NationStates Jolt Archive

In the United States, at least, political candidates and commentators alike sometimes emphasize the "likability" of a candidate as a factor affecting her/his electability. Analysts distinguish (not always clearly) "liking" a candidate from respecting or trusting her/him and so on.

What does it mean to "like" a candidate? Should we be able to state reasons for our likes and dislikes? Can one justify voting for a candidate because one "just likes" her/him, or does a responsible vote mean stepping back from such subjective judgments so that one might vote for the most qualified candidate despite not finding her/him "likable"?

I think in Britain it's more a case of "dislike the least".

i feel like i need to like a leader on some level to support him

disliking him is a reason for me to not support him. finding him charming (as i find huckabee charming) isnt a good enough reason TO support him.

"Likeability" becomes a factor in "electability" when people are stupid. I really do not understand Americans today. I don't understand how people so unwilling to think can manage to cross a street without dying, let alone pick a president. Oh, wait, I forgot... They can't pick a president.

No, it is not necessary to like our leaders. It is only necessary that they have the right skills and qualities to do the job in a way that will benefit the country. People who pick a candidate on whether they like them, are people who have no idea what their own interests are, or how the state of the nation affects them, or what a president has to do with any of that -- in other words, they don't know what a president is for. Such people cannot possibly cast a responsible vote.

Not to be nitpicking, but isn't voting all about picking the one you "like" more? I mean, regardless of how reasonable your justification of your liking.

Not to be nitpicking, but isn't voting all about picking the one you "like" more? I mean, regardless of how reasonable your justification of your liking.Yes, "like" taken as synonymous with "prefer."

What I am describing is a different usage taken up within (American) political discourse. In this sense "likability" is a distinct judgment about candidate: thus one may prefer a candidate because he/she is likable.

The point of this thread is to discuss what qualities (if any) this judgment takes into account. Is it anything more than a "gut reaction"?

i feel like i need to like a leader on some level to support him

disliking him is a reason for me to not support him. finding him charming (as i find huckabee charming) isnt a good enough reason TO support him.
But if the most qualified candidate, with the best resume and best platform of policies, was an annoying little twerp who irritated you so much that the very sight of him was like biting on tinfoil, would that motivate you to vote for an unqualified candidate with no resume and a lousy platform?

I look for the best qualifications and skills, and if they come from someone I don't like, I just figure I don't really have to look at or listen to him/her until their term is up.

Not to be nitpicking, but isn't voting all about picking the one you "like" more? I mean, regardless of how reasonable your justification of your liking.
Well, there's "like" and then there's "like."

I might say I like Bill Richardson or John Edwards, and by that I mean I like their platforms and their professional backgrounds.

Then there's the kind of US politics "likeability" factor that comes from poll questions like "which candidate would you most like to have a beer with?" People who ask those kinds of questions should be thrashed, imo, and people who answer them should be made to take an IQ test before voting.

Likeabillity is a part of leadership. If people truly and genuinely hate you, it will be much more difficult to achieve something, and if they only sort of like you, it'll be much more difficult to get sacrifices from them on your behalf.

From AnarchyeL:

What does it mean to "like" a candidate?

In this context it means liking their personality and persona rather then their policies and abillity to get things done, only it can affect their abillity to get things done because no human being, be he senator or truck driver, is rational.

Yes, "like" taken as synonymous with "prefer."

What I am describing is a different usage taken up within (American) political discourse. In this sense "likability" is a distinct judgment about candidate: thus one may prefer a candidate because he/she is likable.

The point of this thread is to discuss what qualities (if any) this judgment takes into account. Is it anything more than a "gut reaction"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I took you to mean the kind of personal likability that would make a person want to go out for beer with another person. In other words, a personal judgment about whether one emotionally likes another person.

Likeabillity is a part of leadership. If people truly and genuinely hate you, it will be much more difficult to achieve something, and if they only sort of like you, it'll be much more difficult to get sacrifices from them on your behalf.Is it? Isn't respect more important than affection? Is every great leader best friends with her/his subordinates?

Likeabillity is a part of leadership. If people truly and genuinely hate you, it will be much more difficult to achieve something, and if they only sort of like you, it'll be much more difficult to get sacrifices from them on your behalf.



In this context it means liking their personality and persona rather then their policies and abillity to get things done, only it can affect their abillity to get things done because no human being, be he senator or truck driver, is rational.
In one sense what you're saying may be true. In another, it is terrifying and I can only hope it is entirely false.

For instance, if a candidate for the US presidency is universally hated or disrespected by all members of Congress, he will likely not be an effective president because Congress is likely to be uncooperative with him.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a worse worst-case-scenario for a society than the idea that its people would be willing to make sacrifices -- such as massive tax increases or job losses or sending themselves or their children to die in foreign wars -- just because they personally liked the man who asked them to.

But if the most qualified candidate, with the best resume and best platform of policies, was an annoying little twerp who irritated you so much that the very sight of him was like biting on tinfoil, would that motivate you to vote for an unqualified candidate with no resume and a lousy platform?


if a candidate creeps me out, im just not going to vote for him. luckily its seldom a matter of a creepy guy with a great resume whose policies match my own against a charmer with bad policies.

im not saying that it has to be someone id have a drink with. for example i wouldnt invite bill clinton over to my house but i voted for him for president twice.

if a candidate creeps me out, im just not going to vote for him. luckily its seldom a matter of a creepy guy with a great resume whose policies match my own against a charmer with bad policies.

im not saying that it has to be someone id have a drink with. for example i wouldnt invite bill clinton over to my house but i voted for him for president twice.
Well, that answers my question then. I also thought Bill Clinton was a slimy lying bastard, and I voted for him twice, too, and was glad to do it.

