What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics
Can a football game affect the outcome of an election? What about shark attacks? Or a drought? In a rational world the answer, of course, would be no. But as bestselling historian Rick Shenkman explains in Political Animals , our world is anything but rational. Drawing on science, politics, and history, Shenkman explores the hidden forces behind our often illogical choices.
Political Animals challenges us to go beyond the headlines, which often focus on what politicians do (or say they'll do), and to concentrate instead on what's really important: what shapes our response. Shenkman argues that, contrary to what we tell ourselves, it's our instincts rather than arguments appealing to reason that usually prevail. Pop culture tells us we can trust our instincts, but science is proving that when it comes to politics our Stone Age brain often malfunctions, misfires, and leads us astray.
Fortunately, we can learn to make our instincts work in our favor. Shenkman takes readers on a whirlwind tour of laboratories where scientists are exploring how sea slugs remember, chimpanzees practice deception, and patients whose brains have been split in two tell stories. The scientists' findings give us new ways of understanding our history and ourselves -- and prove we don't have to be prisoners of our evolutionary past."
In this engaging, illuminating, and often riotous chronicle of our political culture, Shenkman probes the depths of the human mind to explore how we can become more political, and less animal.
Political Animals challenges us to go beyond the headlines, which often focus on what politicians do (or say they'll do), and to concentrate instead on what's really important: what shapes our response. Shenkman argues that, contrary to what we tell ourselves, it's our instincts rather than arguments appealing to reason that usually prevail. Pop culture tells us we can trust our instincts, but science is proving that when it comes to politics our Stone Age brain often malfunctions, misfires, and leads us astray.
Fortunately, we can learn to make our instincts work in our favor. Shenkman takes readers on a whirlwind tour of laboratories where scientists are exploring how sea slugs remember, chimpanzees practice deception, and patients whose brains have been split in two tell stories. The scientists' findings give us new ways of understanding our history and ourselves -- and prove we don't have to be prisoners of our evolutionary past."
In this engaging, illuminating, and often riotous chronicle of our political culture, Shenkman probes the depths of the human mind to explore how we can become more political, and less animal.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 5, 2016
36 people are currently reading
541 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
March 30, 2016
Fabulous book. This book doesn't deal with what makes us liberal or conservative. Instead, the focus is on the biases and brain bugs we (collectively as well as individually) use to choose our leaders.
These biases, or heuristics in the scientific nomenclature, are part of our nature. They are mental routines and shortcuts we use to make decisions, the result of evolutionary pressures on our hunter-gatherer ancestors to make good-enough decisions with minimal expenditure of brainpower (energy). The main evolutionary pressure on our ancestors was not 100 percent truth/accuracy or detailed, thoughtful analysis; a good enough, split second decision geared toward survival in trying circumstances was.
The author's premise, of course, is that these biases and means of making decisions are not adapted to the radically changed conditions we face today in the modern world. For example, one of the big differences, the author argues, is that our species evolved in small communities up to about 150 individuals (based on the ratio of what our neocortex in relation to total brain size could cope with), while today we live in large, anonymous societies numbering in the millions. As a result, our ancestors knew their leaders personally, interacted with them, knew their reputations, could read their eyes, etc. In the modern world, we don't know a candidate's reputations firsthand (just through conflicting media accounts), and we can't reliably read someone's eyes or body language on television or in other media accounts to determine character, honesty, etc. Yet we continue to think we can read them based on such fleeting impressions. The author cites one study where students were able to predict something like 70% of winners of some unknown (to them) candidates in past elections based on seeing their image (no sound) for less than one second.
The author does not support or criticize particular candidates or policy positions. He doesn't point to any particularly bad decisions we have made. He simply makes the point that we make our decisions based on less than complete evaluation of the candidate or issue, but rather on biases and peer pressure. In fact, this book has more in common with books about heuristics, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science than it is about politics. Politics is simply the backdrop.
These biases, or heuristics in the scientific nomenclature, are part of our nature. They are mental routines and shortcuts we use to make decisions, the result of evolutionary pressures on our hunter-gatherer ancestors to make good-enough decisions with minimal expenditure of brainpower (energy). The main evolutionary pressure on our ancestors was not 100 percent truth/accuracy or detailed, thoughtful analysis; a good enough, split second decision geared toward survival in trying circumstances was.
The author's premise, of course, is that these biases and means of making decisions are not adapted to the radically changed conditions we face today in the modern world. For example, one of the big differences, the author argues, is that our species evolved in small communities up to about 150 individuals (based on the ratio of what our neocortex in relation to total brain size could cope with), while today we live in large, anonymous societies numbering in the millions. As a result, our ancestors knew their leaders personally, interacted with them, knew their reputations, could read their eyes, etc. In the modern world, we don't know a candidate's reputations firsthand (just through conflicting media accounts), and we can't reliably read someone's eyes or body language on television or in other media accounts to determine character, honesty, etc. Yet we continue to think we can read them based on such fleeting impressions. The author cites one study where students were able to predict something like 70% of winners of some unknown (to them) candidates in past elections based on seeing their image (no sound) for less than one second.
The author does not support or criticize particular candidates or policy positions. He doesn't point to any particularly bad decisions we have made. He simply makes the point that we make our decisions based on less than complete evaluation of the candidate or issue, but rather on biases and peer pressure. In fact, this book has more in common with books about heuristics, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science than it is about politics. Politics is simply the backdrop.
