Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Democrats Government Republicans Software United States News Politics Technology

AI Platform Assesses Trump's and Clinton's Emotional Intelligence (fastcompany.com) 184

FastCompany got an exclusive look at how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stacked up in terms of their emotional intelligence when analyzed by HireVue's artificial intelligence platform. The platform analyzes "video, audio, and language patterns to determine emotional intelligence and sentiment." The company also partnered with Affectiva for facial analysis "to measure the candidate's emotional engagement correlated down to the micro-expressions level." FastCompany reports the findings: Trump versus Clinton across all three debates. Here we see the range of emotions both candidates showed during all three debates. Clinton seemed to dominate the top-right area, which represented both "joy" and facial expressions like smiles and smirks. Conversely, Trump had a stronghold on the "sadness," "disgust," and "fear" quadrants, along with both "negative sentiment" and "negative valence." The third debate. Looking more closely at just this week's debate, negativity prevailed. Both candidates exhibited disgust during the 90-minute spectacle. Trump, however, seemed to dominate the strongest emotions with heightened scores for "fear," "contempt," and "negative sentiment." Clinton, according to the data, presented the only positive emotional elements, which included some "joy" and "smiles." Clinton's performance. Clinton's range of emotions and reactions seemed pretty consistent throughout all three debates, although she exhibited the most positive emotions during the second. What's more, according to the graph, she was most negative during this week's debate. Trump's performance. Similar to Clinton, Trump's range of emotions seemed relatively consistent throughout the three debates. The third one, however, was when he emoted the most negatively. He smirked a lot during this event, too. "Negative sentiment," "contempt," and "anger" were persistent throughout all three conversations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AI Platform Assesses Trump's and Clinton's Emotional Intelligence

Comments Filter:
  • I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
    1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump.
    2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin.
    3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably.
    Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers,
    • by BeauHD ( 4450103 ) Works for Slashdot
      You haven't heard? The election is rigged. Trump is purposely throwing the election to get Hillary elected.
      • I think Trump is purposely throwing the election in order to cry foul, spew outrage, and sell his memoirs.

        • He wants a new reality TV show. Presidential Apprentice. His tag line will be "You're impeached!"

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Proof of that rigging came with the latest claim from the corrupt current administration. Real typical misinformation stuff http://time.com/4539904/fake-v... [time.com]. Why that story because the US administration is going to hack the election and they wanted to pump out some propaganda about Russian hackers in case they fuck anything up and it is exposed. That's what the bullshit polls are all about as well, main stream media in collusion with the US administration, trying the create the public image of who should w

        • You should back down to double shots. Those quads and triples are really starting to affect you.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            I am not the one who needs to drink to get past all those headaches, good luck with that ;D.

    • by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:53PM (#53127535)

      I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following: 1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump. 2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin. 3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably. Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers, he would have been better off for it. After watching this event live, Trump seems like a candidate that's trying to lose.

      Eh? I'm not so sure I agree with that sentiment. Clinton definitely won the first debate, I mean, that was what sent Trump into his massive death spiral. Before, they'd actually been approaching ~ neck and neck, and her bringing up the Miss Universe model was particularly effective. The second debate was also a clear Clinton victory; she consistently dominated throughout, and once again, Trump completely spiraled out of control both during and afterwards. The third one I'd actually say was a Trump "victory", in that it was by far his best performance and her worst, but he really screwed it up by showing he has the emotional maturity of a preschooler by refusing to respect the people's wishes. The dinner, in contrast, hasn't really had time yet to show any results, and while I think he acted in a manner unbecoming of a president, he's been this way since the start of his campaign. Do you rememher him nicknaming all of his Republican competitors? He spouted a lot of very similar rhetoric that he now uses against Clinton, and if the dinner surprised you on that front, well, I think you're wishful overlooking his personality.

