Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I haven’t paid a ton of attention to Kamala and Kamala’s campaign because almost anything else is more interesting. But after watching the debate, I get Gad Saad’s comedic podcast and I better understand his essay.
Gad Saad makes the point that Harris's style of persuasion is all emotional. He rightly explains how powerful emotions are and how she is basing her campaign rhetoric on emotion.
Many of Trump's voters are going to vote based on emotions, too, but the Harris campaign has cynically embraced a very specific view of human behavior—that our natural inclination to make decisions is largely based on emotion rather than substance and data. And she's hoping it will carry her all the way to the White House.
Is she right?
In some sense, she is. There's actually a deep tension between our emotional or "affective" systems and our intellectual or "cognitive" systems when we make decisions. And it turns out, we humans are cognitive misers when all is said and done. We're intellectually lazy: Thinking is too effortful for most, so we rely on effortless, automatic mental shortcuts—in other words, emotions—to arrive at a decision.
Throughout the debate, Kamala said, in essence, “I care about you and I have a plan to help you.” She skimmed on policy specifics and focused on vibes as much as anything. Trump said in essence, “I will protect you from China, illegal immigration and crime. Pay attention to what I have done in the past.”
I wish we could go back to actually debating policy but Trump seems like a nerdy Political Science Professor compared to Kamala Harris and I doubt that even the biggest Trump fans would call him a professorial wonk.
I buy the modern neurological insight that emotions are invariably connected to decision-making. I would prefer it if we could become Aristotle-quoting androids like Data from Star Trek but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. The best human beings can do is struggle to elevate our cognitive systems above our affective systems. Or to put it in simpler terms, we need to value logic above emotion. Even if it means denying our nature.
Discussion (55)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is so very true. And the emotions contain so many outright lies too. She lies so well they almost slip your notice. Almost.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Amen, brother! Preach it!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Gad Saad is brilliant and I admire his thinking. I think we need to rely on both emotion and reason, and we also need to know which to favor depending on the situation. I think that's the biggest problem: people discard reason when it doesn't fit their emotions. Good post, Henry.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It all goes back to a discussion I had years ago with a twit in CA. He began by saying, "I feel . . . " I can be impatient sometimes, so I said, "[Fornicate] what you feel. What do you think?" He replied, "What you think is dictated by what you feel so I don't see a difference."
And that is why we will have President Harris and the country will swirl down the toilet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'll wave to them as they swirl down. I did okay with FJB, actually better in some ways than with Trump, but I know that Trump is better for the country, and the world.
But if they want to elect FJB-in-a-pants-suit I can just smile as my income goes up due to inflation while my fixed mortgage payments stay the same... while the people who voted for her STILL can't afford a home, etc.
You're seeing five of 55 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.