Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

Short answer, we are stuck – at least for the foreseeable future.   

There are roughly three types of party government – single parties (China), two party (USA), and multi-party, where 3 or more parties have a legitimate shot at governing in whole or in a coalition (most of Europe).

As you know, the USA has a two-party system. 

Why? 

Well because the parties in power make the rules governing our elections.  And the two major parties, acting like the monopolies write the rules to keep and perpetuate their power. 

Ballot Access

Actually getting candidats on the ballot is difficult – more so in certain areas.

Access to the ballot requires filing fees and signature requirements.  These requirements vary state by state and by office.  Here is a 37 page summary document.  37 pages of ‘summary’!

A third party that wants to field a candidate in every congressional district across the country, we are talking millions of signatures and significant amounts of money.

Winner Take All Elections

In political science, there are few “laws”.

In almost every case as with most social science “it depends….” Is the beginning of most answers.

However, there is Duverger’s Law. 

Pssst…Meet Maurice Duverger – doesn’t this French political scientist look exactly like the type of guy that would pen a political science law?

I will paraphrase here (and his law is a bit more nuanced), but single member districts with first past the post elections – favor two party systems.    It’s a law!.

The very structure of American elections strongly favors two party rule.

Ideological Void

I will add a third reason.

In most cases, most people clamoring for a third party have few things in common other than rejecting both major parties. (I wrote a great post earlier about third parties in presidential elections)

Most independents act like closeted weak-partisan voters – meaning when pushed, their voting behavior mirrors a partisan voter (just don’t dare call them that).

To date, any third party that has put together a platform ends up being so absolute that they end up running goat sacrificing candidates.   Yeah, I am looking at you Libertarian Party.

Try it: write a platform and try to gain buy in.  It is so difficult, the GOP doesn’t even have one.  BAZINGA!

Conclusion

Without significant changes to the laws and regulations that govern elections, third parties will face nearly insurmountable obstacles – put in place by those that make and benefit from those exact laws and regulations.

One nascent change that is gaining a little  momentum is moving away from first past the post elections to rank choice voting.  We see this type of ballot in Maine, NYC, Alaska and few other places.    I am not a huge fan of the process, but you can learn more about it: https://www.rcvresources.org/how-it-works.

But it is also illustrative of the main point.  Those in power loathe to cede it to anyone, and will do all kinds of things to keep it. 

In Florida, Ranked Choice Voting was passed in Sarasota for local election via referendum.

Yeah, the State of Florida promptly and quickly banned it (Senate Bill 524)  for all elections in Florida with bi-partisan support.   

Overview

For the most part, voters in Alachua County performed about as one would expect.

Of all campaigns that were partisan and county wide, Democrats averaged 58% and Republicans averaged 42% of the vote.  This is in-line with historic returns going back to 1996.

There were no major deviations, except for two things:

• Republican Kay Abbitt won a school board race (in a primary, and that is a different post)
• Single Member Districts (SMD), even with the controversial campaign, (also, also, also) passed.

It is SMD that I am interested in exploring.

Results

SMD passed with 51% of the vote. 

It passed with a slim margin of 2,567 votes or 51%, but SMD did +9% points ‘worse’ than the baseline Democrat partisan result in the county races (average of 42%). 

This is interesting.

Dem Performance and SMD No Votes Are Highly Correlated

If we plot precinct’s percentage returns of Democrat performance (I used Alford vs Eagle County Commission race as a baseline) on the x axis, the SMD NO vote on the Y axis, we observe the two votes are highly correlated (.943 Pearsons) with an R² of .889.   (A perfect correlation is 1.0).

If you voted Dem (on a county commission race), you likely voted ‘no’ on SMD.  Partisanship was a main driver.    

So, what happened? 

There are two main clusters of deviation from the fit line:

• Precincts with high percentage of registered voters, A18-34.  (Defined as >=50%)
• Precincts with high percentage of African American voters.  (Defined as >=30%)

Under-Performance

First we will explore under-performance, Democratic performance – No Vote on SMD.

On average, under-performance voting was 12%.  However, there are a two clusters of outliers with the highest being 29%.

Exploring the precincts that are ~2x the average:

*Bold indicates AA precinct

^indicates student precinct

Voter Fatigue

As with most down ballot issues, we also look at fall-off or voter fatigue.  These are precincts that had voters that cast a vote in the County Commission campaign and for whatever reason didn’t cast a vote in SMD question.