EDIT: What I mean is, it seems you don't really have to like the candidate to vote for him, if you think he's qualified. Because that "having a drink with" kind of liking is what I'm talking about here. That moronic notion of "likeability" has somehow infested American politics, and it really gets on my nerves...as you can probably tell. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I took you to mean the kind of personal likability that would make a person want to go out for beer with another person. In other words, a personal judgment about whether one emotionally likes another person.Yes, that is my sense of how it is being used.

The question is whether one can justify voting for a political candidate on the basis of such a judgment.

To turn it the other way: Is friendship "rational"? Should it be?

Aristotle, for one, might argue that we should cultivate friendships with good people at least in part so that we develop a better intuition regarding goodness. Thus, at least in a healthy polity, it would be appropriate to judge politicians on our sense of "likability" as intuiting virtue.

Unfortunately, I don't think Americans' sense of likability has anything to do with virtue.

How important is living to rue the day you were born?

Yes, that is my sense of how it is being used.

The question is whether one can justify voting for a political candidate on the basis of such a judgment.

To turn it the other way: Is friendship "rational"? Should it be?

Aristotle, for one, might argue that we should cultivate friendships with good people at least in part so that we develop a better intuition regarding goodness. Thus, at least in a healthy polity, it would be appropriate to judge politicians on our sense of "likability" as intuiting virtue.

Unfortunately, I don't think Americans' sense of likability has anything to do with virtue.
The current fad for likeable candidates in US politics certainly has nothing to do with virtue. It doesn't even have anything to do with knowing who the person is or what they've done in life. It is based entirely on superficial appearances.

As for whether friendship is rational or not, I'd say that also has nothing to do with it. None of the people who say they would vote for a candidate because they like him personally will ever get to know that candidate personally. They will never form any kind of friendship or other personal relationship with that candidate. Their bizarre (to my mind) notion that they like this person or feel as if he likes them is a deluded fantasy of their own making. What it says about the priority systems of many Americans and how they figure out what is important in this or that area of life is, frankly, pretty scary.

Well, that answers my question then. I also thought Bill Clinton was a slimy lying bastard, and I voted for him twice, too, and was glad to do it.

EDIT: What I mean is, it seems you don't really have to like the candidate to vote for him, if you think he's qualified. Because that "having a drink with" kind of liking is what I'm talking about here. That moronic notion of "likeability" has somehow infested American politics, and it really gets on my nerves...as you can probably tell. :)

i do find that "bush is stupid enough that i can relate to him" thing baffling. i was much happier knowing that clinton dodged the draft to go to oxford than i was that bush skipped national guard to party.

i dont want my leader to be a regular joe but--and i suppose its prejudice or thinking that i know something that i cant know--when a candidate creeps me out its as if i can "tell" that he has some deep dark disqualification that isnt obvious to everyone else.

oddly, when i conjure up rudy giuliani in my mind he is hunched over and a bit withered as if he were the embodiment of scrooge. when i see him on TV he really isnt as i pictured him at all. i could never vote for a man that sits so badly in my mind.

i do find that "bush is stupid enough that i can relate to him" thing baffling. i was much happier knowing that clinton dodged the draft to go to oxford than i was that bush skipped national guard to party.

i dont want my leader to be a regular joe but--and i suppose its prejudice or thinking that i know something that i cant know--when a candidate creeps me out its as if i can "tell" that he has some deep dark disqualification that isnt obvious to everyone else.

oddly, when i conjure up rudy giuliani in my mind he is hunched over and a bit withered as if he were the embodiment of scrooge. when i see him on TV he really isnt as i pictured him at all. i could never vote for a man that sits so badly in my mind.
But it might be asked why Rudy creeps you out. Which came first: the Dorian Gray picture of Rudy, or Rudy's lousy political policies and stances? Is it that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad person, or that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad political leader?

Like that beer question I've been harping on -- that came from an actual opinion poll during the 2004 campaigns. People said they'd rather go out for beers with Bush than with Kerry because Kerry didn't look like he'd be any fun to get drunk with. Now, granted, I'm sure it was an endless laff riot to watch Bush stumble about drunk, and I do kind of doubt that a drunk Kerry would be any more fun than a sober one, but why would anybody even think to ask such a question, let alone answer it? Are we really picking our presidents based on how much we'd like to see them drunk?

It's definitely a point in his or her favor if I like him or her. But it isn't the only point.

Is it? Isn't respect more important than affection? Is every great leader best friends with her/his subordinates?

Not best friends but his subordinates usually like him somewhat. I mean, it's not the only part of leadership, but it is A part.

But it might be asked why Rudy creeps you out. Which came first: the Dorian Gray picture of Rudy, or Rudy's lousy political policies and stances? Is it that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad person, or that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad political leader?

his campaign for the republican nomination is quite horrifying but so is mitt romney's and i dont imagine him as being particularly creepy. a prig but not a creep.


