It's Charisma, Stupid (2004)(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
It's Charisma, Stupid (2004)
http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html
23 コメント
Johnson won because of the Daisy ad. No kidding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29
Carter started getting favorable press when he started quoting Bob Dylan at the University of Georgia School of Law on May 4, 1974. The best person who was an outsider was going to win the Democratic nomination, and obviously, the general election ( because post-Nixon).
http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembe...
Carter started getting favorable press when he started quoting Bob Dylan at the University of Georgia School of Law on May 4, 1974. The best person who was an outsider was going to win the Democratic nomination, and obviously, the general election ( because post-Nixon).
http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembe...
The Daisy ad was important as ads go (all the more so as legend for only having aired once) but I maintain, nothing was larger in the American psyche than martyred president whose banner Johnson carried.
The Daisy ad was based on an apparent willingness to use nukes in Vietnam. The other effective ad they mention was based on a quote that said the US would be better if it sawed off the entire Eastern seabord.
I'm not a historian of US politics, but it strikes me that Goldwater may have just had a lot of terrible opinions and policies.
I'm not a historian of US politics, but it strikes me that Goldwater may have just had a lot of terrible opinions and policies.
The Daisy ad was a Rorshach blot. Peopel read into it what they wanted to. The policies were certainly much more mainstream than they are now
Yes, kidding. Goldwater was well outside the Republican mainstream in what was still then its base. White blue collar workers still leaned reliably Democratic. Johnson had the good will of a country still mourning Kennedy.
Goldwater signaled the end of that Republican establishment. It was fully dead 11 years later, with Nixon's resignation. 16 years later, Ronald Reagan established the next version. Seems like a long time, but it's a big shift.
Goldwater still carried 38% of the popular vote.
And Johnson was unable to prosecute the advantage of that momentum inherited from Kennedy. It was a very turbulent time.
Goldwater still carried 38% of the popular vote.
And Johnson was unable to prosecute the advantage of that momentum inherited from Kennedy. It was a very turbulent time.
> And Johnson was unable to prosecute the advantage of that momentum inherited from Kennedy.
Objectively, he passed the Civil Rights Act and, after the election vs Goldwater, passed the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, reformed Social Security, etc. Not sure how much more prosecution you could ask for.
And, perhaps you meant "inherited from Kennedy's murder", because in truth there was no legislative momentum under Kennedy. Kennedy may have introduced the Civil Rights legislation but Johnson passed it.
Objectively, he passed the Civil Rights Act and, after the election vs Goldwater, passed the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, reformed Social Security, etc. Not sure how much more prosecution you could ask for.
And, perhaps you meant "inherited from Kennedy's murder", because in truth there was no legislative momentum under Kennedy. Kennedy may have introduced the Civil Rights legislation but Johnson passed it.
I think he'd have done more good in the Senate on those bills. I mean that it all ended in the "I will not run... " abdication on national TV. Since we were more or less talking about elections, I was over-focused on that.
Johnson's complicated - Robert Caro has made him his life's work. I wont do it justice here.
Johnson's complicated - Robert Caro has made him his life's work. I wont do it justice here.
I can't speak to earlier elections because I don't remember them -- but by election time, Nixon's pardon wasn't nearly as present in people's minds as Chevy Chase's SNL skits about Ford stumbling and falling.
Ford may have pardoned Nixon, but his handling of the SS Mayaguez incident more than made up for it.
Carter did actually seem less embarrassing as a leader because of his southern charm combined with the fact he hadn't "fallen and I can't get up".
And yeah, Reagan won because of his charisma. Hands down. Yeah, I remember "America held hostage -- day n" -- but I also remember the Camp David Accords. What did Carter in, IMO, was his malaise/crisis of confidence speech.
Though to be fair, he was 100% correct.
More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. Idealistically I still disagree with almost everything Reagan while at the same time can't help but smile whenever I think of him.
Ford may have pardoned Nixon, but his handling of the SS Mayaguez incident more than made up for it.
Carter did actually seem less embarrassing as a leader because of his southern charm combined with the fact he hadn't "fallen and I can't get up".
And yeah, Reagan won because of his charisma. Hands down. Yeah, I remember "America held hostage -- day n" -- but I also remember the Camp David Accords. What did Carter in, IMO, was his malaise/crisis of confidence speech.
Though to be fair, he was 100% correct.
More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. Idealistically I still disagree with almost everything Reagan while at the same time can't help but smile whenever I think of him.
>More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy.
I've read that a lot about politicians, artists etc, usually with hack journalists describing their magnetic personality, intensive eyes, some hold they have on people, etc.
And while for some it undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder if it doesn't in most cases just reverse cause and effect. That is, we are indeed captivated by the person, but mostly because we already know that they're famous and we should be.
(As an added empirical observation, this also happens with famous people we meet that we otherwise could not care less about, and never thought of their looks as charming or their presence as charismatic. It's mostly a sort of "wow, my friends won't believe who I met today" thing).
A similar observation can be made for "good looks". There are people on the street, in clubs etc, that are 5 times as good looking as some artist in some "sexiest people of the year" list -- including artists downright ugly or average, which people still obsess over and find good looking.
I've read that a lot about politicians, artists etc, usually with hack journalists describing their magnetic personality, intensive eyes, some hold they have on people, etc.
And while for some it undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder if it doesn't in most cases just reverse cause and effect. That is, we are indeed captivated by the person, but mostly because we already know that they're famous and we should be.
(As an added empirical observation, this also happens with famous people we meet that we otherwise could not care less about, and never thought of their looks as charming or their presence as charismatic. It's mostly a sort of "wow, my friends won't believe who I met today" thing).
A similar observation can be made for "good looks". There are people on the street, in clubs etc, that are 5 times as good looking as some artist in some "sexiest people of the year" list -- including artists downright ugly or average, which people still obsess over and find good looking.
Good observation. I seriously doubt though, that that is much of a factor here. I know, and have always known a number of famous people.
This was different.
This was just a guy who seemed to have zero privacy and who lowered his voice conspiratorially and tried to have as private a conversation as was possible given the circumstances. And who zeroed in on what I most needed to have addressed.
It may have been fake. But if someone can fake sincerity that well, it's no wonder that they rise to a position of such power.
But certainly, both the halo effect and the cheerleader effect must always be factored in.
This was different.
This was just a guy who seemed to have zero privacy and who lowered his voice conspiratorially and tried to have as private a conversation as was possible given the circumstances. And who zeroed in on what I most needed to have addressed.
It may have been fake. But if someone can fake sincerity that well, it's no wonder that they rise to a position of such power.
But certainly, both the halo effect and the cheerleader effect must always be factored in.
I agree with you that phrases like "magnetic personality" are almost meaningless. The thing is, people struggle to describe charisma, because they don't see the elements of it.
Most of us can tell that a basketball player jumped higher than the other players. Hardly any of us can see all the steps (literally) that went right to create the perfect jump.
pg focuses on how Bill Clinton worked a crowd. But one-on-one was where he really shone.
Clinton, a tall, attractive, invariably smiling, and politically powerful white male, will already elicit a kind of unconscious deference.
But he used that power aura to focus completely on one person at a time, with the kind of intensity and mirroring that most people can't even achieve with their spouses. Posture, eye contact, adjusting his facial expression and vocal volume to match the speaker. Then, apart from body language, he had an incredible ability to remember details about people, to appear to value their opinion highly, and to articulate their thoughts and beliefs, maybe better than they could.
This was said of him many times: that he could make anyone feel like they were the most important person in the world.
>He made deep eye contact with you. Once President Clinton’s eyes locked onto yours, they didn’t leave until the interaction was complete. In all my years of talking to celebrities, from sports icons and Hollywood starlets to business moguls and politicians, few have used this technique with such finesse. Most of these ego-monsters can’t hold the connection more than a few seconds before they start scanning the room for someone more important to talk to than the person right in front of them. Yuck!
> [...]