On average, fall off / fatigue was 6%.  However, there are a couple of outliers with the highest being 21%.

So who didn’t make it down the ballot?  For the most part, they are precincts where younger voters comprise at least 50% of the registered voters.

As you can see 7 of the top 10 precincts that fell off are ‘student’ precincts (as defined by me as registration A18-34 >=50% of total registration).

*Bold indicates AA precinct

^indicates student precinct

Precincts comprised of younger voters experienced higher rates of voter fatigue for SMD.

Conclusions

So, what is the bigger “sin”?

Voting and not making it all the way through the ballot? (students)

OR

Voting and breaking with your party? (African Americans)

Regardless, two ‘bases’ of the national Democrat party coalition under-performed at this  local issue :young voters and African American voters.

If you are looking for 1,300 votes to change an outcome, either one is a good option.  (Average size of AA precincts is~1000 votes cast, student precincts ~1100 votes cast)

However, which is a bigger ‘surprise’?  Students not casting a vote for a local issue that doesn’t affect them much – OR – African Americans breaking from their local party’s position?

Finally, what is the better campaign strategy?

Asymmetric warfare using a ‘trusted’ messenger of the NAACP?

OR

Attempting nothing but to ride a partisan advantage and trusting a newspaper with declining readership to carry the message?

Data download

If you are interested in the cleaned up datafile, please feel free to contact me. 

We spent time in part 1, part2 , and part3 in this series speaking about the difficulty in changing minds once formed. We also spent some time talking about the ‘deep work’ needed and how to change to change minds.
We have seen just how difficult it is to change minds and rare.

In writing those posts, I realized that is not what most people in our field are speaking of when they talk about “changing minds.”

(In fact, we may not want to affect your mind, opinion at all. We may be more interested in affecting your behavior. Does a political actor really care what you “think” as long as you vote or don’t vote this specific way?)

I have heard one researcher say to actually change minds, a relationship is required. In today’s politics, there are few relationships formed outside partisanship.

So, for the most part, we aren’t talking about changing minds at all.

What we really want to know about is…..propaganda.

Propaganda – the techniques of mass persuasion.  The use of symbols and psychology to prey on prejudices and emotions with the intent of having the “recipient” come to think it is all their idea and adopt a position. 

We must return to our model of thinking.

We have two main systems – System 1 (fast, automatic) and System 2 (slow, deliberate).

I have used the metaphor of the rider and the elephant. Others have used other metaphors (the Gator and the Judge).

Regardless of what you call them, System 1 is continuously scanning, decided on what one will focus on, ignore, and / or use some sort of heuristic to process quickly. System 2 takes effort, requires one to slow down.

As a researcher said, “System 1 is judging all the time, and system 2 decides – but only sometimes” and I will add : “and rarely”.

THE BASIS OF MASS PUBLIC OPINION

John Zaller in his work, The Nature of Origins of Mass Opinion, expands on the important concept with 4 ‘axioms’:

1) reception – greater a person’s engagement with an issue, the more likely they will take in and seek out information.

2) resistance – people tend to resist arguments that are inconsistent with their political per-dispositions.

3) accessibility – the more recent consideration has been given the less time it takes to form a thought about the subject.

4) response – people form opinions and provide survey answers by averaging across everything that is immediately salient or accessible to them.

Said in a different way, most people who are into politics have their minds made up and seek out information to fortify their positions. Others, who aren’t into politics – are the most difficult to reach and yet the most persuadable – mostly by what they experience in their current environment.

Hate to break it to all of us in the political realm, most of the public just isn’t that into us. Most don’t think deeply about candidates, issues, or the use of political power.  They have other priorities. 

For the most part, in politics we aren’t doing the deep work to change hearts and minds, we are looking for those who agree or are inclined to agree with us – then motivating them. We are identifying those who don’t agree with us and unmotivating them.

Persuasion in this sense is less about changing minds or behavior, but rather on creating the environment then prompting you to act – creating the illusion the change was your idea all along.

One of the main concepts I have come to understand – System 1 is an always-on, giant threat detector. It is continuously scanning for anything that can injure, hurt, and/or kill us.

Our minds therefore our attention naturally gravitates towards deviations from the norm and any and all perceived threat(s). If there is no threat, no novelty, or no one/something we trust to interrupt the elephant, System 1, the elephant, just lumbers on. Our brains simply ignore most banal or routine things.

CONCLUSION

In summation, this means the processing of most political information is happening largely in System 1 using mental shortcuts – affecting this sytem – this is where the real power of persuasion lies.

Rarely is system 2 used (especially if it requires us to think against the groups we hold dear), like it or not, the main route of persuasion is through System 1, the playground of propaganda. 

COMING NEXT

The perfect propaganda recipe.

We have finally arrived at part 3 of 3 on the topic of “How to Change Minds Using Digital Media? Persuasion.”

In Part 1 – we explored the formation of beliefs, values, and opinions.

In Part 2 – we explored the forces at work that attempt to sustain beliefs – both internal and external.

Finally, in part 3 we explore what it takes to actually persuade.

But first it is recap time:

• Changing minds is extremely difficult.
• Many competing forces are at work to form and shape beliefs.    These shift over time in importance and credibility.
• Many competing forces are at work and have an interest – normally economic – in sustaining your beliefs.
• Human brains are wired not to see things clearly, but to conserve energy and help us survive.  We are all subject to two tiered thinking (think rider and elephant), with most of our thinking on autopilot.
• In politics, most people are on autopilot.  They aren’t motivate enough or don’t care enough to think deeply about politics, and this is the power of party ID.  If in general, I believe I share the same beliefs and values – I will look to cues mostly from party leaders and actual opinions become fungible.

This is why it is so difficult to change minds in politics.  Politics creates  feedback loops that activate beliefs, values.  They create identities – “I am a Republican.”  These identities are reinforced – hardening positions.

Cognitive Dissonance

Once positions are hardened then the concept of cognitive dissonance comes into play. 

When people are faced with dis-confirming information, they become stressed.  For the most part, people want their values, beliefs, opinions and behavior to be in agreement and alignment. 

When faced with new information that dis-confirms a current mental model/reality, a person has a couple of choices

• Denial – just ignore it
• Bolstering – add thoughts to our side of argument
• Differentiation – split arguments (i like the person, but disagree)
• Integration – both can peacefully exist

In most cases, most will rationalize away the dis-confirming information. 

We humans must construct a reality in line with our mental model / reality. 

Yet, we do see people change their minds.  So, we know it is possible.  After all, we have seen massive changes in public opinion on the legalization of marijuana, on gay rights, on Russia.

Therefore, it is time the ask one of the best questions ever taught in grad school : when faced with two seemingly contradictory findings, ask under what conditions can BOTH be true?

Under what conditions even though difficult do people change their minds?  How does digital media affect this process?

Persuasion, manipulation, and coercion

A quick note, in politics a lot of the time, when politicians, leaders, etc say they want to persuade, really they mean they want to use power to make you do something – they want to coerce you.  They want to remove the choice and free will.  “Do it or else….”

That is not what I am writing about – that is another blog post.

How to change minds

We must return to our rider and elephant metaphor of the dual processing in a person’s brain.

Most of the time, we are in elephant mode – lumbering through life, conserving energy, and confirming our beliefs.

In addition, we have seen that brute force attempts often boomerang and backfire.

If a person is unmotivated to change, we are likely to change beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. Yes with coercion, we may be able to change short term behaviors, but it is unlikely to stick.

My model is my teenage son. I have come coercion at my disposal in the form of punishments, but if I want to affect true change – the seemingly only way is to allow him to think any and all change is 100 percent his idea. If I come directly at him and challenge him head on, he is sure to buck and dig in.  My role as a caring and loving parent is to interrupt his lumbering elephant and shape the path.   Real change is difficult, time consuming, indirect, and uncertain to work.

Step 1 – Interrupt the Elephant

We must interrupt the automatic thinking.

As we have discussed, often it is an event outside our control that opens people up to change. (9/11, trauma, job loss, etc.)  At those times, we must “be willing to never waste a crisis.”  Yes, there are true crisis, but the big stressors in life also open windows – new job, a death, moving.  In these cases, move fast.

But how do we create our own momentum towards change? There is significant research into affective decision making and the roles of fear and anxiety. Yes, fear is a driver, but it appears to be more short term in nature. Anxiety is more insidious.

