Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Measures Brain Reactions To Donald Trump (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Sam Barnett "has been strapping electrode caps on focus group participants and showing them primary season debates," reports CNN, and there's one clear conclusion. "Seeing Trumps face, hearing Trump's voice, lights up the brain." His data captured big surges in neural activity for hot-button topics like immigration, and revealed that while Marco Rubio actually triggered slightly more brain activity among men, Trump clearly produced the highest reactions among women and overall. "The focus group participants might have been excited by Trump. Or they might have been repulsed," reports CNN. "But one thing was for sure: they weren't bored." Barnett has also used electroencephalography (or EEG) to study advertising, and in the future he hopes to also apply it to other complex forms of brain stimulation like movies and even hedge-fund investing.
From Scott Adams' blog:
But as I learned in school, you can’t compare something to nothing. You need to compare the risk of a Trump presidency to the alternatives. And that alternative is probably a Clinton presidency that is not too different from the current presidency.
So how risky would “more of the same” be?
Budget-wise, we are probably on the road to ruin. The more-of-the-same president is unlikely to stop the special interests and big money players from bloating the budget to the point of crushing debt.
Nor would we have any reason to expect the economy to have any extra zip under a more-of-the-same scenario. So no matter how bad you think Trump might be for the economy, the more-of-the-same alternative is probably a pathway to crushing debts and financial doom.
And once the economy dies, we all die. So as risks go, “more of the same” might be the highest risk of all. The only way we would escape economic doom under the more-of-the-same scenario is for some unpredictable future event to change our direction in a positive way. Is that likely?
Trump, on the other hand, is an unpredictable future event that can change just about anything, as we have already learned. So in terms of economic risk, Clinton is a path to probable budget doom whereas Trump can go either way.
Look around you, the world already burns. Meanwhile the Democratic answer to the fire is to toss another old log on and let it burn as it has.
The Republicans mostly hate Trump because they too don't mind the fire as it is, worming those rich enough to stay outside of it. Trump however is like tossing a mysterious pressurized can into the fire, which may well douse the fire but at least it will make sure everyone feels the burn.
The Democrats hate Sanders for the same reason but they have him on a much tighter leash with zero chance to displace Clinton as the candidate, no matter how many wish it were so.
It's not curiosity that drives Trump and Sanders numbers; it is a survival instinct. There are lots of people who would vote for either even though that would seem to make no sense if all you can see is through the hoary old bifocals of "Republican" or "Democrat".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think I said I supported Sanders. I just said that he had a consistent and verifiable voting record. I think that's kind of his charm. He may or may not be a crazy old man, he may or may not have voted for/against your pet issue. But, if he says he's for/against something, he tends to back those words up with his votes. I don't mind tipping my hat to someone like that.
I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
You have a valid point, and one that deserves an answer.
In past decades, free trade agreements were sold to the American public as a way to become richer. Economists admitted that wages would stagnate, but pointed out that goods and services from abroad would be much cheaper so that overall we would be richer.
Wages would stagnate, but costs would go down faster than what wages would have risen.
It's now several decades later, manufacturing has moved to Mexico and China and India, wages have indeed stagnated, and there are Chinese dollar stores everywhere.
The problem with this model is that the benefits went mostly to the rich, while the middle class was gutted. We can look at the past couple of decades with perfect hindsight and see income inequality skyrocket while employment tanked.
Keeping jobs local forces the rich to pay more to produce goods, and acts to prevent this inequality. The extra expenses go into the local economy and benefits Americans, instead of benefiting a people in other countries.
In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.
Maybe we should outsource all our jobs to other countries. That would work just as well.
Another excerpt from Scott Adams' blog
According to social media, and the mainstream media as well, Trump might be the next Hitler because he does things Hitler would have done. For example:
Trump is charismatic and appeals to our prejudices.
Trump approves of violence against people he thinks deserve it.
Trump blames “others” for the nation’s problems.
Trump has an authoritarian vibe.
All that is true. But it would be equally easy to build a list of why Trump is definitely NOT like Hitler. For example:
Trump is anti-war. Hitler, not so much.
Trump asks us to favor legal citizens over non-citizens. He makes no mention of race. Hitler killed his own citizens and mostly cared about race.
Trump wants citizens to be heavily armed to protect themselves against bad people, including dictators. Hitler didn’t want to arm his potential enemies.
Trump wants greater freedom of speech that would include politically incorrect topics. Hitler wasn’t so big on free speech for others.
Trump assures us his genitalia have “no problem.” Hitler had one testicle.
I really like reading Scott Adams' blog. Unlike most analysis on the planet, he seems to address the issues in a logical, well-reasoned fashion.
I'm 12,000 miles away and I've recently heard republican senators say that they would not confirm anybody for SC justice that Obama picked, simply because Obama picked them. That is childish obstructionism and a clear dereliction of duty
Nonsense... The Senate doesn't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm...
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
The Senate has unlimited power to reject any and all people nominated by the President, it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
That is just political posturing. If Obama actually nominated someone with the viewpoints and stance of Scalia, the Senate would confirm him in 2 seconds.