June 28, 2016
Fico entre 3 e 4 estrelas para este, acabei arredondando para cima. É um bom livro, com ótimas noções de como vieses cognitivos são explorados ou pelo menos aparecem na política. Serve como um bom compilado. Mas nos pontos onde fala sobre de onde vêm esse ou aquele viés, o livro é extremamente finalista. Para o autor, tudo o que fazemos hoje vem de uma situação bastante específica do nosso passado onde, por exemplo, "as pessoas só depositavam confiança em quem conheciam pessoalmente". Nada contra puxar nosso passado e apontar onde um comportamento atualmente falho pode ter se desenvolvido, mas tentar achar uma razão definitiva para tudo é forçar demais. Tirando essa parte, que não é nem importante para o desenvolvimento do livro (por isso me incomodou mais, foi um tanto desnecessário), leitura recomendada.
--- tinha revisado o livro errado antes, outro Political Animal
--- tinha revisado o livro errado antes, outro Political Animal
January 28, 2016
As someone who has recently become interested in being a civically engaged citizen, this book proves an excellent primer.
February 22, 2017
I made a list of books about how our minds affect political behavior in unconscious or non-intellectual ways. I began with this based on a Washington Post review that spoke of its relevance to the 2016 election.
Not having read the other books, I can't compare them. This book has significant gaps / biases. He seems to get half of the lessons of some studies and to only understand some of the relevant differences between hunter-gatherers and our society.
I agree with him that using a "story" to present your ideas can be effective, but I still felt that when he uses the story format here he goes on at too great a length.
The book begins with studies showing factors like natural events impacting an area's economy can affect voting for the current "in" party. Feelings about our current well-being influence voting whether or not elected officials had any control over it.
He discusses what he perceives as voter ignorance. He doesn't seem to distinguish two areas. There's non-acquisition of facts (not knowing your Senator) and acquisition of falsehoods (thinking Iraq was responsible for 9/11.) A greater significance is in whether there are active forces spreading falsehoods. We need more people with more facts, but reducing falsehoods is also needed.
Throughout, he makes reference to hunter-gatherers representing evolution of human nature. But he never mentions that hunter-gatherers have social norms to discourage alpha male bullies and egotists - and don't have "political leaders." He seems to assume humans are like chimps in those areas.
He tells us Sweden has much more civics knowledge and participation. He says it's a matter of culture, but no proof or speculation of what. I've wondered whether the cold climate of Scandinavia & Canada have encourages a sense of interdependence.
Section 2 is on "reading" people. He says we have trouble reading politicians because we don't know them personally, have little face-to-face and only see them in artificial ways. This seemed a partial answer. Instead of "reading him," we can check his voting record. The media could look below the surface. The media could show facial close-ups and discuss what it tells. And "reading politicians" may be hard even in person. He says genuine smiles look different. Yet, con men fool you in person. In-person actors can look convincing.
A speculation on misjudging politicians: A need to believe in society. From childhood, our belief in ourselves and in a world the rewards our efforts are related. We believe if we properly use our minds and tools the world will be kind. To social beings, believing in a good world also means a good society.
He refers to demagogues appealing to our irrational side. (I wonder how different negative ads are.) He refers to mental shortcuts we use - heuristics, priming, etc. He says we may rate a politician as a person rather than a leader. He tells us our minds are reluctant to accept new facts inconsistent with current views. He tells of studies showing people willing to estimate candidate attributes based just on a photo. (Could there be some basis in that - do candidates tend to look "Republican" or "Democrat"?)
Section 3: Self-deception. Detecting lies takes more brain power, so we may not invest in it. We want to believe in "us," so we're less inclined to check. Other biasing mechanisms include: using the first idea that comes to mind as the right answer; sticking to current opinions; we remember what we hear more than its source; believing others will behave as we imagine we would; take credit for good results, blame others for bad results; most people see themselves as above average. He tells us of studies showing those who pay attention to political news tend to ignore stories that threaten their views.
Shenkman argues that politicians believe what they say, even if it's self-deception. OK, politicians are human & humans are good at self-rationalizing, but how often is that the politicians' reason? Regardless, if a candidate says he'll cut taxes and I think he believes it, should I consider him unrealistic? How many times should a voter see that promise broken before treating it as a lie? Shenkman's focus on this assertion may reflect his desire to believe in politicians' good will.
He argues people convince themselves of what is convenient or fits with current views. This does happen, but he's already told us of a chimp lying twice before admitting the truth. The chimp knew the truth (Shenkman doesn't claim chimps & humans differ here - he says lying is human nature.) Both conscious lying and self-deception are real. Perhaps, the lesson is we need to identify falsehoods whether or not the politician believes it.
He very briefly mentions scientific studies showing people are born inclined to be less or more comfortable with change. (He doesn't mention that life experiences can alter whether this molds one as a liberal or conservative.) I say we must consider this. People WILL experience changes from technology, climate and biosphere, automation and employment, income inequality affecting economic and politics, etc. Those uncomfortable with change WILL be affected, How Will we deal with it?
Fourth section: Empathy. He says our empathy requires (1) a story tugs at our heart, (2) we're face-to-face with someone in need, (3) we've experienced what he is, or (4) we know the person or their group, or are members of same group. We don't empathize based on facts but by being made to feel. [Be careful not to exaggerate this. Experimental economics shows no culture has a norm of purely selfish economic transactions. We have both social emotions and selfish motivations. Potential for direct or indirect reciprocity is also an influence.]