This is why so many digital headlines, ‘news’ stories, political stories are anxiety laden.  Anxiety is the Trojan horse of persuasion.

Step 1 is to get interrupt the elephant, allow the thinking to move from automatic to deliberate, and allow the rider to take control.

A successful interruption will often embrace a novel, shocking, or provoking use of emotion, typically inducing anxiety. 

We then need to work on shaping the path.

Considerations of the Interruption

What are we really trying to change?  Beliefs, Attitudes, Opinions and/or behavior?  This far too often is overlooked.  Beliefs and Attitudes are difficult, but normally, we are attempting to work on short term behavior or opinions.

We must consider the starting point of target.  How strongly held are their beliefs, attitudes, opinions and/or behaviors?  Sometimes it is helpful to think of a football field.  50 yard line is neutral, and the goal lines are our strongest held beliefs.  It is very rare that someone wholesale changes their beliefs…rather it is a process.  They have to move the entire football field, and that takes time, effort and consistency.  There are ‘zones of acceptance’ and if we are asking too large of a jump, we are looking at the success rate of a hail-mary.  The zone of acceptance often forms the credibility of the message itself.

In addition, we must consider credibility.   Someone outside our tribe, we are likely not to trust them or find them credible.  In our efforts to ease our cognitive dissonance, if we can write off dis-confirming information as coming from a non-credible source, we can quickly return control to the elephant.

Finally, efficacy.  The target must always feel like they are in control and not being manipulated or forced.  “Do your own research….” “We are just asking questions…..”  The need for efficacy is a powerful driver.

The Power of Questions

A good way to interrupt is a question.  Allowing the target to answer the question.  “How” questions are effective.  No better political question than “how so?”

Shaping the Path

Once we have interrupted, the messenger must be credible, we need to frame information as being consistent with currently held beliefs, we need to show social proof (peer pressure), best to be an authority figure, and don’t forget the fear of loss / loss aversion. 

Human behavior is greatly affected by the behavior of others – especially by people we like and trust.  If we aren’t that into a subject, we will readily adopt the opinions and behaviors of our pastors, political leaders, friends, and co-workers.  If a person sees someone in their tribe also making the change, we are apt to continue to think about it.   It is why the entire ‘influencer’ markets exist.  We must make great efforts to demonstrate social proof.

Unfortunately, many in the digital space make herculean efforts to manufacture fake social proof – it is also why false reviews are a massive, fake accounts are a massive problem, and bot nets exist.  They are problems because they are highly effective tactics.    There is significant research that volume can make up for low credibility.  If we see a message from many different sources, the credibility can be lower – due to social proof.

If possible, create experiences for the target.  The old adage of show, don’t tell.  If trying to convince a political leader, arrange a personal tour.  If tying to use digital media, use a virtual tour or a video to tell your story.  Visuals are critical.

Consider inoculation.  If you know the arguments against your position, best to bring them up and put them on the table.   There is some research that shows the goal isn’t to REFUTE the arguments, but rather to simply acknowledge them. Chris Voss labels this an accusation audit. Regardless of what you label it, we have found it to be extremely effective.

Finally, take advantage of loss aversion.  Humans fear loss.  There is research showing that humans feel loss or the fear of loss 1.5 – 2 times than we value gain.   At times in marketing, this is referred to as scarcity.  (This offer expires in 10 minutes….).  If you can massage your message to pique a loss frame,  you will likely see an uptick. 

An example – the vaccine whisperer

Adam Grant in his book Think Again provides the example of a local doctor who is called the vaccine whisperer.  (Doctor = high credibility).  When faced with a vaccine hesitant person, he doesn’t try to argue, get political, preach or make them a villain.  He interviews.    His goal is to get the person to see new possibilities.

The doctor tells the person they are concerned of what would happen if they became sick, but he accepted their decision but wanted to understand it better.   (triggers anxiety, zone of acceptance).  In the end, the doctor – after listening – would acknowledge the world is full of conflicting information, and reminded the patient “that they were free to choose and that he trusted their ability and intentions.”  (inoculation, efficacy, non threatening).

The premises of this entire series is that we can’t make someone change.  If we could, my teenagers would behave differently.  We are better off coaching and helping them think everything is their idea by shaping the path of the elephant and rider. 

The question for us in the digital space is how do we convert this one-on-one experience and convert it to the digital space?

