tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5987825.post3762242676824408330..comments2008-09-04T13:36:32.631-04:00fourohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09953365403932374245noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5987825.post-2391354994013870052008-09-04T13:32:00.000-04:002008-09-04T13:32:00.000-04:00Mark,<BR/><BR/>It is an interesting concept about the emotional appeal of politicians through tabloid magazines. <BR/><BR/>I am reminded of a chapter from a book I read very recently called 'Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior' in which the authors discuss interviewing processes. After reviewing data on how employers go about interviewing people, most interviewers use the "blind date" method - which is based on asking questions such as "Where do you see yourself in five years?", "What are your strengths and weaknesses?", etc... Employers are less likely to actually find someone who fits their company or business. The researchers in this area have determined that the best method for interviewing a new employee is by using the "just the facts" method, which they have determined is approximately 6 times more likely to find an employee to fit your business (though not always guaranteed). The reason the "just the facts" method is rarely employed is because every interviewer thinks she or he can peer inside the mind of the interviewee using non-specific questions that warrant vague responses. These types of questions incidentally make it easier for the interviewee to tell the interviewer what he or she wants to hear. <BR/><BR/>Now apply this same idea to our two major party presidential candidates, neither of whom have really been asked "just the facts" and yet the U.S. populace would prefer a "blind date" with both candidates because it is entertaining, and surely when asked "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" we are sure to get a weakness that sounds more like a strength. This "blind date" method, could also be argued as a reason for putting third party candidates on the "fringe" - because they tend to talk more about the facts and do not entertain us. Think Ralph Nader, always talking about issues (and sometimes the major political parties corporate ties), he is not electrifying when he talks about the facts and cites sources. He is not Obama talking about grand plans with no detail, or McCain talking about defeating evil as though the concept of evil is black and white. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps we should be asking better questions of our politicians than simply "Do you pray?" but then again such questions are equally reflective of the U.S. populace, who seem to be more than willing to gobble these answers up. Perhaps the U.S. populace needs someone to frame questions to them such as "What are the long-term affects of simplicity (simplicity which could be argued as ignorance is bliss)?". Although I am sure there are no easy answers here in reference to how to get the U.S. population to examine critically their choices for president. Especially when they are told what they want to hear. <BR/><BR/>Interesting blog post!Julianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12409223758493721986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5987825.post-27756957589589075932008-09-03T13:14:00.000-04:002008-09-03T13:14:00.000-04:00Eeek. It's hard to convey what this looks like to us cheese-eating surrender monkeys in Europe. Beyond parody, way beyond!Johnniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08829929396539692949noreply@blogger.com