Strife between the political left and right has been raging intensely for the past few months, and the time to elect our next president is upon us. Who do you pick, the impulsive demagogue, Donald Trump, or Hilary Clinton, the woman who has an overt track record of lying? Many are unhappy and uncertain about their options, while others think the choice is obvious. This latter view, I think, is born of ignorance and naivety.

It's natural to feel unsure about what choice to make, especially with something as consequential as voting for the next leader of our country. Rational decision-making isn't something humans are exceptionally good at, and this is a cause of perturbation. In fact, that humans are rational beings at all is itself an untenable statement.

Before arriving at the conclusion that humans aren't rational decision-makers, it's imperative to enunciate the causes from which our fallibility lies.

Initial Assumptions

For sake of simplicity, let's assume there are two types of decision-makers: those who educate themselves and do research prior to making a decision and those who make decisions based on impulse and sentiment. People typically judge the rationality of another's decision by the amount of research and information he or she gathers, regarding said decision. But I would argue that those who educate themselves aren't necessarily more rational, only more cautious.

So why doesn't information-gathering and education imbue one with the ability of rational choice? After all, I'm sure many would agree that an informed society is an intelligent one. The problem is ingrained in two aspects of informed decision-making--the unreliability of sources and reasonable disagreement.

The Unreliability of Sources

Let's first consider the unreliability of sources. There is a whole host of reasons why information found on the internet, in books, on television, or from the testimony of others may be misleading. But the grandfather of these reasons is that information is cultivated and engineered by humans.

It is hard to find, even in academic papers and books written by professors, information that is not partially biased or not too narrow in scope. This is because the mental universe of a person or group of people is limited by the social and cultural atmosphere of the age. Because of this, we are confined to a parochial perspective of the world.

Objectivity is inherently lacking in information manufactured by humans. But if this is not the case, then who or what is to be the standard for judging objectiveness? Even if an objective reality exists, it could never be ascertained. We are thus left to make decisions based on what seems most rational and what seems to conform to fact.

Reasonable Disagreement

Reasonable disagreement may present even more of a problem than the unreliability of sources, since it's not a difficult thing to convince oneself that a piece of information is reliable. By reasonable disagreement, I mean disagreement over an issue or topic by two parties who present good arguments and valid reasons for their respective view. For instance, there are no doubt intelligent people voting for Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton who have strong reasons for supporting one candidate over the other. So when these reasons are presented to an objective bystander, which side is he to favor? Any rational person would think it wise to suspend judgment. In most cases, this is a prudent course of action. But as things stand in the 2016 presidential election, participation is a crucial element in determining the direction of the country.

Humans are not rational decision-makers. When presented with two views, both of which are backed by valid reasoning, one is likely to appeal to an individual's psyche more than the other. Even amongst the most eminent intellectuals, this holds true. There is something primordial, something animalistic embedded deep in our consciousness which ultimately guides our decisions and views. The fire of passion is solely responsible for our instinctual tendencies and irrational drives, and only time is the arbiter of rationality. Only time will tell the good decisions from the bad.