I think you’re right.
The quoted paragraph (the “I” vs. “we” bit) suggests that this doesn’t really belong in GD – a bunch of loose, abstract premises without any underlying rigor or thought is much more suited for MPSIMS (well, in a perfect world it is … come to think of it maybe it does belong in GD). Anyway, there might be mathematical validity with what they did with the numbers they got, but their conclusions are meaningless horseshit.
Well, it’s not “they” or “them.” Did you read the article?
To those less prejudiced, you can read David Skillicorn’s blog.
Read Basic Ideas, which addresses the New Scientist article.
Or, just keep crying “meaningless horseshit” without reading.
Makes me wonder how George W. “Mission Accomplished” Bush would score. :eek:
It would be interesting to see it applied to a lot of public speeches. So? It’s not revealing lies, but that seems to be the knee-jerk reaction around these parts.
It is interesting and informative about certain things. I don’t see it as an attack, but apparently some here do.
Is there an algorithm for over-sensitivity?
ASAKMOTSD, if this technique were applied to GWB, and his score matched Obama’s, would that change your vote?
Well, reading the article provides me with
It is interesting that “spin” appears to be the need for a candidate to reach audiences that are not part of the candidate’s base. Since Obama has no large natural base, (he’s hardly a poor black, he is not white middle class or wealthy white, he is not Hispanic or Asian), his need to provide spin is simply an effective trait that has nothing to do with honesty or competence (except as a characteristic to permit him to reach an audience).
As explained in this blog, it would appear to me that the “straight talking” atrributed to Clinton and McClain is simply an inability for either of them to recognize that there are people who are not like them that they need to reach.
Interestingly, Michelle Obama, who appears to simply speak to her own ideals without worrying about the audience–and who is not running for office–had “straight”" numbers very close to those of McCain.
You probably shuld have quoted the blog in your OP:
If we start from quite different definitions of the key word in the discussion, we will probably reach far different conclusions.
Well, 2 things, One, this is from NewScientist Tech, that is an article on current technology that is not subjected to scientific review.
Two, it seems to me that the “spin” they are talking about is more related to “sounds convincing”, while McCain appears as straight, it is with the caveat that “The voice analysis profile for McCain looks very much like someone who is clinically depressed,” (If one takes into account the fact that McCain was in 2004 against the religious conservatives that are now being courted by him in the hopes of winning the presidency, then is no wonder that he is clinically depressed as he constantly has to convince himself that he is doing the correct thing)
In context I think the use of the word “spin” in the article is not exactly what one would understand as it is commonly used:
I agree also with many here that this software is not really science, it is a new technology tool that still needs review, but it seems to me the article is not saying Obama or others are lying, the “spin” they are referring to can also be how effective they are in embellishing the truth.
On edit: I see tomndebb did notice this also.
Didn’t know there was a blog, until today. Considering the hand-waving away of the article as horseshit I figured someone (I, I guess) should see if there were any more to the story.
I don’t see that the definitions were “quite different.”
From the article:
From the blog:
I don’t see this as vastly different definitions of “spin.”
However, neither of those definitions are at all close to
which appears to be how it has been interpreted by the initial respondents to your OP.
I’m not claiming you did anything “wrong,” only noting how it appears that much of the discussion has been at cross purposes, based on differing understandings of the words used.
And from the article only Clinton was found to have a problem in that regard, on the whole I think McCain appears to have more problems than any current candidate; and I still don’t see the article as a scientific one.
The article is showing McCain as someone who is clinically depressed when delivering “his” message and it is overall an article that would confirm my position on not trusting McCain with the presidency, yet, I have to remind myself that this is no scientific evidence at all, so on the whole I have to conclude that is not very useful evidence since the word “spin” is also put to a spin in the article.
(On second thought, it seems to me now that there was more spin coming from the OP than from the article)
This study and Spillicorn define spin very differently from the way I do, which is stated in post #20 and is quite simple: taking something that appears to be bad, and by verbally dancing very fast and skillfully around it, refocus the attention on it such that the thing appears now to be good. Also the reverse - taking something that is good, and making it appear to be very bad.
For example, let’s say that a female candidate says something stupid in response to a question from the press. The press then calls her on it, implying that it was expected for her to known it. The campaign (not the candidate) then starts yelling that both the original question and especially the reaction to the stupid answer are sexist treatment from the press. The focus is no longer on the stupid answer; it is now on the behavior of the press. That is spin, in my definition. Maybe I’m wrong, but that was always my understanding.
The study and Spillicorn’s definitions have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of thing, and from what little it told us, don’t seem to be capable of measuring it.
“Spin” is applying a different perspective to an accepted fact. “He murdered his parents, he is a monster!” “He is an orphan, orphans deserve our sympahty.” It is only when the speaker tries to alter the fact that we are entering into creative phenomenology, known to the layman as “lying”.
But don’t all of these "scientific’ interpretations depend upon self-perception, does the speaker believe what he is saying, or no? For an actor, the task isn’t to become Richard III, but to believe that you are Richard III for a couple of hours. For a salesman, you need only believe that the Veeblefetzer 3000 is just what the client needs for a few minutes, or until the check clears.