      Now, those were measurements based on their ratings afterward. If we're measuring this like a traditional debate, where you say who won by providing the best support for their case, then Clinton blew Trump away on every point. She's been very consistent with providing her policies and has actually done a very good job of showing what she's intend to do as president. Whether she'll manage to fulfill it or not, we'll see, but I have no doubt what her intentions are. Trump, on the other hand, rambles off on irrelevant tangents and has to bullshot his way through every question because he has no idea about anything related to being a pesident, has an uncontrollable tendency to exaggerate and even spout straight up lies, and can't make up his mind on any issue. I mean, how often has he changed his policy on immigration? How often did he run his mouth off about Mr. Obama despite the birth certificate having been available for years? His basic honesty and truthfulness are non-existant, he has some extremely shady ties that he refuses to speak at all of, and his well documented history of business goes against literally everything he says he stands for. A man who has a history of exploiting his workers, outsourcing all of his labor unessecarily because it's slightly cheaper, and hides his failures and debt should say a lot about that person, and exactly what he would do as president. Not once during any of the debates has he even tried to address any one of these issues, and indeed, he's really magnified them and exposed who he truly is. The only thing left is to see who the United States wants to characterize itself as.

      • A good way to judge a debate is how well you swayed the audience to change their opinions. Trump did a good job of keeping is staunch supporters happy, but I don't think he made even one undecided voter switch to his side. Clinton probably got many voters to switch to her side.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      For the record, I'll probably vote Clinton but I'll feel sick about it.

      I score the debates as follows:

      1. Clinton won. Trump's lack of prep showed.
      2. Trump won decisively. Definitely caught her with that "because you'd be in jail" comment.
      3. Trump lost. He failed to maintain composure, and resorted to interruptions. It seemed like he couldn't control himself.

      The debates didn't do much to change my mind. It's a shame Sanders didn't get the nomination. His ideas were "pie in the sky", but IMHO he's

    • I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:

      Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.
      A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.
      Trump spent all three interrupting claiming Hillary was wrong, when he was wrong by nearly a factor of 10 to 1. He presented no solid justification to anything, just simple catchphrase "I'll make America great!" That is not debating.

      I'm no Hi

      • Not sure what your experience is in debating, but Trump lost all three massively because he failed to construct an argument at any point.

        Hint: These aren't debates in the usual sense of the word. These are Reality TV infomercials for the D & R candidates. A real debate would ask both candidates what they believe on question 1. Candidate A would give their answer, and Candidate B would give their answer. If they disagreed, Candidate A would get a response, followed by Candidate B. Next question would start with question 2 starting with Candidate B, and so on. You'd have questions about policy issues, not "Have you stopped beating your wi

        • Instead what we get are pissing wars where everyone gets wet. I think Trump is a doofus, that doesn't mean that he didn't perform better in these Reality TV episodes.

          Based on previous debates, each party had a chance to at least get their point across relatively uninterrupted, even if it was full of shit. Trump spent all three debates moaning like the man baby he is, and for that reason he loses by default. The simple lack of self control, to participate in an adult conversation is an automatic loss. And he never once presented data, it was entirely slogans. Say what you like about Hillary, she at least knows the subject matter quite well.

          But I agree Trump is the bett

      • A debate is not just a popularity contest, it's supposed to be a presentation of ideas with justifications and counter arguments.

        No it isn't.

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      I can sum up my opinion on Trump in all three debates in a single word; "Wrong".
      He's been a obnoxious, disgraceful, braggadocious and vacuous charlatan, but he sums himself up best every single time he says "Wrong".
      I sincerely hope whoever ends up in power takes the opportunity to get rid of this bi-partisan clusterfuck (or should that be "pairfuck") mislabeled "democracy".

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If Hillary Clinton is smiling, be afraid.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWdansF5sLY

  • by srmalloy ( 263556 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:03PM (#53127291) Homepage

    The correct article is here [fastcompany.com].

  • Should be this one [fastcompany.com]
  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:05PM (#53127313) Homepage Journal

    Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.

