Wow, that is a special kind of stupid, billi
Wow, that is a special kind of stupid, billi
If you're interviewing someone for a lifetime job from which there's little difficulty getting fired from, you kinda want to get one of those non-raping, non-tarnished folks. Just in case.
acket.
Billi, do you understand that this isn't a question of whether we should invite a relative to a wedding or birthday party?
This is, as I put it in my last post "a lifetime position on the highest court in the country." That means that the appointee will make rulings on laws that affect literally every American for the next several decades. And there are only nine of this position - they are arguably more important than senators.
I'm pretty sure that if they looked hard enough, they could come up with at least one person who can't be credibly charged sexual assault.
*It would also be great if it was somebody who didn't have written opinions stating that a sitting president is above the law, but I know you've got a hard-on for that idea.
-Formerly Stabulator
People for high office should be held to high standards.
And like Josh said, the SCOTUS was designed with the highest standards in mind.
acket.
and quite possibly the highest standard for any office in the world at least that's how I see it, though some can tell me if they feel otherwise.
Do you guys know why we should judge somebody while drunk?
To test somebody’s character, best way is to get him or her drunk and see how the person avoid poor choices under the influence? I don’t know, I’ve never been drunk, but best case scenario is the person passes out and sleep and pretty much the rest won’t be able to make good decisions. Are you guys pretty darn sure that you yourselves won’t do anything you’ll regret when drunk? You guys are that strong mentally?
I don’t even like Kavanagh that much, but at least he is qualified for the high post.
If he still has a drinking problem, then we definitely should disqualify him, but to judge him solely on what he possibly has done as a drunken 18yr old is too much IMHO.
Anyway, I suppose like he said, what goes around comes around, he enjoyed dragging Clinton and Lewinsky thru the mud and made that a public spectacle...
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; September 28th, 2018 at 06:55 AM.
Most drunk people are just themselves, turned up to 11. Booze reveals the truth of themselves.
And I still, STILL, cannot understand the argument of "innocent until proven guilty." This is not happening in a court of law. Nor should it. It's a goddamn job interview, for one of the highest offices in the land. Of COURSE your character should be judged.
Exhibit A, Dr. Winograd and her colleagues found that most people (40%) have the same personality when drunk.Originally Posted by tigeraid
The primary purpose of this study was to assess the degree to
which levels of sober and drunk personality traits can be
grouped into meaningful clusters (i.e. ‘‘drunk types’’), with
the second aim being to examine the association between
cluster membership and negative alcohol-related harms.
Essentially we aimed to test the commonly-held lay assumption
that multiple ‘‘types of drunks’’ exist and, if types
emerged, determine if members of certain clusters were more
likely to endorse symptoms of an AUD or alcohol-related
consequences.
For descriptive purposes to highlight key aspects of alcoholrelated
transformations, we labelled our clusters as follows:
Cluster 1, ‘‘Hemingway’’ (who was reputed to show minimal
signs of intoxication despite prodigious drinking; Laing,
2014).The first group, labelled ‘‘Hemingway,’’ was by
far the largest and included those who reported only slightly
changing when intoxicated. Specifically, members of
this group reported decreasing less in Conscientiousness
(e.g. being prepared, organized, prompt) and Intellect
(e.g. understanding abstract ideas, being imaginative) than
the rest of the sample. Notably, two previous studies have
found that, on average, these two factors reportedly decrease
the most with intoxication (Winograd et al., 2012, 2014), so
the moderate decreases demonstrated by this group make its
members stand out as being ‘‘less affected’’ than drinkers in
some of the other groups, much like the author Ernest
Hemingway, who claimed that he could ‘‘drink hells any
amount of whiskey without getting drunk’’ (Baker, 2003, p.
