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.

Comments

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hillary Clinton is smiling, be afraid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWdansF5sLY

Bad article link

[srmalloy]

The correct article is here.

Re:Bad article link

[BeauHD]

Thanks, it's been updated.

Wrong link

[h33t l4x0r]

Should be this one

Resonating with Americans

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[NotInHere]

The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton. He may promise to "dry up the swamps" and that may be a nice goal by itself, but he has proven that he's changing his positions more than any of the "all talk no action" politicans. For example, look at the primaries, where he switched his positions about abortion: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So yes, maybe Trump will change America, but you can't be sure at all into which direction he will change it. And even when he becomes president, the only people who will help him are probably the republicans, and they will only let through laws that follow the republican party line, which is far less progressive than the democratic one.

Clinton may be corrupt, yes, but her proposed policies are much better than anything trump has proposed outside of feelgood promises like "we will replace it with something much better that I can tell you".

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Waffle Iron]

If you want "change", you need to know what kind of change. Some changes would be good, some would be worse than the status quo.

The problem with Trump is that he's fighting the last war. Much of the public is afraid because their lively-hoods are in peril. Trump says it's because of immigrants and government corruption. That's no longer the case; it's actually because technology and automation will be putting most jobs on the entire planet in jeopardy within the next few decades.

Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully dealt with since the 18th century: We've always been a nation with "unsavory" immigration and corrupt politicians, and somehow we've muddled through and even thrived. The actual root cause of the current public angst is an elephant in the room that NO politicians are talking about, even ones from the fringe parites.

So while the status quo isn't ideal, it's better than Trump's disruptive ham-handed proposals which would solve nothing. (And it doesn't help that he's an unhinged megalomaniac on top of it all.)

Re:Resonating with Americans

[AchilleTalon]

Computers don't lie!

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

> it's actually because technology and automation will be putting most jobs on the entire planet in jeopardy within the next few decades.

In inflation adjusted dollars, US manufacturing output is up 250% since NAFTA was ratified under Bush and implemented under Bill Clinton. But manufacturing employment is down about 20%. The absolute bottom of the barrel jobs went to mexico (and then a decade later they moved on to china) but all the good jobs? They were automated away.

But you know what's really gonna fuck the middle class? Self-driving long-haul trucking. There are about 7 million long-haul truckers right now and it is pretty much the last good-paying job you can get without a college degree. The coal mining industry lost less than half a million jobs over 3 decades and look at the devastation that did. 7 million jobs are going to get wiped out in the span of just one decade because long-haul trucking is the kind of driving that is the easiest to automate, its 99% limited-access interstates.

But it isn't just the truckers though, it is all of those tiny rural towns that depend on truck stops for income. No more restaurants. No more motels. No more convenience stores. That business has been the lifeline that kept those towns just barely above water. Rural america is going to become an economic deadzone.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[MightyMartian]

The Rust Belt in particular began its decline decades ago. You might as well blame Carter and Reagan if you're looking for targets. And what exactly would killing NAFTA do, other than hike prices massively, screwing over consumers. If you're going to attack any trade relationship, get general agreement with the NAFTA and EU countries to nail China's balls to the wall for its cheap steal.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[dbIII]

If you want change, vote for Trump.

The mystery here is how he's going to change anything when even his own party hates him.
He can't even stack the Supreme Court with a dozen new people without the house on his side - so there are two branches against him.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Gussington]

If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

If you want change, vote for Trump.

I have a more accurate summary:
If you want standard shit politics, but the country to still function, vote Clinton
If you want change, and by change it means possibly throwing your country down the toilet, then vote Trump

Most people want change, but the change has be an improvement, which is why Trump will lose. He is the ISIS alternative to Hillary being Saddam.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[dbIII]

to nail China's balls to the wall

That's what the TPP was supposed to be about. However it hands out sweet deals to other nations (deals that hurt the USA) while carrying later added malware that inflicts US I.P. law on those other nations and pisses them off, so it barely encourages those other countries despite the cost. It also relies on China standing still for a decade while their balls are nailed to the wall.
So your idea isn't new and the current attempt at implementation appears to be worse than not trying at all. It's probably not a bad idea in itself though.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Iamthecheese]

I want change. Which is why I'm voting for neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Real change means taking power from the corporate oligarchy represented by both major parties.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[jrumney]

If you want change, vote for Trump.