    That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.

    Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?

    Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").

    This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.

    Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.

    If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

    If you want change, vote for Trump.

    • by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:28PM (#53127419)

      The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton. He may promise to "dry up the swamps" and that may be a nice goal by itself, but he has proven that he's changing his positions more than any of the "all talk no action" politicans. For example, look at the primaries, where he switched his positions about abortion: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

      So yes, maybe Trump will change America, but you can't be sure at all into which direction he will change it. And even when he becomes president, the only people who will help him are probably the republicans, and they will only let through laws that follow the republican party line, which is far less progressive than the democratic one.

      Clinton may be corrupt, yes, but her proposed policies are much better than anything trump has proposed outside of feelgood promises like "we will replace it with something much better that I can tell you".

      • The problem is [...]

        And none of that matters. You can try to spin this Clinton's way or Trump's way, but that's just partisanship.

        The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".

        It's not one-sided, your candidate is not the best choice in all cases, stop trying to make her seem best for all people. Address the *issues*, not your wild guess of what their actions might be in some hypothetical situation.

        Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

        Tell us why her policies are better tha

        • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @10:29PM (#53127783) Journal

          Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

          Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.

          Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits? The policy papers on his website read like one of those sample Powerpoint presentations written in Latin. And all he has to say for himself is that whatever he's going to do, it'll be, "tremendous". Since I've had four years of high school Latin, I happen to know the root of the word, "tremendous" and let me tell you, it's a disgrace, believe me. Sad!

          Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi. If you go to his website, not even that is real. He's got a ticker running across the top showing donations "in real time" and it turns out that it's just a loop that was put up weeks ago and if you look at the code for his site, it's a script that calls an XML file named, "Sample_donations". He's a fucking Potempkin village in a fright wig. He's a creation of the media and not one thing more.

          http://theconcourse.deadspin.c... [deadspin.com]

          http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

          [Note: since the story broke, the Trump campaign has taken down the phony ticker widget.]

          • Both candidates have specific, well-laid-out proposals which anyone can find.

            Yes, except Trump's proposals are all to women he's trying to feel up.

            Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?

            Is this discussion about *me*? (*BLUSH*)

            Trump is a fraud of a fake of a fugazi [...]

            Ah, I see it now. You want me to do all the work, just so you can throw an insult in response.

            Here you go, Latin lover: "Salus populi suprema lex esto".

            And no, I didn't look that up.

            • I'll ask the question again:

              Do you know Trump's well-laid-out plan for international trade? Do you know his well-though-out plan for dealing with the deficit? Can you name a single bit of legislation that Trump said he would push besides term limits?

              If you could have answered any of those questions, if you could have made the case you would have. Trump would have. You didn't and he hasn't and that's why we're where we're at.

        • The only issue of note is "change" versus "stay the course".

          That's just facile.

          There's more or less one way to stay the course. There are infinite ways of changing.

          Would you support repealing the first amendment? That's change.

      • This :

        Clinton may be corrupt

        In combination with this:

        The problem is that Trump is far less predictable than Clinton.

        implies that you part of the camp of those who think she'll stay bought once she is paid. But she is not. She will pursue her own agenda even after taking the bribes. Kadafi settled his debts with the victims of terrorist acts. He gave up his WMD research. He negotiated with the US to become a legitimate state actor in good faith. But, as we know now, it was Clinton who insisted on the strategy of removing him. Which betrays her personality as that of an opportunist ra

    • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:28PM (#53127421)

      If you want "change", you need to know what kind of change. Some changes would be good, some would be worse than the status quo.

      The problem with Trump is that he's fighting the last war. Much of the public is afraid because their lively-hoods are in peril. Trump says it's because of immigrants and government corruption. That's no longer the case; it's actually because technology and automation will be putting most jobs on the entire planet in jeopardy within the next few decades.

      Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully dealt with since the 18th century: We've always been a nation with "unsavory" immigration and corrupt politicians, and somehow we've muddled through and even thrived. The actual root cause of the current public angst is an elephant in the room that NO politicians are talking about, even ones from the fringe parites.

      So while the status quo isn't ideal, it's better than Trump's disruptive ham-handed proposals which would solve nothing. (And it doesn't help that he's an unhinged megalomaniac on top of it all.)

      • by Anonymous Coward

        > it's actually because technology and automation will be putting most jobs on the entire planet in jeopardy within the next few decades.

        In inflation adjusted dollars, US manufacturing output is up 250% since NAFTA was ratified under Bush and implemented under Bill Clinton. But manufacturing employment is down about 20%. The absolute bottom of the barrel jobs went to mexico (and then a decade later they moved on to china) but all the good jobs? They were automated away.

        But you know what's really gonn

        • The Rust Belt in particular began its decline decades ago. You might as well blame Carter and Reagan if you're looking for targets. And what exactly would killing NAFTA do, other than hike prices massively, screwing over consumers. If you're going to attack any trade relationship, get general agreement with the NAFTA and EU countries to nail China's balls to the wall for its cheap steal.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            to nail China's balls to the wall

            That's what the TPP was supposed to be about. However it hands out sweet deals to other nations (deals that hurt the USA) while carrying later added malware that inflicts US I.P. law on those other nations and pisses them off, so it barely encourages those other countries despite the cost. It also relies on China standing still for a decade while their balls are nailed to the wall.
            So your idea isn't new and the current attempt at implementation appears to be worse than no

          • 'cheap steal'.

            Nice.

        • But you know what's really gonna fuck the middle class? Canals. There are about fifty thousand long-haul muleteers right now and it is pretty much the last good-paying job you can get without being able to read and write.

      • Trump's proposed solutions would not solve anything, and they're aiming at issues that this country has already successfully [...]

        Would too!

        See how easily I can refute you?

        Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples. A link confirming that his position is what you say it is would be nice.

        You're talking to smart people, you have to use smart arguments.

        • Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.

          Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.

          • Why don't you try an argument from reason, based on some specific examples.

            Maybe first, your favorite presidential candidate should do those things.

            I have it on good authority that she's busy.

            Perhaps you could post something in her place?

            What would Hillary actually *say*, if she had to make an actual argument?

      • I think it is clear to Trump's base what kind of change he offers: a move towards nationalism, compared to Clinton's continuing globalism. What Bernie had in common with Trump is they are both nationalists -- American citizens come first, even if it may hurt some of our trading partners in other countries and ordinary people who work hard there. The details of the platform differ significantly but that is the same general direction. Nationalism means let's increase the relative buying power of those below t

    • Computers don't lie!
      • The AI appears to be misreading Hillary's "Crazy Clown Smile". She uses that mostly when she is being accused of hypocrisy or a felony -- not exactly times one would smile naturally.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      If you want change, vote for Trump.

      The mystery here is how he's going to change anything when even his own party hates him.
      He can't even stack the Supreme Court with a dozen new people without the house on his side - so there are two branches against him.

    • If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

      If you want change, vote for Trump.

      I have a more accurate summary:
      If you want standard shit politics, but the country to still function, vote Clinton
      If you want change, and by change it means possibly throwing your country down the toilet, then vote Trump

      Most people want change, but the change has be an improvement, which is why Trump will lose. He is the ISIS alternative to Hillary being Saddam.

    • I want change. Which is why I'm voting for neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Real change means taking power from the corporate oligarchy represented by both major parties.
    • by jrumney ( 197329 )

      If you want change, vote for Trump.

      Even if you think America isn't exactly doing great at the moment, you have to ask yourself whether the path that Trump wants to take the country down actually leads to greatness. I don't think anyone actually wants change for the sake of change. They want change that leads to positive outcomes.