169).Conclusions and implications
Most would agree that the main problem with alcohol
consumption – aside from the health complications that can
result from excess use – is that some drinkers respond to
intoxication in ways that cause harm. For example, some
people are known to get angry and violent, careless and
irresponsible, or weepy and inconsolable when drinking, and
that is often what earns them the label of being a ‘‘problem
drinker.’’ However, until now, there has been no empirical
investigation into the unique types of personality-like changes
that people undergo when drinking, leaving the personality
and alcohol research literature with few points of contact with
lay perspectives and common folklore. Results from this study
demonstrate that self-reported personality data do produce
meaningful ‘‘types of drunks,’’ and that there is a certain type
– what we have labelled the Mr. Hydes – that reports a
particularly harmful transformation when intoxicated.
Exhibit b, Same team, newer study, different experiment, similar conclussions.
To test if individuals’ self-reported ratings of the five factor traits (measured in the pre-session IPIP survey) differed based on whether they were reporting on their “typical” sober or drunk personality, a three level omnibus multilevel model was estimated. In this model, Level 1 corresponded to intraindividual reports for each of the 5 personality factors when sober and when drunk (10 total per person), Level 2 corresponded to individual participants (156 total), and Level 3 corresponded to the friend group that would later be present in the testing session (43 total). Reported condition (i.e., sober or drunk) and factor (i.e., Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional stability, and Intellect-imagination) served as the predictor variables, as well as the interaction of the two. In the presence of a significant condition by personality factor interaction, follow-up analyses with each of the five factors as separate dependent variables were modeled to examine the source(s) of the effect. In these models, reported condition (but not personality factor) served as the predictor variable.When 5-minute “thin slices” of personality were judged (see Table 2, Row 3), sober and intoxicated participants differed only in Extraversion (F (1, 106) = 4.78, p = .03), with those who received alcohol being rated as higher than those who did not. Differences in Agreeableness (F (1, 106) = .56, p = .46), Conscientiousness (F (1, 106) = .00, p = .95), Neuroticism (F (1, 106) = .40, p = .53), and Openness (F (1, 106) = .79, p = .38) were non-significant.Comparing entire sessions of sober participants to entire sessions of intoxicated participants with the BFI-10-Observer (see Table 2, Row 4), Extraversion was again the only factor that significantly differed across groups (F (1, 106) = 11.11, p = .002), with those who received alcohol being rated as higher than those who did not). Differences in Agreeableness (F (1, 106) = 1.93, p = .17), Conscientiousness (F (1, 106) = .00, p = .99), Neuroticism (F (1, 106) = .65, p = .42), and Openness (F (1, 106) = .00, p = .96) were non-significant.Indeed, the trait-level effect on Extraversion was driven by differences in the facets of Gregariousness, Assertiveness, and Activity (but not Warmth or Positive emotions). This finding is consistent with the existing research on the effects of alcohol on sociability just referenced (e.g., Abe, 1968; Babor et al., 1983) and the lack of effect of alcohol on positive affect more generally (e.g., Gilman et al., 2008; though results on positive affect are mixed – others have found that that alcohol does increase positive affect specifically [e.g., Goldberg, 1966; McCollam et al., 1980; aan het Rot et al., 2008]). Differential effects of alcohol on distinct aspects of Extraversion is consistent with work connecting Extraversion to both agentic and communal positive emotion (PEM-A, PEM-C; Tellegen, 1985). Based on these facet level findings, one could speculate that intoxication may be more related to increased PEM-A (social potency, dominance, achievement, well-being, etc.) than to PEM-C (social closeness, warmth, interpersonal connectedness, etc.) but our study was not designed to examine this issue in a highly resolved way. Additionally, the difference in Assertiveness, specifically, is supported by past research on alcohol’s role in shifts in internal states, such as power motivation and the need for dominance over others (e.g., McClelland, 1972). Though social assertiveness, a documented effect of intoxication (Southwick et al., 1981) is distinct from aggression, which implies intent to harm, the two qualities could be viewed as sharing a boundary, and may therefore be rooted in similar alcohol-induced causes. For example, the neurologically disinhibiting effects of ethanol may facilitate particularly assertive, firm, or bold behavior “not by ‘stepping on the gas but rather paralyzing the brakes’” (Muehlberger, 1956, p. 40).
acket.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote