nlghtcrawIer

Hi everyone,

Recently I came across this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyokKFDkl8w] and I found it kind of funny and sad at the same time. I am interested in politics because it affects everyone's life and I think everyone should have some basic understanding on what is going on. And then I always wonder why people vote against their own interests even after seeing the consequences. (A bit like the doomsday cults where the leaders apocalypse predictions did not come true but they still contintued to follow them)

So I wrote down all the reasons that I have found and used ChatGPT to write a coherent text about it. I think I can cite each example that I give. (I was too lazy to write them down but can do so if needed) While I am a scientist I do not work in this field. Is there anthing that you guys think is wrong or I am missing?

"Throughout history, people have supported policies and leaders that ultimately harmed their own material well-being. Brexit is one example—areas most economically dependent on EU trade were among those that voted most strongly to leave, and many have since experienced economic decline. These outcomes were not necessarily the result of malice or ideological extremism on the part of voters, but rather complex social and psychological pressures.

One major factor is stress caused by poverty and insecurity. Numerous studies show that economic stress reduces cognitive capacity. In one example, Indian sugarcane farmers were tested on cognitive tasks before and after their annual harvest. Before harvest, when they had little money and high uncertainty, their performance was significantly worse than after harvest, when they were financially secure. The same individuals had measurably different cognitive functioning based solely on their economic state. This indicates that financial stress can impair the brain’s ability to process information and make reasoned decisions. Chronic stress, especially, can lead to a focus on immediate concerns, which may hinder long-term planning or the evaluation of complex issues. Despite these effects, many politicians, particularly those on the right and in conservative parties, support austerity policies that intentionally reduce public spending. These policies often worsen poverty and stress, thereby exacerbating the very conditions that make people more vulnerable to poor decision-making and short-term thinking.

The human brain under stress is also biased toward short-term thinking. This is an evolutionary adaptation: when facing immediate threats, such as a predator, long-term planning becomes irrelevant. If a sabre-tooth tiger is attacking, planning next week’s meals is not a priority. This bias persists today. When individuals face financial insecurity, they often prioritize immediate emotional or economic relief, even if long-term consequences are negative. Political messages offering simple, short-term answers tend to be more appealing under such conditions.

This vulnerability is intensified by the media environment. Both traditional and social media are structured to prioritize content that generates clicks and engagement. Research shows that negative, emotionally charged content spreads more rapidly and widely than neutral or positive information. As a result, individuals are constantly exposed to stressful, sensational material that reinforces fear and division. This further impairs decision-making and increases reliance on emotional, rather than rational, political judgments. Media companies are often controlled by powerful interests, but this control is driven by financial incentives rather than a coordinated conspiracy. Platforms and media outlets aim to maximize profit by optimizing for engagement, not for accuracy or public benefit. Politicians, in turn, often play the same game. Trump is a prime example of this dynamic—not because he is a genius strategist, but because he has a natural skill in being a third-grade bully, delivering simple, provocative messages that dominate the headlines every day. This sensationalism fuels media cycles and helps maintain his visibility and influence, creating a feedback loop where both media and politicians prioritize attention-grabbing rhetoric over substantive policy debates.

This environment also contributes to what is known as group-focused enmity. When people feel socially excluded or economically insecure, they are more likely to direct blame at out-groups—such as immigrants, ethnic minorities, or LGBTQ+ individuals. This tendency is well-documented in social psychology and is particularly strong when individuals lack a sense of social purpose or agency. Populist politicians exploit these tendencies by focusing on identity-based rhetoric rather than substantive policy proposals, reinforcing division while offering few long-term solutions. While identity-based rhetoric is prominent, populist leaders also offer critiques of the status quo and specific policy changes, albeit often without clear or realistic solutions.

Attempts to counter these dynamics through logical arguments, empathy, or ridicule often fail. Once people have accepted a belief, especially one tied to identity or emotion, it becomes resistant to change. Research shows that direct confrontation can even backfire, increasing belief persistence. The most effective strategy is prevention: "inoculating" individuals by teaching them how misinformation works before they are exposed to it. Education, critical thinking skills, and media literacy are key to this approach, though it's important to note that while inoculation shows promise, it is a long-term strategy that requires sustained effort.

In conclusion, voters often support harmful policies not due to ignorance or ideology alone, but as a result of economic stress, short-term cognitive biases, and exposure to manipulative information environments. These are not failures of individual intelligence but predictable outcomes of structural and psychological pressures. Lasting change depends less on argument and persuasion and more on reducing poverty, improving education, increasing access to healthcare and mental health support, and creating a less stressful, more informed society.

However, these solutions are not immediate. They take time to implement and can't solve problems face-to-face in the short term. In the meantime, it may be more productive to focus on systemic change rather than trying to change the minds of those who vote for policies that harm their own interests. It may even be best to ignore those voters for now, given the psychological and informational barriers that make such efforts ineffective in the immediate future."