I think people in our society have different cultural influences on empathy than hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer social norms against alpha male bullies & egotists mean they don't have powerful leaders, classes or hierarchies. Our culture is shaped by economic classes and power. Here, people adjusted to the lesser empathy shown by the elites and its consequences, but may also hold resentments of kinds of non-empathy. Shenkman tells us that we tend to ignore low-status people - he assumes this was the same in past pre-hierarchical society. He argues it's not just rich people who care less about low-status people. (But even today's hunter-gatherers are non-hierarchical.) I read a study of people in a chiefdom (no longer "hunter-gatherers") looking into whether they were more likely to lend help to a someone: generous & rich, generous & poor, non-generous & poor or non-generous & rich. They were least inclined to help the non-generous rich - they felt the non-generous poor were less able to be generous and so were more deserving of help. This seems inconsistent with Shenkman's view that nature makes us gravitate to those of high status and ignore the low status.
His argument begs the question if liberals and conservatives differ on empathy. Liberals don't personally know social safety net recipients, don't have exclusive access to stories about recipients or belong to the same in-group. So, do liberals advocate for recipients without feeling empathy? Are liberals more empathetic than conservatives? Or is there something he hasn't told us?
In his conclusions, he says we have to work on using reasoning rather than gut reactions. He suggests it would help if schools taught ways to help switch one's mind to reasoning mode. I'd go along, but we need reminders after school - debate hosts and interviewers reminded us.
He speaks of people being born liberal or conservative - end of story. I've read life experiences can alter that. And that may mean there are other ways.
He argues that coming in contact with various kinds of people can influence our thinking. He doesn't follow through in asking whether the average conservative's discomfort with the unfamiliar would make them less likely to make this effort. I also think there's business logic that would tend to separate kinds of people based on economic motives regardless of politics. Housing construction will tend to put units of similar price together, place people of similar incomes together.
He suggests having places in a community for people to gather helps.
He says it's important to talk with people of different views. I'd say: A prerequisite is people sharing views by reasoning rather than by gut. That begs the question if those of some views are more likely to read such books and try to do more reasoning. Example: Would conservatives' more moral / ancient scripture basis lead to less reasoning?
He notes that at some point discrepancy between expectation and reality results in anxiety and more willingness to consider alternatives.
He says politics by anger reduces reasoning and compromise. He doesn't discuss whether politics by reasoning is effective against those who continue to use anger politics.
He suggests learning self-discipline helps to get oneself to use reasoning. He suggests 18-year-olds be given training on how to be a voter and reason for political decision-making.
He tells us voting rates have fallen since the time of the city political bosses. He doesn't seem to see issues with political bosses.
Not having read the other books, I can't compare them. This book has significant gaps / biases. He seems to get half of the lessons of some studies and to only understand some of the relevant differences between hunter-gatherers and our society.
I agree with him that using a "story" to present your ideas can be effective, but I still felt that when he uses the story format here he goes on at too great a length.
The book begins with studies showing factors like natural events impacting an area's economy can affect voting for the current "in" party. Feelings about our current well-being influence voting whether or not elected officials had any control over it.
He discusses what he perceives as voter ignorance. He doesn't seem to distinguish two areas. There's non-acquisition of facts (not knowing your Senator) and acquisition of falsehoods (thinking Iraq was responsible for 9/11.) A greater significance is in whether there are active forces spreading falsehoods. We need more people with more facts, but reducing falsehoods is also needed.
Throughout, he makes reference to hunter-gatherers representing evolution of human nature. But he never mentions that hunter-gatherers have social norms to discourage alpha male bullies and egotists - and don't have "political leaders." He seems to assume humans are like chimps in those areas.
He tells us Sweden has much more civics knowledge and participation. He says it's a matter of culture, but no proof or speculation of what. I've wondered whether the cold climate of Scandinavia & Canada have encourages a sense of interdependence.
Section 2 is on "reading" people. He says we have trouble reading politicians because we don't know them personally, have little face-to-face and only see them in artificial ways. This seemed a partial answer. Instead of "reading him," we can check his voting record. The media could look below the surface. The media could show facial close-ups and discuss what it tells. And "reading politicians" may be hard even in person. He says genuine smiles look different. Yet, con men fool you in person. In-person actors can look convincing.
A speculation on misjudging politicians: A need to believe in society. From childhood, our belief in ourselves and in a world the rewards our efforts are related. We believe if we properly use our minds and tools the world will be kind. To social beings, believing in a good world also means a good society.
He refers to demagogues appealing to our irrational side. (I wonder how different negative ads are.) He refers to mental shortcuts we use - heuristics, priming, etc. He says we may rate a politician as a person rather than a leader. He tells us our minds are reluctant to accept new facts inconsistent with current views. He tells of studies showing people willing to estimate candidate attributes based just on a photo. (Could there be some basis in that - do candidates tend to look "Republican" or "Democrat"?)
Section 3: Self-deception. Detecting lies takes more brain power, so we may not invest in it. We want to believe in "us," so we're less inclined to check. Other biasing mechanisms include: using the first idea that comes to mind as the right answer; sticking to current opinions; we remember what we hear more than its source; believing others will behave as we imagine we would; take credit for good results, blame others for bad results; most people see themselves as above average. He tells us of studies showing those who pay attention to political news tend to ignore stories that threaten their views.
Shenkman argues that politicians believe what they say, even if it's self-deception. OK, politicians are human & humans are good at self-rationalizing, but how often is that the politicians' reason? Regardless, if a candidate says he'll cut taxes and I think he believes it, should I consider him unrealistic? How many times should a voter see that promise broken before treating it as a lie? Shenkman's focus on this assertion may reflect his desire to believe in politicians' good will.
He argues people convince themselves of what is convenient or fits with current views. This does happen, but he's already told us of a chimp lying twice before admitting the truth. The chimp knew the truth (Shenkman doesn't claim chimps & humans differ here - he says lying is human nature.) Both conscious lying and self-deception are real. Perhaps, the lesson is we need to identify falsehoods whether or not the politician believes it.