> Sometimes I affectionately refer to President Clinton’s gift of connecting to those who don’t like him as “the carwash phenomenon.” Dignitaries and their families — specifically the ones who were skeptical and unfriendly toward him — would enter the White House through the East Wing gates, often with expressions of disdain. They would take a tour of all the public areas and then work their way over to the president’s office in the West Wing, to meet with him. A few hours later, when they exited the White House through the West Wing gates, they looked completely different. It was as if President Clinton, like a cosmic car wash, had magically washed away their scowls and replaced them with expressions of pure relaxation. Absolutely remarkable!
http://www.philgerbyshak.com/connection-from-president-bill-...
Most of us can tell that a basketball player jumped higher than the other players. Hardly any of us can see all the steps (literally) that went right to create the perfect jump.
pg focuses on how Bill Clinton worked a crowd. But one-on-one was where he really shone.
Clinton, a tall, attractive, invariably smiling, and politically powerful white male, will already elicit a kind of unconscious deference.
But he used that power aura to focus completely on one person at a time, with the kind of intensity and mirroring that most people can't even achieve with their spouses. Posture, eye contact, adjusting his facial expression and vocal volume to match the speaker. Then, apart from body language, he had an incredible ability to remember details about people, to appear to value their opinion highly, and to articulate their thoughts and beliefs, maybe better than they could.
This was said of him many times: that he could make anyone feel like they were the most important person in the world.
>He made deep eye contact with you. Once President Clinton’s eyes locked onto yours, they didn’t leave until the interaction was complete. In all my years of talking to celebrities, from sports icons and Hollywood starlets to business moguls and politicians, few have used this technique with such finesse. Most of these ego-monsters can’t hold the connection more than a few seconds before they start scanning the room for someone more important to talk to than the person right in front of them. Yuck!
> [...]
> Sometimes I affectionately refer to President Clinton’s gift of connecting to those who don’t like him as “the carwash phenomenon.” Dignitaries and their families — specifically the ones who were skeptical and unfriendly toward him — would enter the White House through the East Wing gates, often with expressions of disdain. They would take a tour of all the public areas and then work their way over to the president’s office in the West Wing, to meet with him. A few hours later, when they exited the White House through the West Wing gates, they looked completely different. It was as if President Clinton, like a cosmic car wash, had magically washed away their scowls and replaced them with expressions of pure relaxation. Absolutely remarkable!
http://www.philgerbyshak.com/connection-from-president-bill-...
Even George H.W. Bush, fellow ex-president, admitted Clinton was far more charismatic than him, saying something to the effect of "no wonder I lost to this guy."
(mentioned in Meacham's recent biography of H.W.)
(mentioned in Meacham's recent biography of H.W.)
On the other hand, that could just be a good way to make himslf feel better (e.g. believing "sure, I lost, but he had all this charm, whereas I only had substance and better policies").
[deleted]
[deleted]
You have to look at the reverse as well. Did charismatic presidents win re-election despite things that should have torpedoed them?
[deleted]
Carter beat Ford because he was charismatic
Actually Ford looked clumsy because he fell down a lot...president clumsy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw
Actually Ford looked clumsy because he fell down a lot...president clumsy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw
It might explain how the middle swings at least to some degree. Perhaps just acting as a contributing factor or a catalyst.
I don't think PG is making an empirical argument, it's based on intuition and then tries to just offer a few instances that are at least nominally consistent with the idea. Nate Silver recently said about Trump, "voters are much more tribal than I thought", and if you assume most voters don't know anything about candidates other than "it's a guy on the TV", they wouldn't respond to whether this guy was a yes man for Johnson or whatever, they just respond to who they like the most on an emotional level, and that's going to be whoever is the most charismatic during their campaign.
Al Gore could probably have beaten GW Bush, but a bunch of people decided they'd rather be right than elect a president, and gave their votes to Nader. As for 2004, incumbency is powerful.
We voted our conscience. I for one, have no regrets.
That of course is your right, and the right of every voter. Ralph Nader likewise says that he has no regrets, and disclaims any responsibility for the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito.
[Edit] On conscience: One can argue that it is worth taking a bath in year x for gains in year x + y; the Goldwater enthusiasts of 1964 thought that the debacle contributed to the election of Reagan in 1980, and may have been right.
On 2000: I still argue that Nader had more to do with the elections outcome than any imbalance in charisma.
[Edit 2: yes, I said Scalia...]
[Edit] On conscience: One can argue that it is worth taking a bath in year x for gains in year x + y; the Goldwater enthusiasts of 1964 thought that the debacle contributed to the election of Reagan in 1980, and may have been right.
On 2000: I still argue that Nader had more to do with the elections outcome than any imbalance in charisma.
[Edit 2: yes, I said Scalia...]
> Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.
I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma.
Either way, it's worth mentioning that Trump's real trump card is his masterful ability to reframe debates. Witness: his stances on women, risky politics, and immigration.
Clinton is reacting to each of these topics right now, and in very weak ways (e.g., her woman's card tweet [0], also claiming she's better because she's a woman).
Trump will DOMINATE her if this trend continues.
I don't agree with everything Scott Adams says regarding Trump's campaign, as much of it is way too far-fetched, but his commentary regarding Trump's reframing is spot-on.
[0] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/726220886454468609
I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma.
Either way, it's worth mentioning that Trump's real trump card is his masterful ability to reframe debates. Witness: his stances on women, risky politics, and immigration.
Clinton is reacting to each of these topics right now, and in very weak ways (e.g., her woman's card tweet [0], also claiming she's better because she's a woman).
Trump will DOMINATE her if this trend continues.
I don't agree with everything Scott Adams says regarding Trump's campaign, as much of it is way too far-fetched, but his commentary regarding Trump's reframing is spot-on.
[0] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/726220886454468609
We might not like Trump, but he is charismatic. I don't know if he's on the same level as Bill Clinton[1] or Obama, though "Make America great again" is the same slogan as "hope and change." They are both vague enough to inspire anyone, kind of like horoscopes.
Scott Adams is not wrong, but I am surprised that people learn from reading his blog because non of Trump's tactics are new. To give Adams credit, he is a great blogger. Adams lures readers with "Let me share Trump's secrets with you because only us smart people know what is happening." People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight. Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. Trump wouldn't be this popular without scapegoats.
On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments.
[1] Clinton during his candidacy: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s Notice the difference between Bill and Hilary near the end.
Scott Adams is not wrong, but I am surprised that people learn from reading his blog because non of Trump's tactics are new. To give Adams credit, he is a great blogger. Adams lures readers with "Let me share Trump's secrets with you because only us smart people know what is happening." People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight. Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. Trump wouldn't be this popular without scapegoats.
On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments.
[1] Clinton during his candidacy: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s Notice the difference between Bill and Hilary near the end.
For educated voters he's anti-charismatic.
He's certainly unlikeable. I wonder if it's possible to separate the two: likability and charisma. I imagine there is a halo effect feedback loop for the two.
Worth mentioning, for any who don't know: "Make America Great Again" was lifted wholesale from the Reagan campaign. I haven't verified it, but I read that he trademarked it soon after Romney lost in 2012.
not sure why your getting lots of downvotes, i think your take on adams is pretty good. i was reading scott adams for a while as im sure lots of people were when trump was rising. i kept reading for a while and kept on seeing things that were just really stupid to me. he seems to think because he is a "master persuader" that he knows more about _everything_ than everyone else, but in one post he ventured in the realm of statistics and made some _incredibly ignorant_ arguments. then i saw old posts where he had just as confidently predicted herman cain. so part of what he is doing is just playing a long game, calling unlikely things so that when one of them eventually happens, he looks smart. i dont deny he has interesting insights, but he is wayyyyyy to high on himself and his special little lens. when he posted on twitter that he could convince anyone to vote for trump in 1 hour, i had to unfollow.
i think manipulators are seen as smart by some people because they can be effective, but i have two points that seem to be forgotten: most of the time you eventually catch on to manipulators, and so they stop being effective, and, _more importantly_ they are just assholes. so, i say that it doesnt take intelligence to manipulate and bully and lie, it just takes gall. or heartlessness. as an analogy, i bet some of the lawyers who came up with the idea for ambulance chasing, or bankers who repackaged shitty subprime loans probably that they were really smart, when maybe it was just that there arent that many people willing to go that low.
i think manipulators are seen as smart by some people because they can be effective, but i have two points that seem to be forgotten: most of the time you eventually catch on to manipulators, and so they stop being effective, and, _more importantly_ they are just assholes. so, i say that it doesnt take intelligence to manipulate and bully and lie, it just takes gall. or heartlessness. as an analogy, i bet some of the lawyers who came up with the idea for ambulance chasing, or bankers who repackaged shitty subprime loans probably that they were really smart, when maybe it was just that there arent that many people willing to go that low.
