|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 01 2016 08:31 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:29 TheYango wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:
I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions.
Again, intelligence isn't a prerequisite for sociopathy. The defining characteristic of a sociopath is a lack of conscience or empathy for other people. This isn't even a strict textbook definition--it's just a commonsense understanding of what sociopathy is. Various formal definitions exist but I'm not going to delve into that because they're not my area of expertise. I don't know where your idea of someone being cold, calculating, and intelligent as being a requirement for sociopathy came from. Someone very stupid can also be a sociopath as it's based largely on social/behavioral traits and not on intelligence. Ok then let me ask you. 2 people, both of them don't have a shred of empathy. One is very aware of what he/she wants and will play "roles" to optimize his/her chances at obtaining said thing. The other is not self-aware and goes after what he/she wants directly in a brash way. Are both of them sociopaths?
offhand I would equally call them sociopaths; I'd need to review the clinical definition before making a more thorough determination.
I assume you have more questions in this line, so I shall await them.
|
On October 01 2016 08:31 biology]major wrote:
Ok then let me ask you. 2 people, both of them don't have a shred of empathy. One is very aware of what he/she wants and will play "roles" to optimize his/her chances at obtaining said thing. The other is not self-aware and goes after what he/she wants directly in a brash way.
Are both of them sociopaths?
I would consider them both sociopathic to some extent. One of them not being self-aware does not make that person less sociopathic--more likely that it makes them more so. I know some definitions of sociopathy actually use lack of inhibition, planning, and impulse control as a criteria *for* sociopathy, but again, this is not my area of expertise.
|
On October 01 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:26 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:17 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me. you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other? It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary. If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. Most people have a combination of calculation vs free expression, but I think in this election we see two extremes. The problem with one is it is unhinged and unpredictable, the problem with the other is you never know where he/she actualyl stands. No, their actual decision making has nothing to do with how they perform while campaigning, that will be seen when they are in the oval office. BOTH can be unhinged and unpedictable; and you can never tell where ANYBODY stands if they're a politican, regardless of their style. And how is this last post of yours relevant to their fitness for office? but really I'd like to stick to the sociopath thing while I narrow down on some points further, rather than getting side-tracked. I think you are looking this from a net benefit/net loss perspective. I am not, I don't know who will be better for the country, while you (maybe reasonably) think Clinton could be net benefit compared to trump. I'm mostly debating/arguing/refuting points, i'm making few claims of my own for this conversation, though I've made such claims elsewhere. I have quite a bit of training in formal logic and reasoning, so I'm probably being a bit thorough. I'm trying to debate your reasons for your choice, as well as some factual claims you make which have low foundation to assess why you make them; and to get you to elaborate on your points so that they may be better agreed or disagreed with. are you looking at which candidate will best benefit the country, or benefit yourself? nothing wrong with the latter, as such is human nature to quite a degree.
Again I have no idea who will be better for the country, that is really hard to predict.
|
On October 01 2016 08:42 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:26 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:17 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct?
and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other? It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary. If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. Most people have a combination of calculation vs free expression, but I think in this election we see two extremes. The problem with one is it is unhinged and unpredictable, the problem with the other is you never know where he/she actualyl stands. No, their actual decision making has nothing to do with how they perform while campaigning, that will be seen when they are in the oval office. BOTH can be unhinged and unpedictable; and you can never tell where ANYBODY stands if they're a politican, regardless of their style. And how is this last post of yours relevant to their fitness for office? but really I'd like to stick to the sociopath thing while I narrow down on some points further, rather than getting side-tracked. I think you are looking this from a net benefit/net loss perspective. I am not, I don't know who will be better for the country, while you (maybe reasonably) think Clinton could be net benefit compared to trump. I'm mostly debating/arguing/refuting points, i'm making few claims of my own for this conversation, though I've made such claims elsewhere. I have quite a bit of training in formal logic and reasoning, so I'm probably being a bit thorough. I'm trying to debate your reasons for your choice, as well as some factual claims you make which have low foundation to assess why you make them; and to get you to elaborate on your points so that they may be better agreed or disagreed with. are you looking at which candidate will best benefit the country, or benefit yourself? nothing wrong with the latter, as such is human nature to quite a degree. Again I have no idea who will be better for the country, that is really hard to predict.
iirc you have stated a preference for Trump, correct? as in you plan to vote for him (or would like to vote for if you are not eligible to vote)?