Like that beer question I've been harping on -- that came from an actual opinion poll during the 2004 campaigns. People said they'd rather go out for beers with Bush than with Kerry because Kerry didn't look like he'd be any fun to get drunk with. Now, granted, I'm sure it was an endless laff riot to watch Bush stumble about drunk, and I do kind of doubt that a drunk Kerry would be any more fun than a sober one, but why would anybody even think to ask such a question, let alone answer it? Are we really picking our presidents based on how much we'd like to see them drunk?

especially since bush doesnt drink. you cant have a beer with him

it was equally odd to me that the public saw bush as more religious than kerry. kerry is a lifelong devout catholic who considered the priesthood. you dont get much more religious than that. (of course the catholic bishops did their best to torpedo kerry from the pulpit)

his campaign for the republican nomination is quite horrifying but so is mitt romney's and i dont imagine him as being particularly creepy. a prig but not a creep.
Now, that's funny, because on my creep-o-meter, Romney scores a full 1.5 points higher than Giuliani. No accounting for taste, I guess. ;)


especially since bush doesnt drink. you cant have a beer with him

it was equally odd to me that the public saw bush as more religious than kerry. kerry is a lifelong devout catholic who considered the priesthood. you dont get much more religious than that. (of course the catholic bishops did their best to torpedo kerry from the pulpit)
Makes all those Bush voters seem even sadder, doesn't it?

Things like "liking" candidates are precisely the problem I have with democracy.

Things like "liking" candidates are precisely the problem I have with democracy.

Agreed. But you just had to beat me to the punch... You're pathetic.

:p

I think in Britain it's more a case of "dislike the least".

Same here in the US

Machiavelli said it was good to be feared by your people, best to be both loved and feared, and worst to only be loved. Of course this is a statement from hundreds of years ago, but it still applies in today's society effectively.

As with my preferred musicians, whether I think they would make a good friend is pretty low on my list of qualities when voting in elections. Given that most politicians in the UK are middle-aged family men I don't think they'd get along with a piss-head student.

What does it mean to "like" a candidate?


It means that one has accepted the fact that one's political system has no real opposing entities. The need for debate or meaningful decision making does not exist; the only "options" made available are essentially identical. All that's left to determine is which "candidate" is a more technically accurate match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformation_show) to the already chosen, embedded, and unalterable standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Politics#Development_of_the_two-party_system_in_the_United_States).

edit: The solution, of course, is to institute something actually resembling democracy. Multi-party proportional representation, wherein the standard is elected according to its conformance to the will of the electorate. Then, the particular "personality" that fills a particular office is irrelevant.

It is believable that the deeper intuitions that nature has developed in us over eons is a more accurate judge of character than the reason that we have developed over our short lifespan.

...the deeper intuitions that nature has developed in us over eons is a more accurate judge of character...

If you're OK with just doing what "nature" tells you.

If you're OK with just doing what "nature" tells you.

I think it is likely a universal trait (and a natural one at that) that humans are not OK with just doing what "nature" tells you.

I am just making an observation that there is no reason to dismiss those "gut-feelings" any more than our sight. The accuracy of both "senses" are born of the same evolutionary imperative.

I think it is likely a universal trait (and a natural one at that) that humans are not OK with just doing what "nature" tells you.


I've never been much of an optimist myself.


I am just making an observation that there is no reason to dismiss those "gut-feelings" any more than our sight. The accuracy of both "senses" are born of the same evolutionary imperative.

Considering that the species did most of its evolving long before anything resembling politics was even invented, I pretty sure that the results of the Iowa Primary will be of exceedingly little biological consequence.

Considering that the species did most of its evolving long before anything resembling politics was even invented, I pretty sure that the results of the Iowa Primary will be of exceedingly little biological consequence.

That doesn't follow.

'Liking' the candidate's personality is quite frankly irrelevant, as a likeable person can be an idiot. I should like the moral and intellectual soundness of his thinking instead. Unfortunately, ascertaining this is almost impossible; with rational ignorance, rent-seeking, and the burying of a candidate's personal qualities under party platforms, politics is dominated by those who seek only instant gratification through a politician's nice smile and insipid party slogans, since they can't be bothered to actually look into what exactly they're voting for.

That doesn't follow.

The probability that I am misunderstanding you is exceedingly high.

The probability that I am misunderstanding you is exceedingly high.

The probability that this line of discussion is branching away from the original topic is also exceedingly high.

In our make-up as social animals we are required to discern between those who are likely to be reciprocal in their social behavior or have a high probability of sharing our genes. All those who were not able to aptly discern between those who will reciprocate social behavior and those who will simply exploit social behavior would suffer and the frequency of social behavior would decrease. Since we still exist as social creatures, we can assume that our ability for discernment is very accurate, just as we can trust the accuracy of our sight in allowing us to still exist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Now, I have a diminished view of human reason, but I would imagine that these natural tendencies to favor certain traits (triggers that would cause us to subconsciously expect reciprocity or shared genes) are more decisive than any rational considerations of quality, and that they permeate through all social institutions, regardless of when they arose.

-snip-

I hope you don't mind my interjection, but I think this demonstrates what I was saying earlier about political machinery. Personal interaction would allow for the procurement of higher quality information (information being a scarce quantity), as the individual in question would be readily accessible and we have a wealth of direct interactions with them.

In a system where information concerning the individual candidate is obscured through a general party platform that de-emphasizes the individual candidate, or the information is filtered by the political machinery that serves as the conveyor of information about the candidate, the chance for reciprocity is drastically reduced. If we use the prisoner's dilemma as an example, essentially we are told that the candidate is colluding and is likely to collude when in actual fact they are competing and are likely to compete.

