The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions and Why We Won't Admit It

by Jason Weeden, Robert Kurzban

Why your political views are more self-serving than you think

When it comes to politics, we often perceive our own beliefs as fair and socially beneficial, while seeing opposing views as merely self-serving. But in fact most political views are governed by self-interest, even if we usually don't realize it. Challenging our fiercely held notions about what motivates us politically, this book explores how self-interest divides the public on a host of hot-button issues, from abortion and the legalization of marijuana to same-sex marriage, immigration, affirmative action, and income redistribution.

Expanding the notion of interests beyond simple economics, Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban look at how people's interests clash when it comes to their sex lives, social status, family, and friends. Drawing on a wealth of data, they demonstrate how different groups form distinctive bundles of political positions that often stray far from what we typically think of as liberal or conservative. They show how we engage in unconscious rationalization to justify our political positions, portraying our own views as wise, benevolent, and principled while casting our opponents' views as thoughtless and greedy.

While many books on politics seek to provide partisans with new ways to feel good about their own side, The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind illuminates the hidden drivers of our politics, even if it's a picture neither side will find flattering.

Genres: Politics, Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Sociology, Economics, Social

376 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Ed Erwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apparently, the prevailing academic view is that people do NOT tend to vote based on their self-interest. This book says that is BS. When you consider that people's self-interest involves many more things than just money, and when you break them down into finer categories than simply "rich" and "poor", then you will see that most people do take opinions on all sorts of issues mostly based on what benefits them or their friends and family, even if they are not admitting to themselves that is why they do so. Since we so often have to vote for simply "Team A" or "Team B", we will usually be voting against some of the things we want and for some of the things we don't want.

There are only a few ideological labels that everyone uses: "conservative", "liberal", and sometimes "libertarian" and "socialist". But real people fall into many more categories. This book gives names to some of those categories and explains their trends. Those labels would be useful if they were widely used, but since they are not, I'm not going to try to remember them.

There is some interesting stuff here, but it isn't easy reading. Lots of deep analysis of surveys sliced-and-diced in hundreds of ways. Gets boring real fast to me.

[Chris Branch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like Kurzban’s earlier book, Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite, this book deserves a far wider audience, especially among those who value intellectual honesty in today’s political environment. It’s an impressively clearly written and well argued case for the theory that people tend to act in ways that further their own self interest. It seems strange that this argument would even need to be made, but in fact the authors point to the numerous writers and thinkers in academia and the media who go to some lengths to deny that this is the case.

Weeden and Kurzban even tell us the reason why, and it’s based on evolutionary psychology: because of the way our minds evolved to help us succeed in our intensely social environment, we trick ourselves into believing that the reasons we give for our actions are true, while in fact they’re like press releases generated by an internal “public relations department” with limited (if any) knowledge of the actual underlying decisions made by our internal “board of directors”.

The authors discuss this conclusion in the context of a variety of strongly held positions across the political spectrum, and provide a large amount of data as evidence - in fact there are 120 pages of data appendices that can be safely skimmed or skipped by less statistically minded readers. But it falls to those who would argue against the thesis of this book to address what the data shows.

Early in the book, the authors refute the statement that one can typically predict someone’s views on one subject - say, abortion, by knowing their views on an unrelated topic - say, income redistribution. While this may be true for some subsets of the population, data shows this is not the case in general, and again, it’s strange that anyone would think otherwise - but in fact, people like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker, both of whom I greatly admire for their own clear writing and thinking, have said exactly that.

The thesis is well argued, and I would only take issue with a couple of points; for example, the analogy of the mind’s public relations department and board of directors is brilliant, but this leads the authors to explicitly ignore many of the usual reasons given for people’s behavior: “ideologies, values, political personality variables, biblical literalism, constitutional principles, and so on”, stating that they are “less interested in the press releases penned by Public Relations Departments” (p. 66). But we can’t actually deal with others by ignoring their “PR” and claiming to know what their “board of directors” really thinks. Instead, we have to take them at their word and hope that we can move people’s PR departments closer to the truth over time.

The authors also recognize that their “view is, almost by definition, a deeply cynical one” (p. 210). But I think there’s room to both accept this data and the authors’ analysis while also striving for improvements in this area. If it’s true that people, whether on the left or right, support policies out of personal interest, then by all means we ought to admit this - both to others, and to ourselves. But there’s no reason why we can’t also find ways in which our opinions truly do map to an objectively better society, not just for us personally, but for others as well. After all, it’s possible that there are right and wrong answers about the best policies for our society, in terms of how many people’s lives are improved, and by how much, and this data, if we can gather it, also deserves to be taken into account.

Kurzban originally came to my attention with a now inactive evolutionary psychology blog that I always found interesting, but this book also inspired me to look again online, and happily I found that he and coauthor Weeden are blogging again, at www.pleeps.org, and I look forward to continuing content along the lines of the fascinating subject matter of this book.