Yes, Adams has a history of predicting long shots because he takes the shotgun approach. People only remember the winners.
Adams is like Trump. His megalomania helps with his existing fanbase. I think your second paragraph applies to both of them.
Adams is like Trump. His megalomania helps with his existing fanbase. I think your second paragraph applies to both of them.
totally agree
i up-voted your comment here because i really liked your distinction between "being smart and innovative" vs "having gall or heartlessness".
someone who used a new level of heartlessness, rudeness or cruelty to attain a difficult goal is often lionized later by the masses and considered "a genius" but, is, in reality, something else entirely.
someone who used a new level of heartlessness, rudeness or cruelty to attain a difficult goal is often lionized later by the masses and considered "a genius" but, is, in reality, something else entirely.
> Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia.
He alludes to it somewhat, in that any perception of actual -ism is in the critics mind, which for the most part is correct, but you are also correct in that Trump is successfully appealing to these base instincts in people.
> On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments.
This refers to Trump I assume, which comments would that be?
edit: fixed italics
He alludes to it somewhat, in that any perception of actual -ism is in the critics mind, which for the most part is correct, but you are also correct in that Trump is successfully appealing to these base instincts in people.
> On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments.
This refers to Trump I assume, which comments would that be?
edit: fixed italics
First the Trump quote.
“The only thing she's got is the woman's card. If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.
Adams is a genius and a weasel. He literally wrote the book on weasels. He knows exactly what he is doing. In fact, he has written about how to push agendas indirectly. You can recognize the described techniques in his writing. Promoting Trump benefits Adams directly. But Trump has gotten to the point where denying his dogwhistling is impossible, so Adams describes it in a non threatening manner.
“The only thing she's got is the woman's card. If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.
Adams is a genius and a weasel. He literally wrote the book on weasels. He knows exactly what he is doing. In fact, he has written about how to push agendas indirectly. You can recognize the described techniques in his writing. Promoting Trump benefits Adams directly. But Trump has gotten to the point where denying his dogwhistling is impossible, so Adams describes it in a non threatening manner.
> “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said.
Interesting that you think that is sexist, as to me it seems like he is describing a sexist scenario, and I happen to agree with that interpretation.
I think you're pretty on point with Adams though.
Interesting that you think that is sexist, as to me it seems like he is describing a sexist scenario, and I happen to agree with that interpretation.
I think you're pretty on point with Adams though.
"I happen to agree with that interpretation."
I think it will take some doing to defend your interpretation.
You are basically claiming men are massively discriminated against in politics, such that just for being a woman, Hillary's support goes from 5% of the vote to 40-something-percent (depending on how you interpret current polls).
Frankly, almost anyone at the top of the Democratic ticket would get much, much more than 5% of the vote due to the qualification of "not being Donald Trump", who is only the least favorable presidential candidate on record.
So it is a self-obviously stupid statement, as with pretty much everything else the Donald says, and I have no idea how you might defend it.
Frankly, I don't think its a statement meant to be defended at all, just a signal to misogynists that Donald wants their votes, but that's just my interpretation.
I think it will take some doing to defend your interpretation.
You are basically claiming men are massively discriminated against in politics, such that just for being a woman, Hillary's support goes from 5% of the vote to 40-something-percent (depending on how you interpret current polls).
Frankly, almost anyone at the top of the Democratic ticket would get much, much more than 5% of the vote due to the qualification of "not being Donald Trump", who is only the least favorable presidential candidate on record.
So it is a self-obviously stupid statement, as with pretty much everything else the Donald says, and I have no idea how you might defend it.
Frankly, I don't think its a statement meant to be defended at all, just a signal to misogynists that Donald wants their votes, but that's just my interpretation.
[deleted]
"The only thing she's got is the woman's card" is not sexist. Stay classy Hacker News!
I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
In what way is that sexist?
Sexist would be to say that she's a bad candidate BECAUSE she's a woman. What he said is that she's using being a woman to win over votes while not having much else to offer, policy wise -- which he could legitimately believe.
FWIW, I believe that the woman card is indeed something Clinton played. Not the first to use such tactics either: Obama played the race card. And I'm not saying these things as in any way republican. I'm a foreigner, and for me even Sanders or Kucinich look right wingers. Clinton (Bill) played the "40-something youthful" card, Bush played the "more patriotic but still plain folk like ya all" card, etc. And Trump has his own "mad-dog patriot tells them like they is" card.
>I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
Shame indeed, but not for responding to the parent, but for belittling them and going for a personal attack.
Sexist would be to say that she's a bad candidate BECAUSE she's a woman. What he said is that she's using being a woman to win over votes while not having much else to offer, policy wise -- which he could legitimately believe.
FWIW, I believe that the woman card is indeed something Clinton played. Not the first to use such tactics either: Obama played the race card. And I'm not saying these things as in any way republican. I'm a foreigner, and for me even Sanders or Kucinich look right wingers. Clinton (Bill) played the "40-something youthful" card, Bush played the "more patriotic but still plain folk like ya all" card, etc. And Trump has his own "mad-dog patriot tells them like they is" card.
>I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
Shame indeed, but not for responding to the parent, but for belittling them and going for a personal attack.
You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. "Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.
>You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge.
That probably explains my impartiality. I'm more in tune with American culture (everyday and historical) than probably 90% of the local population. Heck, I've even been to most states than most (well, all of the continental ones). But I don't ascribe to ideological biases of either side.
>"Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.
That's a loaded way to put it itself.
Yes, "woman card" and "race card" can be used to "dismiss grievances" by white males, but can also be used to claim bogus benefits by the respective card holders.
Whether white or black, man or woman, there IS such a thing as an abuse of your race/gender to gain sympathy.
And blanket statements about this are one-sided -- whether "woman card" or "race card" is a valid or bigoted use have to be examined on a case by case basis.
That probably explains my impartiality. I'm more in tune with American culture (everyday and historical) than probably 90% of the local population. Heck, I've even been to most states than most (well, all of the continental ones). But I don't ascribe to ideological biases of either side.
>"Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.
That's a loaded way to put it itself.
Yes, "woman card" and "race card" can be used to "dismiss grievances" by white males, but can also be used to claim bogus benefits by the respective card holders.
Whether white or black, man or woman, there IS such a thing as an abuse of your race/gender to gain sympathy.
And blanket statements about this are one-sided -- whether "woman card" or "race card" is a valid or bigoted use have to be examined on a case by case basis.
People have this victim complex where they think minorities and women are playing their cards to oppress white men. Fantasizing about imaginary abuse must be fun.
Is whether or not the statement is true of interest to you?
edit: Or in other words, do you think there is actually such a thing as a woman card (race card, victim card, etc), or are these a completely manufactured ideas with no basis in reality?
edit: Or in other words, do you think there is actually such a thing as a woman card (race card, victim card, etc), or are these a completely manufactured ideas with no basis in reality?
How is the Trump quote "threatening" or "sexist"?
The rest of the comment is a content-free ad-hominem. Adams might very well be a "genius weasel", but not describing this quote as non-threatening, if that's what's implied here.
The rest of the comment is a content-free ad-hominem. Adams might very well be a "genius weasel", but not describing this quote as non-threatening, if that's what's implied here.
Threatening as in a threat to his own campaign. Good point, insignificant would have been clearer.
I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? Adams writes about himself being a weasel and manipulating journalists.
I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? Adams writes about himself being a weasel and manipulating journalists.
>I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog?
If by reader you mean someone who read his blog maybe 4-5 times total in the last 10 years (and doesn't even own any Dilbert book), then, still no (ie., no I was not offended).