Since we still exist as social creatures, we can assume that our ability for discernment is very accurate, just as we can trust the accuracy of our sight in allowing us to still exist.


We might still exist as social creatures, but I would argue that this social behavior is highly dysfunctional. This is why I distrust this "gut feeling." If contemporary political, economic, and other institutions are what passes for "social," I feel compelled to conclude that our natural facility for "[discerning] between those who are likely to be reciprocal in their social behavior" is actually rather poor (or has at least become so as the species has further and further distanced itself from the "natural" state).

People are relying too much on their poor (or ruined) "gut feeling" and not thinking about what they are actually doing.

In a system where information concerning the individual candidate is obscured through a general party platform that de-emphasizes the individual candidate...


Is not the problem actually the exact opposite? That information (platforms, values, ideas, positions) is being obscured by the media circus over whether Candidate X's shoulders are broad enough?

We might still exist as social creatures, but I would argue that this social behavior is highly dysfunctional. This is why I distrust this "gut feeling." If contemporary political, economic, and other institutions are what passes for "social," I feel compelled to conclude that our natural facility for "[discerning] between those who are likely to be reciprocal in their social behavior" is actually rather poor (or has at least become so as the species has further and further distanced itself from the "natural" state).

People are relying too much on their poor (or ruined) "gut feeling" and not thinking about what they are actually doing.

Well, I guess it could go the other way, where those who will be most successful are those that are the most capable at manipulating our intuitions, but it is likely harder to be an deceptive exploiter than to be a genuine cooperator.

That gets into what Venndee is talking about with more personal interaction needed in order to give voters a chance to gather high quality information. It is quite apparent that the majority of voters are satisfied, or at least not so dissatisfied as to lose their complacency.

It is believable that the deeper intuitions that nature has developed in us over eons is a more accurate judge of character than the reason that we have developed over our short lifespan.

What of it?

If we accept this line of reasoning, we might conclude that it makes more sense to trust our instincts over our reason in ordinary social interactions.

It does not follow that those same instincts will serve us in selecting the right person to lead. The qualities that we might instinctively recognize as good in (say) a potential friend are not necessarily the ones that are good in a politician.

It does not follow that those same instincts will serve us in selecting the right person to lead. The qualities that we might instinctively recognize as good in (say) a potential friend are not necessarily the ones that are good in a politician.

It is true that character is not the sole determinant of a good leader.

Well, I guess it could go the other way, where those who will be most successful are those that are the most capable at manipulating our intuitions, but it is likely harder to be an deceptive exploiter than to be a genuine cooperator.


On the contrary, it would be extremely easy for the occasional individual to deceive and exploit if everyone else is normally inclined to "cooperate." This may be why those who own and control the political, economic, and other social institutions are relatively few while the majority constituting the rest are complacent.

In this case, the "gut feeling" enables deception and exploitation, rather than protecting against them. This occurs to me as the likely case, having quickly skimmed that link on biological altruism. Our current social organization, which largely consists of complacency toward deception and exploitation, may be undesirable at the individual level, but at the group level the human species is six and a half billion strong and growing.

Of course the average voter is complacent. The species has never done better.

edit: a political/social revolutionary, then, is one of the occasional individuals who uses their ability to counter "gut feeling" against the deceivers and exploiters by revealing said deception and exploitation. Why go against? Perhaps a preference for reason?

It is true that character is not the sole determinant of a good leader.

Not only that... but what kind of character?

The sort of character we tend to value in friends is not, at least in some respects, the kind of character we (should) value in leaders. We expect partiality from friends, but should demand impartiality from leaders.

Is not the problem actually the exact opposite? That information (platforms, values, ideas, positions) is being obscured by the media circus over whether Candidate X's shoulders are broad enough?

No. Political machinery developed as a means of disseminating information to a constituency where the candidate cannot interact personally. Because of his lack of direct interaction, moral integrity and intelligence are no longer assets; instead, the candidate must gain the favor of the components of the political machine, i.e. a group of particular interests, in order to have a chance at election. So we see a decline in personal virtue and an increase in slavish obedience to the political platform that has been codified by particular interests.

And, seeing as how the voter has little effect on the outcome of the election and even less in controlling the actions of the person in office (since there is so much he can do outside of the public's eye), we see voters who are too focused on instant gratification to bother with seeing past the party line, or who pinch their noses as they cast their vote for the scummy candidate of their preferred party.

As for the 'pretty boy' element of politics, it is a distressing symptom of an even greater level of present-orientation of the mob, but does not show that party loyalty clarifies personal virtue. The political machine will simply choose a pretty boy to push their agenda over an ugly dude, and will make their political platform even more egregious because of the self-imposed distraction of the masses. By extension, since the platform does not need to be as clear, the personal virtue of the candidate may safely be obfuscated further, since it becomes even less relevant in the eye's of the public due to the media circus.

I'd rather have a leader I respect than one I like. Unfortunately, for the past few years, we've had neither.

The more invasive and pervasive communication media have become, the more "electability" and "likeability" have come into play in politics. Some Presidents regarded among the best weren't sparkling personalities. Many of the best bosses/administrators I've ever had weren't particuarly likeable.