I would therefore assume you think either a) he'll do better for the country or b) he'll do better for you.
|
3658 Posts
Thanks for the link, it's a detailed and interesting read. It confirms what we already knew: Clinton wasn't interested in learning how to use computers and relied on others around her to set up the devices that she preferred using out of convenience. There was also a culture of using personal e-mails at the State department.
|
On October 01 2016 08:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:42 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:26 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:17 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. Most people have a combination of calculation vs free expression, but I think in this election we see two extremes. The problem with one is it is unhinged and unpredictable, the problem with the other is you never know where he/she actualyl stands. No, their actual decision making has nothing to do with how they perform while campaigning, that will be seen when they are in the oval office. BOTH can be unhinged and unpedictable; and you can never tell where ANYBODY stands if they're a politican, regardless of their style. And how is this last post of yours relevant to their fitness for office? but really I'd like to stick to the sociopath thing while I narrow down on some points further, rather than getting side-tracked. I think you are looking this from a net benefit/net loss perspective. I am not, I don't know who will be better for the country, while you (maybe reasonably) think Clinton could be net benefit compared to trump. I'm mostly debating/arguing/refuting points, i'm making few claims of my own for this conversation, though I've made such claims elsewhere. I have quite a bit of training in formal logic and reasoning, so I'm probably being a bit thorough. I'm trying to debate your reasons for your choice, as well as some factual claims you make which have low foundation to assess why you make them; and to get you to elaborate on your points so that they may be better agreed or disagreed with. are you looking at which candidate will best benefit the country, or benefit yourself? nothing wrong with the latter, as such is human nature to quite a degree. Again I have no idea who will be better for the country, that is really hard to predict. iirc you have stated a preference for Trump, correct? as in you plan to vote for him (or would vote for if you are not eligible to vote)? I would therefore assume you think either a) he'll do better for the country or b) he'll do better for you.
I don't know, he just aligns with my values more. Which I guess would be B? I hope to be in the upper tax bracket in a few years so yeah the progressive tax code would be a pain. Clinton is actually for student debt forgiveness, I have A LOT so it would probably be more beneficial for me to vote for her. That will be my solace if she wins.
|
On October 01 2016 08:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:27 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me. you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other? It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary. If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. so you can't stand sociopaths, and would prefer someone who woudl do a worse job, and has a more problematic disorder? (setting aside the point that it's not at all clear clinton is a sociopath). That there isn't a person there. It's like Rubio (I think) said, she has to hold a focus group to know what she thinks before she can answer a question. a) she's still human. and b) so what? how does that affect fitness for office? especially compared to the alternative. Because when you elect the president, you're choosing a decision making engine for 4-8 years. that does not answer the question at all; and if you think it does, you need ot elaborate on why it does, because it is not clear to me from your answer. but you really should've known that, as your statement states the obvious, that if you elect the president they make decisions for awhile. So you're basically doing a non-answer. Please give an actual answer.
I obviously don't trust the decision making process of someone without a sincere bone in their body. What she's good at is slowly campaigning her way up the ladder. Switching to being pro gay marriage and hedging a moderate minimum wage increase to keep Bernie supporters on board, gun rights, race relations, she uses issues shamelessly as political opportunities. To the extent she ever gets something done, it ends up adding to our problems, like the children's healthcare bill or Libya.
|
On October 01 2016 08:48 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:45 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:42 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:26 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:17 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp?
There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy.
and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy.
of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways.
and why isn't Trump a sociopath?
