Trying to accomplish with this . Really . Im just trying to share 17 years worth of essays, political rationality. I at this point, people have started to finally accept that there is a lot of political rationality in their opponents, at least a lot of what im trying to say is youre youre all right. Both sides are correct. The other side is pretty crazy. But get a little more selfawareness and realize that the craziness actually is pretty universal. Give an of a voter whos irrational now lets i mean, the first one that comes to mind is someone who voted for hitler because National Socialism means actual nazi slogan 1933, which i would just say would be pretty crazy. I mean, honestly, though, the main thing about irrationality as social scientists think about it is its hard to know for one person. Its much easier to have an idea about a General Group is rational because for one person, one person to just make an honest mistake, they could just happen to have gotten up on the wrong side of bed or whatever. But when you see that theres a general pattern towards, for example, overestimating certain kinds of crime or underestimating certain kinds of crime, this is where you say it seems like in general the standard possession is way off to how that happened. Its a little unclear. But i mean, i would tend to say that whenever person has a view that is just wildly at odds with reality, thats at least reasonable i think probably they didnt come to that view accidentally. It wasnt just like, woops i just read the wrong number. Its probably more like they were not exercising normal intellectual selfdiscipline when they formed the belief. Why do you refer to voters as Mad Scientists . Oh, great question. So a lot of people look at politics. They say the problem is selfinterest the problem is everyone just voting to get good stuff for themselves. As someone who studies Public Opinion a lot of detail, i say that really just doesnt fit the facts at all. It is not very easy at all to predict what policy someone will support, based upon their objective selfinterest. Rather, what we see is almost everybody. The policies that they do because they think they are best for society. The key catch, though, is that the way they form their beliefs about what is best for society is negligent at best. Where you just of hear some slogans, repeat whatever it is that sounds good to you this came from saying what were you like . Imagine you wake up on an operating table and theres some guy there says, ive got a great surgical procedure. Im going to perform on you. Its going to make you its going to be so wonderful. You live forever. Thatll be 1,000,000. And you say, ah, no thanks is what you dont want to pay. Fine, get out of here. Right. Thats a lot better than you when wake up on the table and the guy says, dont want your money. I am just here to go and help you to deal. And theres like, no, no, i dont want of course you would say that naturally youre not perfect, so you dont yet understand the wonder of what doing, do you . Thats what i say were dealing with with people that do want to help, but they have thoughts so little about what would be helpful that. You were actually be better off if they were in fact just stereotypical greedy jerks. What is the import stance or the significance of convenient for voters . Nice. One thing that you will never hear in politics at least i have never heard it is someone who gives the speech. Give me convenience or give death. Normally in politics. Instead, its like safety first, health. The main thing to know about all these things that politicians do about is and what saw this very clearly during covid is that they come at a very high price. They come at the price of you cant live your life you at least you cant go and live your life in an enjoyable, convenient way when youre spending own money. Convenience matters a lot. If someone says, hey, theres going to be this great vacation, all you have to do is go to four hour timeshare seminar first. Like no, i dont want to do that. That sounds like a pain in the neck. I dont like it so. This is where when people are spending their own money, they care a lot about convenience. Theres a standard in the business dont antagonize customers when theyre standing in line to pay give you money, speed them along, make them happy. But in politics, on the other hand, its very common to say, heres a policy were doing this is the best thing to do even though its actually a giant pain in the neck. Think about tsa. All right. Well, if it saves one life standard political slogan, well, saves one life. Almost everything that anybody earth enjoys kills people. And yet when people are spending their own, their own money, they take these chances so they can actually live a rich, full life political. On the other hand, normally there is almost no weight put on the of people. Its just whatever is safe, whatever is healthy, has got to be done. Convenience be often dont even mention convenience because who could care about such a trivial thing as convenience . What do you teach at gmu . I teach economics. And what portion of economics . Well see. Well, i do wide variety of topics actually. So i teach the microeconomics class. I just did a new policy class, which is a lot of fun. Do labor economics. I do economics and immigration. Economics of education. Economics, politics. Ive done now ive done intro. I mean, really like you like ill say a lot of professors do not like teaching. You might not figure that out from what they say. Probably you can. But i love teaching. I love getting to classroom, getting to talk to people just to see the reactions. And i love trying to figure out a way to take something in my head and, make it make sense to someone thats never heard like that before. Its easy to talk people that also have the same ph. D. As you talking to somebody thats never heard any of this stuff. And it makes sense to them. Thats the challenge. Thats whats fun what do you to when youre talking about the desirability bias . Oh, excellent question. Social desirability bias is. The most important idea in psychology that hardly anyone has heard of. Its a fancy name for an obvious idea, namely when the truth sounds bad, people often the lies so ubiquitous that people stop even being conscious of the lie. The mundane example is am i fat . And you dont have to move the camera down and see. But theres only one socially acceptable answer to that. Of course right away. Like should we save lives or worry about convenience . Again, theres only one socially acceptable answer to that. Doesnt matter how much convenience or losing or how few lives are being saved, theres only one acceptable answer in psychology. Theres a lot of examples theyre very familiar with things like people overstate, church attendance, more people claim they went to church than really did people overstate voting. More people claim to have voted. Really . Did we also know things, like people overstate how nice they are . Well, notice that if ask people like are you in the top half of niceness, 90 of people saying their top half of niceness. Right. All this, you might say, is pretty obvious, but once you share this, its like, is there any sphere life or social desirability bias . Pretty just takes over. And is everything that you hear and i say thats politics. You just listen to politicians and just go through their sentences. One by one. Is it literally . My claim is its the 90 of the time what theyre saying. Each sentence just literally false. I encourage people do this with politicians they like. Its easy to go and call the ones you dont like. A a bunch of liars find someone that you like and just honestly go through any speech and say, is that sentence literally is literally true . We will do anything that it takes to save ukraine like we spend 1,000,000,000,000. We have World War Three now in case its literally false to say that you will do it takes or do anything that it takes anytime says cost doesnt, the cost always matters, of course when its your money, once into politics, then you hear a lot of talk like cost doesnt make any difference doesnt matter. I give it to him. It helps one person, then its justified. Go and spend billions of dollars like are you crazy . Thats like, if you literally follow that through, you have, nothing left for everything else. The first thing that you brought up in the day. So that is social bias and it does form very big part of the way that i think especially about politics is to realize it is a realm not just twins. Theres a lot of lives going on. You know, the kinds of things that politifact points out like, all right, you can say that. But theres the deeper point of almost everything theyre saying is actually just literally false to say its hyperbole. And yet lot of the reason why politicians are doing it is because a lot of people hear it and they do kind of believe it. Its like, what does that social desirability bias play in to views on economics, drug policy . Oh yeah, of course i mean, really, when people are forming beliefs about politics almost the last thing they want to do is calm down and look at facts and stats like what will sound good . What will make me sound like a good person . What makes me sound like a patriot . What makes me sound compassionate in one of the main things that i see when im teaching class on policy is how often i will agree with someones conclusion. And yet their arguments will just be stupid so. Ive long been in favor of drug legalization when someone says, well, drug laws dont work because theyre still drug use. I just want to say ridiculous argument. Just say legalize murder. Because still murderers, its one where people are really just trying find some argument that gives them warm glow. Its like you get a you get bathed in some positive emotion, whereas a lot of what im trying to do in this book is to say, look, its nice to be bathed in positive emotions, but can we just pause and try to really look at the world as it is, how do you define libertarianism and are you a libertarian . Id say know libertarianism is the view that theres a strong presumption in favor of letting human beings do what they want, and in particular for government to not go and be able to pass laws to tell people what they want to do with their own or their own stuff. Im definitely libertarian by standard. Again, like i think this is the definition that is closest to actual use because theres a lot of libertarians who favor all kinds of government programs. But still, when you to one, its like, whats your starting point . The starting point is government shouldnt do this leave people alone . And then maybe you can talk me into. This is an exception so that generally the way that i think about it, its one where you can totally disagree with me on this. And still like the rest of the book. But i do think that there is some connection between what im saying and the libertarianism. If you just were if every politician could only things that were literally true, it would just longer be very fun to support government if you had to actually say, all right, well, were going to go and start a war in this country 50 chance to make things better or 30 chance no difference, 20 chance to make think makes things worse. Thats an honest case for government action. But its not an appealing one. And quote from bryan caplan libertarians are no is for gratuitously alienating everyone who doesnt agree with. Hopefully i havent done that right on this very interview. But yeah, like i know i know a lot of libertarian fans and we can all improve, but a lot of my friends need to approve more than a lot of other people this part of why these ideas are so unpopular is just needlessly antagonize. Other people. I you know, im guilty myself, so im not going to say hold myself up as being a model of action. When i was in high school, i was one of the first big mouths i knew over time. I think that have improved. Ive at least reinvent the wheel of Dale Carnegies how to win friends and influence people and i am happy to go and share what. Ive learned with other people to try to become persuasive to others and thats a little bit from author of voters as Mad Scientist essays on political irrational. All right. Thank you very much. This is david, thank you so much for taking the time to chat with us about your book. Trumps war on capitalism. I usually, you know, when i do an interview about a book, i always like to start by asking the author. What motivated you to write this . And what are you trying to sort of convey at a high level . Whats your big point with this book . My biggest point is that donald trump is no