Edit: starting in June 2023 and continuing to September 2024 (as of this writing), the latest location for new posts from Kurzban is The Living Fossils Substack.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short good book saying that most of our political opinions and actions are actually far more motivated by self-interest than many people would believe (or admit). Heavily influenced by the idea of the modular mind, where the part of us that speaks and ponders is actually a very small part of our overall mind - and crucially, not the part of our mind that is truly "in charge" although it may strongly believe that it's the boss! Very short book (hooray) with a huge set of appendices containing numerical data and statistical methodology -- I think that stuff could have easily been relegated to a website and that way fewer trees would have been consumed.

[Alex MacMillan · Rating 2 out of 5]

An impressive but inadequate attempt to undermine the assumption central to my Undergraduate Thesis: that electorates make their decisions in accordance with altruistic and ideological motives, rather than calculated self-interest. I have to concur with Bryan Caplan that the authors create a straw man of the political science literature on voter preferences.

The primary role of altruism and ideology in the scholarship is perfectly compatible with popular views being disproportionately slanted towards policies benefiting the lifestyle and economic fortune of our particular demographic attributes. "What is good for General Motors is good for America," is the typical political perspective of all voter blocs; unlike the authors, I assume genuine sincerity rather than unethical cynicism in such declarations. Just as we all attempt to align our behavior with our ideal selves, we project our ideal as optimal for fellow citizens through our votes. The authors should consider Democracy and Decision, which convincingly describes public policy in any democratic system as the aggregated superego of the majority culture, with successful politicians embodying what the community conceives as its "best self." As we all strive towards achieving our personal philosophy of life, our striving inspires ideological movements mirroring common traits of particular "best selves," such as the "Boehners" or "Steinems" depicted in this book.

[Yanick Punter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was hoping an academic book on self-interest and how that influences political behaviour. For me this was too pop-sci and it bored me. The idea that people do not cluster in the right and left, and the role of self-interest in politics, seems valid. I've read Tuschman, Hibbing et al. and Haidt, and I had my doubts about the left right dichotomy, but am still convinced that certain (biological) traits (personality, sensory, physical etc.) make the likelihood that someone ends up on the right or left convincing. This book, however, failed to deliver and convince me.

There is something with the writing. Maybe if the self-interest was linked to clearer terms, say "mating strategy", "socio-economic status", "education level" etc. and fewer writing around it, I wouldn't be so bored and better get the point.

I feel like I'm harsher as usual and maybe it is just the day. I'm reading the paper "Do People Naturally Cluster into Liberals and Conservatives?" and am moving from there. Want to read it again but for now it was a huge disappointment.

[Barry]

We vote out of self interest, but fool ourselves into thinking we want what's best for everyone. We can spot the other guy's hypocrisy easily enough.

Our race, religion, income, lifestyle, sexual orientation, and social capital are highly correlated with our positions on minority preferences, the role of religion in public life, redistribution, abortion and contraception. The environment and the military, though, don't seem to be so influenced.

Political discourse becomes rancorous because, while we think we're arguing about principles, really the guy on the other side is just trying to take away your stuff.

On the other hand, he identifies many groups whose interest is served by various policies and finds majority approval, but not usually an overwhelming majority.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book that addresses one of my favorite topics: how do people arrive at their political opinions. This book says people are not so ideological as they are simply self-interested. The organization wasn't great and the writing was cluttered at times, which made the book more difficult than it needed to be.

[John Engelman · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions And Why We Won't Admit It Jason Weeden & Robert Kurzban argue that self interest, rather than political philosophy, determines party affiliation. However self interest consists of economic and social interests. Consequently, party affiliation is complex. Nevertheless, if one knows a person's economic and social interests one can predict that person's party affiliation with a certain amount of accuracy.

Economic issues largely concern who pays how much in taxes, and what the money is spent for. Economic conservatives favor lower taxes for the rich, and less domestic spending. Economic liberals favor the opposite. Economic conservatives will explain their opinions by saying in so many words, "I am in favor of freedom, and Constitutional government. Democrats want to punish our most productive citizens."

Economic liberals will say in effect, "I think everyone is entitled to a decent standard of living. The Republicans only care about the rich."

Social issues largely concern sexual behavior and factors that restrict it, although attitudes about guns, criminals, race, and immigrants are also important. Social conservatives will explain their opinions this way, "I am in favor of Judeo Christian morality. Secular humanists favor the sexual license that has always resulted in the fall of civilizations."

Social liberals will counter with an argument that sounds like this, "I am in favor of tolerance. The religious right is intolerant, and probably racist and sexist besides."

Immigration is a social and an economic issue. Many Americans do not like cultural diversity. Others like it. Most Americans are jeopardized by the downward pressure a high rate of immigration exerts on wages. Hispanics and Asians, most of whom are immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, want fewer restrictions on immigration. Blacks understandably tend to favor policies that benefit blacks as a race. Many whites oppose those policies, even when they share economic interests with blacks.

