manipulation or psychopathy. >> a lot of people will donate as long as you don't make me come to theve heard that thousands of times. >> reporter: why don't they want to come? >> because it's boring and because they have heard the same things many times. there is nothing novel. >> reporter: former candidates told us that they sometimes found their hot-button issues by conducting polls. but how do they choose their slogans? their exact words? >> the words you get are derived from focus groups and they will use words like "working hard and playing by the rules." "governing from moderation." whatever the words are and they have focus groups and sit around with 12 people with two- way mirrors and the consultants sit behind the mirror and they see how people react. in some of them they use a device that takes advantage of basal metabolism. so you are looking for the most intense word, either positive and negative and then you inject that into your conversation. >> reporter: leo mccarthy says he felt like a programmed robot and wanted to rebel about his campaign consultant masters, but wor

is that intimacy, ma liplation, or some kind of psychopathy. >> so inside, you could be hating this moment, and you wouldn't let us know because it would be rude. >> if you asked me a question i didn't, i'd have to do that. >> reporter: questions such as is he trying to help or is he filling an emptiness in himself. >> are you more concerned with winning or concerned with doing good? >> reporter: the awkwardness of political luncheons. >> i'm very conscious of closing my mouth when chewing my food or things drooling out of my mouth. i don't like to eat in front of a bunch of cameras. >> reporter: as for of the smiles politicians always have to wear -- >> i don't do that as much as i'm supposed to do. do you have any smile left? i was thinking about this the other day. everybody is smiling. particularly you news men and in advertising. everybody is happy. i'm thinking to myself, is this the cover for something dark and dangerous that's up ahead? it's almost like there's a conspiracy of happiness to ab secure the suffering. >> reporter: some thoughts from jerry brown ten years ago when he wa

is that intimacy, ma liplation, or some kind of psychopathy. >> so inside, you could be hating this moment, and you wouldn't let us know because it would be rude. >> if you asked me a question i didn't, i'd have to do that. >> reporter: questions such as is he trying to help or is he filling an emptiness in himself. >> are you more concerned with winning or concerned with doing good? >> reporter: the awkwardness of political luncheons. >> i'm very conscious of closing my mouth when chewing my food or things drooling out of my mouth. i don't like to eat in front of a bunch of cameras. >> reporter: as for of the smiles politicians always have to wear -- >> i don't do that as much as i'm supposed to do. do you have any smile left? i was thinking about this the other day. everybody is smiling. particularly you news men and in advertising. everybody is happy. i'm thinking to myself, is this the cover for something dark and dangerous that's up ahead? it's almost like there's a conspiracy of happiness to ab secure the suffering. >> reporter: some thoughts from jerry brown ten years ago when he wa

we can understand psychopathy and positive social emotions like compassion and empathy. we can also understand at a collective scaled the influence of economics and political ramifications on human beings individually and their collective behavior. but all of these facts potentially within the purview of science. we are talking about genetics and psychology and sociology and economics. i am arguing that the truths that spell the difference between abject human misery and the kind of flourishing menopausal in this world, these truths fall in an ongoing scientific understanding of the human mind. this is easier to see if you imagine two people living on earth. imagine adam and eve and no one else. clearly there are right and wrong answers to the question of how they might maximize their well-being. they could smash each other in the face with a large rock. clearly that is not the best answer to the problem of how two human beings can thrive given an opportunity to live in this world. how does the situation changed when you add six billion more people to the experiment? i a

we can understand psychopathy at the level of the brain. and positive social emotions like compassion and empathy. we can also understand that collect a scale we can understand the influence of economics and political arrangements on human beings individually in their collective behavior. but all of these facts fall potentially within the purview of science. i mean, were talking about genetics and narrow biology and psychologists as theology and economics. so again i'm arguing that the truths that spell the difference between abject human misery and a kind of flourishing of possible for us in this world. these truths fall within our factual discussion about the way the world is, which is to say an ongoing scientific of the human mind. i think this is easier to see if you just imagine two people living on earth. you just imagine adam and me, no one else. clearly there are right and wrong answers to the question of how they might maximize their well-being. i mean, wrong answer number one, they can smash each other in the face with a large roc