Subliminal manipulation: "the best words"

[Pogo]

Ah well that's the Coil-Curl Merger, a speech form found around various regions especially in the South. You can't live in New Orleans or Brooklyn without hearing it...

>> The coil–curl merger is a vowel merger that historically occurred in some dialects of English. It is particularly associated with the early twentieth-century (but now extinct or moribund) dialects of New York City, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Charleston, South Carolina.[16] In fact, in speakers born before World War I, this merger apparently predominated throughout older Southern U.S. speech, ranging from "South Carolina to Texas and north to eastern Arkansas and the southern edge of Kentucky."[17]

The merger caused the vowel classes associated with the General American phonemes /ɔɪ/, as in choice, and /ɝ/, as in nurse, to merge, making words like coil and curl, as well as voice and verse, homophones. The merged vowel was typically a diphthong [əɪ], with a mid central starting point (though sometimes [ɜɪ]), rather than the back rounded starting point of /ɔɪ/ of choice in most other accents of English. The merger happened only before a consonant; stir and boy never rhymed.[18]

The merger is responsible for the "Brooklynese" stereotypes of bird sounding like boid and thirty-third sounding like toity-toid. The songwriter Sam M. Lewis, a native New Yorker, rhymed returning with joining in the lyrics of the English-language version of Gloomy Sunday. << --- Wiki: History of English Diphthongs

​

I saw a particularly memorable example of this in a New Orleans convention, where an A/V tech was advising his company that a presenter wanted, either a laser pointer or a laser printer. In the New Orleans "Ninth Ward" expression of the Coil-Curl Merger, "pointer" is pronounced "pernter" and "printer" is pronounced "pernter". In other words they're homonyms, no difference. This poor tech kept repeating "laser pernter" over and over and no one could figure out which one he meant.

But that's a regional speech pattern, doesn't sound like it's an intentional put-on. On the other hand we'll often hear a musician playing blues music intentionally put on the same thing "Ah woik so hahd...." in an effort to sound authentic, mimicking the same speech pattern of the blues originators in the Mississippi Delta. Even if said singer is from England.

care to comment on Hillary's attempt at black dialect when speaking in a black church?

"ah aint no ways tarred" translation: I am not tired.

Sure. Been here before.

That myth comes from a dishonest Fox Noise edit. The part they cut off was the intro to what she was saying at the time:
0:33 here ---

​

----- it's the exact lyric of a gospel song, word for word. Hillary didn't write the lyric; Curtis Burrell did. And James Cleveland made it famous --- at least among those who follow gospel music.

​

Recited verbatim, even down to the redundant "from where I started from". It's exactly how the song is written. I linked the lyrics just above; you can read it along with her. Literally.

Now Fox Noise cut the intro off and made it look like Hillary was contriving something. Knowing what you see above, here's how Fox Noise set it up:

​

They're playing their audience like a cheap banjo. But there it is, and that's what it always was. After this she quotes a Bible passage --- shall we conclude she's "contriving an Aramaic dialect"?

Anybody who looks at this with the required critical eye can see the bullshit a mile away, or rather hear it. Listen to how she pronounces the word "far". That's a Chicago twang she can't get rid of --- not in any way a "Southern drawl". You would literally have to have no idea what a "Southern drawl" is to hear that and buy the way Fox Noise tried to sell it. By deliberately cutting out the context and dishonestly setting it up as an "accent" --- they create a myth.

In an apparent desperation edit they even spliced in another passage from a completely different part of the speech, apparently trying to sell the glottal stop in "Trenton New Jersey" as if it's a Southern drawl. I grew up in that area and I already know "Trenton" IS pronounced locally with a glottal stop. But again, Fox Noise counts on viewer ignorance.

So it's actually on the topic here of subliminal psycho-manipulation that Fox Noise would deliberately misrepresent what would otherwise be a forgettable recitation as if it were some "fake accent". The purpose of this is to stir emotions, for the purpose of amassing ratings. And those of you who buy it are the pawns.

Thanks for bringing this up -- not only does it tie in with the whole pshycho-manipulation, it says far more about how the mass media engages in it for its own profit.

she was pandering, deal with it.

You just moved your own goalposts, deal with it.

