What you call "bizarre" has been the scientific standard for a century. The experiment is categorically worthless.
We also have a name for the phenomenon of people latching on to anything that confirms their priors, by the way.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump & Hillary Clinton gender swapped by NYU professors. Are surprised by results
- Thread starter 140.85
- Start date
- Status
What you call "bizarre" has been the scientific standard for a century. The experiment is categorically worthless.
We also have a name for the phenomenon of people latching on to anything that confirms their priors, by the way.
I think their performance is instructive as a possibility in breaking down the simplistic narratives that "Hillary lost because she was a woman", although the fact that it's not actually structured like an experiment makes its actual demonstrative impact pretty weak. Seems like this would be a great springboard for a more rigorous and blind test with other historic figures.
Pandora012
Member
Except that the majority of Americans that voted saw through it. What he did was get the votes that mattered.
Angelus Errare
Banned
On the grand stage I wonder who America would vote for. Despite the results of this experiment I put money on the guy.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Indeed. Although another confounding factor is establishing objective metrics for judging how faithfully the actors recreated the original performance.
It's not scientific, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value unless you want to deny that Humanities get at any truth whatsoever. Besides the bigger issue is the sample. The people that watched the performance are particularly non-representative and probably have a vastly different understanding of gender than most Americans.
Amerians voted for the woman in real life so that makes sense. I get what you are saying though and think that's somewhat relevant.
I think the bigger aspect that is missing here is how gender affected the subjectivity of both Trump and Clinton. Both would have almost certainly acted and spoken differently if they were of the opposite gender. That's the biggest single problem of genders. That's why a simple gender swap doesn't work, gender is both external and internal.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Color me...skeptical. I probably buy that if Clinton was a guy she would still seem stiff, but just because this audience was moved by a female Trump doesn't mean anything about how the audience that actually voted for Trump would react to such an outspoken, brash woman
To be quite frank, I don't think this is how you can evaluate it.
It would be bizarre to look only at the debates in isolation without the context of everything else, including Hillary Clinton's life and long struggle with public perception. Moreover, in the end, even though they are actors and are performing, the nature of Trump and of Hillary are tied too closely to them as persons rather than as performances.
Inevitably I think this will be used as an argument for why "Hillary Clinton sucks" per usualas evidenced in this thread. People love having excuses for why "it's not sexism".
It would be bizarre to look only at the debates in isolation without the context of everything else, including Hillary Clinton's life and long struggle with public perception. Moreover, in the end, even though they are actors and are performing, the nature of Trump and of Hillary are tied too closely to them as persons rather than as performances.
Inevitably I think this will be used as an argument for why "Hillary Clinton sucks" per usualas evidenced in this thread. People love having excuses for why "it's not sexism".
shnurgleton
Member
This is fascinating. Terrifying, but fascinating.
Anyone who says Trump has zero charisma was most likely blindsided about Trump's chance winning the primary. He displayed charisma while inflaming white people against non-whites. There has always existed a line where someone with charisma can cross into douchebag territory.
For Democrats he easily crossed into douchebag territory but if you paid any attention to Republican politics you could figure out why he had appeal and was attractive enough to become the populist candidate.
Glass Shark
Banned
I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because of her magical 12-dimensional humming techniques, I voted for her because of her policies and experience and because Donald Trump is a living, breathing pile of shit.
I would like to believe that even the people in this audience who looked at Brenda King and thought, "Oh, I see what people liked about her" still have the intelligence to not be sucked into mindless garbage and vote for the objectively better candidate.
I would like to believe that even the people in this audience who looked at Brenda King and thought, "Oh, I see what people liked about her" still have the intelligence to not be sucked into mindless garbage and vote for the objectively better candidate.
radios shipping overview
Member
Yeah, damn, that actress really sells it. She's intimidating, but she's way more likable than the orange blob himself. Meanwhile, the male actor is like a character from The Office or Parks & Rec.
No
She lost because the electoral college gives more power to white people without college degrees that are more than willing to fall for a blowhard that spews a bunch of racist excuses about why the good old days were better.
I H8 Memes
Member
I doubt you could put Trumps words onto anyone elses body and I would suddenly not think that this was the dumbest fucking person to ever run for President.
Sarcastic Poster
Member
Interesting but doesn't seem very scientific.
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean she won every debate and had one of the highest margins of victory cumulatively in recent President election history...
This idea that she sucked in the debates is revisionist history
The Greek Freak
Member
Clinton also wouldn't have been treated with such kid gloves during the primary if she was a man. You saw it during the debates, Sanders asking her to stop interrupting him was met with a Twitter clusterF about how he is somehow a sexism dirtbag, and then 40 articles the next day echoing those statements from the expected sources.
Also her entire career would have had a different trajectory if she was a man (for better or for worse).
There's a difference between
A. Looking great compared to a flaming Dumpster that was Trump.
B. Actually not sucking in the debates.
She was Jeb Bush level in the debates.
It isn't scientific. Things not being scientific is not necessarily a problem. This is an issue that science simply cannot get at after all.
Besides the fact that using revisionist history as an insult is both vapid and extremely problematic I think you'll find there is no received narrative of the election yet to revise.
I don't understand how conservatives can say trump has charisma. During the debates, he was saying things like "I'll bet you 50 thousand dollars that blah." If anu Democrat pulled that, they would be forever branded as out of touch, that 50k means nothing to them. He always came off like the asshole bully from school, except he never grew up and apologized for his actions
To me, I just see a bunch of assholes admiring an asshole.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
That rehearsal video. Hilary sounds like a fraud while Trump sounds like somebody pressing the phony to be truthful. What is happening.
But the point of the experiment wasn't to look at how election itself evolved. It was purposefully meant to look at gender norms within a specific context.
The scope is acceptable.
No
If this were the case Obama would have stood no chance.
Since basically Reagan the more "charismatic" candidate has won. Facts and sound policy can only get you so far. Clinton's personality couldn't get her over the top.
Unless I missed something, even though this was technically an academic pursuit, I don't believe anyone involved is claiming that it proves anything definitively or are viewing it as more than a fun experiment that yielded interesting results worth pursuing further. I don't think they are implying this is something worthy of being submitted to peer-reviewed journal or anything.
Sidewinder
Member
Voting for a vile, ignorant person like Trump just because he has some minor (at best) charisma going on and he's famous over a highly competent person, who actually has done something to make life better for many US people instead of screwing over the state and his contractors...wow.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Both of you missed the point. Trump won because the people who voted for him didn't believe his words had to stand up to critical analysis in order for him to be a viable choice to begin with.
Barrage
Member
I don't think this should be taken as any kind of signifier of why Hillary lost (the ultimate in limited sampling), but is interesting to think about.
The gender thing makes more sense when it comes to scandals. Due to America's puritanical attitude toward sexuality, any tape of a Female Trump saying "grab him by the dick" would absolutely destroy her career (because no Republican man would vote for a woman who would emasculate her husband like that).
The gender thing makes more sense when it comes to scandals. Due to America's puritanical attitude toward sexuality, any tape of a Female Trump saying "grab him by the dick" would absolutely destroy her career (because no Republican man would vote for a woman who would emasculate her husband like that).
Glass Shark
Banned
Okay? Those people are wrong and stupid.
You can win the debate without convincing people you were right. Those polls really didn't ask people if you would vote on a candidate based on these results. If they had I would now not be surprised if there was a lot of I don't know, which basically means I want to vote for the loser.
Maybe the fact that a young guy couldn't handle the gravitas and presence of an elder stateswoman, yet a young woman could convincingly pull off the demeanor of Trump proves that Clinton came off better than Trump.
I bet if you do the same experiment with 10 year-olds, child-Trump seems EVEN MORE reasonable than child-Clinton than compared with these 20-somethings. Is that a good thing?
I bet if you do the same experiment with 10 year-olds, child-Trump seems EVEN MORE reasonable than child-Clinton than compared with these 20-somethings. Is that a good thing?
teruterubozu
Member
It's like theater for academics or something.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Obama did really well with non-college whites (in certain strategically important geographic areas anyways)
Most people are stupid most of the time. That's the issue isn't it. You have to plan around it not ignore it.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
And according to the audience that was present, this staged performance may have helped understand those people's state of mind better. That's all.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Trump had a rhetorical gift that transcends gender according to the experiment.
It most certainly can.
For one, you need:
- a random sample
- assigned at random to the same gender-swapped script
- no additional contamination from previous experience, meaning a Hillary/Trump debate does not provide a proper experiment
This is all very much feasible. Similar studies are done every day in universities.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I mean look at his career up until now. He's a born salesman. He carried a tv show for several seasons, he bounces back in the business world no matter how many times he fucks up, he just won the presidency with 0 qualifications. He's a terrible human being, not particularly intelligent, he just has that scumbag salesman charisma, and thats all it takes.
excelsiorlef
Member
It is a literal fact that by basically all accountable measures she performed well in the debates and solidly beat him in all of them.
The debates were never the issue, they just didn't end up being enough in the end.
Earthbound64
Banned
So, in other words, faced with issues that were on Clinton's part, you chose to ignore the issues with Clinton and blame it on something else, despite the piece having found the exact opposite, and so not learning at all from the experience.
Fab.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Nah, Hillary comes off as cold and too ambitious. These are good qualities in men, not in women.
Her gender is an asset, but also still a major detractor. An unlikable female is much worse than an unlikable male.
radios shipping overview
Member
I understand that Trump has charisma that works on a lot of people, but I don't understand how a person can take one look at him and not be immediately repulsed on a primal, gut level.
This is also true. They've done a lot of studies on how seemingly minor verbal or facial tics can impact people's perceptions as well, so it'd be hard to get a "blank slate" of an actor in the first place to be sure that people weren't reacting to something outside their character as well.
Yeah, but the product he was selling was his character and policies, and I don't see the hook.
I H8 Memes
Member
The critical analysis of his words are he is too motherfucking stupid to be President.
No the real problem is that an extremely large amount of Americans are dumber than Trump. They are too motherfucking dumb to be able to see that Trump is too motherfucking dumb to be President. That is where the entirety of the issue begins and ends.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
We're not saying very different things.
Obliterator
Member
You may want to re-read the article because it's actually basically stating the opposite of this.
It's really just Trump was a better salesman
In general yes but I was talking about this election and more specifically about the debates. A man getting attacked the way Trump attacked Hillary and not retaliating or just turning the other cheek " when they go low we go high " would have lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of the voters. He would have looked weak and not " manly " enough. That's the truth.
Plus the cold/stoic approach with 0 charisma doesn't work anymore even for male politicians. Cite me one example since Kennedy. Television ruined every chance of a non-charismatic non-likeable politician of getting elected.
- Status