Richard Nixon was about as personable as a flaming boil and was elected twice because of his experience. The national political climate in which he made his successful bids helped -- given that his first bid against Kennedy showed that likeability meant being telegenic, and he was most certainly not that. By his second run in 1968, he was seen as a candidate with experience and a reminder of stability (a big deal considering the chaos in the late 60s) and "better times" under Eisenhower (who was President with Nixon as VP from 1952-60), and his "likeability" was not as big a factor as it was in 1960.

One more thing -- much has been made about W's likeability. I've read the phrase "he's somebody you'd want to have a beer with" a few times over the last seven years, and all I can think about, in a Lewis Black-like raging scream in my head is SO THE HELL WHAT? First of all, I can tell by LOOKING at Bush that the LAST place I'd EVER want to be is with him in a bar. Secondly, what the FUCK does that have to do with NOT screwing up the country or unilaterally deciding that democracy can be implemented like a casual Friday dress code policy at the office? EVERYwhere democracy has been tried and succeeded, it has been an evolutionary process -- so you can see where Bush has difficulty understanding how democracy grows, being opposed to the very notion of evolution in any form.

I don't want to have a damned BEER with my President. I'd rather he figure out how to help solve the nation's problems and not make an ass out of himself and my country in front of the world. I am distressed to discover that this has suddenly become too much to ask.

well there is no such thing as a "qualified leader", and i would kind of hope they weren't too intolerable to those they had to work directly with, but beyond that, yas, the only thing that makes diddly about them is what kind of policies will they actually support and are those the kinds of policies that will create the kinds of conditions i'd like to see in the kind of world i, and everyone else, has to live in.

almost none of us will ever know what kind of a person any of them REALLY are personally anyway. anyone who thinks they do, or that they can judge them from the kind of things we hear about them, between their spinmiesters and the sliming of their opponent's spinmiesters is deluding themselves.

even home life homilies written by supposed aquaintences, while possibly some sort of art, can't really be counted upon as representing anything other then the artistry of their authors.

the consiquent conditions created by their policies nearly everyone can observe though, not merely observe, but have to endure every time they go outside, or even, when extreme enough, as can and does happen, whether they choose to or not.

electing a representative, let's face it, the myth that anyone is going to in any real and meaningful sense represent your own personal uniquely individual feelings, inclinations and preferances, you, along with a few other hundred thousand or so, is just simply buying a pig in poke.

you almost might as well choose them by rolling dice for all we ever REALLY know about any of them, however nice of a person they are able to put on to act like when they think anyone is looking.

now an actual issue is another matter. at least you know what you're dealing with, or do if you've taken the trouble to learn something about how it actually works or otherwise can or might.

even if you live personally with someone all of your life, you never really KNOW them. the only one who can ever really know anyone is themselves.

=^^=
.../\...

In the United States, at least, political candidates and commentators alike sometimes emphasize the "likability" of a candidate as a factor affecting her/his electability. Analysts distinguish (not always clearly) "liking" a candidate from respecting or trusting her/him and so on.

What does it mean to "like" a candidate? Should we be able to state reasons for our likes and dislikes? Can one justify voting for a candidate because one "just likes" her/him, or does a responsible vote mean stepping back from such subjective judgments so that one might vote for the most qualified candidate despite not finding her/him "likable"?

This reminds me of the bullshit i used to hear about "having a brewski with Bush".
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13333283&postcount=48
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13332396&postcount=18
I'm in the rather unusual position of actually liking my governor right now (first time in fucking ages) because of what she's already accomplished before governorship and necessarily into governorship, and i've thought that it would be unfortunate for the typical stallings and bullshit involved with positions of power got to her too early. I like her because of her effectiveness and the sacrifice she made that caught everyones' eye in the first place, and how since she's gotten into office she's effectively shed most of the good-ol'-boy bullshit that's tainted my state for decades.
Admittedly, this isn't as broad a scope as the presidential considerations, but i ran across an article a day or two ago about what would ever make a better political consideration than her success so far.
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
That's not where i first read it, it's where i could find in a short search offhand.

One more thing -- much has been made about W's likeability. I've read the phrase "he's somebody you'd want to have a beer with" a few times over the last seven years, and all I can think about, in a Lewis Black-like raging scream in my head is SO THE HELL WHAT? First of all, I can tell by LOOKING at Bush that the LAST place I'd EVER want to be is with him in a bar. Secondly, what the FUCK does that have to do with NOT screwing up the country or unilaterally deciding that democracy can be implemented like a casual Friday dress code policy at the office? EVERYwhere democracy has been tried and succeeded, it has been an evolutionary process -- so you can see where Bush has difficulty understanding how democracy grows, being opposed to the very notion of evolution in any form.

I don't want to have a damned BEER with my President. I'd rather he figure out how to help solve the nation's problems and not make an ass out of himself and my country in front of the world. I am distressed to discover that this has suddenly become too much to ask.

Hear, hear!

But it might be asked why Rudy creeps you out. Which came first: the Dorian Gray picture of Rudy, or Rudy's lousy political policies and stances? Is it that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad person, or that you wouldn't vote for Rudy because you think he is a bad political leader?Eh, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance.

