One thing I want to get off my chest is my strong belief that the description of conservatives and MAGA fans in particular as "low-trust" is a huge misnomer. I find these sorts of people to be extraordinarily trusting. They just put all their trust in the stupidest, least-deserving people on the planet. I've seen true genuine "don't trus…
One thing I want to get off my chest is my strong belief that the description of conservatives and MAGA fans in particular as "low-trust" is a huge misnomer. I find these sorts of people to be extraordinarily trusting. They just put all their trust in the stupidest, least-deserving people on the planet. I've seen true genuine "don't trust anyone" types. They are too few in number and have beliefs that are far too inscrutable to ever align as unquestioningly and formidably with anyone as MAGA types have with Donald Trump. (Some of those types may vote Trump anyway, some may vote Harris, both for reasons that can't be easily understood, but that's all besides the point.)
What I'm getting at here is that it's foolish and counterproductive to approach people as if they're not easily capable of trusting anyone, when in reality it's just that they don't trust *us*. And they won't ever trust us as long as the people they do trust tell them we're not trustworthy.
You're absolutely right. It's bizarre how people disbelieve in science but believe their pastor or some other crackpot who tells them to take ivermectin for COVID.
You're pretty close with the statement "they don't trust 'us.'" They trust people identified with their group - the people who adhere to the "correct" social hierarchy, and don't trust people, institutions, etc, that they identify as being out of the "correct" bounds.
It's low institutional trust, and the credulous are both more susceptible to the intentional creation of such distrust by malign actors as well as to allowing the vacuum of idea space created by such distrust to be filled by, unavoidably, less credible sources. Absent acceptance of institutional authority, other sources of apparent legitimacy, such as group affinity, take a larger share in filling the space.
I would again say that imo it's not really a lack of institutional trust; they fully trust institutions (and certainly enjoy flexing institutional power) just as long as people they trust are running them.
I always thought of "institutional trust" as "belief that an institution can do what it's supposed to do", and that one can have low trust in an institution even if someone they have high regard for is in control of it. But I see MAGA not really doing that. They seem to believe the institutions they control are capable of achieving what they want to achieve.
One thing I want to get off my chest is my strong belief that the description of conservatives and MAGA fans in particular as "low-trust" is a huge misnomer. I find these sorts of people to be extraordinarily trusting. They just put all their trust in the stupidest, least-deserving people on the planet. I've seen true genuine "don't trust anyone" types. They are too few in number and have beliefs that are far too inscrutable to ever align as unquestioningly and formidably with anyone as MAGA types have with Donald Trump. (Some of those types may vote Trump anyway, some may vote Harris, both for reasons that can't be easily understood, but that's all besides the point.)
What I'm getting at here is that it's foolish and counterproductive to approach people as if they're not easily capable of trusting anyone, when in reality it's just that they don't trust *us*. And they won't ever trust us as long as the people they do trust tell them we're not trustworthy.
You're absolutely right. It's bizarre how people disbelieve in science but believe their pastor or some other crackpot who tells them to take ivermectin for COVID.
They also may be living more comfortably than those who are not in their positions, ideology and stature.
Absolutely. It's more accurate to say they have no critical thinking skills, but that probably sounds more insulting.
They're critical of experts and believe hokum from crackpot authorities they follow.
You're pretty close with the statement "they don't trust 'us.'" They trust people identified with their group - the people who adhere to the "correct" social hierarchy, and don't trust people, institutions, etc, that they identify as being out of the "correct" bounds.
It's low institutional trust, and the credulous are both more susceptible to the intentional creation of such distrust by malign actors as well as to allowing the vacuum of idea space created by such distrust to be filled by, unavoidably, less credible sources. Absent acceptance of institutional authority, other sources of apparent legitimacy, such as group affinity, take a larger share in filling the space.
I would again say that imo it's not really a lack of institutional trust; they fully trust institutions (and certainly enjoy flexing institutional power) just as long as people they trust are running them.
Thats the opposite of institutional trust, actually.
Do you trust the Suoreme Court?
I always thought of "institutional trust" as "belief that an institution can do what it's supposed to do", and that one can have low trust in an institution even if someone they have high regard for is in control of it. But I see MAGA not really doing that. They seem to believe the institutions they control are capable of achieving what they want to achieve.