The Illusion Of Authenticity
The perception of authenticity is inversely correlated with the intelligence and knowledge of those being addressed
One of the more interesting aspects of the current presidential primary process as practiced by the increasingly bizarre Republican party is the attempt by at least a couple of candidates to create authenticity by saying whatever they want regardless of how offensive or simply obtuse it is. It probably helps that both are classic narcissists enamored by the sound of their own voices, but in politics even narcissists typically grasp the downside of saying what is likely to be perceived as negative and off-putting.
My primary (no pun) takeaway from this spectacle is that the perception of authenticity is inversely correlated with the intelligence and knowledge of those being addressed. Which is to say, the smarter and better informed the audience is, the less likely individuals are to be swayed by outrageous and inappropriate remarks as proof of speaking “the truth.” There’s greater skepticism regarding authenticity when generalizations or assumptions seem implausible and/or unlikely. In this case, the most ardent supporters of these candidates as truth tellers are typically very conservative, non-college graduates and evangelicals.
Being authentic is one of those attributes that is easily ephemeral or fabricated. Authenticity, when it comes to politics, is most often perception rather than reality. Proof of this is how easily politicians tell different audiences different versions so that each hears what they want to hear. The obvious contradictions in this should be sufficient to call into question any illusions of authenticity. Consistent veracity should be the minimum requirement.
In terms of aspects such as governance and public policies (and lawsuits regarding these), authenticity is typically manipulated with much greater subtlety because audiences are more likely to be well-educated, knowledgeable and smart. To this end, assertions are presented as positions and opinions that are “logical” conclusions derived from analysis and study — all because the intended audience will be less easily fooled. Bombastic assertions without specifics and details will be dismissed as the equivalent of saying “I have a terrific plan.”
Conservative “think tanks” are infamous for crafting “research” that confirms ideological principles, which is accomplished by selective use of data and a dubious habit of making broad assumptions that don’t have supporting evidence. In this manner, they reach conclusions such as asserting that government assistance incentives the poor to remain so. There are many flaws in how this conclusion is reached, but the primary assumption ignores that the poor would simply rather not be so. What might actually account for a few percent remaining poor on purpose doesn’t apply to the vast majority. It becomes obvious that the real goal is to justify substantial reductions in assistance overall.
The authenticity of these kinds of studies is found in their being labeled as such, which draws attention away from the absence of unbiased methods and processes. These papers are used to justify policies that are more agreeable to conservatives. This is how the theory of the mismatch effect came to be in regards to affirmative action in higher education. In short, the claims for this effect are that as a result of being admitted to higher tier colleges and universities without the same grades as non-minority students, these students will not learn as quickly, will have poorer grades and become discouraged, will be socially segregated and will be most likely to drop out of school.
Critics note that these assertions are made on flawed assumptions and cannot be duplicated by other researchers. Indeed, if this “effect” were the basis for directing minority students to second or lower tier schools, it would perpetuate their being excluded from higher tier institutions while keeping them in inferior ones. And, it turns out there are lots of data in social science research demonstrating that minority students in higher tier schools actually have higher grades, lower dropout rates and significant success in their careers.
Over many years I have noticed that those who are least questioning are more easily influenced and gullible. Saying it “like it is” may be meaningful to those already disposed to agree with what is being said, but meaningless to those who find what is being said to not align with what they know and are aware of. Simplistic assertions regarding complex issues cannot be credible because they would have already occurred to and been implemented by knowledgeable people. Simplicity is rarely a sign of authenticity. Indeed, it would be quite the opposite.
The real potential problem with authenticity is that it can be genuine but also fabricated, and those with low information will not know the difference or at least be sufficiently skeptical. It depends on the context. The misuse of authority and authenticity is rampant in marketing, for example, so many have learned to discount the hyperbole and claims. The perception of what is authentic is quite different when “experts” with agendas are involved and the issues are contentious (the seemingly endless liberal vs conservative ones). Asserting inappropriate things with authority creates emotional responses, but not authenticity — at least for enlightened listeners.