Like that beer question I've been harping on -- that came from an actual opinion poll during the 2004 campaigns. People said they'd rather go out for beers with Bush than with Kerry because Kerry didn't look like he'd be any fun to get drunk with. Now, granted, I'm sure it was an endless laff riot to watch Bush stumble about drunk, and I do kind of doubt that a drunk Kerry would be any more fun than a sober one, but why would anybody even think to ask such a question, let alone answer it? Are we really picking our presidents based on how much we'd like to see them drunk?A thought occurred to me .... seeing Bush drunk ... knowing he can't handle pretzels/Segways/bramble/speech/doorhandles/bikes/truth ... knowing he was a cheerleader .... knowing he had a snort problem ... knowing he was/is willing to go too far to impress all the wrong sorts of people ...
... i think you get my drift. Bukkake is next on his to-do list. :p

I would support a ruler I can respect for their judgement and committment to doing what the situation demands of them. Wether or not I like them is unimportant. Also wether or not I "support" their policies is secondary, in my view. If they can exercie good judgement and will do what will benefit the nation, without worrying about their ratings or how good it will appear in the headlines.

"Give me what I need, not what I want"

No, it shouldn't be important, but unfortunately I think it is to a bigger extent than we think.

I'd say that if somebody represents an ideology I support, it'd be pretty hard to dislike him/her anyway, but if I did, I'd still vote for them because I know they'd do what's best for my country. :)

In the United States, at least, political candidates and commentators alike sometimes emphasize the "likability" of a candidate as a factor affecting her/his electability. Analysts distinguish (not always clearly) "liking" a candidate from respecting or trusting her/him and so on.

What does it mean to "like" a candidate? Should we be able to state reasons for our likes and dislikes? Can one justify voting for a candidate because one "just likes" her/him, or does a responsible vote mean stepping back from such subjective judgments so that one might vote for the most qualified candidate despite not finding her/him "likable"?

Absolutely one should be able to give reasons for why they dislike a candidate. If all you can say about a candidate is "I don't know why, they just... ugh!" then you don't know enough to vote against him.

And like/dislike is a fine starting point.

I don't like Gulliani. After watching him as mayor of NYC I observe that he is a egotistical arrogant bully.

This is a problem in a leader because such people refuse to consider the positions, needs, and opinions of others. A certain kind of person thinks that this is "strength." Such people are morons.

If he wasn't so arrogant he might have listened to advisers who told him that he should put the terrorism response center underground in Brooklyn instead of the World Trade Center. He wouldn't have thought that his unwillingness to provide firefighters with updated equipment should have been compensated for by harder work on the part of the firefighters. Perhaps he wouldn't have used the NYC to help him have an affair with his mistress on the taxpayers dime.

All of this starts with my realizing that I don't like him. Then I have to see why.

But then again, I disliked John Kerry when I saw that he was a dull Frankenstein Monster looking character. Then I listened to his positions and realized that my dislike was based on trivial things. Of course, that dislike was still more substantial than those whose dislike is based on Karl Rove propaganda.

On the contrary, it would be extremely easy for the occasional individual to deceive and exploit if everyone else is normally inclined to "cooperate."

It is an essential of sociobiology that the cooperators, the altruists, are at least relatively (relative to the abilities of potential deceivers) difficult to deceive, and that when they discover that they have been deceived that they retaliate.

This is the Tit-for-Tat concept, reciprocity both positive and negative.

I say yes BECAUSE:

1) It is nearly impossible to run a country smoothly when nobody likes you
2) To like someone's policies IS to like the candidate in my opinion (so the options seem pretty biased)

It is an essential of sociobiology that the cooperators, the altruists, are at least relatively (relative to the abilities of potential deceivers) difficult to deceive, and that when they discover that they have been deceived that they retaliate.

This is the Tit-for-Tat concept, reciprocity both positive and negative.
I don't intend to get into this little sideshow of yours, but I would like to point out that those senses that sort out the benefits and dangers of the world to guide our instinctive responses to things, which senses were evolved by nature and have been key to our survival for so long (the ones you started out by mentioning), are actually dependent upon one sense to an enormous degree. That sense is smell. It's true. We do not have the olfactory senses of a dog, but biologists and neurologists agree that smell plays an overwhelmingly important role in guiding us through our lives, forming our memories, emotional responses, and positive or negative reactions to stimuli.

So, frankly, unless you can get close enough to a candidate to smell him, your gut reactions don't mean jack.

One more thing -- much has been made about W's likeability. I've read the phrase "he's somebody you'd want to have a beer with" a few times over the last seven years, and all I can think about, in a Lewis Black-like raging scream in my head is SO THE HELL WHAT? First of all, I can tell by LOOKING at Bush that the LAST place I'd EVER want to be is with him in a bar. Secondly, what the FUCK does that have to do with NOT screwing up the country or unilaterally deciding that democracy can be implemented like a casual Friday dress code policy at the office? EVERYwhere democracy has been tried and succeeded, it has been an evolutionary process -- so you can see where Bush has difficulty understanding how democracy grows, being opposed to the very notion of evolution in any form.

I don't want to have a damned BEER with my President. I'd rather he figure out how to help solve the nation's problems and not make an ass out of himself and my country in front of the world. I am distressed to discover that this has suddenly become too much to ask.

/thread

I wonder, if you sent that to Lewis Black, would he use it?

I don't intend to get into this little sideshow of yours, but I would like to point out that those senses that sort out the benefits and dangers of the world to guide our instinctive responses to things, which senses were evolved by nature and have been key to our survival for so long (the ones you started out by mentioning), are actually dependent upon one sense to an enormous degree. That sense is smell. It's true. We do not have the olfactory senses of a dog, but biologists and neurologists agree that smell plays an overwhelmingly important role in guiding us through our lives, forming our memories, emotional responses, and positive or negative reactions to stimuli.