He very briefly mentions scientific studies showing people are born inclined to be less or more comfortable with change. (He doesn't mention that life experiences can alter whether this molds one as a liberal or conservative.) I say we must consider this. People WILL experience changes from technology, climate and biosphere, automation and employment, income inequality affecting economic and politics, etc. Those uncomfortable with change WILL be affected, How Will we deal with it?
Fourth section: Empathy. He says our empathy requires (1) a story tugs at our heart, (2) we're face-to-face with someone in need, (3) we've experienced what he is, or (4) we know the person or their group, or are members of same group. We don't empathize based on facts but by being made to feel. [Be careful not to exaggerate this. Experimental economics shows no culture has a norm of purely selfish economic transactions. We have both social emotions and selfish motivations. Potential for direct or indirect reciprocity is also an influence.]
I think people in our society have different cultural influences on empathy than hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer social norms against alpha male bullies & egotists mean they don't have powerful leaders, classes or hierarchies. Our culture is shaped by economic classes and power. Here, people adjusted to the lesser empathy shown by the elites and its consequences, but may also hold resentments of kinds of non-empathy. Shenkman tells us that we tend to ignore low-status people - he assumes this was the same in past pre-hierarchical society. He argues it's not just rich people who care less about low-status people. (But even today's hunter-gatherers are non-hierarchical.) I read a study of people in a chiefdom (no longer "hunter-gatherers") looking into whether they were more likely to lend help to a someone: generous & rich, generous & poor, non-generous & poor or non-generous & rich. They were least inclined to help the non-generous rich - they felt the non-generous poor were less able to be generous and so were more deserving of help. This seems inconsistent with Shenkman's view that nature makes us gravitate to those of high status and ignore the low status.
His argument begs the question if liberals and conservatives differ on empathy. Liberals don't personally know social safety net recipients, don't have exclusive access to stories about recipients or belong to the same in-group. So, do liberals advocate for recipients without feeling empathy? Are liberals more empathetic than conservatives? Or is there something he hasn't told us?
In his conclusions, he says we have to work on using reasoning rather than gut reactions. He suggests it would help if schools taught ways to help switch one's mind to reasoning mode. I'd go along, but we need reminders after school - debate hosts and interviewers reminded us.
He speaks of people being born liberal or conservative - end of story. I've read life experiences can alter that. And that may mean there are other ways.
He argues that coming in contact with various kinds of people can influence our thinking. He doesn't follow through in asking whether the average conservative's discomfort with the unfamiliar would make them less likely to make this effort. I also think there's business logic that would tend to separate kinds of people based on economic motives regardless of politics. Housing construction will tend to put units of similar price together, place people of similar incomes together.
He suggests having places in a community for people to gather helps.
He says it's important to talk with people of different views. I'd say: A prerequisite is people sharing views by reasoning rather than by gut. That begs the question if those of some views are more likely to read such books and try to do more reasoning. Example: Would conservatives' more moral / ancient scripture basis lead to less reasoning?
He notes that at some point discrepancy between expectation and reality results in anxiety and more willingness to consider alternatives.
He says politics by anger reduces reasoning and compromise. He doesn't discuss whether politics by reasoning is effective against those who continue to use anger politics.
He suggests learning self-discipline helps to get oneself to use reasoning. He suggests 18-year-olds be given training on how to be a voter and reason for political decision-making.
He tells us voting rates have fallen since the time of the city political bosses. He doesn't seem to see issues with political bosses.
March 5, 2017
This explains a lot! Rick Shenkman takes us through what we have learned about our instincts. Our instincts evolved in the Pleistocene when we lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Our curiosity, empathy, view of truth and ability to read people are adapted to very different circumstances than we currently live in now. Shenkman explains what this means for our politics. At the beginning this interesting but discouraging. Are we capable of adapting our gut reactions to the modern political picture? Fortunately Shenkman offers hope. He thinks we have the ability to balance our instincts and act rationally and gives some examples on how we can do this.
Shenkman is not a social scientist. He is a journalist and historian. Sometimes his presentation of studies is less than rigorous but his history is right-on and engaging.
I recommend this book to US voters who care where we are going as a country.
Shenkman is not a social scientist. He is a journalist and historian. Sometimes his presentation of studies is less than rigorous but his history is right-on and engaging.
I recommend this book to US voters who care where we are going as a country.
July 22, 2016
There's nothing earth shattering in this account of how our rational brain tends to break down in the irrational world of politics, but with election season upon us, it's a helpful reminder of four proven truths: (1) People are surprisingly incurious and apathetic about politics, (2) We have a hard time seeing the truth in politics and politicians, (3) We punish politicians who try to tell us the truth, and (4) We can feel empathy on a small scale but not on a big scale, where it's needed most. It's worth keeping these principles in mind when we step into the voting booth this November.
May 9, 2016
Some people have found this superficial, and if you are a policy wonk it probably is. It isn't AIMED at policy wonks. It's aimed a people like me who are deeply puzzled by the current election season. And it helps understand it in an entertaining way. If you are anti-evolution, don't bother. If you have no trouble thinking our distant ancestors had different life requirements from us, it will explain how we still have behaviors useful for hunter-gatherers messing up modern democracy.
March 2, 2016
First section very interesting. dropped off a bit by the end
December 18, 2019
Our brains are marvels of evolution, the result of hundreds of thousands of years of our specie’s struggle for survival. However, as Rick Shenkman so ably demonstrates in his Political Animals: How our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, they can also mislead and even deceive us in our current world in which we are daily bombarded by efforts to intentionally mislead and manipulate us.
