Monkeys, specifically rhesus macaques, the word as yet being out on the other primates, though research is doubtless underway (I have my suspicions on orangutans), prefer Trump’s face to Kamala’s. Science says so, which means you must believe it, or become a Science Denier.
This means that if monkeys, or rather rhesus macaques, were allowed to vote in the election—and here you have to follow me closely, dear reader—they would choose Kamala over Trump. There is no misprint. Because Science tells us monkeys like gazing at losers of elections.
I know you think your Uncle Sergeant Briggs is having you on, and as much as I prefer a rollicking joke over facts, I must inform you that they didn’t make Planet of the Apes by accident.
Our paper is “Monkeys Predict US Elections“, by Yaoguang Jiang, a neuroscientist, and Annamarie Huttunen, who, note carefully, is from Wharton’s Marketing Department, and some others. The paper’s theory was so intriguing that even Science magazine picked up on it in their article “Could monkeys predict the U.S. election? ‘Provocative’ experiment finds macaques stare longer at faces of candidates who end up losing.” (Thanks to Kip Hansen for the tip.)
Knowing the thing sounds asinine, the authors were defensive: “‘We do serious science,’ says co-author Michael Platt.” He undoubtedly flashed his wee P at the Science writer as proof. Incidentally, Platt rejoices in a position at the Champalimaud Center for the Unknown, in Lisbon, Portugal. Looks like they’re going to have to scratch off Prescient Monkeys from the list of unknowns.
Anyway, from the Abstract, then later in the paper:
Here we show that rhesus macaques, who have no knowledge about political candidates or their policies, implicitly predict the outcomes of U.S. gubernatorial and senatorial elections based solely on visual features…
We assume monkeys were unaware of the identity, party affiliation, or policies of any of the candidates.
How they knew these monkeys had no knowledge of candidates or their policies, I don’t know. They offered no proof. Are we just supposed to take their word for it? Who has ever heard of an honest monkey?
Here’s why I think the monkeys know more than they admitted to researchers. The authors conclude:
[B]ased solely on visual features, Harris would be predicted to stand the best chance of winning, possibly reflecting Trump’s advanced age (Figure 2h) or voters detecting qualities in Trump other than physical dominance—for example low warmth, honesty, or likeability—that are deemed undesirable for politicians, as well as familiarity with his character and past performance, thus accounting for his vote share in 2020 underperforming predictions based on his jaw prominence.
Hold up. Wait a minute. Somethin’ ain’t right. In the beginning they said the monkeys knew nothing of Trump, but now, after learning the monkeys prefer looking at Trump, we learn they somehow pick up on features having to do with familiarity with his character and past performance. There are no honest monkeys.
All right, why do monkeys like looking at losers more than winners? We need a theory. And, boy, do our researchers have a good one.
It involves what Yaoguang Jiang calls “monkey Tinder” experiments. Yes.
From Science:
[M]acaques are shown faces of monkeys they’ve never seen before. The researchers found a monkey will only sneak a glance at a high-status male—presumably because staring is seen as aggression. But their gaze lingers if shown a low-status male monkey or a female.
Losers, by definition, are lower status, which is why monkeys allow themselves to look at them. Monkeys don’t dare start at the alpha male, as that could start a fight.
Tying all this together, it means the monkeys have determined that Kamala is more masculine looking than Trump, and that she totally dominates him in appearance. So monkeys don’t dare look at her. Whereas, having familiarity with his past performance, the monkeys freely gaze at Trump. It’s even worse for Trump after we learn usually “Monkeys showed the strongest gaze bias towards female candidates who lost to a male.”
How do we know all this is true? I’ve already told you. Wee P values. Sentences like this litter their work: “We found jaw prominence was significantly correlated with competence rating (overall: r = 0.14, P = 0.001, males only: r = 0.12, P = 0.012.”
Statistics, more than any other branch of science, has done more harm to thought than even feminist epistemologists. It we can’t get researchers to release their death grip on their wee Ps, we’re going to have to suffer work like this forever.
And be left with nonsense like this: ” Platt says the research does deliver a clear message: ‘When it comes to voting—and pretty much all of our other behaviors—there’s a little monkey in all of us.'”
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Kamala looks like a female composite of Stalin and Castro and doesn’t have the brains
to be a deranged Trudeau. I think there’s more meat than gristle to the study which puts
the American electorate on par with our presumptive cousins. Monkeys are the great
imitators just like humans who aspire to star in the next mass marketing commercial
on television featuring gibbering idiots. A true reflection of how the powers that be have
shaped the great unwashed masses to behave and vote like morons.
I wonder how many ways there are of provocatively showing one’s wee P? Flashing, covered here, certainly. Perhaps waggling or dangling. Thrusting may be too assertive for a wee P. I wonder how clever one must be to thrust a wee P into a scientific discussion without some other scientist verballing questioning if it was appropriately inserted?
I kind of like the study we can now forego the formal election process and leave it
entirely up to the monkeys. Of course the study coming out just before the election
could be entirely made up and timely placed predictive programing. They do after all
have to justify their government funding for the nonsense they produce.
Well, there’s no sense arguing with monkeys. Especially them as monkey with the ballots.