Internalized concepts of "success" may explain voting patterns. And analyses.
I've been listening to the various "explanations" for "why it could even get close enough to enable the voter suppression, Russian intervention, and general mopery and dopery to swing just enough votes in key Electoral College states."
And it appears to me that they all devolve to one key semantic insight: How the various explainers, analysts, and even how the individual voters, have internalized a concept of "success."
Not a context-specific definition, as in "what constitutes success in carrying out this particular activity focused on this particular goal," but a more globalized concept of success. As a person. As someone participating in a culture, a society, an economy, etc.
What makes an individual feel a sense of 'success' or contributes to their estimation that their time is well-spent, their efforts are worthwhile, their life is/was well-lived?
There's a sharp dichotomy.
Some of us have internalized a concept of "success" in the answers to these questions:
How many people do you love/are you loved by?
How many other lives are better for your life and how you choose to live it?
How much pain have you eased, beauty have you created, joy have you shared?
Others have internalized a concept of "success" in the answers to these questions:
How many games have you played and won?
How much stuff have you accumulated?
How much power have you wielded?
If you are in the first group, you are overwhelmingly likely to have voted for Hillary, but you're also likely to identify and find explanations for the election outcome that are congruent with your concept of success.
If you are in the second group, you probably voted for Trump, and your explanations for the election outcome will be congruent with your concept of success.
And unless/until we understand the fundamental disconnect between the two, we're unlikely to do more than affirm confirmation bias.
wearily,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
