EEF,

I am a human being. I have lived for almost 58 years. I understand everything you said. I have understood from the time I became self aware. I have understood it before you were even born. It is a part of being a self aware human being. Every human being knows and understands this. This is what makes us different from animals. I didn't have go to college and take numerous psychology classes, like I did to understand it. Don't try and explain basic human understandings to me because it is patronizing. And no one wants to be patronized especially by the likes of you.

What I was talking is those who know they have a conscious, logical decision to make regarding a candidate and allows their illogical fear to make one of the most important decisions of their lives based on that illogical fear is a moron. I could give a hoot whether it is conscious or unconscious. Bottom line is if they are so out of touch with reality that they cannot recognize and understand their illogical feelings and use those illogical feelings to make one of the most important decisions of their lives in order to choose a candidate, that person is a moron. Or if they are in touch with their illogical feelings and understands why they feel uncomfortable and they make one of the most important decision of their lives based on that illogical feeling, they are a moron. That is what I am talking about.

You clearly came out against it, suggesting it was a hack attack job. You didn't even delve into the science behind it. Your response suggested that you did not understand the scientific aspect that I was talking about. Don't blame me for being thurough and laying it out in a simplified setting. Besides, you weren't the only one who questioned the piece either so the explanation was for everyone.

And to answer your question, his style of speech as a used car salesman makes me raises my alert level but the content of many of his answers is why I am not going to vote for him in the caucus.

You clearly came out against it, suggesting it was a hack attack job. You didn't even delve into the science behind it. Your response suggested that you did not understand the scientific aspect that I was talking about. Don't blame me for being through and laying it out in a simplified setting. Besides, you weren't the only one who questioned the piece either so the explanation was for everyone.

And to answer your question, his style of speech as a used car salesman makes me raises my alert level but the content of many of his answers is why I am not going to vote for him in the caucus.

Dude,

Show me where Psychology Today is doing a companion piece about Hillary's disturbing BUG EYES!!!!? Seriously! In order to be considered unbiased they need to run similar hack jobs on the Socialist candidates like Hillary and Bernie. The ONLY reason they ran this article is because they are a Liberal rag that is using their magazine to do a hack job on the Republican candidates that look like they are going to go up against Hillary. They also ran another hack piece against Cruz. This is not the only one. And BTW, they ran 4 different hack jobs about Trump! Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them. If I were a Liberal running a Liberal rag I would do the same thing. But in order to understand the psychology as to WHY they would run articles like this and the timing as to when they run them is to see the articles for they are worth. Which is nothing more than hack jobs. It is as obvious as the nose on your face. I can't help it if it's not obvious to you. And to be honest with you, I don't care if you don't think it is a hack piece.

My response was not that I don't understand the science behind it. My response was that the whole article is meaningless. I said from the very beginning I DON'T CARE!!! You are the only one who cares about the science behind it. I was as obvious as the nose on your face that I DON'T CARE!!!

Here:

"Why does anyone even care?  "
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=21973.msg197933#msg197933

"It makes no difference in the cosmos unless you want it to...."
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=21973.msg197941#msg197941

Dude,

Show me where Psychology Today is doing a companion piece about Hillary's disturbing BUG EYES!!!!? Seriously! In order to be considered unbiased they need to run similar hack jobs on the Socialist candidates like Hillary and Bernie. The ONLY reason they ran this article is because they are a Liberal rag that is using their magazine to do a hack job on the Republican candidates that look like they are going to go up against Hillary. They also ran another hack piece against Cruz. This is not the only one. And BTW, they ran 4 different hack jobs about Trump! Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them. If I were a Liberal running a Liberal rag I would do the same thing. But in order to understand the psychology as to WHY they would run articles like this and the timing as to when they run them is to see the articles for they are worth. Which is nothing more than hack jobs. It is as obvious as the nose on your face. I can't help it if it's not obvious to you. And to be honest with you, I don't care if you don't think it is a hack piece.

My response was not that I don't understand the science behind it. My response was that the whole article is meaningless. I said from the very beginning I DON'T CARE!!! You are the only one who cares about the science behind it. I was as obvious as the nose on your face that I DON'T CARE!!!

