Pennsylvania:

As Election Day approaches Kamala Harris and Donald Trump came face to facePollsters and experts are scrambling to find clues that could predict the outcome.

But what if the answer lies not in political data or campaign strategies, but in the instincts of a primitive part of the human brain?

My new research with rhesus macaque monkeys shows that when it comes to decisions like voting, people are not that rational as they want to believe.

It is easy to associate instinctive responses, such as the fight-or-flight response or reflexively moving away from a hot surface, with the primitive drive to survive. But humans also have a rational brain, which can collect and weigh evidence by thoughtful deliberation rather than relying on immediate reactions. It is one of the many reasons why the rational brain becomes hijacked by primitive instincts when rationality would serve humans better. My neuroscience colleagues and I I have been studying rhesus macaques for the last 25 years.

these monkeys very similar to humans genetically, physiologically And behaviorally. These similarities have allowed researchers to make incredible medical discoveries. Polio, HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 vaccinestogether Deep brain stimulation treatment for Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders.

My research on candidate preference is part of the overall focus. developing scientists understanding ability interacting effectively with others and navigating social conflicts, neural circuits supporting it and how these circuits can break down due to external factors such as disease or inequality – all to better support those affected by these challenges.

The power of first impressions

Previous research has shown that adults and preschoolers alike Accurately predicting election results after rapid exposure to candidate photos. Much evidence supports the idea that our primitive brains lead us to quickly form first impressions based on physical appearance; After all, this was the key to survival.

But researchers don’t yet understand why this bias persists. New research with rhesus macaques has provided some answers.

In the study being reviewed in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, We showed candidate photo pairs to monkeys They accurately predicted results from the US gubernatorial and senate elections based solely on visual features.

Specifically, the monkeys spent more time looking at the loser than the winner. This “view bias” predicted not only election results but also candidates’ vote share. Monkeys tended to look at candidates with more masculine facial features, and these were the candidates who were more likely to win in real elections. Chin prominence had a direct relationship with vote share.

previous research Helps explain monkeys’ gaze bias. When monkeys were shown pictures of unfamiliar but strong male monkeys, they only looked at them briefly, presumably because the monkeys interpreted looking as a sign of aggression. However, when shown a low-status male monkey or a female monkey, their gaze lingered.

These preferences were on full display when we showed photos of macaques from the most recent races involving Donald Trump. View biases guided by primitive instincts showed the winners. The monkeys were the side that looked at the Democratic opponent for the longest time in the contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton. There was less gaze bias facing Joe Biden. The monkeys searched for Trump as much as they searched for Harris. This means that of the three most recent Democratic candidates based on visual features alone, the monkeys predicted Harris had the best chance of winning against Trump.

An evolutionary hangover

Our findings suggest that voters respond instinctively to cues of physical strength. equally obvious clues to our monkey relatives. This “evolutionary hangover” demonstrates how traits and behaviors once necessary for survival persist even when they are no longer relevant.

The macaques’ ability to predict winners based solely on physical attributes challenges the idea that humans have evolved beyond superficial judgment in choosing leadership. This is a surprising discovery, especially for those who pride themselves on rational decision-making in vital decisions such as voting.

Clearly people’s preferences are not based solely on visual cues. But evidence suggests that such factors may be more influential than you think. When you walk into the voting booth, part of your brain may be tapping into old instincts and subconsciously evaluating who would best lead the tribe.

Staying rational, not primitive

raise awareness of these first choices is the first step reduce the effects.

Political campaigns already tap into these instincts by highlighting a candidate’s physical strength and assertiveness. As voters, we can counter their efforts by relying on our rational brain’s capacity to understand and evaluate their policies and experiences; This is something our primitive ancestors could not do.

Techniques for choosing rationally rather than instinctively include exposing yourself to different perspectives, actively questioning your assumptions, and considering the long-term consequences of policies. Such deliberate steps toward making informed decisions take on new importance when you understand how your brain can be manipulated by outdated preferences at the ballot box.

Voters are not macaques, of course. But the basic instincts that humans share with our primate relatives can still subtly shape our decisions.

Recognizing the role of these ancient cues can help people be more conscious of how to exercise their power at the voting booth. As democracy evolves, so will people’s understanding of how to interact with it.

(Writer: Michael PlattProfessor of Marketing and Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania)

This article is republished from: Speech It is under Creative Commons license. Read original article.