Predictably Irrational Politics

Watching the examples given by Dan Ariely of both the table and the colors on the cube make me doubt my own judgement. And now political ads begin to make sense, in that if we can be fooled by perception and judgement maybe the two parties can say opposite things, and both seem to be correct. Seriously, I think that political parties do use concepts Mr. Ariely brought up especially the idea of two many choices bringing confusion, that could be why we have only 2 significant political parties. Also the idea of comparing yourself to someone similar to you, only not as good, so that you look better by comparison.

Mr. Ariely says that many of these predicably irrational behaviors have a logical base from human history, when how you thought and reacted helped your survival. I wonder if negative political ads also have a evolutionary base. Is knowing the negatives about the opponent more important than telling others about your strengths? I guess if those negatives were once analogous to warnings about danger, than that makes some sense. More likely though, as we talked about with Emotional Intelligence, emotions are faster, so will influence future decisions more frequently. If you have a 30 second ad and talk about how you can save the economy, schools and children you will have some success. If your ad claims "the other guy" will wreck the economy, destroy schools and abuse your children the emotional response comes faster, with more intensity and more likely will be remembered through negativity and fear.

In the last Gubernatorial Debate (I love that title, because if you win, you become the "Head Goober") Jerry Brown offered to halt all negative ads if Meg Whitman would do the same. Meg Whitman countered that she would halt all negative "personal" ads, but the ads talking about his previous experience would not be removed. She (or someone on her staff) knows the strong effect of negative ads.