She was pandering in citing a popular gospel song lyric that the audience would respond to, sure. As all politicians or for that matter all inspirational speakers or even sports play-by-play announcers do. But that wasn't what you invited me to comment on. You said, and I quote ---

care to comment on Hillary's attempt at black dialect when speaking in a black church?

So I put that to rest, and proved my case. Now you want to change your question after the answer's already been laid out.

yes, your reply is lame, thanks for acknowledging that.

She was not singing the song, she was reciting the words in full pander mode.

If she had been singing along with the congregation, you might have a point. But that's not what was going on---------------------it was a panderfest of the first degree.

No one ever claimed she was "singing". And I doubt any of us would want to hear that. I said specifically, and once again I quote, and I would know since I actually wrote it, "RECITED". You do understand what "recite" means do you not?

 

[Pogo]

From what I gather I don't get that impression.

then why do you support her?

Where?
And while we're at it have you stopped beating your wife?

I didn't correct the record above because it's Hillary Clinton. I corrected it because it's a classic and easily-exposed example of subliminal media manipulation and because that manipulation is deliberately dishonest. By demonstrating that we advance the whole point of this thread, which is to launch a critical eye to what those who mass-communicate are saying, exactly WHY they're saying it the way they are, and what they have to gain from saying it that way. In other words --- what's in it for them.

did you just figure that out?

by the way, are you still on crack cocaine? yes or no.

I asked you, and I quote, "Where?". Haven't seen an answer yet. A quote. A link. A thread. Anything you got, bring it.

are you saying that you don't support the hildebeast?

Are you saying you have evidence to support your claim?

If so, is the evidence written?

Does it in fact exist at all?

 

[Redfish]

care to comment on Hillary's attempt at black dialect when speaking in a black church?

"ah aint no ways tarred" translation: I am not tired.

Sure. Been here before.

That myth comes from a dishonest Fox Noise edit. The part they cut off was the intro to what she was saying at the time:
0:33 here ---

​

----- it's the exact lyric of a gospel song, word for word. Hillary didn't write the lyric; Curtis Burrell did. And James Cleveland made it famous --- at least among those who follow gospel music.

​

Recited verbatim, even down to the redundant "from where I started from". It's exactly how the song is written. I linked the lyrics just above; you can read it along with her. Literally.

Now Fox Noise cut the intro off and made it look like Hillary was contriving something. Knowing what you see above, here's how Fox Noise set it up:

​

They're playing their audience like a cheap banjo. But there it is, and that's what it always was. After this she quotes a Bible passage --- shall we conclude she's "contriving an Aramaic dialect"?

Anybody who looks at this with the required critical eye can see the bullshit a mile away, or rather hear it. Listen to how she pronounces the word "far". That's a Chicago twang she can't get rid of --- not in any way a "Southern drawl". You would literally have to have no idea what a "Southern drawl" is to hear that and buy the way Fox Noise tried to sell it. By deliberately cutting out the context and dishonestly setting it up as an "accent" --- they create a myth.

In an apparent desperation edit they even spliced in another passage from a completely different part of the speech, apparently trying to sell the glottal stop in "Trenton New Jersey" as if it's a Southern drawl. I grew up in that area and I already know "Trenton" IS pronounced locally with a glottal stop. But again, Fox Noise counts on viewer ignorance.

So it's actually on the topic here of subliminal psycho-manipulation that Fox Noise would deliberately misrepresent what would otherwise be a forgettable recitation as if it were some "fake accent". The purpose of this is to stir emotions, for the purpose of amassing ratings. And those of you who buy it are the pawns.

Thanks for bringing this up -- not only does it tie in with the whole pshycho-manipulation, it says far more about how the mass media engages in it for its own profit.

she was pandering, deal with it.

You just moved your own goalposts, deal with it.

She was pandering in citing a popular gospel song lyric that the audience would respond to, sure. As all politicians or for that matter all inspirational speakers or even sports play-by-play announcers do. But that wasn't what you invited me to comment on. You said, and I quote ---

care to comment on Hillary's attempt at black dialect when speaking in a black church?

So I put that to rest, and proved my case. Now you want to change your question after the answer's already been laid out.

yes, your reply is lame, thanks for acknowledging that.

She was not singing the song, she was reciting the words in full pander mode.

If she had been singing along with the congregation, you might have a point. But that's not what was going on---------------------it was a panderfest of the first degree.

