Bleeding Edge

Judgement and decision making are essential.

They are automatic, intuitive and rapid mental operations, which can be statistical or non-statistical, that lead an individual to make a decision and which are very interesting in electoral sociology, particularly at the time of elections.

Individuals thus make choices according to a number of considerations that are both rational and rational, although most often they do not realize the complexity of the information relevant to the situation and the real stakes at this high level Cybernetics game of Life and the Pursuit of Happiness for the American people and by extension for all the people of this planet.

Indeed voters are sometimes led to biases and errors in decision making.

In political science, there are three main competing models for explaining electoral behavior.

The first, sociological in nature, is based on the postulate of an effect of socio-economic variables (gender, age, social class, etc.).

The second is based on a theory of a psycho-sociological nature: the voter chooses his or her candidate through a partisan identification that guides his or her choice.

And finally, the third, inspired by economic models, assumes a rational voter who makes political choices by maximizing his or her interests.

As a matter of fact, nine heuristics in total can be easily distinguished in electoral sociology.

Thus, one is a little lost at the time of the vote.

One then votes like a sheep … or rather more like the rest of the “sheeple.”

And thus as one decides to vote as the majority of individuals vote, because one tells oneself that if the majority chooses this or that other candidate, it is certainly the best.

Or one can choose to vote by a phenomenon of identification for a woman, because one is a female voter.

Or because a candidate is beautiful.

Or because the candidate embodies success, strength and other very subjective criteria.

Or one votes by conservative upbringing or by tradition or as everyone else “in the family” votes etc.

Indeed as voters, we are attached to the fact that we have always voted for this or that political party…

Or because we recognize ourselves through a political program, through ideas…

And this last one is more serious, but it still presupposes a person to be enlightened, which is seldom the case for most all of us, being simpletons and simple voters.

HOWEVER, all these factors must be taken into account.

Mainly, because these factors are the ones that influence the choice of voters at the time of the vote.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Yet buyer or in this case “Voter” beware…

Beware of cognitive bias!

Find out what is really essential and then vote accordingly.

Do you like Independent?

Do you suppose that there exists a real knowledge of the stakes for a country placed in a global environment without forgetting the environmental stakes today, which threaten us all?

Are we all capable of analyzing reliable information in a context of disinformation and daily infox, especially on social networks? Are we all really aware of reality?

Are we really aware of what’s at stake and what the threats are for the environment, and for the people?

Maybe yes — and maybe not.

It is in these cases that I like to quote Hannah Arendt, philosopher, survivor of the Holocaust, girlfriend of the NAZI philosopher Heidegger, and subsequently a specialist on totalitarianism:

“It is in the void of thought that evil is transcribed”.

Democracy is good, but it also contains its own poison.

The allegory of the forest leads us to think:

“Before the axe entered the forest, all people cried out: ‘Fear nothing, it is one of us!'”

— Thanks to Fabienne Durand who wrote this in the first place and I borrowed and mashed it rip for your edification.

God Bless all of you.