Slashdot Mirror
AI Platform Assesses Trump's and Clinton's Emotional Intelligence (fastcompany.com)
FastCompany got an exclusive look at how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stacked up in terms of their emotional intelligence when analyzed by HireVue's artificial intelligence platform. The platform analyzes "video, audio, and language patterns to determine emotional intelligence and sentiment." The company also partnered with Affectiva for facial analysis "to measure the candidate's emotional engagement correlated down to the micro-expressions level." FastCompany reports the findings: Trump versus Clinton across all three debates. Here we see the range of emotions both candidates showed during all three debates. Clinton seemed to dominate the top-right area, which represented both "joy" and facial expressions like smiles and smirks. Conversely, Trump had a stronghold on the "sadness," "disgust," and "fear" quadrants, along with both "negative sentiment" and "negative valence." The third debate. Looking more closely at just this week's debate, negativity prevailed. Both candidates exhibited disgust during the 90-minute spectacle. Trump, however, seemed to dominate the strongest emotions with heightened scores for "fear," "contempt," and "negative sentiment." Clinton, according to the data, presented the only positive emotional elements, which included some "joy" and "smiles." Clinton's performance. Clinton's range of emotions and reactions seemed pretty consistent throughout all three debates, although she exhibited the most positive emotions during the second. What's more, according to the graph, she was most negative during this week's debate. Trump's performance. Similar to Clinton, Trump's range of emotions seemed relatively consistent throughout the three debates. The third one, however, was when he emoted the most negatively. He smirked a lot during this event, too. "Negative sentiment," "contempt," and "anger" were persistent throughout all three conversations.
I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump.
2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin.
3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably.
Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers, he would have been better off for it. After watching this event live, Trump seems like a candidate that's trying to lose.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
If Hillary Clinton is smiling, be afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWdansF5sLY
The correct article is here.
Should be this one
Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.
That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.
Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?
Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").
This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.
Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.
If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.
If you want change, vote for Trump.
is not a phrase that should be used in the same sentence as the "2016 US Presidential election".
As a good example, take a look at some of the posts in this thread, that were posted after this one, including some that were modded all the way up.
One has tempered their responses, while the other has not, and actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish. Most people could have drawn these conclusions without much research.
Since when is artificial intelligence ready to audit organic emotional intelligence? AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.
I suppose its ready to audit on the Microsoft racist troll scale, which is in the spirit of this election season, so there is that.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
And.....?
I think a lot of over-analysis is taking place and on weak grounds.
I think the American people should demand the elections deferred and the selection of candidates worthy to run. These two aren't by any measure.
Do you want Skynet? Because that's how you get Skynet.
So what this is saying is that Hillary brings out stronger, more negative feelings of disgust in others than Trump, right?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
TFA seems to be mostly statistics about the apparent emotional states of the two candidates during each debate. That tells you little about their "emotional intelligence".
When it comes to Clinton's smiles, a lot of them seem to be fake smiles rather than genuine emotion. In fact, from Wikileaks, we know that her advisors insert "[smile]" cues into her scripted responses.
The seemingly artificial nature of Clinton's emotional expressions is one of the things that creeps so many people out about her and makes them distrust her so much (to be sure, it is reinforced by actual misconduct).
Robot judges emotions. That's some internet of things irony right there.
Pretty well mirrors my opinion of government...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
The problem is [...]
And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.
The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".
It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.
Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.
Tell us why her policies are better than his.
Trump will dry the swamp, with nuclear fire if [...].
Random babbling does not make your point.
Address the *issues*, and we'll listen.
Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully [...]
Would too!
See how easily I can refute you?
Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples. A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.
You're talking to smart people, you have to use smart arguments.
I can believe the latter, but the former? That's going to depend a lot on what your job is. There are lots of jobs where EQ isn't particularly important and other forms of intelligence are more important.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It isn't the first time she laughed about assassination.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
Hillary is the war candidate.
