Not all biases should be treated the same. You can be appropriately biased into thinking that Hillary Clinton would be a more plausible commander-in-chief than Donald Trump. For Mr. Trump, a self-proclaimed exemplar of a real estate tycoon, it would be most emphatically an inappropriate bias. The inappropriateness of this bias stems from a growing laundry list of proposals, and behaviors coupled by mere psychological fitness. Based on this assessment alone it would seem to be an appropriately legitimate bias to lean towards Clinton, however, many have found rationale that seem to ignore even the basic tenets of good evaluation.
To many it may just be completely believable that a Trump presidency would be beneficial or satisfying both personally and emotionally. This vision of a winner-take-all leader with a strong aversion to political correctness and who voices anti-competitive rhetoric for international trade policies would prove to be to the contrary of your future perceived happiness.
Let’s start with the heuristics at play when it comes to representativeness. Trump has candidly and braggadociously described himself as an exceptional businessman, ergo billionaire. This led to a semblance of inferences of the cause and its likely effect. In other words because he is a successful businessman those business interests and its principles should, by deduction, translate to successful governance of an entire country and its diversified interests. Both Trump and his campaign simply ignore the more rational role of government as not just solely for the interests of profiteering, there is the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness contingencies embedded into the complexities of democratic governance. Trump has insisted that the state of the union is in socioeconomic dire straits and that only an experienced and proven business leader like himself is capable of bringing the country back to its “winning” ways. Quite frankly, this is an erroneous foregone conclusion for some.
While there is always room for skepticism there is never any wiggle room for close-mindedness to seep in with misguided notions. Errors in judgement leads to catastrophic mistakes. We have seen this occur in the unregulated capitalistic system that placates corporate welfare, which oftentimes resulted in recessions and or worse; depressions. These sufficiently unfettered systems that warrant government intervention are driven by actors proclaiming shareholder interests which by a much larger extent is driven purely by myopic self-interest, and when the antithetical “big government” does intervene, businessmen like Trump swoop in to take advantage of confidence loss and depressed prices. This is exactly what he meant when he stated “that’s called business, by the way” in the first 2016 presidential debate. There was nary a mention of the millions of lives that have been upended in the process of doing “business” by the way, let alone the arduous and tentative rebuilding of trust in the recovery of the systemic carnage to the financial system.
Another gleaming and outward bias is this standard perception of a president. Trump has made several statements that appear to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s look and temperament is not presidential. While based on national polling, it would most likely be a recurring historical precedent to witness a first minority; representing the first female president of the United States, notably, it took up until just a little over 100 of the remaining days of Obama’s second term in office for Trump to acknowledge the President’s birth certificate. The emotionality that comes with this nonacceptance of a Black man holding the most powerful position on earth seems to rattle the cognitive dissonance of many. However, this is in keeping with a homunculus view that has saturated the senses with a dominant gender or racial framing, “as seen on tv” with a privileged cavalier and stereotypical Hollywood perspective that many cannot seem to break from.
The forthright embrace of stop and frisk and other profiling techniques are manifestations of turpitude towards fellow minority constituents and immigrants. This is not a new breakthrough concept in law enforcement either, it is actually borrowed from Jim Crow era tactics. Furthermore the application of an ambiguous concept to solve crime and gun violence was found unconstitutional for obvious reasons. This isn’t obvious to Trump and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani though because they have been made further biased by base-rate fallacy and sample size neglect in the numbers and the perceived racial type of people targeted in solving crime. Particularly this representativeness: the sample location and sample size of stop and frisk is implicitly biased in targeting a small segment of the overall population and is exclusively applied in low income neighborhoods. It neglects the more obvious of what many can’t see as common sense, that crime can occur anywhere and does occur everywhere.
Internal views that invoke the inappropriate biases and rash expectations inspired by a Trump presidency are not only preposterous, they are unethical reasonings of the incorrigible type. They unduly influence the dominant framing of society to which some are privileged in taking advantage of the marginalized.