Slashdot Mirror
New Study Explains Why Trump's 'Sad' Tweets Are So Effective (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses. He is particularly known for one specific tweet construction: he sets up a situation that he feels should inspire anger or outrage, then punctuates it with "Sad!" New research from New York University suggests a reason why this style is so effective: a tweet containing moral and emotional language spreads farther among people with similar political persuasion. The study offered up "duty" as an example of a purely moral word, "fear" as a purely emotional one, and "hate" as word that combined the two categories. The research found that the use of purely moral or purely emotional language had a limited impact on the spread of a tweet, but the "presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20% for each additional word." The impact of this language cut both ways. Tweets with moral-emotional words spread further among those with a similar political outlook, and they spread less with those who held opposing views, according to the research published in the journal PNAS. The study looked at 563,312 tweets on the topics of gun control, same-sex marriage, and climate change, and rated their impact by the number of retweets each one received.
He already knew about the Ten-word answer over a decade ago. And none of the words should have more than three syllables.
A short pithy rejoinder will accomplish more than a Platonic dialogue, no matter how well composed it might happen to be.
In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.
Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
The vast majority of the population are semi-brainless machines whose hearts and minds are manipulated from simple word-commands from authority
Dark but true, deal with it
/. has devolved into mostly partisan bickering. Sad!
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Sad!" - CmdrTrumpo
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Because part of the study was measuring the rate of spread among people with the same and opposite political views to the tweeter using the moral-emotional language, so tweets about divisive topics make perfect candidates as there are clearly identifiable sides.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
In fact, the only thing more powerful would be an acronym or emoji.
So you're saying the most viral possible right-wing tweet would be:
SJWs :-( Sad!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I use the same words but nobody reads them. Sad.
"Sad" is a gentle but really provoking form of mocking that seems especially able to get people to react...
The only say it is "effective" for supporters, but they are ignoring a message also being "effective" if it makes a target group very angry.
It has allowed Trump to greatly distract the press and other opponents from mountain effective opposition, because they spent a great deal of time in a state of rage, where they are unable to make rational choices and are therefore rendered mostly powerless.
It's also an effective style because it's really easy for others to pick up and use as well, with increases the power of the term...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
During his campaign and presidency, Donald Trump has used Twitter to circumvent traditional media broadcasters and speak directly to the masses without any kind of feedback.
In short he knows the shit he is shovelling doesn't hold up to questioning, so he avoids all those pesky hard questions. He does this through twitter, surrogates, and Fox News, and probably other ways. Hell he is currently cutting video from daily briefings and even cutting making them live. Basically that is an indirect way to prevent negative information (truth) from spreading quite so quickly.
He is a con man in the middle of the biggest long con of his life, just hoping he can keep fooling enough of the populace to keep on keeping on. He will say anything to keep up the con, and he doesn't appear to care about the consequences.
Why is it we as a country accept politicians without any sort of moral center? Sure a few of them will stand up for what is right, but even then a lot of them shut up if talking might cost them an election. A good man does what is right not just when it benefits him.
I'll end with a quote from Babylon 5:
"How do you know the chosen ones? No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame; for one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see. I have been in the service of the Vorlons for centuries, looking for you. Diogenes with his lamp, looking for an honest man willing to die for all the wrong reasons. At last my job is finished. Yours is just beginning. When the darkness comes, know this: You are the right people, in the right place, at the right time."
An other article from today calls Trump a genius.
https://townhall.com/columnist...
"He is able to speak directly to the American people without going through the biased mainstream media filter. The media doesn’t get to ask him slanted questions or pick and choose parts of his press releases to publish. Instead, Trump gets immense control over every single sentence he issues, which are then read by millions of Americans. "
Regardless whether you love or hate the man, you do have to admit it is an effective way to deal with unfriendly media.
because he's the only populist. Everyone else is either like the Republicans and busy telling us why we can't have nice things (austerity) or the Dems and just shouting about how bad the other side is because they're in deep with the same mega corps that bought off the Right. There's an itty bitty tinsy tiny group that rally around Bernie Sanders and that's about it. So when Trump started saying things like healthcare for all and good jobs and education folks rallied around him because, hey, whatdayagot to lose?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
he's an effective Politician. As a Governor and a Leader he's terrible. But neither of those things win elections.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Does not sound like much of a study. More like a bit of a theory.
Yep. Researchers find a trend in the data, then rationalize an explanation and present it as "theory".
I'll propose an alternate explanation for the data.
