No! Really?
[From top: Maturity and Intelligence make for a winning combination; Kerry about to blame Bush for dropping the ball; Kerry slobbering over his new girlfriend; Kerry caressing his new girlfriend's earlobe; the happy couple; Rush Limbaugh's EIB network identifies what would be confirmed in a lingual/psychological study years later; Vice President Cheney very worried about being outsmarted]
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin took speech samples of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Senators Kerry and Edwards from 271 televised interviews, news conferences, town hall meetings, and debates from the 2004 campaign.
The samples were run through a computerized text-analysis program that identified subtle but distinctive linguistic patterns and words that conformed to personality types and characteristics as profiled in previous research.
The results:
President Bush and Vice President Cheney sounded more presidential than Senators Kerry and Edwards (as using more words and speech patterns used by presidents going back to FDR).
President Bush came off as the "oldest" in the analysis (as using more words and speeech patterns used by seasoned citizens).
Vice President Cheney came off far and away as the most intelligent (as demonstrated by "cognitive complexity marked by sophisticated sentence structure and word choices"-- i.e. using more words and speech patterns used by those with a high I.Q. and advanced education).
Senator Kerry sounded the most depressed or suicidal (as using more words and speech patterns used by depressed and suicidal people).
Senator Edwards sounded the most female (as using more words and speech patterns used by females).
posted by John | 3:56 PM
17 Comments:
Even I have to question the soundness of this study.
Why?
Do the results surprise you?
Do they not make sense?
I understand your skepticism. From what I gather, they used over 400 (but less than 500) word samples to run through the computer, which aren't very many.
It's in an inexact science, to be sure, but there are working formulas and mathematical equations they use to inductively arrive at a general picture of the whole subject by the slices.
*Ex pede Herculem,* as Pythagoras
induced.
Can not a forensic detective induce the entire DNA structure of a fugitive by the hair the latter left behind in the teeth of their comb?
A physician can induce the extent of cancer in someone's body by a drop of blood, can they not?
Pollsters interview 50 to several hundred people to induce the mood of over a 100,000,000 citizens, do they not?
Oceanologists study the condition of a reef and the amount of mercury in a mollusk to inductively arrive at a conclusion about the state of an ocean system, do they not?
Environmentalist figure out the the emmission of "greenhouse gases" from one SUV and multiply that by the number of vehicles on the road based on gross sales to induce the increased carbon monoxide ratio in the volume of the entire atmosphere, do they not?
Is it truly surprising that a man who had already been president for four years and his vice president who had served for decades in the executive branch for several administrations sounded more presidential than senators?
Doesn't it make sense that a Texan Evangelical conservative speaks like someone from an older generation?
Isn't it obvious that Cheney is a very intelligent, rational man and the least among the four candidates to be susceptible to emotional blather and egocentric subjectivity?
Do you really need the lingual analysts to inform you that John Kerry campaigned against the administration as a doom & gloom pessimist?
Is it news to you that John Edwards is a pretty-boy sissy?
Okay, you have a point...but the fact that it came out of UT-Austin made me question it.
Switch things around and say that Kerry had been elected...how would that have changed the outcome of this study?
It wouldn't change a thing. The data they plugged in was from the campaign.
John said,
"Is it truly surprising that a man who had already been president for four years and his vice president who had served for decades in the executive branch for several administrations sounded more presidential than senators?"
This is why I made the comment about Kerry.
But you are right...Kerry ran a campaign of gloom and doom...
I don't question that there are things in that study that are right on the money...it just seems to have a slant to it.
Well, when I brought up the pollsters and the environmentalists, I was hoping you'd catch the irony. When the polls go the Left's way, they swear by them and crow about "facts," and so, by their own "scientific" standards, the "facts" are that Bush is more mature and presidential, Cheney is likewise presidential and intelligent, Kerry's a pessimist who sounds suicidal, and Edward's is a girly-man.
yes, I caught the irony but decided to play the devils advocate and got you to back it up.