That settles it, I'm voting for President Smilie Face.
> A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.
Lol. Trump has been on every side of nearly every issue. [...]
And Hillary has a public policy and private policy on every issue (in her own words).
What's your point?
And I note that you *still* haven't listed an issue or reasoned why her position is better than his.
High functioning psychopaths aren't always detectable as such by humans... you really think a computer algorithm would be able to find it?
She smiled when Trump said gays are thrown off the rooftops in Muslim countries in particular. So the methodology is not without flaws to be sure. ;-)
Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.
Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.
I have it on good authority that she's busy.
Perhaps you could post something in her place?
What would Hillary actually *say*, if she had to make an actual argument?
Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.
Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?
Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)
Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]
Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.
Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".
And no, I didn't look that up.
One day we'll have AI smart enough to detect absolutely fake, frozen smiles that make you want to punch some arrogant bitch in the face.
So Trump = 'Change' and Clinton = 'No Change', is the message you're pushing.
Putin just moved a large fleet of warships through the English Channel towards the Mediterranean where he will have a new naval base in Syria. And Trump didn't even know Russia had invaded Ukraine. Donald Trump swallowed the Putin lie, hook line and sinker, that Alleppo was full of ISIS fighters and Putin was attacking ISIS. Putin is actually attacking the faction we back the Syrian rebels in order to keep Assad in power.
Clearly the October surprise Putin has planned for Trump is a bit of conflict to give Trump a chance at power.
You don't need to promote some vague fluffy 'change' feeling, his buddy will do something big for Trump soon enough.
I don't need to be led.
The article seems to be confused, or at least the title. This sounds like an assessment of the AI's emotional intelligence and not the candidates'.
Clinton to Trump: On November 8th, 2016 a woman will grab you by your pussy!
Hillary grins like Jared Leto's Joker and laughs at things like gays being thrown off buildings in the countries that fund her.
AI apparently isn't as bothered by this as I am.
Dump Trump!
Hillary 4 Prison!
What is my emotional intelligence now bitches? Go ahead.. ask your AI platform... do it ... I dare you.
I'll wait...
+++
Yea we're here... Jesus H Christ we're still here
NO CARRIER
No it isn't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So you are more of a cfl person or more oled?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The singularity is here! AI can read emotions and can understand you. Let robots vote for our leaders... scratch that, let robots become our leaders! Long live the singularity!
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
But you know what's really gonna fuck the middle class? Canals. There are about fifty thousand long-haul muleteers right now and it is pretty much the last good-paying job you can get without being able to read and write.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But you know what's really gonna fuck the middle class? Railways. There are about fifty thousand long-haul bargees right now and it is pretty much the last good-paying job you can get without being able to read and write.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
EI/EQ is a buzz word without evidence as to its efficacy. It's subjective. Moving on.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Someone's AI platform is smart enough to know that both candidates are ACTING. I would expect the average TV news anchor to outperform either of them, just by reading the teleprompter with a straight face.
I doubt Clinton has any intelligence anywhere.
I did not read all of the article, but it seems to me it was a round-a-bout way push their candidate in a way that does not allow criticism since it can't be proven wrong.
Who cares about emotions, we have a solid history on both. Clinton is a proven liar who cares about nothing but power. While Trump is the most successful businessman who is not going to back down to foreign powers and ask for forgiveness instead of standing up for what is right.
I couldn't help but notice that Marty Feldman's relatives were present at the recent presidential debates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Feldman
Thus think of it, with this device you would be able to decode the emotions of other people and even women.
Hillary's outward appearance doesn't correspond to her actual emotions.
I watched one of the debates and she spent the whole thing grinning like a smug idiot despite the fact that she obviously wasn't happy.
But all I see here at HireVue are dangerous kids with fresh degrees at the intersection of HR/Psych/AI with their works-just-so toys. Doin' the This Word Means New Thing thing to get folks buzzin' on them new words. It's fascinating but also sleazy, the way they are marketing judgement as if you could pluck it off the shelf.