      • I agree with the statement that the changes should be positive. But we have already seen that practically every poll, survey, questionnaire, etc. shows that a very large majority (60-70%) has voiced that the US is NOT heading in the right direction and we have NOT been for quite a while. I think that this has already been mentioned quite a few times in other posts on this discussion board. The biggest question I feel that needs to be asked is who would you trust to at the very least to attempt to put thi

        • Other that during World Wars, when has a majority of the population thought 'we're going in the right direction'? The 1800's when we were moving west, finishing off destroying the rest of the indigenous flora and fauna (including humans) that European settlers started in the 1500's? Perhaps the Native Americans and the African slaves might venture to disagree if anybody bothered to poll them.

          How about post WWII and the wonderful burst of economic growth that comes after destroying a quarter of the planet

    • I think it's funny that you think Clinton is saying "we're doing great." All I've heard is "we're doing better now than the last time there was a Republican in the oval office." Which is not the same thing.

      Trump is a narcissistic, juvenile, puerile, mean, petty, scheming, lying bullshit artist who's most common debate tactic is variations on "I know you are but what am I?" Every time he calls Secretary Clinton "crooked" or "liar" my head almost explodes from the irony.
    • There's change, and there's change for the better.

      See also: systemd, Windows 8.

    • If you want change, vote for Trump.

      Who the hell merely wants change?

      Surely you want change for the better, right? I'm sure Trump will attempt to deliver change, but do you honestly think it's likely to be for the better rather than making things worse?

      This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations

      I'm sure that the personal behaviour of the candidates has no bearing on whether they might try to change things for the good of the US or be com

    • Firstly, I don't put much stock in EQ, or AI as a valid way to measure EQ, or reports from hired companies using AI to assess EQ, as meaningful. As opposed to, for instance, peer-reviewed research.

      That being said, it's no secret that Clinton is mostly "we're doing great" and Trump is "we need to change". That's the takeway from this report.

      Now let's ask the American people: which sentiment resonates with you? Are you feeling mostly good about your situation, the economy, your job prospects, our internal security, our external policies?

      Regardless of all the crap that's going on this election, that's the fundamental difference between the candidates. Clinton is saying "we're doing great", her public speeches say exactly that ("America is already great!"). Trump is saying that we have a host of problems, and we should fix them ("Make America great again!").

      This is the intellectual discussion we should be having in this election - not locker room talk or rape allegations or anything less than the overall picture.

      Take a moment and ask yourself, how do you *feel* about your situation in America right now, and whether the US government is benefitting you or not.

      If you like your situation, vote for Clinton.

      If you want change, vote for Trump.

      Actually it's more complicated than that. You present a "breakdown" to a binary choice. "we're doing great" and "we need to change".

      If you paid any attention BOTH candidates are proposing changes. They simply differ in what should change in how.

      If you vote for trump you have no idea what's coming. He's been contradictory and vague on some details. At the same time he has been unrealistic about some changes.

      Who you agree with is none of my concern. I suggest you look at the proposes changes the candida

    • I kind of agree with you, although I personally don't really consider Trump a viable alternative, but would like to add that the problem with this AI is that it apparently can't tell an evil grin / fake smile from a real smile. Humans can do that fairly well.
    • Peer-review research does fairly poorly when evaluating one-time (ie, non-repeatable) events, especially if the said events involve confrontations. It's why we don't have just peers on juries, but also adversarial councils in courts. In the absence of adversarial advocacy, peer review of non-repeatable events quickly becomes a circle jerk. Most judges, for example, will accept plea deals reached by opposing councils. Peer review of politics is essentially impossible. It's why we have elections rather t
    • No. That's what the typical decision tree looks like, where you vote for the incumbent party vs. the challenging party. That doesn't fit this time around, though, unless the "change" you are looking for is completely abandoning decency and competency as a nation. Trump is unfit for the presidency, to an unprecedented degree.