Libraries can be filled with books that argue for one or another of these attitudes. Jason Weeden and Robert Kurzban assert that people do not have the opinions they have because they have read books with good arguments. Instead, they read books that reinforce opinions they already have. These opinions in turn are based on how they perceive their economic and social interests.

The United States government is a democracy. We are equal under the law. Nevertheless, wealth, education, and power correlate. Those with the most of each tend to be more libertarian than the population as a whole. That is to say, they tend to be more conservative on economic issues, and more liberal on social issues. These are the people who lead the two major political parties. Consequently, when the Republican and Democratic parties compromise, the compromise ends up to the right of the American consensus on economic issues, and to the left on social issues.

This is particularly true of the Supreme Court and of courts in general. The Supreme Court has legalized abortion, outlawed prayer in public schools, and legalized nearly unlimited campaign funding by rich people. These rich people of course expect results from the politicians they contribute to, results that benefit them in particular and rich people in general.

In What is the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank expressed incredulity and displeasure at the fact that low income whites in Kansas (and the rest of the country) usually vote against their economic interests by voting Republican.

Well, it turns out that low income whites usually have liberal opinions about Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation. They also have conservative opinions on issues like gay marriage, abortion, prayer in the schools, gun control, affirmative action, and immigration.

Lower income whites usually vote Republican because for them social issues are more important than economic issues. Nevertheless, their liberal economic views often come as a shock to the Republican politicians they vote for when those Republican politicians get serious about cutting specific items in the domestic budget.

The vast majority of blacks vote Democratic. Their opposition to gay rights issues often displeases the Democratic politicians they elect.

President Reagan did little to advance the agenda of the Religious Right that had enabled him to be elected in 1980. (The only thing I can think of is that he helped to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from passing.) President Reagan did cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Under the Obama administration corporations got bailouts. Ordinary citizens did not.

The prime movers of political affiliation are income, education, race, and sexual behavior. Generally speaking income correlates with economic conservatism. Education correlates with social liberalism. People favor policies that benefit others of their race. Number of sex partners varies inversely with church attendance.

There is a strong correlation between income and education. Nevertheless, when income is held constant, those with more education lean to the left. When education is held constant, those with more income lean to the right.

At the extremes, someone with nothing to show for a PhD. or a law degree but unpaid student loan debts and a low wage job is likely to vote Democratic or perhaps Green. High school dropouts who become prosperous business owners tend to vote Republican or perhaps Libertarian.

Whites tend to vote Republican, even when they are poor. Non whites and Jews tend to vote Democratic, even when they are rich. The tendency of Jews and Asians to vote Democratic even when they are rich irritates Republicans. It can probably be explained by the fact that Asian societies value social harmony, and that American society values individualism and competition. Jews are less averse to competition, but they usually have a collective memory of the shtetl, the ghetto, and the lower east side of Manhattan.

Moreover, the tragic history of the Jews has taught them that they are safest in multi ethnic societies, where no ethnicity is clearly dominant. For obvious reasons they feel differently about Israel. The Jewish tendency to support lower immigration laws in the United States, but stricter immigration laws in Israel angers white nationalists.

The authors get their data about how Americans with different characteristics behave and think from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS). Most of what they find is what you would expect: rich people are less likely to favor higher taxes on the rich that are poor people; promiscuous people are more likely to favor legal abortion than are monogamous people; gun owners are less likely to favor more gun control laws than are people who do not own guns, etc.

One area where people differ is in human capital. People with high human capital score well on mental aptitude tests and are well educated. People with low human capital test poorly and are poorly educated. People with high human capital welcome competition with people of other races and religions. People with low human capital desire a form of group based preference.

Blacks and Hispanics with low human capital desire affirmative action policies. White Gentiles with low human capital want Jews and non whites to be discriminated against in hiring and university admissions.

Low human capital explains the antisemitism that infects some websites on the internet. White Gentiles with low human capital sneer at the poverty of poor blacks and Hispanics at the same time that they resent the prosperity of Jews and Orientals.

The most interesting finding of this book is that sexual behavior has more of an influence on religious attendance than does religious attendance have on sexual behavior. The authors discuss sexual behavior with a continuum that ranges from those they call "Freewheelers" at one extreme, to "Ring Bearers" on the other. Freewheelers enjoy sexual variety and casual sex, and have little interest in marriage. Ring Bearers have little (or no) interest in sexual variety and casual sex, and much interest in marriage.

Freewheelers raised in religious families usually stop going to church. Ring Bearers who are raised in secular families frequently start going to church.

[Underconsumed Knowledge · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good, thought-provoking book that deserves more attention than it got. The semantics of what "self interest" actually is detracts from the underlying ideas and themes of why people vote the way they do. Tone a bit juvenile at times for the subject matter, not that it really matters.

[Rinstinkt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liked it.

[Marc Sabatier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book and fine thesis, but I think that it fails present what hypothesis it is arguing against and explaining why it's clear that its just self-interest. Not clear for me.

[Yama Chen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too scholarly description for layman readers.