 months being humbled by science when you suddenly realize that the splinter in some amateur’s eye is completely blinding you to the log in your own eye.
The Change
I am attempting to personally commit myself to improving my decision making process and improving the way that I handle dissenting views proffered by others.
When you start treating your brain as benevolent well meaning liar, you approach things differently.
In all of the past 20 years, one question is helping me more than anything. The question?
“What if THEY are RIGHT?”
This simple question forces me to break my thinking patterns, at least some of them.
By not dismissing someone who does not agree with you out of hand, you are entering into a new way of thinking about an issue.
Quick take inventory of your own biases, think about your decision process:
Did you satisfy?
Did you seek only confirmation? Did you only goto your favorite website and find the first article that agreed with you and send it out as definitive proof?
Did you even consider a differing opinion?
Did you consider that you could be wrong?
What is the probability that you are wrong?
What are your critical underlying assumptions?
The key is to slow the decision making process down.
Before rejecting the person’s thought, idea, or comment immediately out of hand, I quickly ask, “What if THEY are right?”
How did they come to their conclusion(s), what was their process, what is their information, what is their reasoning? All questions that pop into your head when you ask “What if they are right?”
Even with this effort, I still forget to ask it sometimes hence the hanging of the post its around my workspace.
I am attempting to use this with my clients, family, my friends, and my political opponents.
Honestly, it is a struggle, because it is hard and takes more mental energy than one realizes.
But, I am starting to see the rewards. It is making me more patient (a little) and I think it is helping me make better decisions.
I find myself less interested in being right and more interested in making the best decision possible, and I think this alone will serve my clients, my family and my friends better.
I still may not agree with the person, in fact considering your side of the issue may make me further entrenched in my position but that is a complete other blog post.
For now, let’s just say I am making the effort.
Final thought on Thinking about Thinking
Please, don’t take my word about any of this; after all, my brain could be lying to me. He’s kinda of a rascal like that.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
