It’s “the revolution of common sense,” President Donald Trump introduced in his second inaugural tackle.
And so it’s. The newest installment of that assertion got here in his Jan. 30, 2025, press conference in regards to the Potomac aircraft crash. When requested how he had concluded that diversity policies were responsible for a crash that was nonetheless below investigation, Trump responded, “As a result of I’ve frequent sense, OK?”
“Widespread sense” is what’s identified to students as a “lay epistemology,” or how common individuals make sense of the world. We don’t depend on statistical proof or knowledgeable analysis whereas we’re shopping for lettuce or driving in site visitors. As an alternative, we’re guided by direct expertise, feelings and instinct.
As a result of it comes from common individuals and never establishments that some individuals deem to be “corrupt,” champions of frequent sense recommend it results in a purer type of fact.
But it’s exactly as a result of it comes from private observations and instinct that research shows common sense is steeped in bias and sometimes leads us astray.
Populist leaders like Trump generally celebrate common sense and assault experience and proof. Populism is much less about being liberal or conservative than it’s a way of appealing to the public. These appeals are primarily based on an ethical separation between the corrupt, dangerous individuals with cultural energy and the nice, pure individuals who maintain the proper values – like religion in frequent sense over experience and proof.
And with the brand new Trump administration, the elevation of frequent sense as a advantage has been fast and broad.
Dusty boots vs. elite credentials
In his confirmation hearing for the place of secretary of protection, Pete Hegseth pointed to “mud on his boots” as proof of his {qualifications}, in distinction to the elite credentials of previous protection secretaries, who’ve typically been Washington insiders.
Hegseth couldn’t name members of the Affiliation of Southeast Asian Nations, an alliance of nations enjoying a vital function in world safety. However he did present that he knew the diameter of the rounds that match within the journal of an M4 rifle.
That was proof that he was, in his phrases, “a change agent. Somebody with no vested curiosity in sure firms or particular packages or authorized narratives.”
Even Meta’s announcement that it could roll again knowledgeable fact-checking on its U.S. social media platforms displays a “lay epistemic” shift.
Meta defined that fact-checkers, “like everybody else, have their very own biases and views” and that these biases had made fact-checking “a device to censor.”
As an alternative, the corporate would embrace a community notes model the place customers might present extra data on posts, which Meta argued can be “much less vulnerable to bias.”
“We’ve seen this approach work on X,” wrote Meta’s Chief International Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan, “the place they empower their neighborhood to resolve when posts are doubtlessly deceptive and wish extra context, and other people throughout a various vary of views resolve what kind of context is useful for different customers to see.”
This coverage change might be much less of a shift in Fb founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s rules than a change made out of necessity. Given Trump’s penchant for falsehoods, I think about Meta’s earlier coverage would quickly have proved financially and politically inconvenient.
Regardless, the result’s a populist’s dream: the demotion of formal experience in favor of “frequent sense.”
Widespread sense is ideological
For the previous 20 years, the rise in social media, mixed with declining trust in formal news organizations, has democratized information: the sense that nobody individual or establishment has particular entry to fact – not students with many levels, not specialists armed with scientific proof or knowledge, and positively not journalists.
In a 2020 study of public sentiment across 20 countries, Pew Analysis Heart discovered that the overwhelming majority of these surveyed, 66%, reported trusting individuals with “sensible expertise” to resolve issues over specialists. Solely 28% trusted the specialists to resolve issues.
If establishments and specialists are perceived as corrupt and ideological, the one fact that we will belief is what comes from our personal eyes and our personal minds.
However does frequent sense carry us to fact? Generally, sure. It’s additionally interesting: Since our observations of the world are informed by our values and beliefs, we regularly see what we would like – akin to diversity-hiring initiatives often known as “DEI” inflicting a aircraft crash, for instance.
And our instinct not often tells us we’re mistaken. This helps account for the existence of confirmation bias, which is our tendency to see and keep in mind issues that inform us we’re proper. That is additionally why, even in these uncommon situations when info change minds, they not often change hearts. If we do replace our information with right data, analysis has proven that our intestine will nonetheless inform us our overall view of the world was right.
Ironically, studies additionally present that the extra an individual trusts frequent sense, the extra probably they’re to be mistaken.
My research has proven that the individuals most probably to imagine misinformation about COVID-19 and the 2020 election have been those that positioned extra belief in instinct and emotion, and fewer belief in proof and knowledge. As well as, the extra individuals favored Donald Trump, the extra they valued instinct and emotion – and rejected proof and knowledge.
So, frequent sense is ideological.
When our pathway to information is restricted by our experiences and instinct, we’re not truly on the lookout for fact. We’re proud of no matter solutions can be found, together with conspiracy theories or explanations that make us feel good and right.
We blame people – particularly individuals we don’t like or determine with – for their very own misfortune. We are likely to suppose “these individuals needs to be higher and check out tougher” as a substitute of on the lookout for public policy solutions to issues akin to poverty or drug dependancy. With out proof and knowledge summarizing massive traits – akin to cancer rates tracked via Nationwide Institutes of Well being funding or ocean temperatures tracked by Nationwide Science Basis funding – we’re restricted to what we will see via our personal eyes and biases.
And our restricted observations merely reinforce our underlying beliefs: “My neighbor most likely has breast most cancers from taking that medication I don’t like” or “At this time might be only a randomly sizzling day.” We’ll both overgeneralize from or downplay these restricted examples relying on what our “frequent sense” says.
So, when populists elevate frequent sense as a advantage, it’s not simply to have a good time how common individuals perceive the world. It’s to advertise a worldview that rejects verifiable info, exaggerates our biases, and paves the way for even more propaganda to come.