;)
Oo, you're good. ;)
Could this be any more stupid? You are comparing something as subjective and irrelevant as astrology to DNA analysis? geeze.
I guess you might have left out some other aspects of this retarded research that Bush came across as least intelligent along with Edwards and was second "sissiest" only to Edwards (and by a very small margin)
Republicus, can you tell me where you read that the "intelligence" was related to higher education and IQ?
Anonymous:
Is it truly surprising that a man who had already been president for four years and his vice president who had served for decades in the executive branch for several administrations sounded more presidential than senators?
Doesn't it make sense that a Texan Evangelical conservative speaks like someone from an older generation?
Isn't it obvious that Cheney is a very intelligent, rational man and the least among the four candidates to be susceptible to emotional blather and egocentric subjectivity?
Do you really need the lingual analysts to inform you that John Kerry campaigned against the administration as a doom & gloom pessimist?
Is it news to you that John Edwards is a pretty-boy sissy?
"From what I gather, they used over 400 (but less than 500) word samples to run through the computer"
What is a "word sample". Is it a single word? A phrase? I've seen "Scientific" studies that purport that Bush's speach patterns indicate he is more comfortable talking about war than his is anything else. There was also a similar "Scientific" study that showed he use something along the lines of psychotic speach patterns. Bottom line, you give me the conclusion you want, I'll find the data to support it.
This reminds me of a discussion in a Statistics class at the University of Utah. The subject of the discussion was "How to lie with statistics".
As John was trying to point out with this entry...that all those polls we hear about with regard to Bush's "ratings"...
As LS so eloquently put it "you give me the conclusion you want, I'll find the data to support it."
Thank you. AS LS also pointed out: "There was also a similar 'Scientific' study that showed he use something along the lines of psychotic speach patterns."
Right. Was that "study" similarly demeaned as "retarded" or "stupid," or was it circulated to much nodding and amens?
Or how about the "study" of Bush's speech compared to that of a "typical alcoholic," or a " dyslexic," or a "moron," "conclusions" which have likewise seen much airtime and discussed with an air of smug certainty?
Now I'm not dismissing the results of this particular study outright.
I think there is something legitimately indicative--though not necessarily definitive--of character or even personality type by the vocabulary and speech patterns utilized and formulated.
Liberals confirm that for me quite often.
But did the researchers consider the "contamination" of the subjects by the ventriloquism of speech writers and buzz-wording of consultants?
Maybe.
Let us grant that the study results were accurately arrived at, and based on concrete indicators. The results nevertheless suggest more about the candidate's campaigning styles in '04.
All that being said, are polticized poll results about the the hundred (if not less) American citizen's moods and sentiments used to indicate the general mood of the entire body politic, or autopsy findings on a canary used as a microcosm of earth's atmophere, any less "retarded" or "stupid" or "astrological?"
No. The condition of the presidency and the environment alike are likewise cubbyholed based on samplings.
The irony of this--lost on you, Anonymous-- is that I've grown accustomed to Bush-haters citing all sorts of quite similar "studies" being done to indicate that Bush is, as mentioned above, "dyslexic" or "alcoholic" or "raised by a domineering mother" or a "moron" by some Doctor CherryWhistle, PhD, of Bard College who is then treated to the same shameless adulation and infallibility of subjective opinion as such lefties or anti-Bush spokesmen as Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, David Corn, Al Franken, Janine Garafalo, Maureen Dowd, Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson IV, etc., etc.
Again, the double-standard: If the study got results favorable to a Bush-hating P.O.V., then it's a "scientific study," and you can be damn sure that the Left would still be talking about them and the research team celebrated and lionized instead of both the study and the intelligence and integrity of the research team (which, again, included a psychology professor and a doctoral candidate) being quickly attacked, as demonstrated right here.
Bush the most mature? Cheney the smartest? Kerry a joykill? Edward's the most attune to his "inner woman?"
PSHAW! "It's stupid"..."retarded"..."it's like astrology in its methodology," etc.
Anonymous asked:
"Republicus, can you tell me where you read that the 'intelligence' was related to higher education and IQ?"
It's self-evident.
What else would it be related to?
Cynicism and atheism?
Liberalism?
Voting for Kerry/Edwards?
Yah, brilliant.
ok John...you answered my questions. You completely made up the IQ and higher education part of your post. Again, your disregard to logic and facts is if nothing else, consistent.
Secondly, the idea you are comparing polling to this "experiment" defies logic again. Asking somebody who they will most likely vote for is not nearly as subjective as creating a matrix that defines "intelligence", "girl man", "presidential" etc.
But let's get over those little problems and pretend there is some validity here.
So John, you'll agree that Kerry is smarter and more manly than Bush right? The study clearly says that.
Anonymous said:
"ok John...you answered my questions. You completely made up the IQ and higher education part of your post."
Obviously, you reviewed the story as did I. Obviously, in writing up the post, I recalled 4 out of the 5 determinations practically verbatim, which should have told you that I was on the right page.
The determination for "Intelligence" was: "cognitive complexity marked by sophisticated sentence structure and word choices."
I was not cutting and pasting but going by memory and did not commit that verbose determination to it. Nor did I bother going back to find it and reproduce it verbatim, because, for one, I was writing it rapidly and I simply made an intelligent abbreviation of the gist of the determination: I.Q. and education, and, two, wupty-do that I didnt reproduce it verbatim.
So how does one possess "cognitive complexity marked by sophisticated sentence structure and word choices," Anonymous?
Maybe by I.Q. and education?
And yet, you "busted": "You completely made up the IQ and higher education part of your post."
Oo. Ya got me.
"Again, your disregard to logic and facts is if nothing else, consistent."
Your "facts" are false. Again, I arrived at the abbreviation logically.
You are nitpicking and your conclusion is a non sequiter.
To say that my logical substitution of I.Q. and education for cognitive complexity, grammar, and vocabulary is "completely made up" (not just "made-up," but "COMPLETELY made-up!") not only demonstrates poor word choices but also a lack of cognitive complexity in failing to see the logic of the abbreviation.
So tell me, Anonymous, since I just "made up" I.Q. and education independently of the way the determination was actually worded with no relation to it whatsoever, am I to assume that your belief is that I.Q. and education are not "related" to Intelligence, or, rather, to "cognitive complexity marked by sophisticated sentence structure and word choices?"
"Secondly, the idea you are comparing polling to this 'experiment' defies logic again. Asking somebody who they will most likely vote for is not nearly as subjective as creating a matrix that defines 'intelligence', 'girl man"' 'presidential' etc."
Actually, Anonymous, what I compared was the pollster's microcosmic interpretation of double to triple-digit poll results of generic questions not subject to nuance as being indicative of the profile of over 100,000,000 citizens to a team of lingual and psychological academics interpreting a triple-digit sampling of word choices and frequencies as indicative of the character profiles of the individuals who uttered them.
And you lack the cognitive complexity to realize the irony.
"But let's get over those little problems and pretend there is some validity here."
Sure.
"So John, you'll agree that Kerry is smarter and more manly than Bush right? The study clearly says that."
You miss the irony. Anyway, smarts come in different shapes and sizes. There's book-smarts that forgets the date and time and where he or she put their keys. There's street-smarts that knows how to hustle a buck or when to shut up but can't read a book. And there's the Wisdom that knows the difference.
There's smarty-pants, smart-alecs, and sneaks.
There's thinkers and dreamers, often mistaken for idiots, but who turn out to be the smartest of the bunch.
And there are presidents who are called "morons" who outsmart wily, inside-the beltway career politicians because the latter underestimate the former and overestimate themselves, which are not smart things to do.
Make a note of that, Anonymous.
P.S. Bush had a higher G.P.A. at Yale than Kerry did. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home