No one ever claimed she was "singing". And I doubt any of us would want to hear that. I said specifically, and once again I quote, and I would know since I actually wrote it, "RECITED". You do understand what "recite" means do you not?

yes she recited it using negro dialect. That is called pandering. don yu be knowin nottin honky? Ah bees knowin all bout dem negra spir-tuals, brou.

 

[Redfish]

then why do you support her?

Where?
And while we're at it have you stopped beating your wife?

I didn't correct the record above because it's Hillary Clinton. I corrected it because it's a classic and easily-exposed example of subliminal media manipulation and because that manipulation is deliberately dishonest. By demonstrating that we advance the whole point of this thread, which is to launch a critical eye to what those who mass-communicate are saying, exactly WHY they're saying it the way they are, and what they have to gain from saying it that way. In other words --- what's in it for them.

did you just figure that out?

by the way, are you still on crack cocaine? yes or no.

I asked you, and I quote, "Where?". Haven't seen an answer yet. A quote. A link. A thread. Anything you got, bring it.

are you saying that you don't support the hildebeast?

Are you saying you have evidence to support your claim?

If so, is the evidence written?

Does it in fact exist at all?

I did not make a claim. I asked you a question. here it is again: do you support Hillary?

 

[Pogo]

Where?
And while we're at it have you stopped beating your wife?

I didn't correct the record above because it's Hillary Clinton. I corrected it because it's a classic and easily-exposed example of subliminal media manipulation and because that manipulation is deliberately dishonest. By demonstrating that we advance the whole point of this thread, which is to launch a critical eye to what those who mass-communicate are saying, exactly WHY they're saying it the way they are, and what they have to gain from saying it that way. In other words --- what's in it for them.

did you just figure that out?

by the way, are you still on crack cocaine? yes or no.

I asked you, and I quote, "Where?". Haven't seen an answer yet. A quote. A link. A thread. Anything you got, bring it.

are you saying that you don't support the hildebeast?

Are you saying you have evidence to support your claim?

If so, is the evidence written?

Does it in fact exist at all?

I did not make a claim. I asked you a question. here it is again: do you support Hillary?

WRONG. And a lie. I have your quote right here bub: Roll tape.

Does Hillary Clinton think like you do? Just curious.

From what I gather I don't get that impression.

then why do you support her?

--- it's right there on the record and now you're again trying to change your own question, which is blatantly dishonest.

If you actually would rather pretend to be so stupid that you don't understand simple English one-syllable words rather than break down and admit that I handled all your questions and you handled none of mine, then you need to go find a sandbox to play in somewhere because you're not ready for this. Good day.

 

[Pogo]

Intro: the short video version:

​

The article referenced:

>> WASHINGTON — When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected officials in characteristically blunt terms.

“How stupid are our leaders?” he said. “How stupid are they?”

But with his own choice of words and his short, simple sentences, Trump’s speech could have been comprehended by a fourth-grader. Yes, a fourth-grader.

The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<

​

Short, simplistic emotional bullets, always delivered at the end --- the period in the sentence --- where it will have the most impact. Anyone who's studied music at any level knows it's about tension and resolution... create an emotional pang and then drive it home with a crescendo.

It's instructive to view where the various candidates fall on the scale displayed here, as it's a direct measure of, for one thing, how that candidate views the intelligence of his/her audience (upper end) and two, how much each is engaging in psychological subliminal manipulation (lower end). Notice also that where they fall on the scale bears no relation to either their politics or their popularity.

This is what "I have the best words" actually means. Not that the words themselves are bigly, but that the way they're used works as an effective tool on the easily-manipulated.

Discuss at a high reading level....

Well, that's not really surprising. Mind you, I happen to believe that Donald Trump probably doesn't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I remember a literature class I took that specifically addressed effective use of simple, direct words and sentence structure in a contrast of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway's style was known for its deceptively plain, straightforward vocabulary and short sentences, and yet he produced some of the most powerful, enduring works American literature has. When you get right down to it, it's much easier to resonate with people's emotions if they never have to stop and think about the words at all.

I'm a great proponent of simple is best when it comes to explaining oneself, and I agree with you that Ernest Hemingway wrote some powerful books. But Faulkner was experimenting in stream-of-consciousness writing and to me that was very powerful, as well. Not as easy but easily as emotive and powerful.