Even if you think America isn't exactly doing great at the moment, you have to ask yourself whether the path that Trump wants to take the country down actually leads to greatness. I don't think anyone actually wants change for the sake of change. They want change that leads to positive outcomes.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[StillAnonymous]

Hypothetical situation: You are forced to play Russian roulette.

You can pick the pistol with all of the chambers loaded (Clinton).
Or you pick the one with only half of the chambers loaded (Trump).

Which one makes more sense to pick? Hint: One of those situations has a very predictable outcome, if you're into predictability.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Third Position]

I wouldn't accept it either, if I were him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Resonating with Americans

[dbIII]

China was not a party to the TPP.

That was the entire point, to fence China in with the help of other countries. Did you read before commenting?

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Gavrielkay]

I think it's funny that you think Clinton is saying "we're doing great." All I've heard is "we're doing better now than the last time there was a Republican in the oval office." Which is not the same thing.

Trump is a narcissistic, juvenile, puerile, mean, petty, scheming, lying bullshit artist who's most common debate tactic is variations on "I know you are but what am I?" Every time he calls Secretary Clinton "crooked" or "liar" my head almost explodes from the irony.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Hognoxious]

There's change, and there's change for the better.

See also: systemd, Windows 8.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[serviscope_minor]

If you want change, vote for Trump.

Who the hell merely wants change?

Surely you want change for the better, right? I'm sure Trump will attempt to deliver change, but do you honestly think it's likely to be for the better rather than making things worse?

This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations

I'm sure that the personal behaviour of the candidates has no bearing on whether they might try to change things for the good of the US or be completely self serving.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[GeekWithAKnife]

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.

Actually it's more complicated than that. You present a "breakdown" to a binary choice. "we're doing great" and "we need to change".

If you paid any attention BOTH candidates are proposing changes. They simply differ in what should change in how.

If you vote for trump you have no idea what's coming. He's been contradictory and vague on some details. At the same time he has been unrealistic about some changes.

Who you agree with is none of my concern. I suggest you look at the proposes changes the candidates are making and their plan on how those will materialise.

I can promise you the moon on a stick but what is my capability to execute? -you know things like, will it pass a public vote, will it gain bi-lateral support, can it be legally enforced or implemented, will it cause mass riots...those sort of things.

To me the choice is clear.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[rholtzjr]

I agree with the statement that the changes should be positive. But we have already seen that practically every poll, survey, questionnaire, etc. shows that a very large majority (60-70%) has voiced that the US is NOT heading in the right direction and we have NOT been for quite a while. I think that this has already been mentioned quite a few times in other posts on this discussion board. The biggest question I feel that needs to be asked is who would you trust to at the very least to attempt to put this country on the right track?

What I see by both candidates actions in this campaign is that one candidate is less experienced, boisterous, and somewhat egotistical (okay, very egotistical) and promotes fear. The other candidate has experience (good or bad is up to you to determine), condescending, has shown that they do not always tell the truth, and is not adverse to use underhanded, bordering on illegal, tactics to convince us that what they are doing is for the benefit of the US.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[ColdWetDog]

'cheap steal'.

Nice.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Waffle Iron]

I"m sorry, but your little rant doesn't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with what I said. Did you mean to post it elsewhere?

Re:Resonating with Americans

[ColdWetDog]

Other that during World Wars, when has a majority of the population thought 'we're going in the right direction'? The 1800's when we were moving west, finishing off destroying the rest of the indigenous flora and fauna (including humans) that European settlers started in the 1500's? Perhaps the Native Americans and the African slaves might venture to disagree if anybody bothered to poll them.

How about post WWII and the wonderful burst of economic growth that comes after destroying a quarter of the planet? If you were black, poor white trash or pretty much anybody in the South you might take exception to the idea that the country was doing wonderful things. If you were white, lower middle class and / or a veteran, you had a 25 year burst of economic Good Times. That bubble got popped a while back.

If you were of the moneyed class at any time you did OK. Amazing how that seems to happen.

So don't go so much on 'polling' data. That is a fairly new, fairly narrow view of how the country is doing. Of course, trying to come up with a better way to figure out which direction we should be going is pretty much of a fool's errand. There are so many different aspects to life in this country (or any other) that the simplistic rose colored glasses / Red, White and Blue / USA! USA! metrics are perfectly useless.

Unless, of course, you are Donald who sees a giant group of disaffected people who are just waiting for some demagogue to lead them out of the swamp. His campaign has rolled on two correct assumptions. First, there IS a fairly homogeneous and large demographic that feels downtrodden and upset. Perfect fodder for his cannon. Second, the Republicans have, yet again, failed to create a candidate that isn't a complete cartoon. And they failed worse than the last two times which is pretty impressive. And sad.

With all of that said, all the Dems could do is pick Hillary. I understand it completely, she'll make a fine statist president and Murphy's Law (along with the laws of thermodynamics) will continue to be the driving forces in the Universe.

Murphy was an optimist.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[RandomSurfer314]

I kind of agree with you, although I personally don't really consider Trump a viable alternative, but would like to add that the problem with this AI is that it apparently can't tell an evil grin / fake smile from a real smile. Humans can do that fairly well.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[dbIII]

THINK - If that was really the case then why was nearly every other nation in the Pacific reason invited years ago and not China? Why is Kerry inviting a journalist with an empty promise instead of inviting diplomats with a real one?
This has been going on for YEARS and TPP drafts have featured on wikileaks. It's good that you are taking an interest but I suggest that before you go around "correcting" people it may be worth taking a bit more of an interest and get some background on the topic. I didn't expect some sort of attack from someone not very aware of the issue just for describing it in broad terms.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[superwiz]

Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather than SCOTUS-style committees deciding who is to be in charge.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[superwiz]

This :

Clinton may be corrupt

In combination with this:

The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.

implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist rather than an honorable thief. She will not keep any promise she makes or keep to any deal she enters into. He deeds betray her more than her words. Trump does not have the same history of consistent breaking of deals. He renegotiates rather than simply breaking deals when circumstances change. Both of these factors combined indicate that Trump is actually more trustworthy than Hillary.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I think it is clear to Trump's base what kind of change he offers: a move towards nationalism, compared to Clinton's continuing globalism. What Bernie had in common with Trump is they are both nationalists -- American citizens come first, even if it may hurt some of our trading partners in other countries and ordinary people who work hard there. The details of the platform differ significantly but that is the same general direction. Nationalism means let's increase the relative buying power of those below the median, even at the cost of higher GDP. Globalism says the economy overall is most important even though lower levels of society have to absorb the costs.

I personally think that which one is better or worse depends on the time in history. In my opinion there was a time when globalism lead to significant growth and progress, but it appears it's time to reverse the cycle for several years to preserve and repair the societal structure. It's like how recessions are necessary in economy to clean up inefficiencies, otherwise the more you prolong it, the higher the price you pay.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[Citizen of Earth]

The AI appears to be misreading Hillary's "Crazy Clown Smile". She uses that mostly when she is being accused of hypocrisy or a felony -- not exactly times one would smile naturally.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[ebvwfbw]

MM - Come on, get your history right. Carter was like a nuclear bomb to this country. Until Obama, he was the worst. Something that Carter even crowed about a few years ago - he's not the worst anymore. Reagan on the other hand was incredible. The US experienced the most economic growth the world had ever seen. It wasn't "trickle down" economics as the crazy left likes to say, it was more like trickle everywhere economics. Everyone benefited from his policies. I remember when Carter was Pres, I was in grade school. I wondered if I'd even have a country, what could I do? Double digit inflation. So many people reading this have NO IDEA what that's like. Obama would love to have double digit inflation, however he's not even able to do that.

Back the the subject, this has been a concern for hundreds of years. Gutenberg came up with a press. Continues from there. About 4 decades ago we were using punched cards. Even into the 1980s. People found other things to do because those advances created new jobs. Machines can do a lot, they can't do everything. This whole conversation reminds me of this exact fear from the 1980s and AI. AI would take over and rule us all in just the next few years. Still waiting on that.

Bottom line is, people want everything and want to do nothing to get it.