Summary

One must understand to attempt to change minds is difficult and fraught with peril.  We see this so much in today’s politics – what fails to persuade us, normally makes our beliefs stronger. 

So, in most cases it is best to be first.  Get there before positions are hardened.   In digital advocacy, first mover has a large advantage.  

Interrupt the elephant.

• Best done with emotion, not facts or stats.
• Anxiety inducing has been shown to lead the pack of emotions.
• Must be from a messenger target finds credible – a person of authority is typically best.
• Questions are helpful.
• Prompt or stimulus – Can be novel or shocking.
• Take advantage of events outside of your control.

Shape the Path.

• Framing new information in direction with targets’ beliefs and values is best.   Pay attention to the zone of acceptance so that the message itself has credibility.
• Stress Efficacy.  The target must feel in control.  If they feel manipulated or coerced, they are likely to dig in and double down.
• Show (don’t tell) how people like them are / have made the change you want.  Create Experiences.
• Use as many and as various of validators or endorsers as you can muster.
• Consider the technique of inoculation.

Additional Reading

• Cialdini, Robert B. Influence, New and Expanded : the Psychology of Persuasion . First Harper Business new and expanded hardcover edition. New York: Harper Business, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2021. Print.
• Grant, Adam. Think Again : the Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know . New York, New York: Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, 2021. Print.
• Haidt, Jonathan. The Happiness Hypothesis : Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom . New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.
• Joseph Grenny et al. Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change, Second Edition, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print.
• Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow . 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Print.
• Lakoff, George. The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2014. Print.
• Marcus, George E., W. Russell. Neuman, and Michael. MacKuen. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Print
• Voss, Christopher, and Tahl Raz. Never Split the Difference : Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It . First edition. New York: HarperBusiness, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 2016. Print.
• Westen, Drew. The Political Brain : the Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation . New York: PublicAffairs, 2007. Print.

Editors note:  I admit this writing is terrible.  In re-reading this, I find myself cringing.  Persuasion is a messy and complicated issue.  In this series, I realized that the persuasion techniques here – while fundamental and key points – aren’t what most people think of when thinking of persuasion in the digital sphere.

When talking persuasion in digital – a lot of people are really talking mass public opinion and propaganda.

Therefore, I have decided to add a part 4 of 3 on mass opinion and propaganda.  Stay tuned.

In Part 1 HOW TO CHANGE MINDS USING DIGITAL MEDIA? FORMATION OF BELIEFS, VALUES AND ATTITUDES, we explored the formation of beliefs, values, attitudes, and identities.

We understand that after people form political identities (or any for that matter), they are extremely difficult to change.

Why?

Our Tricky Brains – Thinking about Thinking

There is ample evidence that once we form identities, these identities begin to influence and affect our actual realities.  These psychological attachments becomes screens that are used to filter information – they literally construct our realities.

This is in part due to how our minds operate.  Human minds are not built to see things clearly.  Let me repeat: human minds are not built to see or process information clearly.    In fact, our minds, in a lot of cases are big fat liars.  We see patterns where they don’t exist.  We continually mix up causality.

At a base level, our minds are meant to help us survive, conserve energy, and pass our genes on in order to keep the species alive.  Anything after those things is gravy.

The Two -System Brain

Taking a lot of interesting science and boiling it down – there are two main systems in the brain for processing information.  They are called different things by different people – system 1 & 2 /  fast & slow / automatic and deliberate – regardless of what you call them, the best metaphor I have found is the elephant and the rider.

Most of the time, our thinking is on auto-pilot.  It is like the elephant, it lumbers along processing information.  Most of the time, we aren’t conscious of the decisions being made for us.  Thank goodness!  Could you imagine how exhausting it would be to truly notice everything all the time?  This automatic processing allows us to conserve energy and make intuitive decisions that are often right.  I drove home yesterday on a route that I drive almost daily.  I can’t tell you a single detail of the drive, but I made it home safely. 

This two-process thinking also explains why humans react to negative stimuli much more than ‘positive’.  We tend to remember the place a bear is likely to confront us on a nature walk.

The two-process thinking also explains the power of negative emotions and dread of loss.  Negative emotions stick with us longer and play a larger role in our mental makeup.  It is why trauma is so insidious.

Politics for most people is strictly on autopilot.  Let’s face it, they just aren’t that into us.  People are busy with other daily tasks and politics is completely put on automatic or non-existent.  A large part of society doesn’t connect their daily lives with politics.

