Subliminal manipulation: "the best words"

[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....

 

[Pogo]

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

 

[Jack4jill]

And the mental children are voting for him.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Oh please, humans can make or break the cycle without help from a peer pressure group..

 

[Pogo]

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

Oh please, humans can make or break the cycle without help from a peer pressure group..

No idea what that means....

 

[OldLady]

You're right, of course, about Trump speaking to us like we're third graders. I have often wondered if some of Obama's unpopularity is because he is so "the professor" and speaks to us as if we understand from whence he speaks, at his level. A lot of people haven't got a clue what he's going on about. He'd be a great professor, but I wonder if he overestimated the intelligence of the American populace--or just decided he didn't give a damn about the ones who don't get it?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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....

You do understand the average American is a true idiot...

If you ran someone like Stephen Hawkings as President ( I know he can not run because he is in a wheelchair and he was born in England ) and had him explain how he would solve the issues that this country faces the majority of Americans would not even listen nor read him because he does not speak the common man language.

Now run someone like Donald Trump and him screaming " Make America Great Again " and " Build That Wall " and you notice that his simplistic words draw the attention of the common man and woman because they understand simple words and ideas even if the ideas will never fix the issues this country faces.

So this is why I have stated many times I can see Trump winning because of the simple fact that most Americans are stupid, and need someone to dumb down the words for them so they can march to the polls and vote for the dumbest candidate possible.

Now if you disagree with me then poll which TV show most Americans would prefer, or what is their favorite book that they have read, or who is there favorite musical artist or favorite painter and discover the reality the average American is a true idiot...

( I attempted not to use profanity within your thread but what I was hinting at is the average American is a fucking idiot that is living proof inbreeding does exist and if you disagree then read some of the mental midget writings on this board, and yes I am a true fucking idiot too )

 

[Pogo]

"The best words" at work...

​

 

[Pogo]

You're right, of course, about Trump speaking to us like we're third graders. I have often wondered if some of Obama's unpopularity is because he is so "the professor" and speaks to us as if we understand from whence he speaks, at his level. A lot of people haven't got a clue what he's going on about. He'd be a great professor, but I wonder if he overestimated the intelligence of the American populace--or just decided he didn't give a damn about the ones who don't get it?

Perhaps that's where the whole "egomaniac" meme comes from? That one's always flummoxed me.

And in a stunning display of Doublethink the same wags whine about his "apologizing for America" like they can't decide which way to play it.

Boggles the mind.

 

[Pogo]

You do understand the average American is a true idiot...

If you ran someone like Stephen Hawkings as President ( I know he can not run because he is in a wheelchair and he was born in England ) and had him explain how he would solve the issues that this country faces the majority of Americans would not even listen nor read him because he does not speak the common man language.

Absolutely --- that's why William F. Buckley, whose thoughts I very much enjoyed for the challenge, had to run his show on PBS --- it was just way too intellectual and articulate to sell soap.

So this is why I have stated many times I can see Trump winning because of the simple fact that most Americans are stupid, and need someone to dumb down the words for them so they can march to the polls and vote for the dumbest candidate possible.

Now if you disagree with me then poll which TV show most Americans would prefer, or what is their favorite book that they have read, or who is there favorite musical artist or favorite painter and discover the reality the average American is a true idiot...

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, or make the contrary point. What I do address is whether that support as expressed in Rump is deserved. And why.

 

[Redfish]

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.

 

[Redfish]

You do understand the average American is a true idiot...

If you ran someone like Stephen Hawkings as President ( I know he can not run because he is in a wheelchair and he was born in England ) and had him explain how he would solve the issues that this country faces the majority of Americans would not even listen nor read him because he does not speak the common man language.

Absolutely --- that's why William F. Buckley, whose thoughts I very much enjoyed for the challenge, had to run his show on PBS --- it was just way too intellectual and articulate to sell soap.

So this is why I have stated many times I can see Trump winning because of the simple fact that most Americans are stupid, and need someone to dumb down the words for them so they can march to the polls and vote for the dumbest candidate possible.

