UBC Power Dynamic study

[Staredintoabyss]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... UBC#318236

It seems like a good example of the common refusal to accept that other peoples frames, interpretations, and experiences, can differ profoundly from our own but still be quite reasonable, justifiable, and valid within their frame of interpretation and lived experience.

The article quotes the researchers as being shocked by the different approaches to power between Trump and Clinton but the framing used to describe the two is where I think their interpretation falls apart.

"one through the use of coercion, manipulation and fear-mongering, and the other rooted in collaboration and respect."

They framed Clinton as "respectful and collaborative", this being a person who framed half of the USA as "deplorable" the half she spoke of in that way would probably not view her as respectful or willing to cooperate.
I can appreciate how people frame Trump in that way but I can also see many perspectives on Clinton that invalidate that interpretation of her approach and conduct and in fact directly contradict it.

The researchers seem to be coming from an approach of: "my perspective is right so now we need to find out why everyone else insists on being wrong", and that is an approach doomed to failure from the beginning and a huge part of why there is a trust gap in the first place.

So the researchers of this study seem to have accidentally provided an example of the variables they failed to account for.

Thoughts?
Emotionally healthy rebuttals?
Better data?

[Trīewth]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... UBC#318236

It seems like a good example of the common refusal to accept that other peoples frames, interpretations, and experiences, can differ profoundly from our own but still be quite reasonable, justifiable, and valid within their frame of interpretation and lived experience.

The article quotes the researchers as being shocked by the different approaches to power between Trump and Clinton but the framing used to describe the two is where I think their interpretation falls apart.

"one through the use of coercion, manipulation and fear-mongering, and the other rooted in collaboration and respect."

They framed Clinton as "respectful and collaborative", this being a person who framed half of the USA as "deplorable" the half she spoke of in that way would probably not view her as respectful or willing to cooperate.
I can appreciate how people frame Trump in that way but I can also see many perspectives on Clinton that invalidate that interpretation of her approach and conduct and in fact directly contradict it.

The researchers seem to be coming from an approach of: "my perspective is right so now we need to find out why everyone else insists on being wrong", and that is an approach doomed to failure from the beginning and a huge part of why there is a trust gap in the first place.

So the researchers of this study seem to have accidentally provided an example of the variables they failed to account for.

Thoughts?
Emotionally healthy rebuttals?
Better data?

Or another interesting fact is that the article mentions Trump and Clinton, and then in a separate paragraph discusses the impressions of the study participants with regard to the two paths to power explored in the study, but never links the two or suggests which of the two paths the presidential candidates would represent.

Always interesting to consider how one's own perspective can influence even our view of what we read.

[Staredintoabyss]

“I was a post-doc at University of California Berkley and remember being so struck by the different approaches to power being used by then-candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump"

It is a reasonable reading of the article and their basis as the person claims this contrast was their motivation which ties it to future paragraphs. The separation of paragraphs does not disassociate the topics in the way you are implying.
That said I will accept the potential correction even though you don't have a strong argument yourself.


There is a really sad behaviour in social media where people will look at something where people said 10 different things, find one thing in it they can contradict, then say "gotcha you are wrong", which pretty much prevents any exchange of thoughts or ideas and degenerates all complex discussion into series of pathetic attempts at "gotcha moments" where nothing ever actually gets discussed as people jump to find reasons to ignore each other rather than engage.

So while I appreciate you engaging and replying, I just wish you had actually engaged.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Ah well guess this topic will just die and no actual discussion or conversation will come, must not be shocking or political enough for people or not be a good enough venue for anger and personal attacks.

Have a nice life.