Re:Resonating with Americans

[werepants]

No. That's what the typical decision tree looks like, where you vote for the incumbent party vs. the challenging party. That doesn't fit this time around, though, unless the "change" you are looking for is completely abandoning decency and competency as a nation. Trump is unfit for the presidency, to an unprecedented degree.

Clinton is a politician, Trump is not

[ArtemaOne]

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.

Re:Clinton is a politician, Trump is not

[Anonymous Coward]

> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

Re:Clinton is a politician, Trump is not

[ArtemaOne]

Yeah, I'll buy that. It's far too Idiocracy-like in some ways, but not quite.

Re:Clinton is a politician, Trump is not

[quantaman]

> actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

I think this is the key.

Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.

Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.

The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.

Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a completely unnecessary controversy by talking about contesting the election results.

All of his advisors would have told him these were bad ideas ahead of time and would cost him votes. And it's not like they asked him to memorize the constitution word-for-word, avoiding these controversies would have been trivial.

I honestly see two main possibilities for his behaviour:

1) Trump really does have a major deficiency, either comically low levels of self-control or he's living in a massive bubble and somehow thinks these are brilliant ideas.

2) Trump has no intention of winning the election and is just trying to preserve his fortune. He lost his TV show and realizes he's destroyed the mainstream appeal of his brand (possibly his biggest asset), so he's now trying to transform his new base into a market for TrumpTV.

Wait...what?

[WolfgangVL]

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.

Re:Wait...what?

[NotInHere]

AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.

Are you saying the debates exceeded it?

Re: Wait...what?

[hackwrench]

I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. This appears to be an assessment of the AI's emotional intelligence and not the candidates''.

Re: Wait...what?

[hackwrench]

Absolutely. That is just one sentence written by the article writer. Anything of any substance is only about the AI's emotional intelligence.

Re: Wait...what?

[hackwrench]

Alright, I've read more of the actual article and the CTO does not seem to understand emotional intelligence. The AI makes statements indicating its own emotional intelligence. That awareness can help people understand how various segments of the population, such as voters or potential hirers might view the way they express emotions. That is what is actually happening here.

Re:Wait...what?

[Carewolf]

Since when is artificial intelligence ready to audit organic emotional intelligence? AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.

They can't even have a believable conversion at preschool level.

Making an AI do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want Skynet? Because that's how you get Skynet.

Re:Making an AI do this?

[dbreeze]

I'm just not too worried about robots taking over. I've been repairing machines all my life. Never had to teach one to do wrong, spent days and weeks trying to get 'em to do right. I ain't too worried about the machines.

The humans working that on/off switch are what worry me.

Already knew that

[frovingslosh]

So what this is saying is that Hillary brings out stronger, more negative feelings of disgust in others than Trump, right?

Re: The three debates

[JoeMerchant]

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.

emotional intelligence != smiles a lot

[ooloorie]

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).

Re:The three debates

[JoeMerchant]

I think Trump is purposely throwing the election in order to cry foul, spew outrage, and sell his memoirs.

Re:The three debates

[XxtraLarGe]

You can't claim Hillary was mean "but Trump started it." Their material was pre-written and not by them. The die was cast before the event and they both decided to be vicious. Don't blame Trump because he happened to go first.

He could have decided to not read that material. Totally his choice.

"Negative sentiment," "contempt," and "anger"

[dbreeze]

Pretty well mirrors my opinion of government...

Address the issues

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Address the issues

[PopeRatzo]

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

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.]

Re:Address the issues

[serviscope_minor]

The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".

That's just facile.

There's more or less one way to stay the course. There are infinite ways of changing.

Would you support repealing the first amendment? That's change.

Address the issues

[Okian Warrior]

Trump will dry the swamp, with nuclear fire if [...].

Random babbling does not make your point.

Address the *issues*, and we'll listen.

Re:The three debates

[EmeraldBot]

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.

Would too!

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Would too!

[Waffle Iron]

Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.

Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.

Re:The three debates

[chipschap]

He could have decided to not read that material.

Assuming he had that ability.

"excel at their jobs"?

[whoever57]

Those who exhibit heightened emotional intelligence excel at their jobs and stand out to employers.

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.