I made a statement concerning the lack of any practical proof/content in the comment.
As I said, he may very well be a weasel (and I could not care less, I might add) but that's not something that's concluded from the contents of the comment.
If by reader you mean someone who read his blog maybe 4-5 times total in the last 10 years (and doesn't even own any Dilbert book), then, still no (ie., no I was not offended).
I made a statement concerning the lack of any practical proof/content in the comment.
As I said, he may very well be a weasel (and I could not care less, I might add) but that's not something that's concluded from the contents of the comment.
You write a lot for someone who could care less and isn't offended.
And you analyse people's souls a lot for someone who is not a psychiatrist.
I'm just chatty. I write a lot for every topic I'm interested in, as you can plainly see from my comment backlog.
Doesn't need to be offended on behalf of Adams to respond -- I'm just the kind of person that doesn't let an inconsistent argument slip by. And I saw "Adams is XXX because he said YYY is OK" without YYY being either bad or any justification for the XXX.
I'm just chatty. I write a lot for every topic I'm interested in, as you can plainly see from my comment backlog.
Doesn't need to be offended on behalf of Adams to respond -- I'm just the kind of person that doesn't let an inconsistent argument slip by. And I saw "Adams is XXX because he said YYY is OK" without YYY being either bad or any justification for the XXX.
Yeeeeesh, over analyzing Internet comments. You must be fun at parties.
Let's be honest here.
Racism and xenophobia isn't all about scapegoating. There is a number of nations with very low level of foreign ethnics who would like to keep it that way.
You can't accuse them of scapegoating. Them being xenophobic is merely prudent? Which sane country would want a significant Arab minority - after witnessing the various bloodbaths and security scares plaguing Western Europe due to its Arab populations?
Racism and xenophobia isn't all about scapegoating. There is a number of nations with very low level of foreign ethnics who would like to keep it that way.
You can't accuse them of scapegoating. Them being xenophobic is merely prudent? Which sane country would want a significant Arab minority - after witnessing the various bloodbaths and security scares plaguing Western Europe due to its Arab populations?
>People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight.
Well, if they haven't seen the same simple analysis elsewhere (much less any more advanced analysis), then they're right to consider it amazing insight.
Well, if they haven't seen the same simple analysis elsewhere (much less any more advanced analysis), then they're right to consider it amazing insight.
People with little life experience react this way to all things. They lack the imagination to understand what they discover is not new. It's common in diet and exercise. "Hey I just discovered calorie counting/keto/crossfit/powerlifting!"
If listening to someone who just discovered psych 101 is fun then they probably need to meet more people.
> I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma.
I think PG is onto something, but mislabeled it. Brands win elections and Charisma is a great way to build a stronger presence in peoples minds.
Trump is winning because he owns a place in every single voters mind, he is familiar and therefore relevant.
All consumers and voters make emotional decisions and than support them with logic afterwards. Politics is no different, people emotionally (subconsciously) decide who they like the most and than find the logical positions to convince themselves.
This is human nature, logic follows will.
Trump is winning because he has a more memorable brand than any other candidate. Clinton is winning because she also has a very memorable brand.
My gut tells me that Clintons brand beats trump in a political context, but I am not sure.
I think PG is onto something, but mislabeled it. Brands win elections and Charisma is a great way to build a stronger presence in peoples minds.
Trump is winning because he owns a place in every single voters mind, he is familiar and therefore relevant.
All consumers and voters make emotional decisions and than support them with logic afterwards. Politics is no different, people emotionally (subconsciously) decide who they like the most and than find the logical positions to convince themselves.
This is human nature, logic follows will.
Trump is winning because he has a more memorable brand than any other candidate. Clinton is winning because she also has a very memorable brand.
My gut tells me that Clintons brand beats trump in a political context, but I am not sure.
The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"?
Personally I think yes - Clinton does seem old and tired and Trump certainly brings a dynamism unmatched by any other candidate. Clinton comes with a 7 point plan - Trump comes with an unabashed baller status and beautiful women around him.
In the context of this article, I do think it's Trump with the upper hand.
Personally I think yes - Clinton does seem old and tired and Trump certainly brings a dynamism unmatched by any other candidate. Clinton comes with a 7 point plan - Trump comes with an unabashed baller status and beautiful women around him.
In the context of this article, I do think it's Trump with the upper hand.
> The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"?
I think the question, the framing, is loaded. « Who has the kind of charisma that seduce/attract most people ? » would be a better question in my opinion.
I think the question, the framing, is loaded. « Who has the kind of charisma that seduce/attract most people ? » would be a better question in my opinion.
I think this article is a good example of statistical prognosticating with too few data points, which renders statistical significance of the forecast to be quite low. In addition, it attempts to build what essentially amounts to a one variable model, which is likely to be suboptimal, even if that one variable is important. In short, I find this article to be an example of poorly done statistical analysis and not much more than that.
I think Sanders has more charisma than both. Why is he getting such a blank out in the media and social media? Are people seriously considering Clinton, just because the establishment just pretends like she's the only real democratic candidate? Disclaimer I don't live in the US, that's just the impression I get. But I certainly notice discussions in lots of places simply pretending Sanders doesn't exist, which considering what I see when I actively pay attention to stuff around him, does surprise me, to say the least.
Sanders gets more positive media coverage and less negative media coverage than Clinton[1]. From the same source, Sander's current opponent receives the most negative coverage and the least positive coverage.
The reason Sanders is not getting as much positive media coverage as the internet likes is likely because no amount of pro-Sanders media coverage is enough for the internet.
[1] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-...
The reason Sanders is not getting as much positive media coverage as the internet likes is likely because no amount of pro-Sanders media coverage is enough for the internet.
[1] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-...
Who is "the internet"? How is that anything but an ad-hominem against a person you just made up? Granted, let's say my friends from the US who like Bernie and complain about lack of coverage are biased. But I also notice this in German and English discussions I see all the time, and there your argument works the other way -- though I don't hang out in Sander's forums or anything, let's say I also don't hang out in super conservative forums, so it still is somewhat of an echo chamber, right? So if the internet can't get enough of Sanders, and I'm in middle and left-of-center areas of the web, why are there so few people who take Sanders seriously, while with a straight face discussing Clinton's or Trump's merits?
Yes, it's totally subjective. But I brought it up because I saw yet another discussion with a whole lot of Trump and Clinton and no Sanders, and that technically there are a lot of "online articles published" really has no bearing on that. I'm talking about mainstream media and the people on non-political social media I see. Right now, many people pretend Bernie doesn't exist, is basically out of the race, same for watching German news yesterday, it was all about Trump's opponents dropping out.
Could the fact Clinton gets critical coverage and Bernie positive might have to do with their respective integrity, and what they are talking about. Just take this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDG9ekGLUfo I guess that's why the only way to not make Sanders look too good is to completely ignore hard facts, or ignore him completely. And Clinton is supposed to win on "the lesser evil" against Trump. Just another exciting chapter in the story of how we destroyed our future we'll get to tell our grandchildren. I mean, while I'm not American, it's not like it's not circus anywhere else, is it.
It has nothing to do with "pro-Sanders", I don't deal in tribalism, I am not interested in the man I'm interested in what he says, and not because I heard it from him for the first time either. One might ask why adults even spend one word on either Clinton or Trump. I know this is radical or something, but I mean this 100% seriously. Just because someone pays to be in front of our faces 24/7 doesn't mean what they say have merit. They both had plenty of time to prove that. Why are we paying more attention to them than to, say, some teenage kid whose parents paid to be in a music video?
Yes, it's totally subjective. But I brought it up because I saw yet another discussion with a whole lot of Trump and Clinton and no Sanders, and that technically there are a lot of "online articles published" really has no bearing on that. I'm talking about mainstream media and the people on non-political social media I see. Right now, many people pretend Bernie doesn't exist, is basically out of the race, same for watching German news yesterday, it was all about Trump's opponents dropping out.
