Software Spots Spin In Political Speeches 438
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."
Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I missed it, so could someone kindly point out where the New "Scientist" article quantified "spin"? Thanks in advance.
Surely (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A bit strange. (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one that finds it a bit strange that the Presidential Candidates are on the opposing ends of that
"spin" graph? [newscientist.com]
It kinda gives a bit pseudoscience with political motivations feel to it.
Re:So what's new (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Psychology is not an exact science (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Subject (Score:4, Insightful)
It's defined in the customary way -- As anything which runs contrary to the listener's political views, or is said by someone whom they personally dislike.
The way the article describes it, this is just an algorithm which counts how closely the speaker's diction and delivery match those used by McCain and assigns a value for the McCaininess of the speech. Calling it "spin" is, well, an interesting spin.
Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm repeating something that also happens to be in some of the comments on TFA, but: Since when does use of "we" instead of "I" indicate spin or deception? If that's your standard, the guy who thinks in terms of a movement, who sees the country as a grand collaboration, is always going to come out as dishonest. And the guy who talks about rugged individualism is going to look like a straight shooter, even if his statements on policy are self-contradicting nonsense.
How is "Yes we can!" so much worse than "I won't raise your taxes"?
Alan Keyes (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
IF we were going only off facial expressions, John McCain's Smile in the middle of speeches means he's Spinning faster than a proton in the Hadron Collider.
Re:Subject (Score:4, Insightful)
Next breakthrough... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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...
Re:Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
Know how to tell if a politician is lying?
He has his mouth open....
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Please Sheeple (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [newscientist.com] 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
Re:Subject (Score:2, Insightful)
Lying by omission is still lying.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Badarticle (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 [truthandpolitics.org].
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 [wikipedia.org].
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 [cnn.com] by the intelligence community, bear the blame.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is lying so much as they are carefully ignoring certain facts and emphasizing others.
A definition I was once given by my high school principal (and one that I myself now tell young people) is: "A lie is the intent to deceive."
When you frame it that way...
Re:Subject (Score:4, Insightful)
Lying by omission implies that you are leaving out pertinent facts to mislead your audience. Not that you are leaving out unrelated facts.
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
The catch with the analysis of spin is of course, cultural differences, in language usage and expressions. In addition a good speech writer and of course speech presenter are required to alter their language and presentation to suit different audiences. Language and expressions and well as the content of the message needs to be different for, blue collars workers than to a group of students and educators or a broad community group, whilst the intent might be be same, the content will vary for each group and the focus of the presentation will shift to those areas each group has greater interest in.
Now as to the interpretation of the level of spin, the baseline will be shifted to align with the professor cultural baseline, his choice of language and expressions as well as his political alignment, not necessarily consciously but it is inevitable that it will occur subconsciously.
The is only one way to detect and clear away spin, record the speech and fact check it for lies and when lies / spin is discovered publish it all over the internet. Attempting it any other way just doesn't make any real sense, especially without knowing any of the speech writers and their cultural biases.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
I wonder if the software can.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Voting record, more than written and declared policies should be the litmus test voters should use.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:2, Insightful)
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." [bartleby.com] -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787 [emphasis added -tms]
Re:Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
That's possible. And if we're cynical, we might even say it's probable.
But it's entirely possible that a very objective criteria was used based on known psychological information. Psychologists and others are very good at learning quite a few things about people by things that most of us don't know--at least not consciously... body language, speech inflections, eye contact, handwriting, etc.
I'm not at all an expert in this field but unless you have evidence that the algorithm was truly biased and based on the way McCain talks, I think it would behoove you to consider the possibility that just maybe the algorithm picked up on something about Obama that you hadn't picked up on yourself. At least consider the possibility before smearing the article/algorithm/etc.
Re:Obama spinning? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on whether you define a lie as a) a deliberately false set of words or b) a communication intended to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Both definitions are in the dictionary. Those who like to deceive favor the first definition, as they can deceive without getting called out for it. Those who have a commitment to clear understanding favor the second.
Using that second definition, which is the one I favor, spinning is just a fancy form of lying, in that deception and manipulation are still the goals.
Re:Spin = Good Rhetorical Argument (Score:3, Insightful)
> because the "movement" won't be in office. The politician will.
Not quite. The politician brings the "movement" into office with him.
Example:
John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzales, etc, etc. (I don't lump Dick Cheney in because he was on the ticket and was "elected", and I don't lump Colin Powell because I don't think he was really part of the "movement".)
No President does the job alone - (since Carter tried and failed) this is a team effort. Perhaps one of the most important things we don't do is look hard enough at the campaign organizations of the candidates, because that reflects how he selects and builds teams. As another for-instance, maybe bad mic selection at the mixing board helped the "Dean Scream" kill Howard Dean's candidacy, but there were also fundamental cash usage problems in his campaign that finished the job, and would have finished it later had the scream not happened.
Re:Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
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).