08-05-12 07:03 PM Quote from Wallet: I'll take it on the nomination. Romney wins you're out of here for a year, likewise, Obama wins I'm out....... one year hiatus. Quote from AK Forty Seven With all due respect you dont post here enough http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3590132#post3590132 Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet
grammor. LOL! In other news, Romney extends his post debate lead to 1.3 up nationally. 2.0 in Florida.
Lucrum-over 25,000 posts Wallet -less then 1200 posts Unless you are a P&R regular why would I make a no posting bet with you when you are rarely here anyway ?Shouldn't be that hard to figure out
Because they rarely post here so I am not winning much Te bet offer is still open to you,seems you're not that confident
. October 13, 2012 SouthAmerica: It seems that at the end of the day, people who are entirely normal like Mitt Romney it does not ensure good leadership; in fact, it often entails the reverse. Research shows that people like Mitt Romney who are entirely normal â or âhomocliticâ to use the psychological jargon â do not make great leaders. Mitt Romney is too mentally âbalancedâ to be effective in a crisis! Financial Times (UK) â October 13 / October 14, 2012 âWhen political madness worksâ By: Gillian Tett An evaluation of a dozen world leaders concludes that many were not mentally ânormalâ As the political fight heats up in America, there has been endless debate about the character of President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But does anyone know what drives their inner psychology or neurology? And should we care? That is the question that has been bubbling in my mind this week, after I attended an event organised by David Owen, the British politician. Inside the UK, Owen is best known as a former foreign minister, who later co-founded the Social Democratic Party. However, before entering politics, Owen trained as a physician and psychiatrist. And since he left the political stage, he has poured some of his formidable energy into analysing the mental state of senior American and British politicians â see, for example, his book In Sickness and In Power or his 2009 neurology paper âHubris Syndromeâ, which discusses the behaviour of prime ministers and US presidents over the past 100 years. But now Owen has taken this research further, and assembled a network of neuroscientists, financiers, politicians and psychologists to explore âhubrisâ. This week they held their first public brainstorming session under the aegis of the British Royal Society of Medicine and Daedalus Trust (of which, in the interest of disclosure, I am a trustee). The interaction was fascinating, not simply because it comes amid the US race, but also because it shows what interdisciplinary debate can achieve. In the course of the discussions, for example, John Coates, a banker turned neuroscientist, explained how human biology and hormone levels influence how financial traders (mis-)behave. This has such big implications for risk taking, that it is now being studied by the military. Ricardo Blaug, a psychiatric social worker, described how power can isolate modern political leaders and Paul Fletcher, a neuroscientist, used pictures of ratsâ brains to discuss whether political hubris has parallels with substance addiction. John Alderdice, a psychoanalyst who also happens to be a senior politician in Northern Ireland, talked about how fantasy is central to the dynamic of a modern politician. As he observed: âYou need to have illusion to get into power today ⦠The problem is that politicians have to live with that illusion.â And on that note, a group of neurologists is now conducting linguistic analysis on British parliamentary debates. This shows that the levels of verbal hubris â and narcissistic illusion â vary significantly among prime ministers. Apparently the UK is unusually good for this analysis because the Hansard parliamentary records provide a large body of unscripted debate. But one of the most provocative pieces of research comes from Nassir Ghaemi, a professor of psychiatry at Tufts University. Last year, Ghaemi published a book, A First-Rate Madness, which evaluates a dozen world leaders, and concludes that many were not mentally ânormalâ. On the contrary, Ghaemi says, men such as John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill all suffered various types of depression, bipolar syndrome or hyperactive manias. But instead of being a handicap, these âproblemsâ, when kept under some control, helped them in crises: mania is associated with energy and creativity, and depression instils empathy and more realism. Or, to put it another way, people who are entirely normal â or âhomocliticâ to use the psychological jargon â do not make great leaders. âMental health â sanity â does not ensure good leadership; in fact, it often entails the reverse,â Ghaemi argues, citing Neville Chamberlain, the former British leader, as a man who was too mentally âbalancedâ to be effective in a crisis, unlike the depressive Churchill. So where does that leave the current American political debate? Since the mental health records of the candidates are still confidential, Ghaemi himself is wary of saying too much. But if nothing else, these analyses suggest that voters should not be too worried about the fact that a psychologist could spot hints of mild depression in Obamaâs biography; nor should they be so thrilled that Romney keeps presenting himself as an extremely balanced and sane man. Excessive hubris, in other words, is dangerous. But excessive normalcy can also be damaging. Either way, it is clear that it would be beneficial to have a bit more debate about the physical and physiological conditions of power, not just in politics but in finance and business too. Not everyone would necessarily go as far as Coates, who suggests it would be helpful to test the hormonal levels of financial traders and other risk takers in a regular way (although testing the hormones of politicians might certainly be intriguing). But history suggests it is essential to watch whether leaders are becoming too isolated for their own good; so is having an honest debate about how leaders emerge, and placing checks and balances to prevent them spinning out of control. Sadly, however, a campaign trail is probably the last place this debate will occur â least of all when every political move by Romney and Obama is now carefully scripted for 24-hour television. .
First of all great subject... nice article. 1. most political leaders suck - so perhaps normal with decision making experience is what we need. It has been said former governors make the best Presidents. Why, confidence in your team and your decisions based on experience note hype is probably key. Just like the path to sports championships is to learn to win at lower levels on the way up. These neuro scientists probably should have been studying professional athletes (especially in individual sports). Bankers...perform exactly as their systems train them to perform. If they want big money they need a big bonus. To make a big bonus they have to go larger with someone elses money. They go larger til they blowup. Not neuro science required. The military should have been studying successful floor traders trading for their own accounts who never blew up. that would be fascinating.
October 13, 2012 SouthAmerica: If I follow your logic jem, if being governor prepares one for being a good president, then how about the experience of being president for one term, I would assume that kind of experience should prepare the current president even more for him to be able to handle the second term.
Notice I said the path to sports championships is succeeding at lower levels. I don't see Obama's team succeeding at anything. Even being good socialists. Where are the useful socialist policies. Single payer, better schools, better infrastructure providing good jobs? He has sold out to his cronies, wall street and the insurance companies... unfortunately for us. We have massive debt, a stagnant economy purchased with trillions of wasted dollars. Its costs us 3 dollars of debt for a dollar of GDP Our good jobs have been replaced by McJobs for the most part. He and the FED have systematically massively debased our dollar. - His Middle East policy is destabilizing the entire ME and that is a charitable analysis. (he policy has lead to an incredibly dangerous situation in many countries.) - Obamacare should have been single payer... now it is a mess. With world record taxes on the middle class. And it likely to get struck down by the Sup Ct this time. - He is destroying our energy situation. - His advisors are horribly incompetent - Their policies invited attacks on our embassies and then they lie about youtube videos. I think Obama could have used a little bit of experience... perhaps a lemonade stand... before stepping into executive power.