I'm convinced

[Anonymous Coward]

That settles it, I'm voting for President Smilie Face.

Two sides to every issue

[Okian Warrior]

> 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

[nyet]

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

[melted]

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. ;-)

Re:She smiled when Trump said gays are thrown

[Anonymous Coward]

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. ;-)

She was probably thinking "You just whipped out that Muslim thing again".

She's not here

[Okian Warrior]

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?

Re:The three debates

[Darinbob]

He wants a new reality TV show. Presidential Apprentice. His tag line will be "You're impeached!"

Re:The three debates

[Gavagai80]

Unfortunately, the odds of him ever fading from the public eye before his death are zero. He'll be making up ever more outrageous claims in the years to come as he begins to feel ignored, and somebody will take the bait.

Re:He came, he saw...

[Gavagai80]

There are two war candidates, and two peace candidates. Everyone wants a war candidate.

Latin lover

[Okian Warrior]

Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

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.

Re:Latin lover

[PopeRatzo]

I'll ask the question again:

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?

If you could have answered any of those questions, if you could have made the case you would have. Trump would have. You didn't and he hasn't and that's why we're where we're at.

Re:Latin lover

[PopeRatzo]

If Trump gets in, the house, the senate, the speaker, everybody is going to be against him. Not much will get done.

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.

Re:Latin lover

[misexistentialist]

Instead you want the codes with someone who is frequently incapacitated, and too furtive to ever turn over power to Vice President? That imbalance in mutually assured destruction is enough to prompt a nuclear first-strike on the USA

Re:Latin lover

[PopeRatzo]

Instead you want the codes with someone who is frequently incapacitated, and too furtive to ever turn over power to Vice President?

Yes.

Re:The three debates

[Darinbob]

We've seen this in every debate going back many years now. Someone takes a potshot trying to get the opponent to lose their cool and fumble a bit. It's usually phrased in a somewhat innocuous way rather than an outright attack, usually somewhere in the center though ("you're no Jack Kennedy", a famous practiced line). However it doesn't always work well, the most you get is laughs from the audience but the opponent picks up and carries on. It really doesn't provide any new information about a candidate's political positions or views except to show how catty they are.

This time around though... the standard goading actually worked as candidate A loses his composure and forgets all the practiced "stay cool" advice. Now candidate B's campaign knows exactly where the red buttons are to push during the next two elections. And they get pushed again, and again. Even the most novice of political candidates usually trains how to do a debate properly, how to give a speech that sounds like he's got a highschool diploma, and so on.

Re:The three debates

[Darinbob]

If he had said "nasty man" under his breath it would be just as bad. His damn microphone was on! This was not a boxing competition, it was a debate. The constant muttering when it wasn't his turn was highly annoying. Though it may depend upon the listener - someone who wants aggressiveness probably loves a candidate who insults everyone at the drop of the pin, whereas others who want civil discourse finds this style appalling.

Re:The three debates

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, I'll probably vote Clinton but I'll feel sick about it.

I score the debates as follows:

1. Clinton won. Trump's lack of prep showed.
2. Trump won decisively. Definitely caught her with that "because you'd be in jail" comment.
3. Trump lost. He failed to maintain composure, and resorted to interruptions. It seemed like he couldn't control himself.

The debates didn't do much to change my mind. It's a shame Sanders didn't get the nomination. His ideas were "pie in the sky", but IMHO he's an honest man who could be pulled back down to earth and realism. Hilary wants to start WW3, but I think Bill and her other advisors can pull her back from that. Trump doesn't want to start WW3, but I think some Cheney-like character could easily lead him to do it.

Re:The three debates

[Darinbob]

A good way to judge a debate is how well you swayed the audience to change their opinions. Trump did a good job of keeping is staunch supporters happy, but I don't think he made even one undecided voter switch to his side. Clinton probably got many voters to switch to her side.

Re:The three debates

[Gussington]

I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:

Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.
A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.
Trump spent all three interrupting claiming Hillary was wrong, when he was wrong by nearly a factor of 10 to 1. He presented no solid justification to anything, just simple catchphrase "I'll make America great!" That is not debating.

I'm no Hillary fan, If Romney were contesting this election he would shit it in. But Hillary is making Trump look like the monkey that he is.