Could the fact Clinton gets critical coverage and Bernie positive might have to do with their respective integrity, and what they are talking about. Just take this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDG9ekGLUfo I guess that's why the only way to not make Sanders look too good is to completely ignore hard facts, or ignore him completely. And Clinton is supposed to win on "the lesser evil" against Trump. Just another exciting chapter in the story of how we destroyed our future we'll get to tell our grandchildren. I mean, while I'm not American, it's not like it's not circus anywhere else, is it.
It has nothing to do with "pro-Sanders", I don't deal in tribalism, I am not interested in the man I'm interested in what he says, and not because I heard it from him for the first time either. One might ask why adults even spend one word on either Clinton or Trump. I know this is radical or something, but I mean this 100% seriously. Just because someone pays to be in front of our faces 24/7 doesn't mean what they say have merit. They both had plenty of time to prove that. Why are we paying more attention to them than to, say, some teenage kid whose parents paid to be in a music video?
He didn't pay the entrance fee. Most media is owned by a few corporations who are closely tied with Hillary. Don't worry though, I'm sure that won't affect her policy decisions..
This is the correct answer, it was blatantly obvious he was being ignored by the media until he became too big to ignore. I haven't read any mathematical theory on how costly this was to his campaign, if anyone knows of one please link it.
Is Sanders benefiting from the halo effect? I'm apolitical and the few times I've seen Sanders on TV, I didn't get that impression.
> the few times I've seen Sanders on TV
Well, that's my point, that's passively. It's not like he's not getting reported on, of course, but kinda like the bare minimum. I found this speech after the Indiana win very interesting for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw
I don't mean charismatic as in super suave, but as in, a stand up normal person, not someone first and foremost in it for the power. I guess charisma is subjective. And he isn't trying to be anything he's not. He's not trying to be folksy, he's just himself. That's what I see and what I like. Sure he has to play politics, but he doesn't put on a mask on top of that.
Well, that's my point, that's passively. It's not like he's not getting reported on, of course, but kinda like the bare minimum. I found this speech after the Indiana win very interesting for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw
I don't mean charismatic as in super suave, but as in, a stand up normal person, not someone first and foremost in it for the power. I guess charisma is subjective. And he isn't trying to be anything he's not. He's not trying to be folksy, he's just himself. That's what I see and what I like. Sure he has to play politics, but he doesn't put on a mask on top of that.
I met Bernie Sanders personally and I can wholeheartedly say the man is incredibly charismatic. Sure, I'm a Sanders supporter and knew of him before meeting, but he is a very friendly and approachable fellow who travels with a very light security detail and encourages you to speak your mind with him. I think part of his charm is that he feels like the cool hippie grandpa everyone wish they had. He has a great handshake, too.
Of course Trump wins on the charisma level. Not over Sanders, but over Clinton for sure, and it looks like Sanders has no chance.
This is now the perfect time that this theory can be disproved.
This is now the perfect time that this theory can be disproved.
her woman's card tweet [0]
I honestly couldn't tell if that was some kind of Joe Job. I'm still not sure I understand. The pink "Woman Card" was presented in an NYT ad yesterday as a perfectly straight, well-polished and unironic appeal to donors. Most offensive thing I've ever seen in a mainstream news outlet.
What in the world is she thinking? This is not how you "get in front of the story." This is how you get in front of a bulldozer.
I honestly couldn't tell if that was some kind of Joe Job. I'm still not sure I understand. The pink "Woman Card" was presented in an NYT ad yesterday as a perfectly straight, well-polished and unironic appeal to donors. Most offensive thing I've ever seen in a mainstream news outlet.
What in the world is she thinking? This is not how you "get in front of the story." This is how you get in front of a bulldozer.
Could you tell me why you feel so? Your parent was deriding that tweet as well. It's definitely cringe-y, but why/how would the media/others tear it apart?
I guess I'd put it this way, at the risk of undermining my own point: appealing to group identity is demeaning to us all as individuals, and perhaps to women most of all.
The air of entitlement associated with a statement like "Vote for me because I'm a female" is very hard to get past. That's why I was hoping that the "Woman Card" was some kind of ironic in-joke. And it sounds like that's the case, intended to play off an offensive statement from the Trump camp.
But if so, what's it doing at the top of the NYT home page?
The air of entitlement associated with a statement like "Vote for me because I'm a female" is very hard to get past. That's why I was hoping that the "Woman Card" was some kind of ironic in-joke. And it sounds like that's the case, intended to play off an offensive statement from the Trump camp.
But if so, what's it doing at the top of the NYT home page?
Trump does little else but play identity politics. Clinton is betting Don't Pass/Don't Come, that's all.
What is it doing at the top of the NYT home page? For how long? Looking at the NYT home page now, there's a Prince story, and under "Election 2016" there are these headlines
With Trump in Charge, G.O.P. Has a Day of Reckoning
Reaching Out, Quietly, to G.O.P. Establishment
The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost
With Trump in Charge, G.O.P. Has a Day of Reckoning
Reaching Out, Quietly, to G.O.P. Establishment
The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost
It was an ad, so no, I wouldn't expect you to see it at any given arbitrary moment in time.
Perfect. And since charisma is in the eye of the beholder, or defined by popular opinion, this can never be wrong. E.g., see how no one in these comments can agree on which candidate is more charismatic.
Addendum: In elections, the most popular candidate wins.
Addendum: In elections, the most popular candidate wins.
PG has already addressed that: http://paulgraham.com/recharisma.html
"Kennedy was the same way. He couldn't bear to be alone."
But Reagan and Obama are both famously introverted, while still considered very charismatic.
But Reagan and Obama are both famously introverted, while still considered very charismatic.
>This may change if charisma starts to be perceived as the key to winning.
So, in other words, this submission is a survey of the people who don't want Trump to win?
So, in other words, this submission is a survey of the people who don't want Trump to win?
Man A walks into a bar and says hi to a stranger, and then tells a joke and then winds up telling a story and somehow by the end he got to know 5 people there and they all really liked him. Man B just went and sat at the bar.
Do you mean to tell me it is "popular opinion" that ascribes Man A as charismatic in this scenario?
Addendum: I've heard it said that when you're talking to Bill Clinton, he makes you feel like you're the center of the world.
Do you mean to tell me it is "popular opinion" that ascribes Man A as charismatic in this scenario?
Addendum: I've heard it said that when you're talking to Bill Clinton, he makes you feel like you're the center of the world.
Sure, but in the case of presidential elections you have both Man A and Man B walking into a bar and telling different jokes, with roughly half the people laughing at each joke.
Why did some people laugh at Man A's joke more? Was it an objectively better joke? Was it the delivery? Did they already know Man A from before, and thus were more likely do laugh at his jokes?
We're talking marginal degrees of charisma here, not giant leaps. Hence the debate in this thread.
Why did some people laugh at Man A's joke more? Was it an objectively better joke? Was it the delivery? Did they already know Man A from before, and thus were more likely do laugh at his jokes?
We're talking marginal degrees of charisma here, not giant leaps. Hence the debate in this thread.
Not just degrees, but style.
Man A might tell a racist or bawdy joke, and Man B might tell one that relies on in-group knowledge. Each charms one group and alienates another.
Man A might tell a racist or bawdy joke, and Man B might tell one that relies on in-group knowledge. Each charms one group and alienates another.
> Do you mean to tell me it is "popular opinion" that ascribes Man A as charismatic in this scenario?
Is the concept of "charisma" meaningful here? Does it have any explanatory power? Or is it just functioning as another word for popular, and we're just saying that more popular people are more popular?
Is the concept of "charisma" meaningful here? Does it have any explanatory power? Or is it just functioning as another word for popular, and we're just saying that more popular people are more popular?
Charisma is the cause, popularity the effect.
The model is too simplistic. Human beings are also tribal and creatures of habit as well. We tend to vote for our party, those we've voted for in the past, and/or people who are like us.
In fact, the fact that only 11-12 states are up for grabs and the rest are solidly Democratic or Republican shows that charisma doesn't matter for most of the electoral.
It may be a weighted factor in those cross section of voters who are independents and willing to cross political lines.
Is Trump really charismatic, or is he saying things the electorate wants to hear, by promising everything under the sun, with no plan and no explanation, and blaming problems on foreigners and minorities. Xenophobia can also be a powerful factor.
