Science Knows Why People Love Donald Trump — and It's Scary

Donald Trump is the topic of our national conversation, and the reason for his popularity seems to revolve around his distaste for political correctness—but why do we love that? 


The most interesting candidate in the presidential race is, unequivocally, Donald Trump. He is drawing crowds and doing well in polls, and at the Republican debate he dominated the stage and the next day’s headlines. Trump is in our Twitter feeds, in our dinner conversations, and currently the ringleader of the political arena. But why is that?

A riveting series of articles in Scientific American has attempted to explain why, psychologically, the public is so enamored with a business tycoon that “tells it like it is.” They are hypothesizing that his very open distaste for political correctness is at the core of his popularity, and while he “flip flops” as much as the next politician, we’re fooled into believing him because what he says is so far outside what is expected. That is a type of dependability: We can count on him to say whatever he is thinking or feeling with little regard of how it will be perceived. That dependability is vital when considering “ambiguity intolerance,” or how comfortable people are with not knowing the future.


The science shows that people who are anxious about the future tend to lean more politically conservative. They want someone that is not going to act erratically, someone you can predict. Trump, while his statements are sometimes shocking, is at the very least consistent. What is most interesting is that while people may be turned off by the content of Trump’s statements, they are so at ease with his persona of “truth telling” that what he is saying seems to matter less than the fact that he’s saying it. That means that we as a public can think that Trump is sexist, racist, or whatever the inflammatory comment du jour is, and still be more comfortable with him as a candidate because he appears to not be lying or hiding his feelings.


This is due to how we perceive “non-normative” statements. A statement that strikes us as against the grain will cause us to feel we know the person better. For example, if I’m at the concert of a country star and I say “You know, I really prefer the Bee Gees,” you would be inclined to think I’m telling the truth (and I am). Why would someone surrounded by people of one opinion state their own radically different (and unpopular) opinion if it were not true? That’s the genius of Trump. He seems trustworthy simply by making non-normative statements. To borrow a line from Anchorman, “I’m not mad; I’m impressed!” There is an air of authenticity that feels like the antidote to the pandering politician. We may not agree with him, but at least we know he actually believes what he’s saying. Right?

It becomes slightly frightening to unpack the implications of this. Have politicians gotten so PC that we will praise anyone who embraces a lack of it? And also, isn’t it odd that we should be so enthralled with someone who says things the majority of Americans may find problematic (e.g., his comments on John McCain and Megyn Kelly)? It’s a troublesome sign implying we are so used to politicians lying that we actually expect it, and that when someone comes along who is refusing to play the game, we reward them even if we don’t like them. There are lessons to be learned on both sides. Politicians should take note that the public is tired of hearing what they think we want to hear, and the public should, as always, stay informed and aware. I for one find it difficult to trust someone that thinks Famiglia’s is real New York pizza, but then, perhaps his pizza choice was just one of his first non-normative statements.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

Brain study finds circuits that may help you keep your cool

Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.

Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU / AFP/ Getty Images
Mind & Brain

MIT News

The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.

Keep reading Show less

34 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
  • The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
  • According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Keep reading Show less

How pharmaceutical companies game the patent system

When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.

Politics & Current Affairs
  • When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
  • When this phenomenon happens in the pharmaceutical world, companies quickly apply for broad protection of their patents, which can last up to 20 years, and fence off research areas for others. The result of this? They stay at the top of the ladder, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
  • Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation the same as product invention. Companies should still receive an incentive for coming up with new products, he says, but not 20 years if the product is the result of "tweaking" an existing one.