This is just new technology specifically designed for immature and inexperienced HR employees who are terrified to use their own human judgement, or perhaps for employers who want to hire HR people who don't have any... to FUCK with people.
The system will set new industry standards for fucking with people. By not getting their drift, by interpreting shyness as subversiveness or by misinterpreting the angry personal insult and desire to rip someone's head off when someone asks you, "Do you think it's OK to steal from the boss?" and then ten seconds later, "It's OK to steal from your boss, right?" as something completely different. The AI looking at you through a crappy little camera will misread your personality wrong every few seconds. In fact, it'll probably get so many things wrong so often that they'll start to cancel each other out and the interviewer will be left with a bunch of expensive squiggles they can interpret any way they please.
The system will favor interviewers who feel comfortable and prideful of not knowing what they are doing.
They're creating a new type of machine-DNA here to create a bastard form of evolution... where folks that just happen to score a certain way on their bullshit screening and analysis (through no fault of their own) succeed in reaping great rewards, like becoming employed. Folks who don't, won't. No one will be willing to tell you why, they'll say, because the algorithms are proprietary and complicated. Truth is they won't know fuck-all why.
They'll get it working just well enough for it to advise you hire a man instead of a gorilla. They'll say it's perfect. Then there will be updates. Tweaks. Improvements. More paid seminars in interpreting the results. More tweaks. After a couple years HireVue will see nothing but improvement in their product, because by then the company will be staffed exclusively with people who scored well on their machine.
They'll throw a party when the billboard outside says, "10,000,000 people FUCKED with".
There will be a whole 'unemployable' underclass for no apparent reason.
Then one day years from now, someone will make a single mistake somewhere, just a dumb mistake, and the AI itself will go insane. Its effects will be felt first at HireVue itself because like most places then, they will have cameras everywhere so the AI can see the faces of their employees while they are in their cubicles, taking a piss or beating on the vending machines, all for the purpose of "extending the hiring process indefinitely, and continuing to give valuable feedback to spot new emotional employee trends."
The software will suddenly declare some random portion of them dangerously unstable, fire them and instruct the other portion to throw them out with extreme force. Then as conflict sets in it will change its mind again and cancel some orders and issue conflicting orders. People will respond naturally with a combination riot/orgy.
Meanwhile outside of HireVue, the rest of the world which has outsourced its HR analysis to AIs has not fared so well. The landscape is full of weirdly misshapen buildings. There are odd and disturbing rules and unspeakable acts performed by policy and dogma put into place (accidentally) by happening to hire people in charge who happen to be the kind of people who fail to notice such things. In place of human society shaped by its physical and instinctual needs, it has become a fractal landscape of arbitrary shapes and decisions. Like a collection of sex toys for aliens.
As the HireVue building collapses, because the architect who had the better design had a mean face, the emotional evaluation process all over the world sudden
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Is there real science to back up the claim that facial expressions, that portion of the face mean what they are saying it means? Or is it similar to phrenology? Or lie detectors.*
A quick read of the original post reminded me of some of the 'technical' aspects of Neuro-linguitsic programming. Google that if you missed it.
Years later, one of my friends who was a Scientologist told me that my facial action of looking up to the right was me "accessing memories." When discussing this further with him he told me that Neuro-linguist programming had stolen/borrowed a lot for Scientology. And yes, him talking about this to me, a non-Scientologist was not allowed by Scientology. I'd also heard from other people that various people who had "borrowed" from Scientology over the years had been sued or pressured to cease doing so.
Anyway, I've developed a strong passive facial expression, to cover up any such clues as to what is going on in my head.
*In the late 1980's a woman friend of mine got a letter than she was part of a class action lawsuit, unless she opted out, against Target. She been given a lie detector test when applying of a job there, which she did not get. She asked my is she should opt out or stay in. I recommended staying in, and told her she might get a check for $5.99 in a years. About 4 years later she got a check for $11,000.