7 ms·

My takeaway was that people don't like leaders that can't relate to them. Obama related well to one part of the country, and Trump related well to another part

by MollyR 9y ago

My takeaway was that people don't like leaders that can't relate to them. Obama related well to one part of the country, and Trump related well to another part of the country. Trump's case being more surprising since he's tries very hard to come off as a class traitor. ex. Notice his love of the peoples food (fast food)

goatlover 9y ago
Question is why do we need a leader we relate to? We're not living in tribes any longer. The president of a country isn't likely to sit down and have a beer with us.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Genetically speaking, we are basically still living in tribes.
- Buldak 9y ago
  People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously.
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously. The statement that if one can relate to a leader, he will take ones interests more seriously is a strong assumption that I cannot believe in.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - ambrosite 9y ago
    It would be better to say, if a leader can relate to the people, then he may be more likely to take their interests seriously.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      But is that true? Or do the campaign managers know that helps get their candidates elected?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I believe that's the difference between genuinely being able to relate, and faking it.
- alexashka 9y ago
  Given the choice between hearing a stranger talk about stuff you don't understand on TV, you'd choose the one you 'like' more. It's that simple really. Trump is no more a leader to you or me, than Brad Pitt. It's just some person on TV you never come in contact with. A better question is why is there voting for a president, by people who don't understand anything about what it takes to be good at that job. Absolutely nothing for the vast majority.
- elihu 9y ago
  You've turned the question around. I don't think it's particularly important that people relate to their leaders. However, if leaders can't relate to (i.e. understand) the people they lead, then you might end up with misaligned goals and motivation. For instance, if the president of the country is wealthy and associates almost exclusively with and identifies as a wealthy person, then that person might consider their primary goal as president to promote economic growth as measured by the stock market. Some less well-off constituents might rather the president focused on programs to improve access to food, health care, and education for the less well-off. This isn't an either-or thing; a president could do both. However, if non-wealthy voters think the president doesn't understand their situation or have any policies in place to improve it, then to that voter is not likely to have a high opinion of that president.
- 0xCMP 9y ago
  Why do developers often wish a manager/superior had technical knowledge? We hope they understand what we're doing and will make decisions with that in mind. We can also accept "hard decisions" as being more carefully considered rather than simply not understanding the situation and costs.

by MollyR 9y ago

goatlover 9y ago

Question is why do we need a leader we relate to? We're not living in tribes any longer. The president of a country isn't likely to sit down and have a beer with us.

dwaltrip 9y ago
Genetically speaking, we are basically still living in tribes.
Buldak 9y ago
People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > People feel that leaders they can relate to are more likely to take their interests seriously. The statement that if one can relate to a leader, he will take ones interests more seriously is a strong assumption that I cannot believe in.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ambrosite 9y ago
  It would be better to say, if a leader can relate to the people, then he may be more likely to take their interests seriously.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    But is that true? Or do the campaign managers know that helps get their candidates elected?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I believe that's the difference between genuinely being able to relate, and faking it.
alexashka 9y ago
Given the choice between hearing a stranger talk about stuff you don't understand on TV, you'd choose the one you 'like' more. It's that simple really. Trump is no more a leader to you or me, than Brad Pitt. It's just some person on TV you never come in contact with. A better question is why is there voting for a president, by people who don't understand anything about what it takes to be good at that job. Absolutely nothing for the vast majority.
elihu 9y ago
You've turned the question around. I don't think it's particularly important that people relate to their leaders. However, if leaders can't relate to (i.e. understand) the people they lead, then you might end up with misaligned goals and motivation. For instance, if the president of the country is wealthy and associates almost exclusively with and identifies as a wealthy person, then that person might consider their primary goal as president to promote economic growth as measured by the stock market. Some less well-off constituents might rather the president focused on programs to improve access to food, health care, and education for the less well-off. This isn't an either-or thing; a president could do both. However, if non-wealthy voters think the president doesn't understand their situation or have any policies in place to improve it, then to that voter is not likely to have a high opinion of that president.
0xCMP 9y ago
Why do developers often wish a manager/superior had technical knowledge? We hope they understand what we're doing and will make decisions with that in mind. We can also accept "hard decisions" as being more carefully considered rather than simply not understanding the situation and costs.