and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. Most people have a combination of calculation vs free expression, but I think in this election we see two extremes. The problem with one is it is unhinged and unpredictable, the problem with the other is you never know where he/she actualyl stands. No, their actual decision making has nothing to do with how they perform while campaigning, that will be seen when they are in the oval office. BOTH can be unhinged and unpedictable; and you can never tell where ANYBODY stands if they're a politican, regardless of their style. And how is this last post of yours relevant to their fitness for office? but really I'd like to stick to the sociopath thing while I narrow down on some points further, rather than getting side-tracked. I think you are looking this from a net benefit/net loss perspective. I am not, I don't know who will be better for the country, while you (maybe reasonably) think Clinton could be net benefit compared to trump. I'm mostly debating/arguing/refuting points, i'm making few claims of my own for this conversation, though I've made such claims elsewhere. I have quite a bit of training in formal logic and reasoning, so I'm probably being a bit thorough. I'm trying to debate your reasons for your choice, as well as some factual claims you make which have low foundation to assess why you make them; and to get you to elaborate on your points so that they may be better agreed or disagreed with. are you looking at which candidate will best benefit the country, or benefit yourself? nothing wrong with the latter, as such is human nature to quite a degree. Again I have no idea who will be better for the country, that is really hard to predict. iirc you have stated a preference for Trump, correct? as in you plan to vote for him (or would vote for if you are not eligible to vote)? I would therefore assume you think either a) he'll do better for the country or b) he'll do better for you. I don't know, he just aligns with my values more. Which I guess would be B? I hope to be in the upper tax bracket in a few years so yeah the progressive tax code would be a pain. Clinton is actually for student debt forgiveness, I have A LOT so it would probably be more beneficial for me to vote for her. That will be my solace if she wins.
You vote for financial reasons?
|
United States43361 Posts
Trump would be pretty good for me financially. 0 tax on converting my savings, huge increase in borrowing against the dollar to fund all his vanity projects but I can fuck off to Europe before the music stops as an EU citizen.
|
Sure I consider it, it would probably be better for me financially to go with Clinton in long term.
|
On October 01 2016 08:48 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:45 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:42 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:26 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:17 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp?
There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy.
and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy.
of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways.
and why isn't Trump a sociopath?
and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. Most people have a combination of calculation vs free expression, but I think in this election we see two extremes. The problem with one is it is unhinged and unpredictable, the problem with the other is you never know where he/she actualyl stands. No, their actual decision making has nothing to do with how they perform while campaigning, that will be seen when they are in the oval office. BOTH can be unhinged and unpedictable; and you can never tell where ANYBODY stands if they're a politican, regardless of their style. And how is this last post of yours relevant to their fitness for office? but really I'd like to stick to the sociopath thing while I narrow down on some points further, rather than getting side-tracked. I think you are looking this from a net benefit/net loss perspective. I am not, I don't know who will be better for the country, while you (maybe reasonably) think Clinton could be net benefit compared to trump. I'm mostly debating/arguing/refuting points, i'm making few claims of my own for this conversation, though I've made such claims elsewhere. I have quite a bit of training in formal logic and reasoning, so I'm probably being a bit thorough. I'm trying to debate your reasons for your choice, as well as some factual claims you make which have low foundation to assess why you make them; and to get you to elaborate on your points so that they may be better agreed or disagreed with. are you looking at which candidate will best benefit the country, or benefit yourself? nothing wrong with the latter, as such is human nature to quite a degree. Again I have no idea who will be better for the country, that is really hard to predict. iirc you have stated a preference for Trump, correct? as in you plan to vote for him (or would vote for if you are not eligible to vote)? I would therefore assume you think either a) he'll do better for the country or b) he'll do better for you. I don't know, he just aligns with my values more. Which I guess would be B? I hope to be in the upper tax bracket in a few years so yeah the progressive tax code would be a pain. Clinton is actually for student debt forgiveness, I have A LOT so it would probably be more beneficial for me to vote for her. That will be my solace if she wins.
aligns with your values would generally be A, at least if you think your values are to the benefit of the country. though mostly it seems like you simply haven't given it much thought and are voting based on very vague data with little understanding; I mean, one votes for a reason, and better for you or better for country, it raelly seems like one should have one of those if you're voting for them. sometimes one uses other heuristics to estimate whether those will be true in cases where it's very hard to tell.
|
On October 01 2016 08:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:31 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:27 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct?
and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other? It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary. If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. so you can't stand sociopaths, and would prefer someone who woudl do a worse job, and has a more problematic disorder? (setting aside the point that it's not at all clear clinton is a sociopath). That there isn't a person there. It's like Rubio (I think) said, she has to hold a focus group to know what she thinks before she can answer a question. a) she's still human. and b) so what? how does that affect fitness for office? especially compared to the alternative. Because when you elect the president, you're choosing a decision making engine for 4-8 years. that does not answer the question at all; and if you think it does, you need ot elaborate on why it does, because it is not clear to me from your answer. but you really should've known that, as your statement states the obvious, that if you elect the president they make decisions for awhile. So you're basically doing a non-answer. Please give an actual answer. I obviously don't trust the decision making process of someone without a sincere bone in their body. What she's good at is slowly campaigning her way up the ladder. Switching to being pro gay marriage and hedging a moderate minimum wage increase to keep Bernie supporters on board, gun rights, race relations, she uses issues shamelessly as political opportunities. To the extent she ever gets something done, it ends up adding to our problems, like the children's healthcare bill or Libya.
how is that different from a continuous liar and opportunist like trump?
It also doesn't raelly follow; a person can be insincere, but still be reliably predictable in their decision-making process.
The assertion that every decision makes things worse is most likely a result of bias, including probably a selection bias which ignores the bulk of the cases.
|
On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 08:54 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:31 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:27 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary.
If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. so you can't stand sociopaths, and would prefer someone who woudl do a worse job, and has a more problematic disorder? (setting aside the point that it's not at all clear clinton is a sociopath). That there isn't a person there. It's like Rubio (I think) said, she has to hold a focus group to know what she thinks before she can answer a question. a) she's still human. and b) so what? how does that affect fitness for office? especially compared to the alternative. Because when you elect the president, you're choosing a decision making engine for 4-8 years. that does not answer the question at all; and if you think it does, you need ot elaborate on why it does, because it is not clear to me from your answer. but you really should've known that, as your statement states the obvious, that if you elect the president they make decisions for awhile. So you're basically doing a non-answer. Please give an actual answer. I obviously don't trust the decision making process of someone without a sincere bone in their body. What she's good at is slowly campaigning her way up the ladder. Switching to being pro gay marriage and hedging a moderate minimum wage increase to keep Bernie supporters on board, gun rights, race relations, she uses issues shamelessly as political opportunities. To the extent she ever gets something done, it ends up adding to our problems, like the children's healthcare bill or Libya. how is that different from a continuous liar and opportunist like trump?
We have different estimations of Trump.
On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
It also doesn't raelly follow; a person can be insincere, but still be reliably predictable in their decision-making process.
It doesn't have to follow, that's true. But in this case it's related because the political facade explains the person's prominence more than their list of successes does. And predictability is not exactly what I'm after, it's the results, someone who makes predictably bad decisions wouldn't be desirable.
On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
The assertion that every decision makes things worse is most likely a result of bias, including probably a selection bias which ignores the bulk of the cases.
Yes, it's an exaggeration because this is how human beings communicate. I don't know everything and I obviously haven't cataloged literally everything HRC has ever done (if only because I have to spend so much time following the Trump campaign at the source due to the unprecedented distortion). Libya and Syria have been handled poorly with no care taken to learn from lessons of very recent history. Now, there are also people who disagree and think some things I've been listing are achievements. But, basically, this is the whole "judgment" meme in a nutshell.
It's easy to say "selection bias," but there are many dimensions in play. The bias may be that these were significant things, as the majority of events would probably have little impact either positive or negative.
|
On October 01 2016 09:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:54 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:31 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:27 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp?
There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy.
and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy.
of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways.
and why isn't Trump a sociopath?
and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. so you can't stand sociopaths, and would prefer someone who woudl do a worse job, and has a more problematic disorder? (setting aside the point that it's not at all clear clinton is a sociopath). That there isn't a person there. It's like Rubio (I think) said, she has to hold a focus group to know what she thinks before she can answer a question. a) she's still human. and b) so what? how does that affect fitness for office? especially compared to the alternative. Because when you elect the president, you're choosing a decision making engine for 4-8 years. that does not answer the question at all; and if you think it does, you need ot elaborate on why it does, because it is not clear to me from your answer. but you really should've known that, as your statement states the obvious, that if you elect the president they make decisions for awhile. So you're basically doing a non-answer. Please give an actual answer. I obviously don't trust the decision making process of someone without a sincere bone in their body. What she's good at is slowly campaigning her way up the ladder. Switching to being pro gay marriage and hedging a moderate minimum wage increase to keep Bernie supporters on board, gun rights, race relations, she uses issues shamelessly as political opportunities. To the extent she ever gets something done, it ends up adding to our problems, like the children's healthcare bill or Libya. how is that different from a continuous liar and opportunist like trump? We have different estimations of Trump.