The Evidence
It appears that our brains’ structure and our wired-in behavioral instincts were formed in the Pleistocene Era when our distant ancestors were hunter-gatherers. Since for most of our specie’s history humans lived in very small groups – expanded families or clans – we developed intense loyalties towards them as they provided us with protection, nourishment, and even our very identities. Our brains still interpret our experiences through understandings and instincts developed long ago, mental and behavior tools that were essential to our survival then, but more prone to lead us into error today.
In fact, while our political inclinations do influence how we view the world, we all share even more powerful inclinations and preferences deeply rooted within our brains.
• We are most comfortable being with those “like ourselves,” and unconsciously group ourselves with others whom we believe think and act as we do.
o The flip side of this instinct is that we unconsciously sort the world into “us” and “them.” We trust and feel comfortable with “our” people but tend to be suspicious about “them.”
• Our experiences and interactions with others – and our reflections upon them – causes us to view our behavior and beliefs as “the norm” and, moreover, that our belief-system and worldview are correct.
o Because our understanding of what constitutes “reality” is tightly interwoven, we deeply resist anything that would cause us to doubt this “reality,” instinctively recognizing that the rest of what we believe might be at risk as well.
o In Shenkman’s words, our brains are “lazy.” Analyzing information or considering points of view that could challenge or overturn our belief structure, it turns out, does not just alarm us – for, if I was wrong here what else might I be wrong about? – but such questioning means that the brain must work much harder, consuming more of the body’s precious store of energy. In ages past, when the next meal was far from assured, expending unnecessary energy was wasteful. Since, we are biologically inclined to trust in, and hold to, what we believe to be true, it is of little surprise that we so easily can slip into thinking “what I already know is the truth, and anything other than that is incomplete or even possibly an intentional untruth.”
o Political and social science studies conducted over the past 70 years consistently reveal that highly educated and/or informed persons are more likely to more intensely seek to refute information that either challenges their position than are the less educated or informed, and that those deeply invested in specific beliefs will desperately resist considering any counter-factual information more rigorously than those whose positions are less viscerally held.
• These are some of the reasons why we can so quickly come to fear what we do not understand, interpreting the strange or unfamiliar as a potential threat. To others, our unconscious, reactive behavior may come across as if we were prejudiced or of ill will towards them when we are actually manifesting instinctual, non-reflective behavior.
• We can be quick to suspect that the motives behind the actions and beliefs of others are less informed or well thought-out than our own.
o Upon reflection, one can recognize how often this occurs even within families and among friends. It is when we encounter people who are members of other faith groups, or political parties, or of different educational or economic attainment levels that we frequently find our negative assessments growing sharper, more judgmental, and even personal.
• Since we do not like change, especially when it is not our choice.
o For most of human history, very little changed in the lives of most human beings. Of course, individuals lived and died, but the family or clan went on, the seasons predictably followed one another, and the rhythms of work were predictable and comforting.
o In sharp contrast, our modern world is one of constant change, most of it beyond our control. This heightens our background anxiety and often leaves us in such a state for prolonged periods of time, something never experienced often in the ancient world. When we are upset, our mental world narrows, we suspect possible enemies or other kinds of malcontent, we look with suspicion on recent newcomers or newer ideas, and we retreat into the familiar small groupings of family and – now ideological – clan. This psychological state also makes us more vulnerable to various conspiracy theories which “explain” why we are suffering or under attack.
Shenkman adds further evidence to some tantalizing evidence I had come across before. One of the most important of these is that we think we are smarter than we are. This is not a matter of native intelligence but, rather, the issue of truly knowing what we think we know. We do not fully realize how much of our daily action and thought is the result of unconscious activities in our brains. We think we are objective about people and events, even though our brain favors people who look like us and welcomes opinions and data that reinforce our beliefs. Since we love stories, we can be fooled by people skillful in weaving narratives with harmful implications, such as the Right’s obsession with the threat of “invasion by alien hordes.”
We are very skilled at “reading” others, but only if we know them. With all of the electronic media, images, and spun messages that surround us daily, this gives us the false confidence that we “know” those who are – or who wish to be – our leaders. So, the trust or distrust we feel seems to be based on hard evidence. But it is not.
For most of human history, we came to know a lot about the people with whom we hunted and lived because we were able to observe their behavior up close and personal. This intimacy gave us confidence that we knew those who aspired to leadership positions well enough to accurately assess their abilities.
Today, however, cannot know our leaders in any real sense. Although we can read or hear reports of what they say or do, and even sometimes observe them in person or via the television or computer screen, such “knowledge” is very limited compared to that possessed by our ancestors. But it is this multiplicity of information – including visual images often carefully staged to project favorable impressions – that can cause us to think we know them. What we “know,” however, is what they or others want us to think about them. Little wonder, then, that we are so often disappointed, if not outright bamboozled, by those we select to lead.
The Good News
While we cannot easily stop the ever-present bombardment that seeks to influence what we think and believe, we can take steps to make us less vulnerable to it.
Scientists now believe that because our brains are malleable, they can, with conscious and sustained effort, come to recognize and change even our most deeply ingrained predispositions. We do not need to remain trapped in unreasoned states of fear or anger, even when those might be our initial reactions. However, we cannot begin to do the necessary rewiring – reconsidering our deepest passions and points of view – until and unless we become aware of how our brain instinctively causes us to think and act in certain ways.
