Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Her Opponent

Her Opponent
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 02:50 PM
 


Video is only a hair over two minutes.

This is an attempt to flip genders on Clinton and Trump. Each person is doing their best to adopt the mannerisms and tone of their respective opposite-gendered candidate.

The idea is to see how and to what extent this alters people's perceptions.

Have a watch, let loose with the contrast and compare.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 03:59 PM
 
… .
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 5, 2024 at 01:33 AM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 04:00 PM
 
He would have been seen as a pushover and she would have been applauded as "strong and direct", obviously.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He would have been seen as a pushover and she would have been applauded as "strong and direct", obviously.
Did you watch the clip? It isn't clear from the way this is phrased.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
Thanks for the video, an interesting watch to be sure. However, I'd really like to see a longer version where they include some of the more heated bits of the debate (e. g. where Trump interjects a lot with things like “Wrong!”).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 08:59 PM
 
As far as I know, this is the only clip available. They're considering taking it on tour.

Here's the article on the experiment.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publi...-reversal.html
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 09:04 PM
 
In case anyone is wondering, I felt Ms. Trump smoked Mr. Clinton, and el chup is exactly correct the tone Ms. Trump used is something men the world over are familiar with.

The technical term for it is "I am in deep, DEEP shit".


Even more so than with the real one, I wanted Mr. Clinton to react like a human goddammit.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In case anyone is wondering, I felt Ms. Trump smoked Mr. Clinton, and el chup is exactly correct the tone Ms. Trump used is something men the world over are familiar with.
I have a different take on this: you are right that Mr. Clinton came across as much more docile than Mrs. Clinton, and that this made Mrs. Trump seem stronger. But I don't share el chup's assessment that “we're used to seeing women act like that normally when they get worked up”. None of the women in my personal and professional life act like that, especially women who are successful in a male-dominated profession (such as the one I work in). I would say precisely because Mrs. Trump is so atypical, she appears stronger since the baseline for dominant behavior is much lower.

Moreover, I think this was a part of the debate where Trump made legitimate point, namely that Clinton was in favor of these trade deals, and our perception is colored by that as well. Hence, I'd like to see a longer clip or a clip of a different situation where Clinton's performance was stronger.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Even more so than with the real one, I wanted Mr. Clinton to react like a human goddammit.
I don't know, I'm more of a cerebral person, and my reaction was quite different: I find a policy nerd a much more attractive than someone who just spews empty phrases, I didn't perceive the “lack of humanity” that you saw.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 10:46 PM
 
Mannerisms and tone are very important with how we judge people in the US. I dont know how much this is the same in other parts of the world. Rand Paul was a good example of someone who raised his voice into a whine. This doomed him from the start in my opinion. Even Ron Paul does the same. Despite these people having very down to earth intelligent policies they were written off as crazy or weak from the start.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2017, 11:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Mannerisms and tone are very important with how we judge people in the US. I dont know how much this is the same in other parts of the world.
They are anywhere, but with different baselines. I've lived in the US, and my hostmom who was divorced raised me as a single mom (she had other kids, but they were adults). I think it's rather a personal thing here, as I said, I am a scientist with an introvert streak and tend to approach problems not on how things make me feel but rather what they say. Mrs./Mr. Clinton's and Rand Paul's* focus on giving more details is a much more appealing approach for me than someone who seems to win the discussion by imposing their dominance. Honestly, I don't find these scripted debates do much for me to move the needle, because the format is so pre-arranged and the framing so forced that I don't think I'd get anything useful out of it. Of all the debates, none of it was surprising: Clinton was well-prepared, perhaps overprepared and a bit stiff. She wobbled on the email stuff instead of apologize straight out. Trump was ill-prepared, ill-tempered and focussed on imposing dominance rather than win arguments on their merits.

* I include Rand Paul here, because even though I don't agree on a lot of things with him, I see him as more principled and intellectually consistent. That makes it easier for me to understand where he's coming from and, despite differences, have a good measure of respect for him. I am not saying Hillary Clinton is all that, but she is a policy nerd, and in my view most problems need to be solved in long, boring discussions by policy nerds. It is not easy to be affable as a (policy) nerd, but being a nerd myself, I respect that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 02:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did you watch the clip? It isn't clear from the way this is phrased.
Yep, I was trying to imagine myself as a CNN presenter.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I have a different take on this: you are right that Mr. Clinton came across as much more docile than Mrs. Clinton, and that this made Mrs. Trump seem stronger. But I don't share el chup's assessment that “we're used to seeing women act like that normally when they get worked up”. None of the women in my personal and professional life act like that, especially women who are successful in a male-dominated profession (such as the one I work in). I would say precisely because Mrs. Trump is so atypical, she appears stronger since the baseline for dominant behavior is much lower.

Moreover, I think this was a part of the debate where Trump made legitimate point, namely that Clinton was in favor of these trade deals, and our perception is colored by that as well. Hence, I'd like to see a longer clip or a clip of a different situation where Clinton's performance was stronger.

I don't know, I'm more of a cerebral person, and my reaction was quite different: I find a policy nerd a much more attractive than someone who just spews empty phrases, I didn't perceive the “lack of humanity” that you saw.
I don't think I've experienced that tone in a professional environment. I have experienced it with every single SO ever.

I myself prefer a cerebral policy wonk, but the medium under consideration is oratory. Both real and fake Hillary are horrible at it.

As I pointed out during the campaign, she had two of the best living orators coaching her, and couldn't even pick up the Sesame Street basics.