I have to say, I wasn't impressed with Hemingway. It's been a long time but mostly what I remember is that he came off as simply angry rather than thoughtful. I did learn the word "shit-maru" from one of his books but that was about it.

 

[OldLady]

Trump talks like the majority of americans talk. He is not PC. He says things using the terms that average americans use.

You can deride that if you like, but its called communicating and its very effective. Sanders is doing the same thing from the far left side, and its working for him too.

Why is that? Could it be that our educational system and our media and entertainment industries have produced a generation of functional illiterates? Probably.

But as ignorant as many americans are, they do understand lying and corruption-------------and will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a proven liar and a corrupt human being.

Yes. We grasp lying at an early age. It isn't the words so much. I spend my days explaining (trying anyway) abstract ideas in the simplest, clearest language I can. It is the sad difference between the concrete thinking (I understand what I can see and touch) Trump uses and the higher order thinking the president frequently uses.
Right after San Bernardino, when Obama made the address calling for gun control, he was up in the philosophical stratosphere referring to Donne and begging for some degree of societal sanity. Same with his talk at Hiroshima. His intent flies straight over people's heads. No one in their right mind could disagree with what he is saying if they understood what he was saying. It's sad. I guess we have learned our lesson about electing someone smarter than we are.

You are a total idiot. Praising obozo the traitor? On memorial day weekend the asshole goes to Hiroshima and apologizes for the USA winning the war--------after Japan killed thousands of americans in an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. That traitorous bastard should have been at Pearl Harbor recognizing the americans who died defending this country in WW2. Your bullshit about his speech being "over people's heads" is crass and a total lie. No one is fooled by your America hating Kenyan messiah. And shove your patronizing " we are so much smarter than you are" up your fat Obama loving ass.

You and Obama can kiss my ass.

I pretty much predicted getting that reply from someone, just about word for word. He didn't apologize. I was not trying to personally insult you, but if the shoe fits wears it. If you think he apologized, those shoes might be a pretty good fit.

Obama inferred that the USA was equally responsible for the deaths during WW2. It was a poorly veiled apology. You fricken Obama worshipers need to open your eyes and minds to who and what this guy really is. But you never will. Your partisanship over shadows all else. Quite pathetic.

I do hear what you're saying. He was talking about humanity's propensity to war, and I guess America is part of humanity, so yes, I guess if you want to put it that way, he gave humankind in general an ass chewing. I was more interested in the way he seemed to be gearing it toward leaders, however, not Joe Average like me. He even said he thought most "ordinary" people get it and don't want war. It's our leaders that get us involved for their own purposes. I don't in any way disagree with you that we were attacked and needed to defend our interests. I think Obama was TRYING to put this on a different level, though, about how the threat of war these days includes the threat of nuclear war, which is mutually assured annihilation.

 

[OldLady]

Intro: the short video version:

​

The article referenced:

>> WASHINGTON — When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected officials in characteristically blunt terms.

“How stupid are our leaders?” he said. “How stupid are they?”

But with his own choice of words and his short, simple sentences, Trump’s speech could have been comprehended by a fourth-grader. Yes, a fourth-grader.

The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<

​

Short, simplistic emotional bullets, always delivered at the end --- the period in the sentence --- where it will have the most impact. Anyone who's studied music at any level knows it's about tension and resolution... create an emotional pang and then drive it home with a crescendo.

It's instructive to view where the various candidates fall on the scale displayed here, as it's a direct measure of, for one thing, how that candidate views the intelligence of his/her audience (upper end) and two, how much each is engaging in psychological subliminal manipulation (lower end). Notice also that where they fall on the scale bears no relation to either their politics or their popularity.

This is what "I have the best words" actually means. Not that the words themselves are bigly, but that the way they're used works as an effective tool on the easily-manipulated.

Discuss at a high reading level....

Well, that's not really surprising. Mind you, I happen to believe that Donald Trump probably doesn't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I remember a literature class I took that specifically addressed effective use of simple, direct words and sentence structure in a contrast of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway's style was known for its deceptively plain, straightforward vocabulary and short sentences, and yet he produced some of the most powerful, enduring works American literature has. When you get right down to it, it's much easier to resonate with people's emotions if they never have to stop and think about the words at all.