  • by ArtemaOne ( 1300025 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:06PM (#53127321)
    One has tempered their responses, while the other has not, and actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish. Most people could have drawn these conclusions without much research.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:55PM (#53127547)

      > actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

      I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters [fivethirtyeight.com]) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

      • Yeah, I'll buy that. It's far too Idiocracy-like in some ways, but not quite.
      • > actually seems to garner extra support from their followers by being outlandish.

        I wouldn't say extra support. Trump absolutely knows his fanbase, the reality-tv loving, racially insecure (but not financially insecure, trump primary voters average $11K more in yearly income than both clinton and sanders primary voters [fivethirtyeight.com]) authoritarian-leaning types. For them it is not about policy, its about the feels and he gives them the best feels. But they only make up about 40% of the republican party, and everybody else is pretty much grossed out instead of turned on by that shit.

        I think this is the key.

        Ever since Trump went after the Khan family it's been obvious that the general electorate does not like Trump going after private citizens.

        Yet that's exactly what he did after the first debate with Alicia Machado and again after the second debate with the women who accused him of assault.

        The first debate proved that the general electorate does not like him acting unpresidential.

        Yet he keeps doing it and ended the first debate by calling Hillary "a nasty woman" and creating a complete

  • Since when is artificial intelligence ready to audit organic emotional intelligence? AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.

    I suppose its ready to audit on the Microsoft racist troll scale, which is in the spirit of this election season, so there is that.

    • AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.

      Are you saying the debates exceeded it?

    • Since when is artificial intelligence ready to audit organic emotional intelligence? AI cant even have a believable conversation at the 3rd grade level.

      They can't even have a believable conversion at preschool level.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Do you want Skynet? Because that's how you get Skynet.

    • by dbreeze ( 228599 )

      I'm just not too worried about robots taking over. I've been repairing machines all my life. Never had to teach one to do wrong, spent days and weeks trying to get 'em to do right. I ain't too worried about the machines.

      The humans working that on/off switch are what worry me.

  • So what this is saying is that Hillary brings out stronger, more negative feelings of disgust in others than Trump, right?
  • by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:32PM (#53127443)

    TFA seems to be mostly statistics about the apparent emotional states of the two candidates during each debate. That tells you little about their "emotional intelligence".

    When it comes to Clinton's smiles, a lot of them seem to be fake smiles rather than genuine emotion. In fact, from Wikileaks, we know that her advisors insert "[smile]" cues into her scripted responses.

    The seemingly artificial nature of Clinton's emotional expressions is one of the things that creeps so many people out about her and makes them distrust her so much (to be sure, it is reinforced by actual misconduct).

  • Pretty well mirrors my opinion of government...

  • Those who exhibit heightened emotional intelligence excel at their jobs and stand out to employers.

    I can believe the latter, but the former? That's going to depend a lot on what your job is. There are lots of jobs where EQ isn't particularly important and other forms of intelligence are more important.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    That settles it, I'm voting for President Smilie Face.
  • High functioning psychopaths aren't always detectable as such by humans... you really think a computer algorithm would be able to find it?

  • She smiled when Trump said gays are thrown off the rooftops in Muslim countries in particular. So the methodology is not without flaws to be sure. ;-)

  • The singularity is here! AI can read emotions and can understand you. Let robots vote for our leaders... scratch that, let robots become our leaders! Long live the singularity!
  • EI/EQ is a buzz word without evidence as to its efficacy. It's subjective. Moving on.

  • Someone's AI platform is smart enough to know that both candidates are ACTING. I would expect the average TV news anchor to outperform either of them, just by reading the teleprompter with a straight face.

  • But all I see here at HireVue are dangerous kids with fresh degrees at the intersection of HR/Psych/AI with their works-just-so toys. Doin' the This Word Means New Thing thing to get folks buzzin' on them new words. It's fascinating but also sleazy, the way they are marketing judgement as if you could pluck it off the shelf.

    This is just new technology specifically designed for immature and inexperienced HR employees who are terrified to use their own human judgement, or perhaps for employers who want to hi

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?

Working...