Re:The three debates

[rtb61]

Proof of that rigging came with the latest claim from the corrupt current administration. Real typical misinformation stuff http://time.com/4539904/fake-v.... Why that story because the US administration is going to hack the election and they wanted to pump out some propaganda about Russian hackers in case they fuck anything up and it is exposed. That's what the bullshit polls are all about as well, main stream media in collusion with the US administration, trying the create the public image of who should win to align with the digital hack of the voting system (they know full well if Trump wins he will have a field day forcing the prosecution of all those who attacked him, the more he can prosecute the happier he will be and he can pretty much decimate the corporate democrats).

Will they fuck it up, of course they will, which is why the story and hence any irregularities will be blamed upon Russian intelligence services (reality the Chinese government are actually doing more hacking but they are sticking to the old system of extorting acceptance of bribes but the US government ain't picking on them because the Government of China are keeping secret their evidence of corruption in the US government, for the time being, they are seeing how much fun exposing corruption and every now and then you do need to demonstrate you will destroy those who fail to obey their instruction when paid to do so, forcing the issue by paying less and demanding more).

Oh my, the current US administration is squirming so bad under the current global spotlight, the mistakes, the clumsiness, all being forced by their panic at the thought of finally being prosecuted for their high crimes, this spreading into both sides of the Congress and Senate, it is all becoming a total farce (those hacks have an extremely high risk of all being exposed by US intelligence services with integrity and that is the real cause of the current panic). The fear is thick in Washington, going through their minds right now, why the fuck did we stick with Clinton, why the fuck did we stick with Clinton, over and over and over again ;D (dudes it's not like you weren't warned, the soft landing would have been so much easier for everyone, would have taken longer but less harmful all round).

Re:The three debates

[XxtraLarGe]

Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.

Hint: These aren't debates in the usual sense of the word. These are Reality TV infomercials for the D & R candidates. A real debate would ask both candidates what they believe on question 1. Candidate A would give their answer, and Candidate B would give their answer. If they disagreed, Candidate A would get a response, followed by Candidate B. Next question would start with question 2 starting with Candidate B, and so on. You'd have questions about policy issues, not "Have you stopped beating your wife?" gotchas. Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.

Re:The three debates

[jrumney]

To me it wasn't so much what he said, but the timing of it - right after she'd said she was going to raise the taxes of billionaires like him.

Re:The three debates

[Gussington]

Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.

Based on previous debates, each party had a chance to at least get their point across relatively uninterrupted, even if it was full of shit. Trump spent all three debates moaning like the man baby he is, and for that reason he loses by default. The simple lack of self control, to participate in an adult conversation is an automatic loss. And he never once presented data, it was entirely slogans. Say what you like about Hillary, she at least knows the subject matter quite well.

But I agree Trump is the better entertainer, I've watched every episode of the Apprentice and think he makes a great TV personality. But this is still a debate, and for that he failed miserably.

Re:The three debates

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way she'll raise taxes on billionaires. #1 reason is that all of the oligarchs and globalists that support her are in that class. No way is she going to bite the hand that feeds her.

Also, You can't effectively tax the rich in that system. They always have ways of redirecting, investing, or redefining the earnings somehow. And if there is no way, they'll take their money somewhere else. In the end, the middle class is the only class that will be taxed hard, because they have no means to get away from it other than to say "fuck you" and stop producing, thereby joining the FSA and putting more strain on the system.

Re: Leaders! Ha!

[hackwrench]

I don't need to be led.

Emotional intelligence

[hackwrench]

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'.

Re:The three debates

[JoeMerchant]

Only a fool would take that job, there are far better ways to spend 4-8 years of a life.

Re:The three debates

[Anonymous Coward]

>> He could have decided to not read that material.
> Assuming he had that ability.

So, he is a puppet?

Re:The three debates

[mwvdlee]

I can sum up my opinion on Trump in all three debates in a single word; "Wrong".
He's been a obnoxious, disgraceful, braggadocious and vacuous charlatan, but he sums himself up best every single time he says "Wrong".
I sincerely hope whoever ends up in power takes the opportunity to get rid of this bi-partisan clusterfuck (or should that be "pairfuck") mislabeled "democracy".