I'm a great proponent of simple is best when it comes to explaining oneself, and I agree with you that Ernest Hemingway wrote some powerful books. But Faulkner was experimenting in stream-of-consciousness writing and to me that was very powerful, as well. Not as easy but easily as emotive and powerful.

I have to say, I wasn't impressed with Hemingway. It's been a long time but mostly what I remember is that he came off as simply angry rather than thoughtful. I did learn the word "shit-maru" from one of his books but that was about it.

I kinda liked For Whom The Bell Tolls. And that Macomber short story still haunts me. But Faulkner is much more my cup of tea. Not a very politically correct opinion these days, but there you are.

 

[OldLady]

Cynicism? I always have hope for us. Not so sure about Bush and 'nukyulur,' though. Southerners have a hard time with some of 'dem words. Ever hear Paula Dean pronounce "oil?"

No. Does she say "earl"?

Yes.

Ah well that's the Coil-Curl Merger, a speech form found around various regions especially in the South. You can't live in New Orleans or Brooklyn without hearing it...

>> The coil–curl merger is a vowel merger that historically occurred in some dialects of English. It is particularly associated with the early twentieth-century (but now extinct or moribund) dialects of New York City, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Charleston, South Carolina.[16] In fact, in speakers born before World War I, this merger apparently predominated throughout older Southern U.S. speech, ranging from "South Carolina to Texas and north to eastern Arkansas and the southern edge of Kentucky."[17]

The merger caused the vowel classes associated with the General American phonemes /ɔɪ/, as in choice, and /ɝ/, as in nurse, to merge, making words like coil and curl, as well as voice and verse, homophones. The merged vowel was typically a diphthong [əɪ], with a mid central starting point (though sometimes [ɜɪ]), rather than the back rounded starting point of /ɔɪ/ of choice in most other accents of English. The merger happened only before a consonant; stir and boy never rhymed.[18]

The merger is responsible for the "Brooklynese" stereotypes of bird sounding like boid and thirty-third sounding like toity-toid. The songwriter Sam M. Lewis, a native New Yorker, rhymed returning with joining in the lyrics of the English-language version of Gloomy Sunday. << --- Wiki: History of English Diphthongs

​

I saw a particularly memorable example of this in a New Orleans convention, where an A/V tech was advising his company that a presenter wanted, either a laser pointer or a laser printer. In the New Orleans "Ninth Ward" expression of the Coil-Curl Merger, "pointer" is pronounced "pernter" and "printer" is pronounced "pernter". In other words they're homonyms, no difference. This poor tech kept repeating "laser pernter" over and over and no one could figure out which one he meant.

But that's a regional speech pattern, doesn't sound like it's an intentional put-on. On the other hand we'll often hear a musician playing blues music intentionally put on the same thing "Ah woik so hahd...." in an effort to sound authentic, mimicking the same speech pattern of the blues originators in the Mississippi Delta. Even if said singer is from England.

Cool beans. I always wondered why Paula Dean and my landlady, originally from NYC, used that same pronunciation. She called it a 'turlet' every time. I guess we know what part of the City those southerners immigrated to, way back in the day.
The Downeast accent around here is almost impossible to mimic, too. People try and they always fail.

you and pogo are typical liberals, denigrate people because they do not talk like you do or have the same priorities that you have.

you liberals are the most intolerant humans on earth, except maybe radical muslims.

I'm sorry if I was snotty. I'm hoping you insulted me first. But our discussion about accents wasn't meant to be derogatory at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Historical background (from OP article):

>> The utterances of today’s candidates reflect a continued decline in the complexity of political speech. President George Washington’s “Farewell Address” in 1796 was written at graduate-degree levels: Grade 17.9 , while President Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” in 1863 was at an 11th-grade level.

A 2012 review by the Sunlight Foundation of nearly every statement on the House and Senate floors found that the grade level of speeches from members of Congress had declined, from 11.3 in 1996 to 10.6 in 2012. That review used the same algorithm.

Smart Politics, a nonpartisan site sponsored by the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, examined presidential State of the Union addresses and found that scores had steadily declined. John F. Kennedy’s speech in 1961 was at a Grade 13.9 level, while President Obama’s have been aimed at an eighth-grade audience. <<
​

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- observation by Isaac Asimov, 1980

In the past, political speeches were written as oratory to impress the public

Today they look at sound bites on the news or on YouTube

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intro: the short video version:

​

The article referenced:

>> WASHINGTON — When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected officials in characteristically blunt terms.

“How stupid are our leaders?” he said. “How stupid are they?”

But with his own choice of words and his short, simple sentences, Trump’s speech could have been comprehended by a fourth-grader. Yes, a fourth-grader.

The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<

​

Short, simplistic emotional bullets, always delivered at the end --- the period in the sentence --- where it will have the most impact. Anyone who's studied music at any level knows it's about tension and resolution... create an emotional pang and then drive it home with a crescendo.

It's instructive to view where the various candidates fall on the scale displayed here, as it's a direct measure of, for one thing, how that candidate views the intelligence of his/her audience (upper end) and two, how much each is engaging in psychological subliminal manipulation (lower end). Notice also that where they fall on the scale bears no relation to either their politics or their popularity.

This is what "I have the best words" actually means. Not that the words themselves are bigly, but that the way they're used works as an effective tool on the easily-manipulated.

Discuss at a high reading level....

Well, that's not really surprising. Mind you, I happen to believe that Donald Trump probably doesn't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I remember a literature class I took that specifically addressed effective use of simple, direct words and sentence structure in a contrast of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway's style was known for its deceptively plain, straightforward vocabulary and short sentences, and yet he produced some of the most powerful, enduring works American literature has. When you get right down to it, it's much easier to resonate with people's emotions if they never have to stop and think about the words at all.

I'm a great proponent of simple is best when it comes to explaining oneself, and I agree with you that Ernest Hemingway wrote some powerful books. But Faulkner was experimenting in stream-of-consciousness writing and to me that was very powerful, as well. Not as easy but easily as emotive and powerful.

I never said Hemingway was better or worse than Faulkner. Neither did the class. It was a contrast between the two styles, because Faulkner was very much a lover of convoluted vocabulary and sentence structure, and Hemingway was definitely not. Both are, obviously, giants of American literature. The point of the contrast was that the key to powerful, effective communication is not choosing the fanciest words, but choosing the CORRECT ones.

 

[OldLady]

Intro: the short video version:

​

The article referenced:

>> WASHINGTON — When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected officials in characteristically blunt terms.

“How stupid are our leaders?” he said. “How stupid are they?”

But with his own choice of words and his short, simple sentences, Trump’s speech could have been comprehended by a fourth-grader. Yes, a fourth-grader.

The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<

​

Short, simplistic emotional bullets, always delivered at the end --- the period in the sentence --- where it will have the most impact. Anyone who's studied music at any level knows it's about tension and resolution... create an emotional pang and then drive it home with a crescendo.

It's instructive to view where the various candidates fall on the scale displayed here, as it's a direct measure of, for one thing, how that candidate views the intelligence of his/her audience (upper end) and two, how much each is engaging in psychological subliminal manipulation (lower end). Notice also that where they fall on the scale bears no relation to either their politics or their popularity.

This is what "I have the best words" actually means. Not that the words themselves are bigly, but that the way they're used works as an effective tool on the easily-manipulated.

Discuss at a high reading level....

Well, that's not really surprising. Mind you, I happen to believe that Donald Trump probably doesn't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I remember a literature class I took that specifically addressed effective use of simple, direct words and sentence structure in a contrast of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway's style was known for its deceptively plain, straightforward vocabulary and short sentences, and yet he produced some of the most powerful, enduring works American literature has. When you get right down to it, it's much easier to resonate with people's emotions if they never have to stop and think about the words at all.

I'm a great proponent of simple is best when it comes to explaining oneself, and I agree with you that Ernest Hemingway wrote some powerful books. But Faulkner was experimenting in stream-of-consciousness writing and to me that was very powerful, as well. Not as easy but easily as emotive and powerful.

I never said Hemingway was better or worse than Faulkner. Neither did the class. It was a contrast between the two styles, because Faulkner was very much a lover of convoluted vocabulary and sentence structure, and Hemingway was definitely not. Both are, obviously, giants of American literature. The point of the contrast was that the key to powerful, effective communication is not choosing the fanciest words, but choosing the CORRECT ones.