Now if you disagree with me then poll which TV show most Americans would prefer, or what is their favorite book that they have read, or who is there favorite musical artist or favorite painter and discover the reality the average American is a true idiot...

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, or make the contrary point. What I do address is whether that support as expressed in Rump is deserved. And why.

Do you just make this shit up as you go? Buckley was taken off PBS because he was too conservative and made too much sense for that left wing outlet.

 

[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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're right, of course, about Trump speaking to us like we're third graders. I have often wondered if some of Obama's unpopularity is because he is so "the professor" and speaks to us as if we understand from whence he speaks, at his level. A lot of people haven't got a clue what he's going on about. He'd be a great professor, but I wonder if he overestimated the intelligence of the American populace--or just decided he didn't give a damn about the ones who don't get it?

I don't think Trump speaks to us like we're third-graders. That would imply that he's simplifying himself and talking down to us, which would thereby imply that he's capable of communicating at a higher level than he does. I'm afraid I'm quite skeptical of that assumption.

 

[strollingbones]

graham has a retreat ......kursh had a compound...semantics matters

 

[Pogo]

You do understand the average American is a true idiot...

If you ran someone like Stephen Hawkings as President ( I know he can not run because he is in a wheelchair and he was born in England ) and had him explain how he would solve the issues that this country faces the majority of Americans would not even listen nor read him because he does not speak the common man language.

Absolutely --- that's why William F. Buckley, whose thoughts I very much enjoyed for the challenge, had to run his show on PBS --- it was just way too intellectual and articulate to sell soap.

So this is why I have stated many times I can see Trump winning because of the simple fact that most Americans are stupid, and need someone to dumb down the words for them so they can march to the polls and vote for the dumbest candidate possible.

Now if you disagree with me then poll which TV show most Americans would prefer, or what is their favorite book that they have read, or who is there favorite musical artist or favorite painter and discover the reality the average American is a true idiot...

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, or make the contrary point. What I do address is whether that support as expressed in Rump is deserved. And why.

Do you just make this shit up as you go? Buckley was taken off PBS because he was too conservative and made too much sense for that left wing outlet.

Link?

Actually he was put ON to PBS because he couldn't sell soap. And when I say "couldn't sell soap", that's a compliment.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Ummm.... check out where Rump and Sanders are on the erudite scale above. Whoopsie.

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

Absolutely. Especially Television, which is the greatest mind-numbingly hypnotic propaganda device ever created, and without which no one would know who the hell Donald T. Rump was.

Now connect those dots.

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.

------- aaaaaand there it is again, this train is ALWAYS right on time like clockwork. Bring up a topic about Rump, or in this case about language, and some saboteur comes in to switch the tracks to "but --- but --- Hillary".

 

[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.

 

[Pogo]

You're right, of course, about Trump speaking to us like we're third graders. I have often wondered if some of Obama's unpopularity is because he is so "the professor" and speaks to us as if we understand from whence he speaks, at his level. A lot of people haven't got a clue what he's going on about. He'd be a great professor, but I wonder if he overestimated the intelligence of the American populace--or just decided he didn't give a damn about the ones who don't get it?

I don't think Trump speaks to us like we're third-graders. That would imply that he's simplifying himself and talking down to us, which would thereby imply that he's capable of communicating at a higher level than he does. I'm afraid I'm quite skeptical of that assumption.

It's tempting to suspect he just doesn't know any better and his ceiling is simply that low. But I'm not sure that isn't, at the risk of throwing up a little in my own mouth, selling him short. Given the analysis put forth in the OP video, particularly how the syntax is carefully arranged and rearranged to present a coda at the period --- I suspect this is very much by design. The videographer makes an astute observation about that.

Seems to me he does this not because he doesn't have more "bigly" words, but because he has no ethics and knows it's a bullshit-persuasion tool that will work on the gullible. If there's one thing Donald Rump has to be given credit for, it's knowing how to deliver bullshit persuasion at the basest emotional level.

 

[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.