IMHO, Hillary is going to beat Trump in the general election, however if there's a major terrorist attack on US soil, we could be looking at President Trump.
In fact, the fact that only 11-12 states are up for grabs and the rest are solidly Democratic or Republican shows that charisma doesn't matter for most of the electoral.
It may be a weighted factor in those cross section of voters who are independents and willing to cross political lines.
Is Trump really charismatic, or is he saying things the electorate wants to hear, by promising everything under the sun, with no plan and no explanation, and blaming problems on foreigners and minorities. Xenophobia can also be a powerful factor.
IMHO, Hillary is going to beat Trump in the general election, however if there's a major terrorist attack on US soil, we could be looking at President Trump.
> Human beings are also tribal
And who's usually the most powerful in a tribe? The most charismatic.
Many voters will change positions, so if you're looking to apply tribal theory upon voter preference, that just takes into account the people who already had their minds mostly made up.
The swing votes is the deciding factor, and what are some attributes of swing voters? If they aren't die-hard republicans/democrats, they might be ambivalent or outright disinterested in politics. Who do you think would sway them? The fact-listing robot or the guy who says he's gonna change the world?
Was Bernie just saying what people want as well? Yes and no. Do you think a robot would win that listed off everything that the electorate "wants to hear"? Maybe. It depends on how much you trust the robot to get the job done, doesn't it? Well, the human is also trying to evaluate this potential leader and besides already being charmed by the charisma, the human also views charisma as an attribute of the strong and capable.
And who's usually the most powerful in a tribe? The most charismatic.
Many voters will change positions, so if you're looking to apply tribal theory upon voter preference, that just takes into account the people who already had their minds mostly made up.
The swing votes is the deciding factor, and what are some attributes of swing voters? If they aren't die-hard republicans/democrats, they might be ambivalent or outright disinterested in politics. Who do you think would sway them? The fact-listing robot or the guy who says he's gonna change the world?
Was Bernie just saying what people want as well? Yes and no. Do you think a robot would win that listed off everything that the electorate "wants to hear"? Maybe. It depends on how much you trust the robot to get the job done, doesn't it? Well, the human is also trying to evaluate this potential leader and besides already being charmed by the charisma, the human also views charisma as an attribute of the strong and capable.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. Demagogue are charming.
It's not hard to imagine a future writer looking back and saying, "Of course Trump lost the election, he was no Kennedy or Obama and widely hated - a clear example of the rule!"
It's not any harder to imagine the opposite IMO. I'd argue Trump is charismatic to many and Hilary really isn't.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-charismatic
https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Trump-charismatic
"Occam's razor says we should prefer the simpler of two explanations."
Theory: In US presidential elections, the candidate who wins Ohio wins the elections.
"Oddly enough, the most recent true counterexample is probably 1960."
http://i1.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/pr...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/22iht-letter22.html?_r=...
Theory: In US presidential elections, the candidate who wins Ohio wins the elections.
"Oddly enough, the most recent true counterexample is probably 1960."
http://i1.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/pr...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/22iht-letter22.html?_r=...
I believe you were looking for this? https://xkcd.com/1122/
The alt text is golden: "No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win."
...and the streak may continue all the way to 2016!
...and the streak may continue all the way to 2016!
Would be more impressive with a definition of charisma.
So I'll offer one - "charisma" makes voters (who are individually irrelevant) feel like important players the candidate really cares about.
It's simple demagoguery and flattery.
Conversely, when voters feel their craven prejudices are being ignored for rational policy reasons, they feel excluded and marginalised.
The conclusion is that most voters are like children who can be bought by a reassuring pat on the head to make them feel like mommy and daddy love them, and a promise of sweets after.
This is literally why we can't have nice things. Democracy needs adult policies debated rationally by adults.
If most voters can't make decisions in an adult way, they're easy prey for the grinning sharks who end up running things.
So I'll offer one - "charisma" makes voters (who are individually irrelevant) feel like important players the candidate really cares about.
It's simple demagoguery and flattery.
Conversely, when voters feel their craven prejudices are being ignored for rational policy reasons, they feel excluded and marginalised.
The conclusion is that most voters are like children who can be bought by a reassuring pat on the head to make them feel like mommy and daddy love them, and a promise of sweets after.
This is literally why we can't have nice things. Democracy needs adult policies debated rationally by adults.
If most voters can't make decisions in an adult way, they're easy prey for the grinning sharks who end up running things.
I profoundly agree and note that voting (at least in any reasonably-sized electorate) is an inherently irrational act, and so the barrier to good judgment is high.
It's inherently irrational because one's vote will almost certainly never decide an election. Everyone intuits this fact. Even though they may consider themselves to be performing a civic duty, they will always be subject to s host of other reasons for voting as they do, reasons other than pure consequentialist thinking.
It's inherently irrational because one's vote will almost certainly never decide an election. Everyone intuits this fact. Even though they may consider themselves to be performing a civic duty, they will always be subject to s host of other reasons for voting as they do, reasons other than pure consequentialist thinking.
Maybe it's the sequence he presented it, but something sound incredibly wrong about this line of thinking:
1) Here's my simple theory (the more charismatic wins).
2) Here's all this data to support it.
3) Here's some data that seems to contradict it (Nixon vs Humphry) so now I'll tack on an exception so that it actually agrees with my now more complex theory (the more charismatic wins unless the other one limits their media appearances).
If you stop and exclude case where a "carefully scripted campaign spot" means the less charismatic can win, then not only do you have to investigate every other election to see if the less charismatic candidate also carefully scripted their campaign spots, but you've also data dredged to find that specific type of exception in the first place.
Sure, now your theory fits all the historical data, but if you try to use it next election and it fails, you can tack on yet another exception and still claim that it's right. "Oh, this one didn't count because of [new reason I though of after the fact]."
1) Here's my simple theory (the more charismatic wins).
2) Here's all this data to support it.
3) Here's some data that seems to contradict it (Nixon vs Humphry) so now I'll tack on an exception so that it actually agrees with my now more complex theory (the more charismatic wins unless the other one limits their media appearances).
If you stop and exclude case where a "carefully scripted campaign spot" means the less charismatic can win, then not only do you have to investigate every other election to see if the less charismatic candidate also carefully scripted their campaign spots, but you've also data dredged to find that specific type of exception in the first place.
Sure, now your theory fits all the historical data, but if you try to use it next election and it fails, you can tack on yet another exception and still claim that it's right. "Oh, this one didn't count because of [new reason I though of after the fact]."
it seems to work for climate "science"..
It's hard for the layman to see any science happening with climate science. All we hear is predictions that have already come true before they were made, vague unfalsifiable predictions for the near future and the more concrete predictions for so far in the future that we haven't had a chance to test them yet. Maybe we can trust that climate scientists somehow blinded themselves to recent data while making their models, then wrote up or even published their predictions before unblinding themselves and saying "Wow, it turned out to be right!". But we don't hear much about those important methodological details in the popular press. We don't hear about the track record of correct vs incorrect predictions. Each side of the debate only skews it to serve its own interests.
For example, I recently read a story on a pro climate change website listing many failures of previous climate predictions. However every single failure was one where it turned out the effect was greater than predicted, never smaller. Thus serving the goal of scaring people. That's probably not really a fair showing of all predictions.
For example, I recently read a story on a pro climate change website listing many failures of previous climate predictions. However every single failure was one where it turned out the effect was greater than predicted, never smaller. Thus serving the goal of scaring people. That's probably not really a fair showing of all predictions.
Keep in mind that most prognostication re: the Trump campaign has failed. That's the trouble with inductive models; there's always the potential for some event that could happen that hasn't happened yet, and it breaks your model.
It's possible Trump falls into that category; 'charismatic' by some ill-defined measure, but unelectable (in the general election).
It's possible Trump falls into that category; 'charismatic' by some ill-defined measure, but unelectable (in the general election).
Etymology of 'charisma' is fascinating. This wasn't a concept western society had before weber liberated it from religious usage in the late 1800s; after that it entered historiography as an explanation (or perhaps just a description) of leadership ability that can't be explained in objective terms.
