This makes a kind of sense. If you assume they’re not listening to any of the words, but just the tone, then I guess that might explain things. But I don’t want to think so many people are acting like literal dogs.
Several people are telling you a story, and they’re all slightly different versions of supposedly the same story.
You can’t actually interrogate any of them or even talk to them, you can only listen to whatever story they chose to tell you.
You can either chose one story or no story at all. You cannot chose more than one story.
Each of them would gain something if you chose their story.
You don’t really know any of them personally, hence have no predisposition for trusting the story of one over that of the others or even know for sure that at least on of the stories is the true (i.e. they could all be lying to you).
This is the position of a non-aligned voter in present day politics.
In such a situation, people will either just go “I chose no story” (i.e. “all politicians are liars”) or try and figure out who is the most trustworthy of those telling the stories, via indirect things (remember, people can’t even directly speak with, much less interrogate the story tellers), so they will try and gauge a storyteller’s trustworthiness based on how they talk, their posture and expression, the format of their storytelling, things they know about them outside the storytelling and so on and as part of that they will for example be less likely to trust those who look like or sound like previous story tellers who later turned out to be deceitful or even lying (and the more in the past they’ve been exposed to a certain type of story teller that turned out to be deceitfull, the least likely they will be to believe that story telling style).
It’s this dynamic in choosing who to trust that modern populists like Trump are exploiting.
Curiously at other points in Time, after a period when the populists were in power fucking things up, the same dynamic worked to help the serious sounding highly educated style of storytelling gain power from the populists - at a high level and over longer periods (decades), the process is actually an oscillating system.
This makes a kind of sense. If you assume they’re not listening to any of the words, but just the tone, then I guess that might explain things. But I don’t want to think so many people are acting like literal dogs.
Picture this:
This is the position of a non-aligned voter in present day politics.
In such a situation, people will either just go “I chose no story” (i.e. “all politicians are liars”) or try and figure out who is the most trustworthy of those telling the stories, via indirect things (remember, people can’t even directly speak with, much less interrogate the story tellers), so they will try and gauge a storyteller’s trustworthiness based on how they talk, their posture and expression, the format of their storytelling, things they know about them outside the storytelling and so on and as part of that they will for example be less likely to trust those who look like or sound like previous story tellers who later turned out to be deceitful or even lying (and the more in the past they’ve been exposed to a certain type of story teller that turned out to be deceitfull, the least likely they will be to believe that story telling style).
It’s this dynamic in choosing who to trust that modern populists like Trump are exploiting.
Curiously at other points in Time, after a period when the populists were in power fucking things up, the same dynamic worked to help the serious sounding highly educated style of storytelling gain power from the populists - at a high level and over longer periods (decades), the process is actually an oscillating system.