Quantcast
Connect with us

Psychology study finds Trump stands out as a ‘low analytic’ thinker

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Patrick Kelley.)

As political experts remain baffled by Donald Trump’s popularity, scientific studies from the field of psychology continue to shed light on the phenomenon. A new study published in the journal Translational Issues in Psychological Science has shown that Donald Trump stands out amongst other politicians, including fellow presidential candidates and past presidents, as being exceptionally low in analytic thinking.  By using intelligent text analysis software to interpret language data from speeches, debates, and written documents, the researchers were able to determine the point where Trump falls on an analytic-narrative continuum.

ADVERTISEMENT

The analytic-narrative continuum provides a way to objectively measure someone’s thinking style, whether it be analytic, which is characterized by careful deliberation based on logic and reason, or narrative, a style based more on ‘gut’ reactions grounded in intuition and personal experience. While it may seem obvious to some that an analytic thinking style is generally superior to a narrative style— since it’s evidence-driven and statistical rather than anecdotal and emotion-based — there is no doubt that the latter resonates with many people. While the analytically-minded see Donald Trump’s opinions and answers as superficial and uninformed, his supporters view them as straightforward and relatable. As absurd as it sounds, now ignorance can apparently be considered a strength for a presidential candidate, as long as they can present it as being folksy.

The computerized text analyses measured thinking styles by examining grammar. While analytic thinkers tend to use more nouns, articles, and prepositions, narrative thinkers tend to use more pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and adverbs. The results showed that not only was Trump’s analytic score far less than his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton (23.8 vs. 42.8), it was also much lower than his Republican candidate opponents — Ben Carson (39.1), Marco Rubio (48.7), John Kasich (48.9), and Ted Cruz (62.1). Moreover, Trump’s average analytic score was more than 3 standard deviations below that of the average Democrat or Republican from the last five election cycles, making him a clear outlier. While most presidential candidates tend to be analytic thinkers, or show a balance between analytic and intuitive thinking, Trump falls squarely on the intuitive side of the continuum.

Although Trump is clearly a low analytical thinker relative to past presidents, he does fit an overall general trend of presidents becoming progressively less analytical, at least in terms of how they speak, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Interestingly, most presidents in the 18th and 19th century consistently scored high on analytic thinking. Whether this trend is a good or a bad thing remains to be seen. Perhaps presidents are just becoming better at simplifying complex information into direct, simple language. But the case of President Trump seems to tell a different story. It appears to indicate a thriving movement composed of individuals who are anti-intellectual and anti-science, and who want a president who is the same.

We should be concerned about this decline in analytic thinking among politicians as well as the people’s preference for it. Essentially, among Trump supporters, it’s just not cool to be smart. The consequences of this mentality becoming widespread could be disastrous. The dumbing down of America, both in politics and society, must be opposed by all those who value rational and logical thought. While this effort must occur at all levels, one clear way of resisting is to turn out to voting booths not only in 2020, but in all the local elections that occur until that time.

Bobby Azarian is a science writer with a PhD in neuroscience. His research has been published in journals such as Cognition & Emotion and Human Brain Mapping, and he has written for The Atlantic, The New York Times, BBC Future, Scientific American, and others. Follow him on twitter @BobbyAzarian.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

John Oliver explains how Dems can bring the pain to Mitch McConnell — even if he wins re-election

Published

on

"Last Week Tonight" host John Oliver returned to his Sunday show, fresh off of an Emmy win, to explain how the United States got so incredibly f*cked up.

Oliver began by remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and noting that her seat will be taken over by a far-right conservative justice who will unmake healthcare, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ rights and more things Americans have indicated they want.

He played a clip of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) claiming that America is a "center-right" country, which Oliver called outright "bullsh*t." Not only do Americans overwhelming support reproductive freedom, they also support LGBTQ equality. At the same time, Americans also believe, overwhelmingly, that President Donald Trump shouldn't be allowed to appoint the next justice.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Trump campaign blames Dems for ex-campaign manager Parscale’s reported self-harm threat

Published

on

The Trump campaign is blaming "Democrats and disgruntled RINOs" for the reported self-harm threat of its former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

"The disgusting, personal attacks from Democrats and disgruntled RINOs have gone too far, and they should be ashamed of themselves for what they've done to this man and his family," said Trump campaign’s communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Statement from ?@realDonaldTrump? Campaign Communications Director Tim Murtaugh pic.twitter.com/NKuJrtmImz

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Former Army prosecutor explains why Trump will ‘get laughed out of court’ if he tries to steal the election

Published

on

Democrats are still panicking about the plots that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party seem to be cooking up to circumvent the people's vote in November.

Last week's shocking piece in The Atlantic detailed how electors in Pennsylvania could be manipulated to deliver Trump the vote despite ballots to the contrary. After President George W. Bush's campaign convincing the Supreme Court to stop Florida from counting the 2000 election ballots, there is a fear that Trump too could manipulate the courts to get his Supreme Court justices to deliver him a win.

Continue Reading
 
 
Democracy is in peril. Invest in progressive news. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free. LEARN MORE