Not sure words like this aid our understanding of situations.
Not sure words like this aid our understanding of situations.
> As for the theory being obvious, as far as I know, no one has proposed it before. Election forecasters are proud when they can achieve the same results with much more complicated models.
People have been saying for ages that the politician that wins is the one who you can envision yourself having a beer with. Sounds to me like the exact theory he presents.
People have been saying for ages that the politician that wins is the one who you can envision yourself having a beer with. Sounds to me like the exact theory he presents.
In my estimation, Sanders is much more charismatic than Clinton.
Charisma is defined as "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
It seems, just based on that and ignoring electoral map complexities, that PG predicts that Trump will be the next President.
It seems, just based on that and ignoring electoral map complexities, that PG predicts that Trump will be the next President.
Most people I've met find Trump repulsive, not charming. Interesting, yes. As a political entity.
I mean, people tend to like the smell of their own flatulence too, but that doesn't mean they're going to wear it as perfume.
I mean, people tend to like the smell of their own flatulence too, but that doesn't mean they're going to wear it as perfume.
>>> "people tend to like the smell of their own flatulence too"
speak for yourself
speak for yourself
I think I'd add another layer to this: Charisma wins undecided voters, and undecided voters win elections.
~60% of the country (~30% GOP, ~30% Dem) vote along party lines. It's the ~30% in the middle that decide elections, and I'd say they go with the more charismatic candidate.
I think we'll get a good test in this election. I'd say Hillary is above average when compared to Presidential candidates, but Donald Trump has basically built his campaign on his personality. It's going to be a landmark issues vs. personality election.
~60% of the country (~30% GOP, ~30% Dem) vote along party lines. It's the ~30% in the middle that decide elections, and I'd say they go with the more charismatic candidate.
I think we'll get a good test in this election. I'd say Hillary is above average when compared to Presidential candidates, but Donald Trump has basically built his campaign on his personality. It's going to be a landmark issues vs. personality election.
If we apply the Charisma Man[1] concept, it says that the most charismatic would be an outsider of whom the insiders know little and thus his/her faults don't translate into their context as shortcomings. In this case Trump's brashness and unfiltered style is an asset rather than a drawback compared to how those characteristics would wear on an insider candidate.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_Man
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_Man
Charisma is no doubt a factor and you could probably explain Trump making it to Republican Candidate that way but I don't think he'll beat Hillary in spite of being more charismatic.
Occam's razor says favour the simplest explanation and I think here that would be voters weigh a few factors including charisma and policy.
As an aside I bet on Trump at 11:1 based Scott Adams hypothesis but plan to cover at 2:1 (on Betfair).
Occam's razor says favour the simplest explanation and I think here that would be voters weigh a few factors including charisma and policy.
As an aside I bet on Trump at 11:1 based Scott Adams hypothesis but plan to cover at 2:1 (on Betfair).
I just don't think he'll win.
So, as for charisma winning presidential elections, could it be that Trump is the exception that proves the rule?
I mean, when did Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama or even Dubya overtly and explicitly offend large fractions of the electorate with a seemingly unending barrage of careless and rude statements?
Trump may have charisma, but it's coupled with an extreme talent for pissing people off.
So, as for charisma winning presidential elections, could it be that Trump is the exception that proves the rule?
I mean, when did Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama or even Dubya overtly and explicitly offend large fractions of the electorate with a seemingly unending barrage of careless and rude statements?
Trump may have charisma, but it's coupled with an extreme talent for pissing people off.
Max Weber is the father of sociology and famous for his Charismatic Authority model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
Is Trump considered charismatic? Doesnt seem to fit the definition.
I don't consider him charismatic but I am excited to see him win the election. The reason his character appeals to me becomes clear when he is being interviewed in the media. They seem so fake, polished and conditioned. He does not. Juxtaposed to members of the media, to me, he seems like myself.
I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. Other presidential candidates are just like those people to me. They won't say anything that will upset you. They go with whatever the current flow is. Whatever narrative the nation is supposed to follow at the moment. It's the same way I feel when reading comments on the net, including on HN. The character Trump represents appeals to me because he seems to see through the kind of bullshit that I feel like I'm seeing through as well.
I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings. Other presidential candidates are just like those people to me. They won't say anything that will upset you. They go with whatever the current flow is. Whatever narrative the nation is supposed to follow at the moment. It's the same way I feel when reading comments on the net, including on HN. The character Trump represents appeals to me because he seems to see through the kind of bullshit that I feel like I'm seeing through as well.
I more or less agree with your characterization of the members of the media.
But when I listen to Trump being interviewed, he reminds me of a stereotypical New York organized crime figure talking to a police detective, or, even worse, the lawyer representing such a crime figure.
Trump tries to say things which are technically true but uninformative and non-committal, things which are mere expressions of opinion instead of fact, things which are just his best recollection or his "impressions" of people and situations. He seems evasive so often.
And, of course, he's so willing to offend and treat his perceived enemies rudely and ferociously that even a lot of Republicans dislike him.
How would this guy possibly collaborate and build a coalition to get anything done? How would he ever win his fellow Republicans, much less Democrats (who are all convinced he's a vile racist/sexist asshole they cannot touch with a ten-foot pole) over to his side on anything?
I guess the answer is charisma?
But when I listen to Trump being interviewed, he reminds me of a stereotypical New York organized crime figure talking to a police detective, or, even worse, the lawyer representing such a crime figure.
Trump tries to say things which are technically true but uninformative and non-committal, things which are mere expressions of opinion instead of fact, things which are just his best recollection or his "impressions" of people and situations. He seems evasive so often.
And, of course, he's so willing to offend and treat his perceived enemies rudely and ferociously that even a lot of Republicans dislike him.
How would this guy possibly collaborate and build a coalition to get anything done? How would he ever win his fellow Republicans, much less Democrats (who are all convinced he's a vile racist/sexist asshole they cannot touch with a ten-foot pole) over to his side on anything?
I guess the answer is charisma?
You present a compelling argument. It may just be that charisma is alive and well in Trump. I can't answer those questions. I grapple with them, myself.
This is a shockingly superficial and short sighted way to evaluate people.
Sure, Trump doesn't say what people expect him to say. But what he actually says is usually incoherent, cruel, self serving, false, or all of the above.
I mean, try to make any sense of this:
"TRUMP: No, he was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and, asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer! But of course not, and I said that afterwards."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defe...
It's like a bad Markov model.
Does not reflect well on you that you ignore all of that and latch onto someone just for being "edgy" and contrarian. Sure, Trump might represent "actual human beings", but those human beings are assholes.
Sure, Trump doesn't say what people expect him to say. But what he actually says is usually incoherent, cruel, self serving, false, or all of the above.
I mean, try to make any sense of this:
"TRUMP: No, he was asking me a theoretical, or just a question in theory, and I talked about it only from that standpoint. Of course not. And that was done, he said, you know, I guess it was theoretically, but he was asking a rhetorical question, and I gave an answer. And by the way, people thought from an academic standpoint, and, asked rhetorically, people said that answer was an unbelievable academic answer! But of course not, and I said that afterwards."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/04/trump_defe...
It's like a bad Markov model.
Does not reflect well on you that you ignore all of that and latch onto someone just for being "edgy" and contrarian. Sure, Trump might represent "actual human beings", but those human beings are assholes.
I feel very similarly, and I think a lof of the general public do (or will) as well.
If you spend much time on reddit you may have seen that Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet, and a lot of examples of lying, flip-flopping, pandering, etc. So much high quality material for Trump to work with.
If you spend much time on reddit you may have seen that Hillary has a lot of skeletons in her closet, and a lot of examples of lying, flip-flopping, pandering, etc. So much high quality material for Trump to work with.
I think it goes both ways with the two candidates. I believe that Trump is also playing the political game here. I've seen examples of him saying things that are contradictory to things he has said in the past[^]. He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis.
[^] Much of this information is shown by shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a show that I love to watch but have grown sick of the super obvious political slant it has. It was cool when Jon Stewart was doing it 10 years ago. That was fresh. It was funny when Colbert parodied it later but now that each of these three figures are now so obviously and unapologetically slanted toward a particular political view, it's become unappealing to me. So while I take in the facts as I can, I do have to remember that in each direction I face, I'm consuming propaganda.