This is how I talk soft...

THIS IS HOW I TALK LOUD!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I myself prefer a cerebral policy wonk, but the medium under consideration is oratory. Both real and fake Hillary are horrible at it.
Personally, I don't see the debates as a competition of oratory prowess, so my basis for judging them is quite different. (I work with a lot of people who are great at what they do, but don't know how to communicate well.)

However, I think it is reasonable to take oratory skills into consideration when judging debates. And I give you that Clinton isn't the best orator, but I don't think she is as horrible as you make her out to be. Look at how quickly Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, folded under pressure. I don't think she is a natural, but compared to, say, Mitt Romney, I think she's okay. And she was unlucky that the previous president, Obama, was a masterful orator, so our measure wasn't with respect to Romney or George W. Bush, but one of the best. More relevantly, if you compare her to Trump, I think she is still the better speaker.

So sure, Trump is more “natural” in the sense that the difference between “debate Trump” and “real Trump” is smaller than “debate Hillary” and “real life Hillary”. But Trump is a narcissistic asshole, so I don't think this is a win for him.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2017, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Mannerisms and tone are very important with how we judge people in the US. I dont know how much this is the same in other parts of the world. Rand Paul was a good example of someone who raised his voice into a whine. This doomed him from the start in my opinion. Even Ron Paul does the same. Despite these people having very down to earth intelligent policies they were written off as crazy or weak from the start.
Nice theory but the US just elected someone that anyone who is a half decent judge of character can tell is a corrupt, lying narcissistic man-child because instead of looking at mannerisms and other other more subtle behaviours (and some not-so-subtle behaviours) they simply swallowed every lie he told them like good little sheep so it doesn't really hold up at all.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Personally, I don't see the debates as a competition of oratory prowess, so my basis for judging them is quite different. (I work with a lot of people who are great at what they do, but don't know how to communicate well.)

However, I think it is reasonable to take oratory skills into consideration when judging debates. And I give you that Clinton isn't the best orator, but I don't think she is as horrible as you make her out to be. Look at how quickly Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, folded under pressure. I don't think she is a natural, but compared to, say, Mitt Romney, I think she's okay. And she was unlucky that the previous president, Obama, was a masterful orator, so our measure wasn't with respect to Romney or George W. Bush, but one of the best. More relevantly, if you compare her to Trump, I think she is still the better speaker.

So sure, Trump is more “natural” in the sense that the difference between “debate Trump” and “real Trump” is smaller than “debate Hillary” and “real life Hillary”. But Trump is a narcissistic asshole, so I don't think this is a win for him.
I probably oversold it by implying oration is the sole thing of import.

I would prefer people made decisions based purely on the objective merits of an argument. I personally try to do this.

That isn't how the game works though, and if I'm analyzing the game, things like oratory skill are hugely relevant.

I'll use an analogy in the same vein as what was mentioned earlier about academics with poor communication skills. Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he is because he's the world's top astronomer, or because he's the world's top TV-ready astronomer?

I don't feel I can oversell just how not TV-ready Clinton is. The most I'll agree on is she has a better command of language than Trump or Bush, but both of them, and even Romney, curb-stomp her in the charisma and charm department. As does McCain, Obama, her husband, her daughter, Trump's daughter, Bush's daughter, and I'm guessing Huma.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll use an analogy in the same vein as what was mentioned earlier about academics with poor communication skills. Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he is because he's the world's top astronomer, or because he's the world's top TV-ready astronomer?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson's main job is communicating science to the public, and he is doing a bang job. In most democracies, the roles of the US President are split in two, into a President who is supposed to give the nice speeches but is relegated to a largely ceremonial role, and the Prime Minister or Chancellor who is tasked with day-to-day stuff. It is clear that in the US there is a tension between the two, and when it comes to elections it has been tipping more and more strongly into the oratory skills department. But I don't think this is a good development, and there is a reason why most other democracies have not adopted a US style presidency. Turkey wants one now for obvious reasons … 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't feel I can oversell just how not TV-ready Clinton is.
No, I think people are exaggerating when it comes to Hillary Clinton, and many have started projecting the worst qualities onto her. A lot of her problematic aspects have been so blown out of proportions that it is hard to talk about her fairly. People who don't like her have become hysteric, and it is hard to talk about her without hearing stuff like “she is the worst at …” or “she is the most dishonest …”

I think Clinton is a good speaker, but she speaks in a more scientific style, calm, collected and not arousing too many emotions. If you want to be like MLK or Obama, that's of course bad news, but if your goal is to try and state your own positions, show people that you have a nuanced understanding of subject matter and can argue like an adult, I think that's a great choice. The German chancellor is boring to listen to, and that's the way it should be.* Day-to-day politics isn't supposed to be entertainment. Riveting speeches don't get sh*t done, grueling, exceedingly boring day-to-day politics will.

* I have tons of disagreements with her on substance, but I give her credit for being able to deliver calm, but clear messages at times. Just have a look how she replied to the accusations by the Turkish government to the German and Dutch governments, comparing them to Nazis. That's how an adult should behave in that situation.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 12:40 AM
 
I judge her so harshly because this is a learnable skill, and as I noted, she has the two best orators of her generation as coaches.

She didn't have to match either of her coaches. She didn't even have to try. I wasn't expecting her to remake herself into something she's not. Calm and collected is fine.

What I expect is her being able to hit the baseline, which involves things like having some dynamic range.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,