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.
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.
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.
It's not about the face in the camera, it's about the entourage of political appointees who are going to get choice postings after the election. Who has a better string of lackeys following them?
My assessment is that Clinton's lackeys are more experienced and will lead to a smoother transition from Obama's... Trump will be putting in a lot of people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing, in over their heads, and a few who shake things up for the better - on balance, risky and unlikely to lead to a better outcome overall.
Neither of them are humans, at least not of the 99.9% variety. Attempting to judge them as such is a waste of time.
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.
Eh? I'm not so sure I agree with that sentiment. Clinton definitely won the first debate, I mean, that was what sent Trump into his massive death spiral. Before, they'd actually been approaching ~ neck and neck, and her bringing up the Miss Universe model was particularly effective. The second debate was also a clear Clinton victory; she consistently dominated throughout, and once again, Trump completely spiraled out of control both during and afterwards. The third one I'd actually say was a Trump "victory", in that it was by far his best performance and her worst, but he really screwed it up by showing he has the emotional maturity of a preschooler by refusing to respect the people's wishes. The dinner, in contrast, hasn't really had time yet to show any results, and while I think he acted in a manner unbecoming of a president, he's been this way since the start of his campaign. Do you rememher him nicknaming all of his Republican competitors? He spouted a lot of very similar rhetoric that he now uses against Clinton, and if the dinner surprised you on that front, well, I think you're wishful overlooking his personality.
Now, those were measurements based on their ratings afterward. If we're measuring this like a traditional debate, where you say who won by providing the best support for their case, then Clinton blew Trump away on every point. She's been very consistent with providing her policies and has actually done a very good job of showing what she's intend to do as president. Whether she'll manage to fulfill it or not, we'll see, but I have no doubt what her intentions are. Trump, on the other hand, rambles off on irrelevant tangents and has to bullshot his way through every question because he has no idea about anything related to being a pesident, has an uncontrollable tendency to exaggerate and even spout straight up lies, and can't make up his mind on any issue. I mean, how often has he changed his policy on immigration? How often did he run his mouth off about Mr. Obama despite the birth certificate having been available for years? His basic honesty and truthfulness are non-existant, he has some extremely shady ties that he refuses to speak at all of, and his well documented history of business goes against literally everything he says he stands for. A man who has a history of exploiting his workers, outsourcing all of his labor unessecarily because it's slightly cheaper, and hides his failures and debt should say a lot about that person, and exactly what he would do as president. Not once during any of the debates has he even tried to address any one of these issues, and indeed, he's really magnified them and exposed who he truly is. The only thing left is to see who the United States wants to characterize itself as.
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
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? The policy papers on his website read like one of those sample Powerpoint presentations written in Latin. And all he has to say for himself is that whatever he's going to do, it'll be, "tremendous". Since I've had four years of high school Latin, I happen to know the root of the word, "tremendous" and let me tell you, it's a disgrace, believe me. Sad!
Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi. If you go to his website, not even that is real. He's got a ticker running across the top showing donations "in real time" and it turns out that it's just a loop that was put up weeks ago and if you look at the code for his site, it's a script that calls an XML file named, "Sample_donations". He's a fucking Potempkin village in a fright wig. He's a creation of the media and not one thing more.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.c...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
[Note: since the story broke, the Trump campaign has taken down the phony ticker widget.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
Most of Trump's big ideas don't require Congress at all. He can blow up trade deals, withdraw from NATO, deport millions, ban certain religions from coming to the US and it will not require one bit of congressional approval.
He'd also be traveling with nuclear launch codes. I don't want a guy who is rage-tweeting about Miss Universe's sex tape at 3am to have access to that stuff. Sorry, not sorry.
You are welcome on my lawn.