Slashdot Mirror
Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches
T.S. Ackerman writes "According to an article in NewScientist Tech, there is now software that can identify the amount of spin in a politician or candidate's speech. From the article, 'Blink and you would have missed it. The expression of disgust on former US president Bill Clinton's face during his speech to the Democratic National Convention as he says "Obama" lasts for just a fraction of a second. But to Paul Ekman it was glaringly obvious. "Given that he probably feels jilted that his wife Hillary didn't get the nomination, I would have to say that the entire speech was actually given very gracefully," says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years.' The article goes on to analyze the amount of spin in each of the candidates running for president, and the results are that Obama spins the most."
Perhaps I missed it, so could someone kindly point out where the New "Scientist" article quantified "spin"? Thanks in advance.
there are more important things to talk about in this race - economy, Iraq, education, health, science policy, Saturday Night Live.
Why focus on this pseudoscience?
From reading the article, it appears that by spin, they mean "adhering to the rules your old English teacher laid down for rhetorical arguments." For example, don't qualify statements, since it waters down your argument needlessly. Don't use "I"; it makes it sound like you're the only one who holds your opinion, so use "we" when needed to help draw others in.
What this doesn't seem to do is provide any insight into how much the person in question shades the truth. Telling a bald-faced lie plainly won't set it off; wrapping up the truth in an eloquent package will.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Am I the only one that finds it a bit strange that the Presidential Candidates are on the opposing ends of that
"spin" graph?
It kinda gives a bit pseudoscience with political motivations feel to it.
I am shocked.
Yes, *yawn* I am too. Who would have guessed the candidate with no experience and a carefully-prepared thoughtful thousand yard stare would use more spin than a self-described straight shooter?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Therefor saying that he expressed digust over Obama is pushing it a bit. Even if that was what his facial expression meant there could have been many other things on his (or anyone else in that situation) mind. Perhaps he just had wind, who knows. MOst of these "I know what someone is thinking from fleeting facial expression" types are just modern day snake oil sellers.
At the other end of the political spectrum, I think Alan Keyes is at least in the same league at Obama as a gifted speaker.
It was like a million conservatives cried out and then were suddenly silenced.
You do realize how many neocon types just had their heads implode due to your statement there right? I mean, I generally consider myself conservative (in the old sense, when it mean fiscal and political conservative and social liberal because a real conservative doesn't want the government mucking in the personal affairs of people.). I most certainly do not consider myself a Republican. The modern Republicans have fucked our nation up possibly beyond repair with their rhetoric and god aweful policy. They have the balls to claim Democrats will spend more when they currently hold the record for spending!
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I'm a conservative (I don't know if that's really the same thing as republican anymore). I'd say he's a good speaker as long as he's got a script to practice and go off of. I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there. Not to mention when he says things he'd like to take back (think pigs and lipstick). The best thing he's got going for him is that the media loves him and handles him with kidd gloves. If you take that away though I don't see a great deal of substance in him, and I really worry about the prospect of him changing the healthcare system. Universal healthcare while appealing on an emotional level is almost certainly going to result in all of us getting lower quality care and paying higher taxes to pay for it (IMHO anyway). I also worry about his simplistic view of raising taxes on the rich as though that would have no cascading effect on those of us who aren't. You think inflation is bad now. Better do your homework.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
"Software spots water in ocean!"
I mean, COME ON...couldn't they have tried for detecting something that at least just might be absent in the content they're testing? How about spin in the news, for example? Oh, wait...uh...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I've seen a few instances where he's been caught off guard, and had to actually think. Whole lotta umming and uhhing going on there.
Here's a question for you: which is better, a candidate who thinks about what he says before speaking, or one who can answer every question immediately?
Think about that one for a moment.
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
Does anyone actually believe this to be anything other than poor science or even worse election year propaganda masking as science?
There may be some objective simple definition of "spin" that you could use to create a automated measuring system, but is this really spin?
Human language is virtually infinitely complex, and there are layers of meaning both conscious and unconscious expressed by body language, tone, cadence, content, etc. Then there's the intention of the speaker, and the context of the speech. But no, we get a elementary school level simple bar chart that clearly shows that obama is a complete spinster, and McCain is a "straight talker". Excuse me, but what a load of horse shit! Disclaimer: I'm not voting for Obama or McCain.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
If he's actually thinking, then great. Unfortunately it's a lot more likely that he's trying to come up with a way to straddle the fence.
Somebody who is well versed in all arguments against a position can produce a counter-argument instantly. That doesn't make him right or wrong, but it doesn't make him worse than the guy who has to invent a position in an instant.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Well, since I want to reduce the role of government (especially the federal government) I would say that I'm opposed to most of the points you've listed.
I initially thought that the Obama-smear was just a poorly written summary (and was going to tag "badsummary") but the actual article itself is slanted. I propose we start tagging these kinds of things "badarticle", since they seem to be cropping up more and more on Slashdot.
Anyway.
There are so many things that bug me about this "article", let's just go through it together.
First off, associating disgust with Obama. Paul Ekman says he saw it on Clinton's face. Did any of the other millions of people watching see it?
Got it, spin = lying. OK. That's the definition we'll be using as we read.
Again, spin = lying. I'm with you so far.
I... what? "I" vs "we"? What does that have to do with lying? I thought spin = lying, since that's stated twice at the beginning of the article. Suddenly spin = rhetoric.
First, spin = lying, and then spin = rhetoric, but we don't call it that, and then Obama's speeches have the most spin. Which by the new definition means that he is the most effective speaker, but by the original definition means that he is the biggest liar.