Of course, there are times when we are awoken from our automatic slumber, and the rider takes control of the elephant.   It takes great effort on the rider’s part – but if the rider is motivated enough and able,  the rider can wrestle with a topic a notion.

This normally happens with something novel…say a bicyclist lurches out in front of a driver on the normal route they take and the driver is forced to slam on the breaks.  Suddenly, the driver can tell you details about the drive.

This also happens with emotional stimuli.  There is considerable research on the power of fear.  If you are afraid of something, the rider may take control to spend more time and energy thinking about the subject causing fear.

The other biggie is anxiety.  There is compelling research demonstrating that anxiety drives more attitudes and behavior than fear.

Understanding these key concepts is crucial to understanding today’s political environment.

Reality Constructs

Once we start this identity supporting feedback loop. It is extremely difficult to short-circuit.  Our brains literally use these processes & glitches to construct our own realities.  We see, hear, feel, experience different realities to the same stimuli.

This explains why dash cameras & police body cams are controversial.  A camera presents an ‘objective’ video of events. The camera doesn’t care about your brain, it is what it is – the camera shows the same footage to anyone willing to see it.  Yet, there is hardly a policy body cam video released that people don’t ‘see’ different things or ‘construct’ different realities.

A final thing to understand about identities and the brain is that once identities are formed, humans seek out like-minded people (there is some research that explores the causation of these two factors – do we form friends on our identities – or are our identities formed by our friends?  My guess is ‘yes’ – but you have to ask under what conditions…..)  Once a tribe is formed, a tribe has rewards and punishements (banishment and rejection) to maintain the group, and then the group begins to separate from people that don’t share these identities.

Maintaining and Sustaining Beliefs, Values, and Behaviors

Key understanding:  In our current politics, there are many, many political actors that are interested and invested in assisting the public, voters, and donors maintain, sustain, and deepen their political identities.  They are often using digital media as the tool. 

These political actors absolutely want the elephant in control.  They understand people are using these identities as information flow guardians – allowing in information agreed with – rejecting information that doesn’t conform to identities.     

They understand, humans are literally constructing a reality.

There are political actors intent on playing to this brain hack, and they are being rewarded handsomely.

It explains how social media algorithms are so sneaky:  the algorithms first are trained to feed us agreeable information and second then optimized to feed us information we ‘engage’ with – said another way – negative, fear, and anxiety laden messages.    In the end, the algorithms are optimized and rewarded with ad revenue.  See – Facebook files!

Political parties and politicians are additional crisis-actors in this ‘game’.  Their interests are donations, votes, and media attention.    Both political parties and politicians have a vested interest in keeping the base ‘engaged.’  The more engaged the base is, the more small & large dollar donations flow.  The downside is this engagement is driven by hatred of the out-group (negative partisanship), and emotional appeals laden with anxiety, fear of loss, and shock.  

Finally, the media – while always driven by sensationalism – is now driven by click through rates, likes, and ‘engagement.’  The thing that is different, the Internet has allowed people with varying, fringe identities that may have been a small minority in any community to join forces.  This is how Alex Jones is allowed to sell vitamins.

In fact, the entire online economy is driven by ‘engagement.’   

Now, get off my lawn.

What have we learned?

As we have stated, changing minds is  difficult.

Humans will protect our identities and use our identities to form feedback loops to reinforce our identities. 

Adding to this is the very structure of our thinking.  A vast majority of our waking day is spent in the automatic or elephant part of our brain.  To some extent, we are all on autopilot.

Finally, there are political actors who are cracking the code with the intention of adding gas to the fire because these actors have no desire to allow anyone to change their mind and ‘gasp’ possibly change teams.  In addition, they are rewarded with financial gain.

It takes great effort for the rider to seize control away from the elephant or automatic thinking.  Normally, it takes something novel (shocking, controversial) and / or new.  These stimuli are often laced with emotions – fear and anxiety.

But wrestling control is just the first step.  Now that something nvoel or new has happened, and it is powerful enough to force us out of our lumber,  is powerful enough to sruvive our deliberate process of thinking?

As we will see, in part three – once we are tuned in, we still face considerable hurdles to changing minds.

Because as we all know, it regardless of the difficulty, changins minds does happen.