One of the best ways that each of us can accomplish this is by embracing what many wisdom traditions have long taught: the necessity of setting aside some time each day for thoughtful reflection, even meditation. In the Gospel of Luke, in particular, we hear that Jesus frequently “went off by himself to pray.” This prayer was likely not an outpouring of words but, rather, a communion with the One he called “Father.” If we are going to have a true “values revolution” in this country it will only come about when we have attained searing humility through honestly encountering ourselves in this manner.
Shrenkman urges us to use our brain’s instincts in positive ways by, for example, expanding peoples’ sense of inclusive community, by providing hope to those who fearfully doubt that a better future is possible for themselves, and by stressing those larger beliefs to which most of us ascribe.
This, of course, is the exact opposite of much of the politics in recent decades in which communities of people have been divided, individuals atomized, and the public sphere – including parks, libraries, voluntary associations, and convivial debates – allowed to wither. But it does not have to say like this.
People are hungry for reaffirming our ties to each other, to rebuilding community, to expanding our sense of “who belongs.” We each must do our best to contribute to such positive measures while equally resisting those who would make us angrier and smaller.
December 7, 2017
It's a really good intro psychology book for beginners but as you may expect it is a bit more of the same for psychologists who already know a lot about biases.
Pro:
The author explains everything with simple terms and I was time after time surprised by how well he explained theories and studies that are usually are a bit hard to explain in practical terms. He presents the science of bias in an evolutionary psychology light and along the way I learn a few new things even as a nerd on this topic.
Con:
My problem with this book is that it is simple. Very simple. It's clearly meant as an intro and a great one at that but at the end of the day I have already read about some of these studies 100 times over. And something tells me that there are 20 more books like this out there. It's not about politics as such and not about macro politics. It's about the voter just voting for people who he wants to be in a small group with. Not people who would be great leaders in a macro scale society. It's a huge problem in a modern day society and something we all need to understand.
I hope everyone reads this book but experts may want to find something harder and longer to dive into.
Pro:
The author explains everything with simple terms and I was time after time surprised by how well he explained theories and studies that are usually are a bit hard to explain in practical terms. He presents the science of bias in an evolutionary psychology light and along the way I learn a few new things even as a nerd on this topic.
Con:
My problem with this book is that it is simple. Very simple. It's clearly meant as an intro and a great one at that but at the end of the day I have already read about some of these studies 100 times over. And something tells me that there are 20 more books like this out there. It's not about politics as such and not about macro politics. It's about the voter just voting for people who he wants to be in a small group with. Not people who would be great leaders in a macro scale society. It's a huge problem in a modern day society and something we all need to understand.
I hope everyone reads this book but experts may want to find something harder and longer to dive into.
October 17, 2017
When I read these types of books, I have a hard time deciphering if my reaction is lukewarm because I'm already familiar with a lot of the studies referenced, or if the book is simply just not that great. I was hoping for more concrete take-aways, but maybe my disappointment is more driven by the complexity of human nature. I did find that the author's anecdotes and explanations became very repetitive, almost like he couldn't trust the reader to understand a concept the first time he explained it. There were a few solid nuggets of information, but I'm left with lots of unanswered questions and wondering if there's a better book on the psychology of politics out there that I have yet to discover.
October 19, 2020
An excellent evidence based discussion on how and why politics and the discussion of them is so difficult in America. Using scientific studies, particularly in the realm of Social Behavior, the author sites several examples, of both conservative and liberal politicians that exhibit the behaviors that we as the people keeping them in power, need to recognize, and why we keep them in power even after they are, obviously to some, may not be working in our best interests as members of the voting public.
November 14, 2017
A good book but a difficult read at times. It also gets dragged down by the fact that it could've been shorter (although I appreciate the thoroughness that Shenkman takes to detail all the research he did) and also that in some chapters it just keeps saying the same thing but in a different way. Don't know if that was the author's intention but that's how I perceived it.
July 11, 2018
This was an exceptional book! Really helped understand the irrational tenancies of voters and people in general - myself included. It explores human tendencies towards various biases and their evolutionary origins.
This is a must read for those wanting to reach large crowds and organize political movements.
This is a must read for those wanting to reach large crowds and organize political movements.
January 12, 2018
In these days of divisive rhetoric and post-truth politics it is hard to understand the reasons why voters make the choices they do. Rick Shenkman's book, Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, gives readers many clues. Recommended.
October 11, 2024
Yeah pretty good
November 22, 2016
Shenkman offers scientific research to help explain why we make political choices which are neither in our own best interests nor in the best interests of the society and nation as a whole. Many forces within our own psychology contribute to this bad decision making and we are also very much influences by our heredity and upbringing.
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete.
The analysis offered in this book rests upon research and surveys explaining many forces not previously factored into evaluating why elections turn out the way they do.
In spite of the quality of the evidence offered here, some is a bit superficial and incomplete with broad conclusions supported by very little evidence. But what is worse, is that many factors that influence elections are ignored. For example, what is the impact on the national consciousness of the constant distortion of facts and events be a certain "news" (re: propaganda) network?
The book's final section deals with 'lack of empathy" and probably understates the impact of this characteristic in determining our votes and our actions. For example, feeling sympathy for someone who is homeless or afflicted by a disease or addition is not the same as understanding their situation with empathy. Sympathy places the one who is sympathetic in a position of believed moral superiority over the other, the victim, while having empathy places the empathic person in a position of wanting to feel, think, and share the burden of the other person. Americans are sympathetic to the Syrian refugees, for example, but empathy would compel us to act.
Moreover, there is a strong mismatch between what people genuinely believe they believe and value and the behaviors those beliefs ought to influence. A person believes in honesty, for example, but brings home office supplies from work; or, more drastically, believes in honesty and justifies "calling in sick" as merely a "lie that everyone tells," rather than seeing it for what it really is: stealing a day's wages through dishonesty.
