Why Americans Get Manipulated

The Science of the Herd

“…nothing needs to be emphasized more than that we should not, like sheep, follow the lead of the flock in front of us – heading not where we ought to go, but where it goes.”
— Seneca, On the Happy Life, 1.2–3

We’ve discussed America’s victory turn into polarization, and how that’s a predictable move as old as time.

But Americans aren’t a flock of birds, scattering and landing together. There’s no American hive mind.

Our polarized culture involves “sides,” but sides don’t make decisions and form opinions. They don’t vote. Only people do those things. We are polarized, not our culture.

So it’s worth asking how independent our political and cultural positions really are. Are we independent thinkers finding the least-worst candidate for our preferences, or sheep being led?

A Quick Litmus Test

Consider any election you plan to vote in.

If you don’t think at least 20% of the policy positions of the candidate/party you’ll vote for are foolish, or at least suboptimal, you’re being irrational. You’ve been captured by a fairy tale.

The odds of one candidate monopolizing the “correct” policy positions while their opponent has chosen only “incorrect” ones is extremely low.

Yes, we know people who unthinkingly adhere to party orthodoxy and place their candidate on a pedestal — the sheep — but assume we’re different. We believe we weigh the options, think through our preferred policy, and choose the least-worst political fit for us. But how common is this really?

Contorting vs Shopping Around

Researchers surveyed Danish political party members five times between 2010 and 2011¹, asking what their preferred policy positions were on various issues. During this time, two parties changed their positions on a proposed 50% reduction in the unemployment compensation period (four years to two years), and on the proposed elimination of a popular early retirement program.

The 20-30% of voters who’d previously opposed the policy change (in accord with their party) changed their views the most when their parties changed their stance. On a scale of 0 to 1 — with 0 indicating complete opposition and 1 indicating complete support — initially opposed voters moved between 0.20 and 0.36 towards the new party policies.

The opinion change wasn’t primarily driven by citizens already somewhat supportive of welfare cutbacks. Most of the change occurred because the most “orthodox” party members changed their views in accord with their parties’ new stances. Voters of other parties only marginally changed their positions.

Did party leaders convince members through reason? It seems more likely that party leaders led them.

We’d expect pro-welfare voters to change parties in response to this shift. There are eight Swedish political parties with representation in their parliament, so there was probably one that better fit their views. But researchers found that even among those who didn’t change their views, voters didn’t change parties. Partisans stayed true, policy be damned.

Going With The Zeitgeist.

Polarization doesn’t appear from a vacuum. It also doesn’t seem to correspond with reality.

We went through a period in which the public was outraged over police shootings. But this upsurge in concern took place against a backdrop of officers shooting and killing fewer people².

But the outrage did correlate with traditional media and social media talking more about police violence, which led to more people searching for related topics online.

People are leadable, and when the media and influencers discuss a phenomenon more and insist it’s a problem, there’s a good chance we’ll conclude it’s a problem, never bothering to dive into the particulars. If they discuss it less, it fades from the zeitgeist.

Staying Free:

Leaders weave stories because they’re more affective than facts and statistics, and anyone who doesn’t interrogate the stories tends to get ideologically captured.

When we join political parties or causes, we pin labels to our identities which can be used as hooks to manipulate us. Any good puppeteer/politician can attach lines to these hooks and make us dance to their tune/stories.

Every hook/label we let into our identity makes us stupider and less able to think critically, since critical thoughts about our identity lead to cognitive dissonance, which is painful.

This is why Socrates stayed in the uncomfortable ideological and physical middle ground in his polarized society. This is why the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius thought being infected by others’ ideas was a “far more dangerous pestilence than any plague.”

At the heart of the matter is human cognitive bias, which leaves us vulnerable to manipulation.

I’m going to continue to explore the topic and what we can do about it on a personal and societal level.

---

Thanks for reading Socratic State of Mind.

If you liked this article, please like and share it, which helps more readers find my work.

1. Slothuus, Rune. Et al. How Political Parties Shape Public Opinion in the Real World

2. Goldberg, Zach. 2023. Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence.