5 ms·

Probably. But Mark seems so uncomfortable in his own skin that I doubt he’d have any degree of political success. Dustin Curtis put it well: “Watching Mark Zuc

by uptown 9y ago

Probably. But Mark seems so uncomfortable in his own skin that I doubt he’d have any degree of political success. Dustin Curtis put it well: “Watching Mark Zuckerberg speak publicly has always made me feel deeply uncomfortable in a way that is very difficult to articulate. He’s improved a lot over the years, but I still have an urge to look away when he speaks. Not great for crisis management communication.” https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/976627812999118848 https://twitter.com/dcurtis/status/976627812999118848

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
Watching Donald Trump speak has always made me feel deeply uncomfortable in a way that is very difficult to articulate. But here we are. Edited to add: in my opinion Mark Zuckerberg as US President would probably be a huge improvement over the incumbent.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton. Charisma plays a huge role in elections: From Influence: Science and Practice >a study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Despite such evidence of favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the possibility of such influence (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Voters can deny the impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has continued to confirm its troubling presence (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994). Yay representative democracy.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton. Somewhat helped by the media's constant "Oh, that wacky Donald and his silly speeches!" vs "SHRILLARY (non)SCANDALS!!!!"
- anonytrary 9y ago
  The point he was getting at was about the charisma of the speaker, not really about the content of their words, which is irrelevant. Whether or not you agree with Trump is orthogonal to whether or not he has actionable charisma. It is fairly evident that Zuckerberg does not inspire with his words; they feel contrived in a way that makes you wonder if he really believes what he is saying. On the other hand, Trump has conviction, even if his point of view is not something you agree with. Zuckerberg has no conviction in his speech at all, and that makes him difficult to trust. One cannot reasonably trust a man who appears to have no trust in himself.
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    Ive watched his Harvard speech from last year. I was impressed, though I had low expectations to be sure.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > in my opinion Mark Zuckerberg as US President would probably be a huge improvement over the incumbent. That's such a low bar that even I would be a huge improvement over the incumbent and I have the political acumen of a small horsefly.
fiatpandas 9y ago
The quote hits it on the head. I’ve thought about it briefly before, and I think zuck makes me uncomfortable because he is emotionless while speaking, barely moving his head, and not blinking. His face is in a kind of paralysis while speaking.

by uptown 9y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

Watching Donald Trump speak has always made me feel deeply uncomfortable in a way that is very difficult to articulate. But here we are. Edited to add: in my opinion Mark Zuckerberg as US President would probably be a huge improvement over the incumbent.

Houshalter 9y ago
My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton. Charisma plays a huge role in elections: From Influence: Science and Practice >a study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Despite such evidence of favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the possibility of such influence (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Voters can deny the impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has continued to confirm its troubling presence (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994). Yay representative democracy.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > My impression was most people found him much more charismatic than Clinton. Somewhat helped by the media's constant "Oh, that wacky Donald and his silly speeches!" vs "SHRILLARY (non)SCANDALS!!!!"
anonytrary 9y ago
The point he was getting at was about the charisma of the speaker, not really about the content of their words, which is irrelevant. Whether or not you agree with Trump is orthogonal to whether or not he has actionable charisma. It is fairly evident that Zuckerberg does not inspire with his words; they feel contrived in a way that makes you wonder if he really believes what he is saying. On the other hand, Trump has conviction, even if his point of view is not something you agree with. Zuckerberg has no conviction in his speech at all, and that makes him difficult to trust. One cannot reasonably trust a man who appears to have no trust in himself.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  Ive watched his Harvard speech from last year. I was impressed, though I had low expectations to be sure.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> in my opinion Mark Zuckerberg as US President would probably be a huge improvement over the incumbent. That's such a low bar that even I would be a huge improvement over the incumbent and I have the political acumen of a small horsefly.

fiatpandas 9y ago

The quote hits it on the head. I’ve thought about it briefly before, and I think zuck makes me uncomfortable because he is emotionless while speaking, barely moving his head, and not blinking. His face is in a kind of paralysis while speaking.