I know how to read, including your initial post. I reiterate my earlier point: Faulkner's "convoluted" sentence structure was for a stylistic reason. It seems pretty clear that neither you or your professor actually prefer Faulkner's convoluted style and "fanciest works."
I could talk about words all day, but we're way off track here. My fault. Let's get back.

 

[Pogo]

Related, from the Rump "University" playbook recently revealed:

>> "You don't sell products, benefits or solutions -- you sell feelings," according to the sales playbook. <<​

(truism of advertising in general, and advertising, rather than campaigning, is what Rump has been doing)

>> "you may begin with some small-talk to establish rapport but do not let them take control of the conversation," a playbook reads. "You must be very aggressive during these conversations to in order to push them out of their comfort zones."

A 2009 playbook quotes a Yale University study that found the most persuasive words in the English language are: you, new, money, easy, discovery, free, results, health, save, proven, guarantee and love. <<​

Of course Rump also employs the ironic, mouthing one set of words obviously to convey their opposite:

>> "The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that's fine," Trump said of Curiel, who was born in the U.S.

It was the second time Trump has brought up the judge's ethnicity as he complained about his treatment. <<​

(All from here)

Obviously it's not much of a leap from "being very unfair" to "rapist".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Intro: the short video version:

​

The article referenced:

>> WASHINGTON — When Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign, he decried the lack of intelligence of elected officials in characteristically blunt terms.

“How stupid are our leaders?” he said. “How stupid are they?”

But with his own choice of words and his short, simple sentences, Trump’s speech could have been comprehended by a fourth-grader. Yes, a fourth-grader.

The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<

​

Short, simplistic emotional bullets, always delivered at the end --- the period in the sentence --- where it will have the most impact. Anyone who's studied music at any level knows it's about tension and resolution... create an emotional pang and then drive it home with a crescendo.

It's instructive to view where the various candidates fall on the scale displayed here, as it's a direct measure of, for one thing, how that candidate views the intelligence of his/her audience (upper end) and two, how much each is engaging in psychological subliminal manipulation (lower end). Notice also that where they fall on the scale bears no relation to either their politics or their popularity.

This is what "I have the best words" actually means. Not that the words themselves are bigly, but that the way they're used works as an effective tool on the easily-manipulated.

Discuss at a high reading level....

Well, that's not really surprising. Mind you, I happen to believe that Donald Trump probably doesn't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I remember a literature class I took that specifically addressed effective use of simple, direct words and sentence structure in a contrast of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway's style was known for its deceptively plain, straightforward vocabulary and short sentences, and yet he produced some of the most powerful, enduring works American literature has. When you get right down to it, it's much easier to resonate with people's emotions if they never have to stop and think about the words at all.

I'm a great proponent of simple is best when it comes to explaining oneself, and I agree with you that Ernest Hemingway wrote some powerful books. But Faulkner was experimenting in stream-of-consciousness writing and to me that was very powerful, as well. Not as easy but easily as emotive and powerful.

I never said Hemingway was better or worse than Faulkner. Neither did the class. It was a contrast between the two styles, because Faulkner was very much a lover of convoluted vocabulary and sentence structure, and Hemingway was definitely not. Both are, obviously, giants of American literature. The point of the contrast was that the key to powerful, effective communication is not choosing the fanciest words, but choosing the CORRECT ones.

I know how to read, including your initial post. I reiterate my earlier point: Faulkner's "convoluted" sentence structure was for a stylistic reason. It seems pretty clear that neither you or your professor actually prefer Faulkner's convoluted style and "fanciest works."
I could talk about words all day, but we're way off track here. My fault. Let's get back.

Oh, yeah, you read really "goodly" or "goodish", obviously.

"Faulkner had a more convoluted writing style."

"Well, he did that for stylistic choices!"

Let's see if you understand this: No shit.

A key component to reading comprehension is not to project your own personal value connotations onto people's words, such as your repeated need to somehow see my posts as criticisms of William Faulkner and then assume that, because you heard criticisms that weren't there, my professor and I must not have liked Faulkner.

For the record, Ms. "I know how to read SO WELL!", I am actually very fond of Faulkner, and don't especially care for Hemingway at all, so clearly, you read something that wasn't there, ie. you read very badly.

I think we've learned something about leftist mindsets in general today.

 

[Pogo]