Obama is a very intelligent man, and very educated. As such, he is aware that nuance infects reality at every level, there are few, if any, absolute and undeniable truths, all cats are grey in the dark, and its always dark.
Certainty is the comfort of the ignorant. This is the plague of progressive thought and liberal policies, we know that there is always another hand, and always something there. Our opponents, the Forces of Darkness, know without question or hesitation that the Free Market will heal the sick, raise the dead, and make the little girls talk out of their heads.
An intelligent man without doubt has acheived effective ignorance by sheer force of will. I suggest that what can be perceived as “spinning” is little more than an internal recognition that one may be wrong.
Wow, talk about spin. Twice now you’ve dismissed the article as unscientific and then used that article to posit that McCain is depressed and it “confirms your position on not trusting McCain with the presidency.” Then you hedge by saying “I still think it’s unscientific.”
Well, no. The article pulls from various people who are not collaborating on one scientific study. The part about McCain being depressed was quoted from a woman named Pollerman, who AFAICT, is unrelated to Skillicorn’s studies. It’s an article. How does McCain seeming depressed according to one researcher’s studies invalidate an unrelated researcher’s conclusions as “no scientific evidence at all?”
Read again and don’t spin, I’m saying that I **wish **it was scientific so then I would be able to say that here is evidence to dismiss McCain, however it is not science since it is 1) in the tech section of the magazine and 2) not peer reviewed.
And the words regarding “clinically depressed” are in the article quoted in the op, if you are dismissing the article now, then blame yourself for the sorry choice of a cite.
How about a big pile of steaming horseshit? The cited article says not one thing about how this software has been evaluated against actual speeches of known degrees of factual content. All it does is give an index against pre-selected words or phrases, and then defines “spin” as the positive end of this index. I could get a better evaluation from ELIZA.
Stranger
I read the article and the blog, and the good professor’s definition is simply wrong.
“Spin” is a technical term, and it refers specifically to various techniques used to influence listeners’ opinions on facts and events. It’s an analogy to ball games, especially billiards, in which spin on the ball dramatically influences the subsequent play.
What Dr. Skillicorn is talking about simply isn’t spin; it influences how the speaker is perceived, not the specific things he says. Spin isn’t created by saying “we” instead of “I,” or changing pitch, or any of these speaking tricks. To further the billiards analogy, he’s talking about making a bank shot, and calling it “spin.”
You seem to be stating, and restating, the obvious to anyone who has glanced at the article. I certainly never said, “according to the latest peer-reviewed scientific study…”
I have no idea how to parse this. There are lots of words in the article. What do I need to dismiss? One researcher says this, another researcher says that. You’re the one claiming they contradict each other and there’s “no scientific evidence at all.” That’s spin.
Yeah, that would be nice, but he analyzes politicians’ speeches. From here:
You are then on purpose dismissing the fact that this is not in the scientific part of the magazine, but on the technology section.
This is not a scientific article, this is just describing a new piece of technology that was not put to scientific review.
And saying “AFAICT” is no evidence at all for your position.
I couldn’t care less that it’s in the technology section. Why you’re fixated on this is beyond me.
Oh, hey everyone! Let’s have a look at all the other complete bullshit unscientific articles New Scientist is spewing in their technology section! OMG! There’s one about the LHC! I always knew that was a hoax!
Sorry, levdrakon. My vote is not based on a score from someone else’s test. My vote is based on the tests applied by my own review of the details. I mean I “get it” that politics is not about being all things to all people. I do not understand the rabid following of any one candidate. I believe that all candidates are flawed in various ways.
If this election is about effective use of presidential power, I think Sen. Obama has the ability to represent the country well in more ways that Sen. McCain does. Frankly after the past 7 years, I think we really need that both at home and on the world stage.
At one time, I felt strongly that Sen. Obama lacked the experience I hoped for in a presidential candidate. I guess what sways me toward him now was the realization that it is not about the number of years of experience, but rather the use of that experience to deliver effectively in the job. He impresses me as having that ability and his first act as an executive candidate was to select Joe Biden as his second. This, as compared to what Sen. McCain did with his first act, impressed me. In addition, I see Sen. McCain following the same old tired ploys from the Karl Rove / Republican play book. It is so predictable that it is frankly unimpressive.
I have often said that by all rights, I should be a Republican. The problem is that it has been way too many elections since that party has presented me with a candidate to vote for. This election is yet another example. I am weary of an economy that is plagued by the poor leadership provided by the incumbent. I feel as if we as a country have worked too hard to be seen by the rest of the world as being led by a buffoon. I am tired of fighting so hard to stay afloat - let alone get ahead. I am tired of the excuse of the day as to why my paycheck is getting proportionately so small compared to the price of everything these days. I want some positive change - and I want it to be more than just a last-minute adoption of the opposing party’s slogans like I see happening with the McCain-Palin ticket.
[/rant]