Any way you'd care to defend this statement?
|
On October 01 2016 09:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:54 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:31 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:27 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:22 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On October 01 2016 08:14 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 08:10 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp?
There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy.
and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy.
of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways.
and why isn't Trump a sociopath?
and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? I might not be using the formal definition of sociopath but how I see it is, Trump is actually not intelligent in the same way clinton is. He uses visceral decision making and uses his gut feeling to guide him through a lot of his actions. He trusts himself above anyone and anything. Clinton is the exact opposite, she does not trust her gut for anything, thus you end up seeing calculated words even down to the pronunciation. She is putting on a facade to reach the most powerful position in the world, and she is AWARE of it. Trump is not playing 7d underwater chess, and if he is, he not even aware of it. There is probably another word which can better describe it but idk. what's wrong with clinton putting on a "facade" and thinking things through beforehand? this statement of yours makes it sound like trump is just a bad decision-maker, and clinton is a good one. so you can't stand sociopaths, and would prefer someone who woudl do a worse job, and has a more problematic disorder? (setting aside the point that it's not at all clear clinton is a sociopath). That there isn't a person there. It's like Rubio (I think) said, she has to hold a focus group to know what she thinks before she can answer a question. a) she's still human. and b) so what? how does that affect fitness for office? especially compared to the alternative. Because when you elect the president, you're choosing a decision making engine for 4-8 years. that does not answer the question at all; and if you think it does, you need ot elaborate on why it does, because it is not clear to me from your answer. but you really should've known that, as your statement states the obvious, that if you elect the president they make decisions for awhile. So you're basically doing a non-answer. Please give an actual answer. I obviously don't trust the decision making process of someone without a sincere bone in their body. What she's good at is slowly campaigning her way up the ladder. Switching to being pro gay marriage and hedging a moderate minimum wage increase to keep Bernie supporters on board, gun rights, race relations, she uses issues shamelessly as political opportunities. To the extent she ever gets something done, it ends up adding to our problems, like the children's healthcare bill or Libya. how is that different from a continuous liar and opportunist like trump? We have different estimations of Trump. Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
It also doesn't raelly follow; a person can be insincere, but still be reliably predictable in their decision-making process. It doesn't have to follow, that's true. But in this case it's related because the political facade explains the person's prominence more than their list of successes does. And predictability is not exactly what I'm after, it's the results, someone who makes predictably bad decisions wouldn't be desirable. Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 09:13 zlefin wrote:
The assertion that every decision makes things worse is most likely a result of bias, including probably a selection bias which ignores the bulk of the cases. Yes, it's an exaggeration because this is how human beings communicate. I don't know everything and I obviously haven't cataloged literally everything HRC has ever done (if only because I have to spend so much time following the Trump campaign at the source due to the unprecedented distortion). Libya and Syria have been handled poorly with no care taken to learn from lessons of very recent history. Now, there are also people who disagree and think some things I've been listing are achievements. But, basically, this is the whole "judgment" meme in a nutshell. It's easy to say "selection bias," but there are many dimensions in play. The bias may be that these were significant things, as the majority of events would probably have little impact either positive or negative.
while estimations may differ, that he lies a lot is fact. the opportunism is much harder to reliably estimate.
on bias: or you simply only hear about the failures, and don't hear about the successes. especially as the successes of a policy wonk tend to be very boring in nature. and in general success get far less attention than failures; especially the best success, which are preventative in nature.
on libya/syria: I can agree they were handled poorly, or at least turned out so; as long as one keeps in mind that it's likely that ANY course of action would have had poor results, the problem is just that the area is shitty. It may well be the case also, that many things were learned that you haven't heard about; the learning is generally done in government reports and analyses, some classified, some not, all of which are terribly boring and which people seldom read/hear about, but which those in gov't do pay attention to. Certainly trump isn't showing any sign of learning lessons from much of anything, so that point would at worst be neutral for hillary.
Of course, trump would likely have done even worse in them, given his numerous foreign policy blunders so far.
|
Canada11381 Posts
and his anti-pc stance which I hope will slow it down from spreading into college campuses
I don't know that bombast is the anti-dote to PC culture. It's unreasonableness against unreasonableness. That's a recipe for more yelling, not less.
|
|
|
2016 it's the year of years.
|
|
|
(check out sex tape and past)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