Edit: I hate you, markdown syntax.
[^] Much of this information is shown by shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, a show that I love to watch but have grown sick of the super obvious political slant it has. It was cool when Jon Stewart was doing it 10 years ago. That was fresh. It was funny when Colbert parodied it later but now that each of these three figures are now so obviously and unapologetically slanted toward a particular political view, it's become unappealing to me. So while I take in the facts as I can, I do have to remember that in each direction I face, I'm consuming propaganda.
Edit: I hate you, markdown syntax.
> He does have skeletons, as every normal person does. I don't think he would want to go after Clinton on that basis.
Do you know of any specifics? I think he probably has a habit of "objectifying women" which for most people would be the death of a candidacy, but I bet Trump can just shrug his shoulders when accused and that will be the end of it. Of course this will incense young liberals, but the general public is well aware that men and women are not identical and sexual innuendo, etc are facts of life and not the end of the world. For example, a lot of regressive liberals would equate being a cocktail waitress at a Trump party as the near equivalent of rape, whereas the waitresses themselves (I'd happily bet $$ on this) are falling over themselves for the next gig as it pays well and is fun. Pure speculation on my part of course.
And yes, completely agree on the John Oliver schtick....maybe its bias but I sense a change in the effectiveness of this approach, people are tired of it.
Do you know of any specifics? I think he probably has a habit of "objectifying women" which for most people would be the death of a candidacy, but I bet Trump can just shrug his shoulders when accused and that will be the end of it. Of course this will incense young liberals, but the general public is well aware that men and women are not identical and sexual innuendo, etc are facts of life and not the end of the world. For example, a lot of regressive liberals would equate being a cocktail waitress at a Trump party as the near equivalent of rape, whereas the waitresses themselves (I'd happily bet $$ on this) are falling over themselves for the next gig as it pays well and is fun. Pure speculation on my part of course.
And yes, completely agree on the John Oliver schtick....maybe its bias but I sense a change in the effectiveness of this approach, people are tired of it.
But....he also doesn't mind if nuclear weapons proliferate.........and he wants to ban Muslims (1/5th the world population) from entering the country.
The actual discussions are more nuanced. What you have determined from what you've read or heard does not align with what I have determined. Having listened to the conversation that causes the reaction "Trump is for nuclear proliferation," I don't think that's what he was describing. What he said was that North Korea has nuclear weapons but no carrier system. That they will have a carrier system soon. That he'd rather Japan be able to defend themselves equally against NK if the need should arise, and not for the United States to be in charge of keeping Japan safe. That is what he said.
Uh, letting other countries defend themselves by having nuclear weapons is the exact definition of nuclear proliferation. The whole point is to contain as much as possible which countries have nuclear weaponry.
[deleted]
>I've always had the impression that the people I see in the media are completely fake and do not represent actual human beings.
I hope you realize that this impression has likely been conditioned into you by politicians and the media.
I hope you realize that this impression has likely been conditioned into you by politicians and the media.
Can you explain to me why politicians and the media would want me to believe that politicians and the media are not real people? It seems like such a matter-of-fact thing to say to me but flies in the face of rationale. I'm open to your interpretation of what we're being spoon-fed.
Politicians want you to believe that politicians other than themselves are not real people. It's what I call the "Mister Smith goes to Washington" syndrome. Encouraging cynicism among the electorate makes voters more malleable. Cynics can be trusted to believe or doubt statements which conform to certain biases, regardless of their actual truth, to be swayed by rhetoric, and to vote based on emotion rather than reason. I'm purposely differentiating between cynics and skeptics in this case.
Yet every successful politician by definition is "fake" in the ways that politics requires. As a result, politicians who are successful at a "down to earth, anti-establishment" facade appear more sincere, despite that being a political schtick that goes back to ancient Rome. Politicians who are sincere, but don't present that facade appear fake.
The fact alone that Donald Trump openly rejects appearing "presidential" while running for president should clue you in that there's a game being played. George W. Bush went to Harvard Business School and Yale, came from an elite family, and yet presented himself as a cowboy, like he'd just stumbled into the White House off of the turnip truck. And of course Obama is an example from the other side. He basically ran and won, and got a Nobel Prize, for not being George W. Bush.
If we respected politics as an art, and expected politicians to be experts in their fields like doctors or scientists, and we were engaged in the political process, then politicians would have to prove their worth by the weight and value of their ideas. But, we've been trained to hate politics, despise politicians, and to have no faith in the system. They just have to ring the populist bell and we drool.
Politicians also want you to believe the media is wholly bought by the other party, so that you'll dismiss criticism and attempts at in-depth interviewing as propaganda and 'hit-pieces.' If a Democrat runs, the media is a tool of the right, when a Republican runs, it's a tool of the left. Meanwhile, media companies are in competition, but they're also reporting on the same events, so to differentiate themselves they present biased reporting as unbiased and encourage people to believe that their competition can't be trusted. A belief in the fairness and sincerity of the media would mean less brand loyalty among media consumers.
Yet every successful politician by definition is "fake" in the ways that politics requires. As a result, politicians who are successful at a "down to earth, anti-establishment" facade appear more sincere, despite that being a political schtick that goes back to ancient Rome. Politicians who are sincere, but don't present that facade appear fake.
The fact alone that Donald Trump openly rejects appearing "presidential" while running for president should clue you in that there's a game being played. George W. Bush went to Harvard Business School and Yale, came from an elite family, and yet presented himself as a cowboy, like he'd just stumbled into the White House off of the turnip truck. And of course Obama is an example from the other side. He basically ran and won, and got a Nobel Prize, for not being George W. Bush.
If we respected politics as an art, and expected politicians to be experts in their fields like doctors or scientists, and we were engaged in the political process, then politicians would have to prove their worth by the weight and value of their ideas. But, we've been trained to hate politics, despise politicians, and to have no faith in the system. They just have to ring the populist bell and we drool.
Politicians also want you to believe the media is wholly bought by the other party, so that you'll dismiss criticism and attempts at in-depth interviewing as propaganda and 'hit-pieces.' If a Democrat runs, the media is a tool of the right, when a Republican runs, it's a tool of the left. Meanwhile, media companies are in competition, but they're also reporting on the same events, so to differentiate themselves they present biased reporting as unbiased and encourage people to believe that their competition can't be trusted. A belief in the fairness and sincerity of the media would mean less brand loyalty among media consumers.
[deleted]
That probably depends on who you ask.
Maybe incendiary, but very little charisma . More than all the other candidates, incl. hillary , but still vanishingly little of it. But we dont live in a world of charismatic leaders. Obama is probably the most charismatic of all, and that's telling.
Good point: if charisma won elections, our actors would be our politicians.
Using Occam's razor: the candidate with the biggest budget wins.
Now try to disprove that.
Now try to disprove that.
Hmm - so what he says is that the charisma of US presidents can only grow?
How does the fact Al Gore won the popular vote affect this analysis?
From the Article
"[2] True, Gore won the popular vote. But politicians know the electoral vote decides the election, so that's what they campaign for. If Bush had been campaigning for the popular vote he would presumably have got more of it. (Thanks to judgmentalist for this point.)"
"[2] True, Gore won the popular vote. But politicians know the electoral vote decides the election, so that's what they campaign for. If Bush had been campaigning for the popular vote he would presumably have got more of it. (Thanks to judgmentalist for this point.)"
I vouched for this because, barring any other knowledge of your account(s) prior to the comments made on this account, I have not seen anything that, to me, merits the suppression.
That's a fine use of vouching, but we detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11633621 and marked it off-topic.
Ah good. I was wondering if I handled that right. I wasn't prepared to add a comment after vouching so that caught me off guard. Took it as my time to explain why.
To be clear, in the future I don't explain the vouching. Which I understand.
To be clear, in the future I don't explain the vouching. Which I understand.
Al Gore and John Kerry... I'll give you those, and it's not surprising then that he wrote this article in 2004, but I think in other instances it's curve-fitting.