The book raises moral and ethical questions, but mainly focuses on the explanations of why our thinking is so shallow and decisions so poor. It is a good read and eye opening, but its explanations and analysis is incomplete.
December 3, 2016
The book is fine, I guess, but most of it smacks of common sense and those things that don't ring familiar. Better to hear Rick Shenkman talk about his ideas in Political Animals on YouTube or on a podcast, putting for instance the ascension of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate in perspective. Here are some highlights from Shenkman's book.
One has to do with this longstanding idea in anthropology and it amounts to this. We've got brains that are only designed to keep track of about 150 people and after that we can't process who's who. But in many instances we have to decide and make judgments about people on the basis of very little information, even if we would never be able to track them as our core 150 people.
We can track people on the basis of a number of easy, often false, heuristics. We can, for example, like someone because they look handsome and assume that they have a lot of good qualities on the basis of that. We can see them on TV or in other public venues and assume that their character is pretty much consistent with those appearances.
TV and other media outlets also give us the sense that we know someone when we don't. Because we are seeing them, we are fooled into thinking that we are getting some insider information on that. Think for instance when you see an actor act like a tough guy and assume he must be a tough guy in real life.
In short, it is very difficult to deal with these kinds of natural limitations we have and the only antidote is a lot of vigilance and critical thinking. Internalising the methods of science, following premises to their logical conclusions, and so on can be helpful but not everyone is going to do that. In fact, since we also tend to feel a group pull and get very attached to our social identities and groups it might be near-impossible for us to want to think critically about the position we have for so long attached to.
One has to do with this longstanding idea in anthropology and it amounts to this. We've got brains that are only designed to keep track of about 150 people and after that we can't process who's who. But in many instances we have to decide and make judgments about people on the basis of very little information, even if we would never be able to track them as our core 150 people.
We can track people on the basis of a number of easy, often false, heuristics. We can, for example, like someone because they look handsome and assume that they have a lot of good qualities on the basis of that. We can see them on TV or in other public venues and assume that their character is pretty much consistent with those appearances.
TV and other media outlets also give us the sense that we know someone when we don't. Because we are seeing them, we are fooled into thinking that we are getting some insider information on that. Think for instance when you see an actor act like a tough guy and assume he must be a tough guy in real life.
In short, it is very difficult to deal with these kinds of natural limitations we have and the only antidote is a lot of vigilance and critical thinking. Internalising the methods of science, following premises to their logical conclusions, and so on can be helpful but not everyone is going to do that. In fact, since we also tend to feel a group pull and get very attached to our social identities and groups it might be near-impossible for us to want to think critically about the position we have for so long attached to.
December 24, 2018
Pretty interesting discussion about human evolutionary pressures and its impact on our psychology through the ages and how what worked on the Savannah may be ill suited in a modern, high tech Democracy like ours. Makes a good companion piece to the writings of George Lakoff, among others. Spends more time outlining problems but rather limited in proposed solutions.
August 23, 2016
This book takes the predictably irrational actors of economics and applies them to politics. Shenkman calls out some interesting research and historical outcomes to show that -- again, not surprising to an economist -- we're not nearly as rational as we like to think we are. We have all kinds of biases and an amazing ability to rationalize political "decisions" that have been influenced by random, unrelated events.
All of which is good stuff that is well worth covering in the book. At the same time, I think Shenkman goes way too far into the sociobiological weeds, laying down some arguments that I think have more to do with his own sexist biases than a logical reading of the known facts.
I think he also overstates his case in several areas, and the truth is somewhere between the conventional wisdom and his portrayal of humanity as a caveman in a power suit. Yes, our brain is still catching up with great new inventions like agriculture and cities, and his recommendations about being on the lookout for bias and kneejerk reaction are spot-on. But the bottom line is that we *aren't* cavefolk any more. We've learned, we've set up an advanced technological civilization, and we've changed a lot of the rules that we used to live by. Maybe it's just my biases showing, but I'm inclined to think we can keep building on that, even if our brains trip us up every now and again.
(Or maybe this review will just end up looking foolish after President Trump triggers an apocalypse in 2017. If it does and Goodreads survives and you can post to it from your survival bunker, please do mock me mercilessly in the comments.)
All of which is good stuff that is well worth covering in the book. At the same time, I think Shenkman goes way too far into the sociobiological weeds, laying down some arguments that I think have more to do with his own sexist biases than a logical reading of the known facts.
I think he also overstates his case in several areas, and the truth is somewhere between the conventional wisdom and his portrayal of humanity as a caveman in a power suit. Yes, our brain is still catching up with great new inventions like agriculture and cities, and his recommendations about being on the lookout for bias and kneejerk reaction are spot-on. But the bottom line is that we *aren't* cavefolk any more. We've learned, we've set up an advanced technological civilization, and we've changed a lot of the rules that we used to live by. Maybe it's just my biases showing, but I'm inclined to think we can keep building on that, even if our brains trip us up every now and again.
(Or maybe this review will just end up looking foolish after President Trump triggers an apocalypse in 2017. If it does and Goodreads survives and you can post to it from your survival bunker, please do mock me mercilessly in the comments.)
August 23, 2016
Shenkman argues that the public often makes irrational choices when voting for political candidates. We are guided by our instincts and not rational arguments.
If you enjoy Presidential History you will enjoy this book.
Did you know President Grover Cleveland had oral cancer on his hard palate. He kept the Surgery secret by being operated on a cruise ship leaving from Washington DC and keeping his mustache intact.
Did you know Clinton did far more to reform Welfare than Ronald Regan?