Here:

"Why does anyone even care?  "
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=21973.msg197933#msg197933

"It makes no difference in the cosmos unless you want it to...."
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=21973.msg197941#msg197941

If they are talking about an uncommon trait then how are they supposed to write about it for other candidates where it may not exist? I haven't seen anything to suggest that this publication is liberally biased or that it is not accurate. I am certainly open to considering that the piece is biased if you cared to make the case.

So you think timing proves it is a hack job? That's a pretty weak circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't make sense to run it when they weren't famous since few would care.

I posted the piece to have an interesting discussion about psychology, the subconscious, voting, and public image. I don't care if you don't care about the topic, that's fine by me but please don't derail the topic.

I don't care about her bug eyes but maybe her laugh is something they could analyze.

If they are talking about an uncommon trait then how are they supposed to write about it for other candidates where it may not exist?

You make my other points for me here. You have already concluded that Hillary's trait is not uncommon and not disturbing to others. Therefore defending/debating (your feeling not mine) why they have not written about it. To be fair and honest to both sides there is absolutely no reason why they can't write about her disturbing bug eyes nor her fake annoying laugh. But the fact is they won't. They are a LIBERAL RAG that only writes about traits of conservative candidates as a hack job. Since they have 6 articles hacking both Cruz and Trump and none hacking Hillary nor Bernie you really don't have an argument here.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that this publication is liberally biased or that it is not accurate. I am certainly open to considering that the piece is biased if you cared to make the case.

Here is an article from this publication admitting their LIBERAL BIAS:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201309/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-i

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201310/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-ii

They admit to their own liberal bias. There is no argument you can make here when they themselves print an argument admitting their own liberal bias.

So you think timing proves it is a hack job? That's a pretty weak circumstantial evidence.

It may be circumstantial but far from a weak argument when you make my point with your own words: "It wouldn't make sense to run it when they weren't famous since few would care."  EXACTLY If they meant to write an article about how JOE BLOW's mouth makes disturbing motions I could see how it might be interesting. But it is WHO they chose and WHEN they chose to run it plus your own words validates exactly what I said. Not to mention they wrote 6 hack jobs about Cruz and Trump and none about Bernie nor Hillary. And they admit to their own liberal bias.

I posted the piece to have an interesting discussion about psychology, the subconscious, voting, and public image. I don't care if you don't care about the topic, that's fine by me but please don't derail the topic.

Fine, then if everything you say is absolutely true then delete the link you posted and post a link from Psychology Today with a similar topic that is not about a recent presidential candidate and I will believe that you didn't post this as a way to do a hack job towards a conservative candidate.

I don't care about her bug eyes but maybe her laugh is something they could analyze.

But they haven't and they won't. Again, making my point for me. thanks!   

I don't believe there is anything else for us to discuss here so I am calling this one quits as well. 

You make my other points for me here. You have already concluded that Hillary's trait is not uncommon and not disturbing to others. Therefore defending/debating (your feeling not mine) why they have not written about it. To be fair and honest to both sides there is absolutely no reason why they can't write about her disturbing bug eyes nor her fake annoying laugh. But the fact is they won't. They are a LIBERAL RAG that only writes about traits of conservative candidates as a hack job. Since they have 6 articles hacking both Cruz and Trump and none hacking Hillary nor Bernie you really don't have an argument here.

If there is nothing of psychological reference about Hillary then what are they supposed to write? This is not to say that your question is invalid, rather, that absence of a psychological examination of Hillary is not proof of bias.

Here is an article from this publication admitting their LIBERAL BIAS:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201309/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-i

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201310/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-ii

The articles admit to a bias in the field, but not to the publication or the author in question. Again, doesn't mean there wasn't bias, but it isn't proof that this piece was biased.

On top of that, the existence of a bias does not mean the work itself is less than objective. Nearly everyone has some level of bias, but a good professional can eliminate it or significantly reduce its impact. Furthermore, even if there is a bias in who they choose to write about does not mean that what they write is inaccurate.

But ok, so lets say there is bias in the piece. You have bias as well, so why should I take your arguments that this is bogus over the arguments of someone with credentials? The argument you use to discount the piece discounts your own comments as having any authority as well. Essentially if we run around pointing to biases saying it makes the source unreliable, then we could never believe any news source, study, or report.

It may be circumstantial but far from a weak argument when you make my point with your own words: "It wouldn't make sense to run it when they weren't famous since few would care."  EXACTLY If they meant to write an article about how JOE BLOW's mouth makes disturbing motions I could see how it might be interesting. But it is WHO they chose and WHEN they chose to run it plus your own words validates exactly what I said. Not to mention they wrote 6 hack jobs about Cruz and Trump and none about Bernie nor Hillary. And they admit to their own liberal bias.
 Fine, then if everything you say is absolutely true then delete the link you posted and post a link from Psychology Today with a similar topic that is not about a recent presidential candidate and I will believe that you didn't post this as a way to do a hack job towards a conservative candidate.
But they haven't and they won't. Again, making my point for me. thanks!   
I don't believe there is anything else for us to discuss here so I am calling this one quits as well. 

Did you do a search before posing that challenge? A search for meanings of facial expressions turned up 5 pages of articles touching on various aspects. If you want specific links I can post them.

And I wont retract the original piece because the whole point was to discuss psychology relevant to voting! I could care less which candidate they wrote such a piece about. This was a segue to the topic at hand.

Still doesn't get it!!!

Still doesn't get it!!!

OK, lets post it in a way that you do get it.

I don't care whether Ted Cruz' face is odd or not. What effect does a candidates expressions (or other ticks) have on the way people vote? Discuss.

OK, lets post it in a way that you do get it.

I don't care whether Ted Cruz' face is odd or not. What effect does a candidates expressions (or other ticks) have on the way people vote? Discuss.

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it.

I get it, trust me. That is why I started the topic. Peoples expressions, mannerisms, and ticks affect the way people think about them. Not everyone is as conscious as you or I to recognize and attempt to eliminate that fact. The discussion is how these things affect voters. How about an example of a different type.

Say there was a candidate who had positions on paper you agreed with but on stage the stuttered terribly making them poor at oral debates. Would this affect the way you or others would vote? Have you ever watched the post debate commentary? They discuss the performances of the candidates which often contains aspects of their style and delivery because it is obviously an issue people care about. These things affect voters whether you like it or not. If these things didn't then no one would care about how well a message was delivered and only with the content of their answer, even if delivered by a mumbling, sweating, poorly dressed, clammy skinned, individual who kept licking his lips.

If you don't want to discuss it then fine, but stop trolling the thread. 

Ted Cruz's down turned face doesn't affect his candidacy.  The only thing that affects his candidacy is that the media (left controlled) publishes stuff to make people talk negatively about a candidate they don't like.  This is called a hack job.

Why not publish the same psychology article asking the same question why Hillary's face has bug eyes and why she should get Botox to make her candidacy chances better?

There is always something that can be found to criticize someone about.  They can't write stink about his politics so they find something about his face to write stink about.

EEF is interested in discussing the content of the article while Inspector is trying to point out the context.

If I was borrowing a page from the leftists play book, I would say that the author is racist and accuse them of calling those who are partially-Mexicans "ugly".

EEF is discussing the content of the article while Inspector is discussing the context.

If I was borrowing a page from the leftists play book, I would say that the author is racist and accuse them of calling those who are partially-Mexicans "ugly".

I hate to see conservatives stoop to such levels. We maintain the higher ground by addressing the issues not making red herrings to distract people.

The way the article is written, I don't think it is appropriate to call it an attack. The author doesn't say that any of his observations are reasons not to vote for Cruz, nor does he direct readers to vote in any particular fashion.

I agree with you about keeping the high ground.  I was being a bit snide on my last statement.

However, the article gets readers thinking about his down turned face when someone talks about Ted Cruz.   The timing couldn't be worse for him considering that republicans are currently deciding on who they want to nominate as presidential candidate.

Personally, I think down turned faces are not all bad.

Ted Cruz's down turned face doesn't affect his candidacy.  The only thing that affects his candidacy is that the media (left controlled) publishes stuff to make people talk negatively about a candidate they don't like.  This is called a hack job.

Why not publish the same psychology article asking the same question why Hillary's face has bug eyes and why she should get Botox to make her candidacy chances better?

There is always something that can be found to criticize someone about.  They can't write stink about his politics so they find something about his face to write stink about.

EEF is interested in discussing the content of the article while Inspector is trying to point out the context.

If I was borrowing a page from the leftists play book, I would say that the author is racist and accuse them of calling those who are partially-Mexicans "ugly".

Thanks J!!! You get it!!! 

There are no rules when it comes to discussion of an article that is posted. Discussing context is just as pertinent and important as the original intent of the author and the OP. Maybe even more so if said intent is suspect.

I sincerely hope EEF will understand your explanation as he didn't seem to get it when I explained it.

Why not publish the same psychology article asking the same question why Hillary's face has bug eyes and why she should get Botox to make her candidacy chances better?

For the same reason this clown always attempts to make gun control arguments that sound "reasonable".  You notice all the content comes from one side of the spectrum?

He is a wretched leftist troll, thinking he is playing with troglodyte conservative gun owners.  In an obscure part of his/her little mind, might even think the constant arguing is swaying opinions of the undecided.  MauiDog got sick of him/her and left, which pisses me off immensely, but likely titillates the troll.

Too bad for him/her the attempts are only pissing off those that happen to read any of the drivel.

Personally, I think down turned faces are not all bad.

That man with a Thompson SMG is a classic photograph.

MauiDog got sick of him/her and left, which pisses me off immensely, but likely titillates the troll.

According to MD he left because of me and others... He didn't really leave he just wasn't going to post, kind of a leave of absence.

For the same reason this clown always attempts to make gun control arguments that sound "reasonable".  You notice all the content comes from one side of the spectrum?

He is a wretched leftist troll, thinking he is playing with troglodyte conservative gun owners.  In an obscure part of his/her little mind, might even think the constant arguing is swaying opinions of the undecided.  MauiDog got sick of him/her and left, which pisses me off immensely, but likely titillates the troll.

Too bad for him/her the attempts are only pissing off those that happen to read any of the drivel.

It was a topic I started to discuss a non partisan issue in politics. Inspector made it into a bias issue, trolling my topic and derailing it unnecessarily. You are just perpetuating the derailment. You are being the troll, not me.

I was at the state capital representing our gun rights on opening day, where were you?

I agree with you about keeping the high ground.  I was being a bit snide on my last statement.

However, the article gets readers thinking about his down turned face when someone talks about Ted Cruz.   The timing couldn't be worse for him considering that republicans are currently deciding on who they want to nominate as presidential candidate.

Personally, I think down turned faces are not all bad.

I assumed you were not serious.

Timing does not matter to the science part or the question, only to the context. Sure, the timing isn't good for Cruz but that is true for every candidate. All negative aspects come out for all candidates when the races get serious.

You last comment does bring into the topic another degree of complexity. Some things may be cultural, where one culture expects a certain response and thinks a different response is weird when it is quite normal in a different culture. Eye contact for example.

Thanks J!!! You get it!!! 

There are no rules when it comes to discussion of an article that is posted. Discussing context is just as pertinent and important as the original intent of the author and the OP. Maybe even more so if said intent is suspect.

I sincerely hope EEF will understand your explanation as he didn't seem to get it when I explained it.

I don't discount context but it has it's limits, it is circumstantial. The context is reason to be suspicious but it is not proof that the content is inaccurate. If you were looking at a suspect in a theft case who had 10 prior convictions for similar thefts, would you convict them in the 11th just because the context exists? No, you look at the suspect with a healthy dose of suspicion but you still have to look at the content of the case to prove they are the ones that did this particular crime.

The topic from the original post was clearly not a partisan one, even if the piece that I used as a catalyst to start a discussion had a bias. The first thing you did was go after the non issue, as related to the topic, and complained about bias. Context was irrelevant to the initial topic!

The tired response of "we cannot get a break because the elite liberals and liberal media are out get us" gets us nowhere. That complaint sounds more like liberals who complain that the world isn't fair. Conservatives know the world isn't always fair but we get ahead through hard work. So a piece in this publication has a context that makes it suspicious, who cares? Are we going to wallow about bias or do we instead rightly point out that oddities in a person doesn't mean they cannot be a good president?

I was at the state capital representing our gun rights on opening day, where were you?

I live on another island dipstick, on a limited income.