We live in a world of surprises, leading to unexpected events, sometimes with far-reaching consequences. But what’s striking about each of these events is that not everyone is surprised by them. In other words, what surprises us depends on who we are. Surprise is a largely self-inflicted phenomenon, the product of blindness. This is the result of blinding beliefs, certainties reinforced by social mechanisms, a bubble of illusion in which we enclose ourselves with those who believe the same things as we do. A typical example of this blindness is Donald Trump’s second victory in the US presidential election.
The video is edifying. A retired American political studies professor recounts how she went to buy a bottle of champagne in anticipation of Kamala Harris’s victory. She talks to the cashier, who is astonished. “It’s going to be a close vote, she hasn’t won yet,” he tells her. He then gets a real lesson. “I’m a professor of political science,” she says, ”and obviously Harris is going to win.” And she explains why. She suspects he voted for Trump. “You’ve wasted your vote,” she informs him with a sneer. She struggles to finish her video, laughing so hard at the episode. History doesn’t say what she finally did with her bottle…
We manufacture our blindness. We manufacture it first and foremost with our mental models, the deep-seated beliefs we develop in our lives. These beliefs enable us to filter information. They focus us on what we consider important and significant, and make us ignore the rest. They are what enable our brains to interpret the world in order to take action. In the U.S. election campaign, as in every episode in life, mental models were in full play.
Remember the Hollywood stars who came to support the embattled Democratic candidate? Here, the mental model is that of the trusted third party. Someone who is well known and has prestige capital is asked to put that prestige to work for the candidate. “Since such and such an actor is known, he is prestigious, and since he is prestigious, his support will increase the candidate’s prestige, and therefore more people will vote for her.” But how is this support interpreted by voters? The Trumpist voter, who thinks he’s the victim of a conspiracy by the “progressive elite”, will simply say to himself, “Another depraved Hollywood star who’s come to lecture me by stepping off his private jet.” Not only does the model not work, it’s arguably counterproductive. While Trump made the elite’s conspiracy against normal citizens the basis of his election campaign, producing stars seen as symbols of that elite only reinforces his message. It’s surprising that Democratic strategists weren’t aware of this.
Another campaign mistake: the series of former Trump aides declaring that he is unfit to become president of the country. The mental model here is: “Serious people who know Trump well say he’s unfit, so voters aren’t going to vote for him.” Interpretation by the base voter: “More traitors going over to the dark side of the elite against us”. Once again, Trump’s message is reinforced. Another mental model error. The last mental model error, but we could list dozens: the belief that identity determines voting. “Blacks will necessarily vote for Democrats, since Trump is racist,” or ”Women will necessarily vote for Democrats, since Trump is sexist.” But it turns out that the determinants of voting are much more complex, and that the mental model of identity politics doesn’t work. Blacks may be offended by Trump’s comments, but they are also sensitive to safety in their city, the state of the schools and drug problems. You can be black and conservative, and hate campus wokeism. Humans are more complex than the box we try to put them in.
In the video mentioned above, the professor believes that the issue of reproductive rights is central to the vote, and that women will never let Trump win. This assertion brings together a bunch of beliefs about the importance of one issue over others, and about the sophistication of voters. For example, it was noted that women were able to vote against abortion restrictions in the few polls that were held locally that day, and also vote for Trump otherwise. What is most striking about the video is the absence of doubt that is the hallmark of models who have become invisible, and the extreme arrogance of the knower: “I know better than you, simple cashier, because I am a professor of political science”. As Nietzsche wrote, “certainties are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”
Understandably, the point here is not to say who’s right or who’s wrong, but simply to observe that the total surprise of the result – we were told for weeks that the outcome was very close, while Trump won in just about every conceivable category – is the result of mental models taken for granted that were brutally disproved on election night. In other words, the role of mental models – one’s own and those of others – is ignored at one’s expense .
The sociology of mental models
The importance of mental models is reinforced by our behavior. We tend to associate with people who think like we do, or more precisely, who share our mental models. We group together in large thought bubbles. How many people do you know who have very different ideas from yours? Personally, I’m aware that most, if not all, of the people I associate with are as horrified by Trump as I am myself. It’s great fun, it’s a cozy comfort, but it’s dangerous. So there’s a sociology of blindness: the apparent strength of our models is reinforced by who we associate with, which makes the next surprise all the more likely, and all the stronger.
We are now in an era in which the most tried-and-tested models are shattering one after the other. So fasten your seatbelts and ask yourself: What do you firmly believe that may be becoming false?
🔎 The teacher’s video is available here.
🇫🇷 A version in French of this article is available here.
One thought on “The illusion of certainty: what Donald Trump’s victory teaches us about willful blindness”