Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A "Scientific" Approach to Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A "Scientific" Approach to Trump

    The website below reports to use a scientific method to analyse Trump's speeches.

    https://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/

    If you want to know more about how this technique evolved and it's author try this discussion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ4JEypNH2s

    Here is a short quote from the article.

    Similar to trends in inaugural addresses, SOTU speeches are generally highly analytic and formal, but have been becoming less so over time. Starting with Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, modern presidents have adopted a more informal, narrative style in their annual addresses to Congress. Trump’s first address continued this trend with his level of analytic thinking on par with the last 5 presidents.
    We hunt the hunters

  • #2
    Oh, dear. James Pennebaker of Receptiviti, inc.
    Some further insights of their "scientific method"
    Taylor Swift seems like she would be a really good person to have as a friend
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...l-intelligence

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
      The website below reports to use a scientific method to analyse Trump's speeches.

      https://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/

      If you want to know more about how this technique evolved and it's author try this discussion.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ4JEypNH2s

      Here is a short quote from the article.
      You're not going to last the full four years, are you?
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        One area the article cited in the OP got it clearly wrong was this one:

        Power, Affiliation, and Achievement

        Finally, Trump and Clinton have different motivations that drive them...
        They claimed this:

        Clinton makes more references to affiliation and achievement. It was clear she was distinguishing herself from Trump responding, “We’ll fix it together,” showing the value she places on cooperation rather than power. Clinton was more oriented toward social relationships in general. She spent time connecting to other Democrats, thanking Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden for their work. Based her language, Clinton isn’t thinking about the power others have, but rather on what they get done and how well they work with others.
        Clinton didn't want to work with others. Instead, like the others cited, she sees things from a Big Government, Socialist, perspective. "It takes a village..." in her words. There's no affiliation or achievement on an individual level in her world.
        She places value on group solutions and government solutions using power rather than individual ones. Her social relationships in terms of being in office are between The People and Government where the latter leads and the former obeys and follows.
        That last sentence shows an ignorance of Clinton's language and thinking. She sees an elite... those who know what's best for everyone... dictating the rules and direction of society and everyone else under them obediently following.
        She also clearly thinks that The People can be made to be altruistic in their behavior by using the force of government to push them in the right direction.

        Put succinctly, Clinton wants to concentrate power in the hands of a few while the many cooperate and obey their leaders for the good of society. The individual has no place in her world.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          One area the article cited in the OP got it clearly wrong was this one:



          They claimed this:



          Clinton didn't want to work with others. Instead, like the others cited, she sees things from a Big Government, Socialist, perspective. "It takes a village..." in her words. There's no affiliation or achievement on an individual level in her world.
          She places value on group solutions and government solutions using power rather than individual ones. Her social relationships in terms of being in office are between The People and Government where the latter leads and the former obeys and follows.
          That last sentence shows an ignorance of Clinton's language and thinking. She sees an elite... those who know what's best for everyone... dictating the rules and direction of society and everyone else under them obediently following.
          She also clearly thinks that The People can be made to be altruistic in their behavior by using the force of government to push them in the right direction.

          Put succinctly, Clinton wants to concentrate power in the hands of a few while the many cooperate and obey their leaders for the good of society. The individual has no place in her world.
          However, Hildebeast saw herself at the apex of the elite power system. She did not have any vision of sharing power at the level she so desperately wanted.

          The phrases she used during the election run-ups were not her own, but those of her handlers and professional image crafters.

          The Clintons believe only in the Clintons and no one else.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X