How their styles shape the reactions you’re having= 4 Candidates and First Impressions- AI summing up my on the spot first impressions! by Bri/AI Oct. ’26
Gary Aikema — practical, grounded, non-performative
Your earlier impression of Gary as “honest” and “practical” fits a very recognizable communication profile: He’ll organize and fix it this weekend!
- Plain-spoken delivery
He doesn’t try to sound like a polished politician. That creates a trust cue. - Concrete references
When someone talks about real streets, real problems, real constraints, it signals local authenticity. - Imperfection in delivery
Small hesitations, thinking pauses, or unpolished phrasing often read as sincerity rather than performance. - Realistic framing
If he acknowledges limits (“this will take time,” “we’d need staff approval”), that’s classic practical problem-solver behaviour.
Your brain reads this as: “He’s actually thinking, not selling.”
Rick Kunc — smooth, confident, but potentially evasive
You described him as “smooth” and “self-confident,” with a hint of “shifty.” That’s a very common reaction to a certain debate persona:
- Highly polished cadence
When someone speaks like they’ve rehearsed every line, people often feel they’re watching a performance. - Answer-pivoting
If he redirects questions toward talking points instead of addressing them directly, it triggers an evasiveness heuristic. - Unbroken confidence
A steady tone, unwavering eye contact, and no hesitation can feel like salesmanship rather than authenticity. - Generalities over specifics
Smooth speakers often avoid concrete details, which makes viewers wonder what’s underneath the polish.
Your reaction is consistent with how audiences respond when a candidate’s delivery feels too refined for a municipal debate.
Lorn Lieberman — big-tent idealist, festival organizer energy
Your description — candidate 3 is a “festival organizer,” and candidate 4 is a “PhD planner,” “accepts hair‑brained ideas,” “we can include all programs and make them work no matter how silly” — maps to a very distinct communication archetype:
- Inclusion-first framing
Festival organizers and planners often default to: “We can make it work, we can fit it in, we can collaborate.”
That’s a classic big-tent mindset. - Optimistic problem framing
Instead of saying “that won’t work,” they say “let’s explore how it could work.”
This reads as idealistic or overly accommodating, depending on the listener. - High cognitive bandwidth
PhD planners often think in systems:
“If we adjust X, integrate Y, and coordinate Z, we can make this idea viable.”
To some people, that feels visionary; to others, it feels unrealistic. - PhD planners Low rejection threshold
If he rarely says “no,” it can come across as accepting “hair-brained ideas,” even when he’s trying to show openness.
Your reaction — “he’ll include anything, even silly ideas” — is exactly how many people respond to candidates who emphasize collaboration and inclusion over feasibility.
The deeper psychology behind your impressions
1. Authenticity vs. polish
- Gary = authenticity through imperfection
- Rick = polish that risks feeling evasive
- Lorn & PhD guy= inclusiveness that risks feeling unrealistic
2. Cognitive style mismatch
You prefer:
- practicality
- realism
- grounded problem-solving
So:
- Gary aligns with your cognitive style
- Rick triggers your skepticism radar
- Lorn triggers your feasibility radar
3. Debate context matters
Municipal debates reward:
- specificity
- realism
- local knowledge
They punish:
- over-polish
- over-optimism
- over-inclusiveness
- Candidate 3: Lorn — festival organizer, independent, outspoken
- Candidate 4: PhD McMaster planner — hyper‑inclusive, accepts every idea
Lorn (Festival Organizer, Independent, Outspoken)
This is a very recognizable personality type in municipal debates — the community-builder creative.
Core behavioural traits
- Event-organizer energy
People who run festivals are used to juggling volunteers, artists, vendors, last‑minute crises.
They develop a “we can make it happen” tone — even when the idea is chaotic. - Outspoken independence
Festival organizers often operate outside rigid bureaucratic structures.
They’re used to improvising, negotiating, and pushing boundaries.
That comes across as bold, unfiltered, and sometimes unconventional. - Narrative-driven communication
They tend to speak in stories, community moments, or “here’s what I’ve seen on the ground.”
This feels authentic but can drift away from concrete policy mechanics.
How this reads to viewers
- Energetic and community-rooted
- Creative but sometimes scattered
- Strong personality, not afraid to challenge norms
Your reaction — “independent, outspoken festival organizer” — fits the archetype perfectly.
PhD McMaster Planner (the ‘we can include everything’ guy)
This is the classic systems thinker who sees every idea as potentially workable if you adjust the structure around it.
Core behavioural traits
- High cognitive flexibility
Planners with advanced academic training often think in terms of:
“If we tweak X, integrate Y, and coordinate Z, the idea becomes viable.”
They see possibilities everywhere. - Low rejection threshold
Instead of saying “no,” they say:
“Let’s explore how we could make that work.”
This can sound like accepting “hair‑brained ideas,” even when they’re just being academically open. - Dialogue-first mindset
They believe problems can be solved through consultation, stakeholder engagement, and iterative design.
So they default to:
“We can massage it, dialogue it, adjust it, and fit it in.” - Optimistic systems framing
They assume coordination can overcome feasibility issues — which sometimes clashes with real-world constraints.
How this reads to viewers
- Intelligent, articulate, and process-oriented
- Open-minded to the point of seeming unrealistic
- More academic than practical
- Less decisive, more exploratory
Your description — “accepts every hair-brained idea as if we can massage and dialogue and make it work” — is exactly how many people perceive planners who operate from a systems-theory worldview.
Why these two feel so different from Gary and Rick
You’ve now seen four distinct communication archetypes in the same debate:
Gary → grounded, practical, authentic- My First BEloved!
Rick → polished, confident, slightly evasive used car salesman- hey, some are just friendly and helpful! Is he good or too good to be true?
Lorn → creative, outspoken, community-driven, get-er-happening
PhD Planner → hyper-inclusive, systems-oriented, academically optimistic, lost in space pie in the sky fantasies? Let’s rebuild Nirvana
Municipal debates amplify these differences because:
- Practicality stands out
- Over-polish feels suspicious
- Over-optimism feels unrealistic
- Creative energy feels chaotic
- Academic systems-thinking feels detached from real constraints
Your reactions are exactly what most viewers experience when these archetypes collide on stage.
- How each candidate handles pressure or conflict
- Which communication cues signal sincerity vs. performance
- Why certain styles resonate more with Ward 13 voters
- A side-by-side behavioural comparison chart