So, frankly, unless you can get close enough to a candidate to smell him, your gut reactions don't mean jack.

I am aware of the importance smell plays in our emotions and memory, but I find it hard to believe that it is of any primacy when it comes to social behavior. It would seem much more plausible that recognition of facial expressions and voice inflection that tend to give away intent (as we possess an ability very early on to discern intent and realize what is a mistake and what is not) along with various mental structures like a universal grammar or moral code.

Do you not get gut-feelings about the posters on NS just from the tendencies that they display in their posts?

Do you not get gut-feelings about the posters on NS just from the tendencies that they display in their posts?

Do you really think those are accurate?

Do you really think those are accurate?

I was simply making a point that smell is not all that important to the feelings I am talking about.

As I said, it is the human ability to recognize implicit intent that is important here, and that is not perceived very well through smell or through text on a computer screen.

If you are asking whether I think my intuitions about whether a person is apt to be friendly, peaceful, trustworthy, or consistent, yes I do trust them to be accurate.

I was simply making a point that smell is not all that important to the feelings I am talking about.

But whatever the specifics of smell, it remains true that any social interaction with politicians on the part of ordinary people is going to be very mediate, and it's in the interests and within the capacity of politicians to manipulate it to their advantage.

While we might not literally need to smell them, seeing someone periodically on television and spending an extended period of time with them in a face-to-face conversation are not analogous... not that such a conversation can't be manipulated as well.

I took your reference to NS to be an attempt to support your case that even very limited interaction can transmit valuable information about a person's character.

I am aware of the importance smell plays in our emotions and memory, but I find it hard to believe that it is of any primacy when it comes to social behavior. It would seem much more plausible that recognition of facial expressions and voice inflection that tend to give away intent (as we possess an ability very early on to discern intent and realize what is a mistake and what is not) along with various mental structures like a universal grammar or moral code.

Do you not get gut-feelings about the posters on NS just from the tendencies that they display in their posts?
As Soheran has already explained, the main point to keep in mind is that, without information gained and analyzed by reason, you can have no way of knowing whether your gut-feelings are accurate or not. So to rely on them primarily when making decisions about who to vote for is foolish.

Also, in regards to whether I get gut-feelings about posters on NS just from what I read in their posts, no, not really, I don't. Maybe it's because none of you seems real to me, just a bunch of letters floating across my monitor screen. Or maybe it's because my reasoning reminds me that I don't really know jack-shit about you, and so it would be stupid of me to decide what kinds of people you are based only on what I read here. I might say I like poster X and dislike poster Y, or that poster A is smart and reasonable, while poster B is a troll, but all I'm really talking about is their posts/posting history. All I'm talking about is what they present on NSG. I cannot bring myself to pretend it has any bearing on anything beyond that. (EDIT: heheh, or maybe it's because I can't smell you.)

But even if I could, even if it were not stupid to rely on gut-feelings generated on little to no actual information or experience of a person, and even if those gut-feelings were accurate, answer me this: Do they matter?

For example, let's say that, based just on your posts in this thread and on your response to my post about smell in particular, I developed a gut-feeling that you might be a literal-minded bore with no sense of humor. And let's pretend, just for the sake of this point, that this turned out to be true. So what? Would the simple fact that it turns out that in real life you really are someone I wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator with for 12 hours, just like my gut told me, have any bearing whatsoever on whether you are qualified and competent to do whatever it is you do in life?

No, it would not.

In the same way, whether I get a gut-feeling that a candidate is someone I would not like personally is completely immaterial to whether he is the best person for the office or not.

Remember, we are talking about personal liking or disliking based on nothing but superficial observations of public appearances. We are not talking about looking at a politician's history and getting a gut-feeling that he might be corrupt based on what we see in his voting record and fundraising record.

/thread

I wonder, if you sent that to Lewis Black, would he use it?

Most kind of you.

From what I've understood of his creative process, I don't think he solicits ideas from random fans...and I am a big fan.

Most kind of you.

From what I've understood of his creative process, I don't think he solicits ideas from random fans...and I am a big fan.

Yeah, I know in reality that's unlikely.

As Soheran has already explained, the main point to keep in mind is that, without information gained and analyzed by reason, you can have no way of knowing whether your gut-feelings are accurate or not. So to rely on them primarily when making decisions about who to vote for is foolish.

How does one apply reason to the question of whether someone will be consistent and fair when given their new powers?

How does one apply reason to the question of whether someone is being honest about their opinions and promises of future policies?

But even if I could, even if it were not stupid to rely on gut-feelings generated on little to no actual information or experience of a person, and even if those gut-feelings were accurate, answer me this: Do they matter?

I have never stated that it is preferable "to rely on gut-feelings generated on little to no actual information or experience of a person", rather I have stated that little or no information is unlikely to generate any sort of reliable intuition, and that it is necessary to have a greater level of personal interaction with the individuals who wish to lead.

For example, let's say that, based just on your posts in this thread and on your response to my post about smell in particular, I developed a gut-feeling that you might be a literal-minded bore with no sense of humor. And let's pretend, just for the sake of this point, that this turned out to be true. So what? Would the simple fact that it turns out that in real life you really are someone I wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator with for 12 hours, just like my gut told me, have any bearing whatsoever on whether you are qualified and competent to do whatever it is you do in life?

Whether or not someone is a "literal-minded bore" is far more a rational inference with no value whatsoever than the intuitions that I am referring to.

Now if you can say from my posts that I am honest, well-meaning, and trustworthy, that would be more near the valuable intuitions that I am actually referring to.

But whatever the specifics of smell, it remains true that any social interaction with politicians on the part of ordinary people is going to be very mediate, and it's in the interests and within the capacity of politicians to manipulate it to their advantage.

While we might not literally need to smell them, seeing someone periodically on television and spending an extended period of time with them in a face-to-face conversation are not analogous... not that such a conversation can't be manipulated as well.

This is all true, but these gut reactions to politicians are going to happen, and with appropriate attention paid by the voter, they can be accurate.

How does one apply reason to the question of whether someone will be consistent and fair when given their new powers?

How does one apply reason to the question of whether someone is being honest about their opinions and promises of future policies?



I have never stated that it is preferable "to rely on gut-feelings generated on little to no actual information or experience of a person", rather I have stated that little or no information is unlikely to generate any sort of reliable intuition, and that it is necessary to have a greater level of personal interaction with the individuals who wish to lead.



Whether or not someone is a "literal-minded bore" is far more a rational inference with no value whatsoever than the intuitions that I am referring to.

Now if you can say from my posts that I am honest, well-meaning, and trustworthy, that would be more near the valuable intuitions that I am actually referring to.
Except, of course, that my superficial observations of your NSG posts do not engender such an instinctive feeling about you. :p Quite the opposite, in fact.

And even if they did, because they are based on insufficient information and experience, they cannot be said to be accurate predictors of what you will actually be like or do. Ergo, gut-feelings are not reliable guides in judging whether someone should be selected to do a particular job. Now, if I were to follow my gut-feelings right now, I would expect you to pretend not to be able to grasp that but insist on repeating your own original point as if repetition were explanation (while cherrypicking which kinds of feelings you will allow to be "gut-feelings"), and I would have a gut-feeling that it is because you are, in fact, not paying the slightest attention to what anyone other than you is actually saying.

But that would just be my opinion of you based solely on my personal gut-feeling reactions to your NSG posts. It would be ridiculous of me to assume this is an accurate picture of your real personality. Just like it would be ridiculous of me to assume that because a candidate seems like a nice, sincere person on tv, that means he would make a good president.

This is all true, but these gut reactions to politicians are going to happen, and with appropriate attention paid by the voter, they can be accurate.
I think you may be contradicting your entire argument. You've been saying that our gut-feelings are reliable and can be used as guides, and may be more reliable than reason. Now you are saying that they might turn out to be accurate, if the voter pays "appropriate attention." Appropriate attention to what, pray tell? If the voter can rely on them, why does he have to pay appropriate attention and wait to find out if they turn out to be accurate? What will he compare them to to find out if they are accurate? Could it be (oh, perish the thought) information gained and analyzed by reasoning?

And even if they did, because they are based on insufficient information and experience, they cannot be said to be accurate predictors of what you will actually be like or do. Ergo, gut-feelings are not reliable guides in judging whether someone should be selected to do a particular job. Now, if I were to follow my gut-feelings right now, I would expect you to pretend not to be able to grasp that but insist on repeating your own original point as if repetition were explanation (while cherrypicking which kinds of feelings you will allow to be "gut-feelings"), and I would have a gut-feeling that it is because you are, in fact, not paying the slightest attention to what anyone other than you is actually saying.

But that would just be my opinion of you based solely on my personal gut-feeling reactions to your NSG posts. It would be ridiculous of me to assume this is an accurate picture of your real personality. Just like it would be ridiculous of me to assume that because a candidate seems like a nice, sincere person on tv, that means he would make a good president.

You miscast the entire argument and this is why you accuse me of cherrypicking.

What we are referring to as reason would be inductions of the sort: he has done this, this, and this, so we can infer he will do this in the future. This reasoning is valuable, of course, if only for the fact that it is one of the tools that we must abide by as people. However, even taken with perfect information, there is nothing that makes the our inductive predictions true, and with every bit of partial information or changing situation the predictions become less reliable.

What I am referring to as intuition are the subtleties of human behavior that trigger in us our basic emotions: a nuance in verbiage, a particular value implicitly expressed, a tale-tale expression. These triggers are on one side likely to be valuable to us, as they are most likely formed concurrently and of the same source as our actual values that drive our reason. They are likely valuable on the other hand because evolutionary reasoning leads us to conclude that they have been valuable in the past. However, even taken with perfect information, there is nothing that makes the our intuitive predictions true, and with every bit of partial information or changing situation the predictions become less reliable.

Now the question is, what, other than vanity, causes one to presume that our inductions are more accurate than our intuitions?

Now you can continue (what seems to be hostile) replies which cast inductive reasonings as intuitions, accuse me of pretending not to grasp what is an extremely obvious and commonly held opinion, and miscast my arguments as saying that little to no experience can lead to accurate intuitions, but I won't respond.

I think you may be contradicting your entire argument. You've been saying that our gut-feelings are reliable and can be used as guides, and may be more reliable than reason. Now you are saying that they might turn out to be accurate, if the voter pays "appropriate attention." Appropriate attention to what, pray tell? If the voter can rely on them, why does he have to pay appropriate attention and wait to find out if they turn out to be accurate? What will he compare them to to find out if they are accurate? Could it be (oh, perish the thought) information gained and analyzed by reasoning?

No, it simply means that one should not go out and vote because of the tinkle in some candidates eye during a commercial.