Did you know Bob Woodward (uncovered Watergate) liked to snoop around his parents mail and that's how he found how they were getting a divorce.
Did you know President Ford was startled to find out any one in American went hungry at night and once while trying to connect with Latino voters in Texas ate the corn husks of a Tamale.
3 stars. I enjoyed some of the political history and science (chimpanzee's learned to tell fibs in sign language), but I'm not sure the stories connected to the greater argument of why our stone age brains get in the way of smart politics.
If you enjoy Presidential History you will enjoy this book.
Did you know President Grover Cleveland had oral cancer on his hard palate. He kept the Surgery secret by being operated on a cruise ship leaving from Washington DC and keeping his mustache intact.
Did you know Clinton did far more to reform Welfare than Ronald Regan?
Did you know Bob Woodward (uncovered Watergate) liked to snoop around his parents mail and that's how he found how they were getting a divorce.
Did you know President Ford was startled to find out any one in American went hungry at night and once while trying to connect with Latino voters in Texas ate the corn husks of a Tamale.
3 stars. I enjoyed some of the political history and science (chimpanzee's learned to tell fibs in sign language), but I'm not sure the stories connected to the greater argument of why our stone age brains get in the way of smart politics.
September 1, 2016
Our brains and first reactions have not caught up with our quick pace society. An interesting study of all kinds ways this plays out.
pg 231
Humans...are bad at predicting the future...because (it) is unknowable. All we have to go on is the past, and the past is often a poor guide, particularly in times of great flux.....but as long a we are open to evidence.....willing to try new approaches...we'll probably hit on a solution. FDR 'If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, Try something'"
pg 232
Anxiety helps keep things real - and as long as the media are free to report the basic facts, it will in most cases-overtime we'll adapt to change....but in the modern world we often need to adapt immediately to changing circumstances"
pg 236
What science is teaching us is that we need to be on our guard whenever politics makes us feel angry....we possess the ability to recognize anger...and we can resist.
We need to acknowledge our reactions and practice self discipline to make good decisions - in politics and other challenges in modern life
pg 231
Humans...are bad at predicting the future...because (it) is unknowable. All we have to go on is the past, and the past is often a poor guide, particularly in times of great flux.....but as long a we are open to evidence.....willing to try new approaches...we'll probably hit on a solution. FDR 'If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, Try something'"
pg 232
Anxiety helps keep things real - and as long as the media are free to report the basic facts, it will in most cases-overtime we'll adapt to change....but in the modern world we often need to adapt immediately to changing circumstances"
pg 236
What science is teaching us is that we need to be on our guard whenever politics makes us feel angry....we possess the ability to recognize anger...and we can resist.
We need to acknowledge our reactions and practice self discipline to make good decisions - in politics and other challenges in modern life
April 26, 2016
Has some good points but Franz DeWaal said it better in "Chimpanzee Politics." Worse, he succumbs to his own descriptions when talking about Watergate. On page 102, he points out that, "the trial of the Watergate defendants began in January 1973 ... In March one o the Watergate burglars confessed to the judge in the case that he had committed perjury to protect the White House." The point is that the first confession that it was a coverup that went all the way to the White House happened five months after the election.
Yet before and long after that page, Shenkman calls the public stupid for reelecting Nixon in November 1972. I don't know if you wish to blame the Superiority Bias or one he doesn't mention, the "Hindsight is 20/20 Bias" for his ignoring the facts and sticking with his position.
If you can ignore him hoisting himself on his own petard, the information in the book is good and worth a read.
Yet before and long after that page, Shenkman calls the public stupid for reelecting Nixon in November 1972. I don't know if you wish to blame the Superiority Bias or one he doesn't mention, the "Hindsight is 20/20 Bias" for his ignoring the facts and sticking with his position.
If you can ignore him hoisting himself on his own petard, the information in the book is good and worth a read.
January 22, 2016
Tom Zingarelli narrates Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics by Rick Shenkman with character and wisdom. As we face a major season of election, this timeless book instructs and advises the listener how to wisely choose their candidate, and how events affect the outcome of elections. The material is user friendly for the common man to learn how the political machine works. Recommended to voters of all ages, especially those young voters who are confused and insecure as to whether or not their vote counts. Zingarelli reads as a wise man imparting years of wisdom in his narration. He sounds like an interesting news reporter with heart. Political science is interwoven with real science, history and current events to show what can affect the results at the polls. A must read before voting.
March 28, 2016
Really interesting. There are some points I would argue with, but those are hugely overshadowed by the study results and examples that go into why we make the political decisions we do and how we interpret the flood of information that comes at us these days. One of my favorite nonfiction books of the last few years.
May 27, 2016
People are overly reliant on their peers in guiding their political views. Most of us are less likely to read a story with a position that we oppose. We have less personal interaction with our politicians and rely on television ads and news snippets to guide our views. Then add in human biases. No wonder we can't figure out who to vote for.
April 23, 2016
It contains the cure to our problems, but few will ever do what's required. Rick Shenkman has encapsulated a very common sense approach, with anthropology, psychology, and political-science. The unfortunate truth is uncovered, as the cliché says, "nothing comes without effort."
May 30, 2016
Really well thought out and created look at how politics and politicians operate and integrate in our lives. The examples used to dissect the ideas are spot on and recognizable. The author does a great job putting together a narrative that is curious, intelligent, and interesting.
Read
February 2, 201616202 #@#% 90.7 Letteres&Politics
June 9, 2016
Well...a lot of interesting information - just not sure what should be done with it. He does have a chapter that attempts to answer that question, but I didn't find it to be very well laid out.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews