Posted on 03/06/2017 9:07:44 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
(Excerpt) Read more at nyu.edu ...
She unconsciously pukes up falsehoods ... probably doesn't even realize it. Is she actively lying, or merely so soaked in falsehood that she wouldn't recognize the truth?
And Hillary Clinton must be prosecuted.
Barack 0bama must be prosecuted.
It was Zero Mostel and the song was “If I Were A Rich Man.”
This is what it took for the lefties to notice how annoying Hillary’s constant smirks and how boring her canned answers written by someone else were. Hopefully, this taught some of them how much their views are shaped by their own biases and allowed them to listened to what Trump had to say without their hatred of him getting in the way. I’d watch the filmed version; I hope they finish it.
The stupid prof mistakes the weight of public theater over the facts. The facts are the Clinton’s are a public-trust deceiving private enterprise of buying and selling influence for their personal gain. “Government service” just happens to be their chosen venue for building that venture.
This is hilarious on so many levels! First, they are grasping at straws to find a clue. Second, they discovered their own biases and inability to have focused on the candidates’ messages instead of the symbolisms of their personalities. Third, they attribute sex (not gender, but sex) to have been a deciding factor, and this exercise made them understand that the deciding factor was, in fact, the content of the messages, including nonverbals like believability and ability to project power on the world stage.
That they needed to do this excercise at all in order to try to “understand” is an indictment of their educations and environments. Now they are going to try to analyze whether Trump’s signature body language can be replicated by progressives to give them a win, regardless of content!
Sad!
Well, since humans do not have “gender” but rather sex,
you guys are really improving...it took almost sixty posts this time before we got the obligatory ‘sex not gender’ admonition...
Nailed it—name calling instead of reason. Take your own advice.
Rush just finish talking about it. LOL!
No, I’ve been repeatedly and pompously assured that this topic was worthless, that can’t possibly be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.