People are tired of being told what to think, the outlets have been telling people what to think in the strongest possible terms, and as a result the strength of the words has declined.
Calling someone a liar, fascist, racist, islamophobe, Hitler, Cthulhu, and everything else was so completely over the top(*) that many people simply got used to the terms, thinking that exaggeration was the new normal they applied an internal reverse bias to compensate.
The term "sad" is mild, so when you encounter it you might think the person saying it *isn't* exaggerating, and may be choosing their words carefully. It's the difference between someone saying "I'm uncomfortable" versus "I'm too hot!". Literally, the 2nd phrase implies required action, which isn't usually true (that the action is required), and is taken as exaggeration. The 1st phrase sounds more accurate and reasonable, and gives the impression of truthfulness.
So when Trump says something is "sad", it's in lieu of calling something bad, nasty, stupid, or unconscionable. It comes off as more nuanced, non-exaggerated, and more trustworthy.
That's my theory, and it also fits the data.
Can someone propose a test to distinguish between the two theories?
(*) If you don't think that the recent media coverage was over the top, consider Breitbart's enormous jump in readership in recent months, [Democrat minority leader] Nancy Pelosi is desperately trying to shore up support, and CNN is now literally synonymous with the term "fake news". That doesn't happen overnight, nor from isolated events, nor does it happen for no good reason.
As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House
will be occupied by a downright fool and a complete narcissistic moron.
~H.L. Mencken
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Genius is a strong word, by which I mean an incorrect one. But it is a clever strategy, which he stumbled upon quite conveniently. If he were the first big personality to discover Twitter, that would have been one thing. This is another thing.
Genius is probably accurate.
No one knows with any certainty, but there were studies during the election about who was smarter. Trump came out somewhere North of 150 in estimated intelligence, as did Hillary Clinton. Both candidates were rated at roughly the same level based on their achievements, scholarship, and writing ability (Trump has a Bachelor of Science).
Calling him any sort of stupid is belied by the fact that he is a self-made billionaire, successful reality TV star, and the current president of the US. On top of that he has a strong family, raised good kids, and has a smart and lovely wife.
Mensa generally accepts an IQ of 140 as genius level, so it seems that both Donald *and* Hillary are well above the genius level.
Yes, emotionally manipulative language is effective, but it doesn't have to be. Train yourself to look for it, and then choose to reject it. When you see someone appealing to your emotions instead of your reason, recognize what they're doing and call them out for it. That's especially true when they're saying things you agree with, because that's when you're most vulnerable to manipulation. We each have the responsibility to reject people who try to manipulate our emotions and tell them that's not acceptable. We also have the responsibility not to stoop to doing it ourselves. If your arguments are sound, they can stand on their own without emotionally manipulative language. If you find you can't make your arguments sound convincing without it, that's a pretty good clue there's something wrong with them.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
I don't understand where fair an balanced comes from. It's a bunch of BS. Trump commits a new atrocity ever day of the week, but for some reason we have to trawl the bottom of the barrel to find a Democrat snafu to keep it fair. Oh hey guyz, remember that tiem dat Obummer wore tennis shoes and dress pants. OMG so unprofessional. Fair an balanced is how we end up with morons like Alex Jones getting air time. The guy should be sitting in a padded cell, not making six figures telling people there's a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza place that doesn't even have a basement.
Government represents the people in theory only. It's not a valid source of statistics. By your logic, 25 million North Koreans support killing their uncles.
Why aren't you taking advantage of the subsidy? You're earning under 200% of the federal poverty level for a household of two, so you should qualify for a subsidy equal to whatever it takes to reduce the second cheapest silver plan to 6.3% of your income. (Yes, there is still the matter of deductibles and copayments, but at least the premiums would be much more reasonable at around $150/month.)
Better still, in some states you should qualify for Medicaid on the basis of being disabled. I take it your state is not one of those?
Yes because there are no stupid democrats anywhere, and I forgot that every democratic president has been a perfect Saint and has done no wrong. This my team go shit is getting sickening. It WILL be the demise of the United States of America. Mark my words.
Trump's tweets are so "effective" because he was running for and then held the most powerful office on the planet and he is totally incompetent in every way except for media manipulation. And even there he routinely shoots himself into the foot.
The very fact that he is anywhere near this office much less in it is totally appalling to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the facts. That group will re-tweet because of the seriousness of the consequences of the election are quite real to them. Add to that his base that loves him will retweet him no matter what. The "effectiveness" has little to do with the structure of his utterances.
Comparing this to anything else for any purpose other than point out how outrageous it is is meaningless.