McCain is the purported to have the least spin, implying that he is the most truthful (except by their definition of spin, it really means he is the least effective speaker). Hands up, who thinks McCain is the most truthful candidate?
And hey, let's talk about Jeremiah Wright some more, because it's not like that story is history or anything. But hey, any chance there is to remind people that he's associated with Obama...
Ah! Now they even call it rhetoric! Perhaps hoping that the intended audience doesn't know the meaning of the word? (Many people mistakenly think the word rhetoric has negative connotations.)
Seriously, did anyone else besides Ekman see it? Did this facial slip actually exist? Where's the screencap?
This entire article is ridiculous. Decrying "spin", they use it themselves as an anti-Obama device. Absurd.
Don't put advice in your sig.
"Gutting" the military? During the Clinton years we still spent far and away more on "defense" than any other nation; the "defense" budget remained bloated. During the Clinton years, American military spending made up a larger percentage of the world's total military spending than it did in the Regan years.
Had we really trimmed it, we would probably have reduced the number of troops overseas. Including those in the Middle East. Like in Saudi Arabia. You know, the troops whose presence so provoked bin Laden.
If we'd really "gutted" the military, i.e. reduced it to its rightful role of defending the nation, and exerted forgein influence by economic and diplomatic means rather than by military bullying, odds are very good that no one would have been motived to hijack planes and fly them into American buildings.
This is not to say that terrorism against the U.S. was or is justified. But like any crime, it does have a motivation.
(Let me point out that if we followed the Founder's plan, we wouldn't even have a standing army. And yet, someone, serving in an institution whose very existence was opposed by the Founding Fathers, has someone come to be seen as "patriotic". Remarkable.)
Rightfully, the guys who were at the top, who chose to ignore the completely adequate data and clear warnings they were given by the intelligence community, bear the blame.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Most of the items in his list would not increase government. You sound like you just blindly used a a Republican talking point to discount someone.
(I am a registered Republican, and it annoys me to hear people use this line meaninglessly)
Specifically, one of the items in that list would reduce the government more than any of the others would add, if combined. Hint, it involves another country...
Self-identification is meaningless in this election. You've got swathes of people trolling the internet, pretending to be Republicans for Obama, Hillarycrats for Palin, aliens for Kucinich, etc. Everyone jumped into the same slimy, lying cesspool this time, so just ignore the (R) and (D) next to people's names and identify them by their policy stances.
I would be happy to do that. Thanks for the tip.
Ummm... Uhhh... errr... Can you point me to one example of where Obama has ever taken a stand on.... well... anything?
(His own greatness doesn't count.)
He's spent his life straddling fences and refusing to take a stand. Then he wrote TWO memoirs by the time he was 47... about stuff that happened to him and lied a lot in those.
What has he ever done besides lie for a living? Seriously. NOBODY has ever addressed this question.
Near as I can tell, the pinnacle achievement on his resume is editor of the Harvard Law Review, prized because it allows the office-holder to publish his views. Obama published nothing.
He has done absolutely nothing in every single position he's ever held because he's been running for president his entire life and is too much of a coward to defend a position on anything except how great Barack Obama is.
(Not a Republican, btw. Not voting for McCain either. Just sick of the Obamessiah and his ignorant sycophants.)
Voting record, more than written and declared policies should be the litmus test voters should use.
Well, I didn't say a damn thing about Christian fundamentalist, did I? It amuses me to no end to watch people like you use phrase like "people like you" about people they don't know at all..
If there was a foreign military force occupying the homeland of some group of Christian fundamentalists, I'd call that a provocation. However, such is not the case for Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.
And again, I point out that a provocation is not necessarily a justification.
And it ended up with a Constitution that doesn't provide for one (" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"), and that relies on a "well regulated militia" as the primary line of defense for the nation.
The decision was made that a standing army was useful to steal land from the Natives, and later to conduct invasions of other nations.
Curious how you abridged that: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787 [emphasis added -tms]
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It is the purpose of the Federal government to "promote the general welfare."
Yes, in specific ways, all of which are enumerated in the Constitution. Many of the items on the GGP's list are not Constitutional.
The following are internal government affairs or enumerated powers, and perfectly Constitutional:
The following are not within the purview of the federal government:
The last point, "reducing the incidence and unfairness of the death penalty," is too broadly worded to properly categorize. For the most part specific criminal penalties, including the death penalty, fall under state jurisdiction.
It is our duty as citizens to protect each other from outside threats, and our duty as humans not to let the poor among us die in the streets.
I have no problem with that, but what does it have to do with the federal government? It seems to me that, rather than defining and carrying out your own duty, you only wish to coerce others into performing what you unilaterally declare to be their duty toward you, or in support of your goals. Government is not a legitimate tool with which to enforce your personal views onto others--no matter how popular those views might be.
There's only one man in the Bible to complain about the expectation that he was his brother's keeper.
Yes, but Cain's sins were jealousy and murder, not indifference. There is nothing to suggest that Cain was ever expected to act as his brother's keeper; his non sequitur response was merely a futile attempt to avoid the question.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Spinning tends to revolve around presenting the facts in a different light or using different words to elicit a different emotional reaction than the original. Spinning doesn't need to involve a lie at all. For example, one can say that the police action in Iraq is currently deterring islamic militants from attacking both soldiers and the civilian population. None of that is a lie, it's just a massive distortion of the truth(considering most of those islamic militants are iraqis trying to kill other muslims).
It's been a long time.