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.
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.