Room 12A, just along the corridor.

[Hognoxious]

A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.

No it isn't.

Re:Room 12A, just along the corridor.

[Gussington]

Is too!

Re: Leaders! Ha!

[davester666]

So you are more of a cfl person or more oled?

Is this the Singularity?

[speedplane]

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!

Meanwhile, back in 1750

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:The three debates

[michelcolman]

Do you seriously think the pre-written material doesn't have a few if-then branches in it?

Re:The three debates

[Whibla]

Assuming he had that ability.

And I'm Ron Burgundy. Go fuck yourself, San Diego!

Re:The three debates

[mrclevesque]

Exactly

Re: The three debates

[Anonymous Coward]

My assessment is that clinton will smoothly lead the whole world into world war 3, if all her posturing towards Russia is to be believed.

And my assessment is the exact opposite.
Trump's attitude to Russia is seen by Putin as weakness and unwillingness to defend NATO allies. If Trump was president Putin would push it to the limit, maybe even invading the Baltic state NATO members. By the time Trump was forced to act it would be too late to stop WW3.
Clinton would respond much more firmly to any threat to the Baltic states much earlier. Putin would reluctantly have to respect that and go no further.

I speak as someone who 33 years ago was a supporter of UK's CND, and obviously opposed the deployment of Cruise missles in the UK . I never thought the day would come when I'd be worrying that the US *Republican* candidate was a threat to world peace by being *too soft* on Russia rather than too hard.

Putin will push it as far as he possibly can. He needs someone who will push back to stop him, now.

Meanwhile, back in 1800

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re: The three debates

[ColdWetDog]

My assessment is that clinton will smoothly lead the whole world into world war 3, if all her posturing towards Russia is to be believed.

Right. The planet is sitting on a powder keg with a couple of smoldering fuses. So, who is going to try to lead the country with the majority of powder, fuses and cannon? A corrupt politico with deep ties to every other corrupt politico on earth or some insane narcissist who cares not a whit about anybody else?

It would be an easy decision if you could figure out which one was which.

Re:The three debates

[ColdWetDog]

That's great. The UFO folks could use some new blood. Haven't heard a good UFO story since the drones became popular.

Re:The three debates

[ColdWetDog]

You should back down to double shots. Those quads and triples are really starting to affect you.

Re:The three debates

[ColdWetDog]

This. Hilary is acting like Trump's big sister who knows where all of his buttons are.

And Trump acts like the 12 year old that falls for it. Every time.

Total crap

[Chewbacon]

EI/EQ is a buzz word without evidence as to its efficacy. It's subjective. Moving on.

Let me know when...

[dcavanaugh]

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.

Re:The three debates

[superwiz]

Right, but not like her (not like the ones who made their money by taking government bribes and hid it in shell non-profits).

Re:The three debates

[Hognoxious]

More like a muppet.

I keep waiting for adults to enter the room

[TheRealHocusLocus]

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

Re:The three debates

[michael_wojcik]

I think Trump is purposely throwing the election in order to cry foul, spew outrage, and sell his memoirs.

That's been his pattern with most of his business endeavors. I don't see why this one is any different. Look at it from his point of view.

Win: Feed the megalomania, but have to work or find some way out of it (resignation, probably). There's too much media attention to have another caretaker president; that's a thing of the past. Even W, with all his vacations and delegation of responsibility, kept pretty busy. Continued scrutiny of past bad acts, which he finds irritating.

Lose: Outrage of supporters feeds megalomania anyway. Run off with whatever resources he's siphoned from the campaign. Cushy lecture circuit appearances (which again mean more positive attention and money). A comfortable and familiar pattern of behavior.

Dude's a con man, in a classic bullying style. He's just been particularly successful at it. Winning the election wouldn't offer him much that he wants, but keeping it contentious right up to the end and then losing certainly does. Hell, it'd work so well he'll probably run again, if he's not feeling too lazy.

Re:The three debates

[JoeMerchant]

I sincerely hope he's too old for the US public to consider electing him in 2020.

Re:The three debates

[rtb61]

I am not the one who needs to drink to get past all those headaches, good luck with that ;D.