No idea what this video could possibly have to do with the concept of taking the dialect of one’s audience into account when crafting a message. Are you seriously arguing that speakers should intentionally ignore the language and dialect of their intended audience? That sounds like a recipe for poor messaging. This could be done well or done poorly, but the idea that it shouldn’t be done at all is ridiculous.
Did you actually you know, read those quotes?
We know …
and maybe , and might and possibly ?
Where are the studies that show they know what they are spouting off about?
Nonsense.
A thinly veiled attempt at covering up results that they dislike.
Funny how this thread started out as non-liberals embracing “science,” and is turning to non-liberals rejecting “science.”
Well then it ought to be trivial how they know what they based those comments on about their conclusions yeah?
As soon as they started trying to rationalize the why’s of the differences, the “science” went poof
No I am saying assumptions based on race alone are unseemly and possibly give hints as to why liberals hold the political views that they do.
Whatever this is has nothing to do with what I’m saying.
Oh, it’s sort of like how climate scientists are allowed to say the Earth is getting hotter, but when they investigate why, right wingers lose their shit and say “That’s not your job!11!”
You just need to know how to talk to those people. You can’t use big words, because then it sounds like you think you better than them, and you have to be all friendly-like, otherwise they think you racist.
Richard Pryor’s line from one of his comedy albums, where a wino is talking to an ex-con.
Only from the other side.
Regards,
Shodan
I am not currently nor will I be interested in discussing what ‘they’ do about ‘that other thing’
So anything on the study?
Well, really…
“I beg your pardon, Ms. Flight Attendant, but I happen to be conversant in the dialect spoken by these gentlemen.”
Wake up and smell the Millennium. 
So this study found that conservatives talk to Black people? OK. Baby steps.
Did these politicians who allegedly speak so differently to whites and to blacks speak to control crowds formed of people equal in financial status, educational level, and all other aspects aside from race?
Or did these politicians speak to different mixed-race groups, some of whom were predominantly black, others were predominantly white, some of which were formed of mostly college-educated people, others mostly people with a high school diploma at best?
Unfortunately, because of the terrible ways that black people were historically treated in this country, African-Americans today are much less likely to be college educated, and much more likely to be poor. So if a politician is tailoring their speeches to the crowds they are speaking to (for example, avoiding words like “melancholy” when speaking in poverty-stricken areas, both to avoid leaving anyone out by using needlessly flowery language and to avoid seeming to “put on airs”) then a study could show that these politicians use “lower level” words when speaking to African Americans, even if the race of their crowd never entered their mind when they were writing the speech.
We could compare, I guess, if conservatives talked to black people.
:dubious:
So Trump reaching for fifth grade (and under) language and insults is still understandable and respectful?
I know I personally automatically change my vocabulary and construction based on what I hear the other person use. I even sometimes wind up copying their accent a bit–something I have to watch out for lest it come off as mockery.
To really test this, you need a controlled study where you have people try to explain things to different people, having the people respond in the same way to eliminate as many confounding factors as possible.
Using politicians and crowds is just too messy to draw conclusions. It may be useful as a preliminary study, but not really for drawing firm conclusions.
Also, it would be good if the study criteria were created and agreed upon by people of various political levels. Use well defined tests for political persuasion, and well defined methods of checking the language level.
All of this said, unconscious racism is a thing. It wouldn’t surprise me or make me think poorly of people if this is true. It just becomes something to notice and work on.
The problem right now is that conservatism seems to reject at least the less obvious forms of racism as even being racism–to the point that now there’s an alt-right that flat out embraces racism. I don’t care if you have some racist tendencies as long as you work on it.
That’s the difference.
Say, did anyone read the whole study? I’ll say up front I did not, but if anyone did, can you say how they determined someone was a liberal/conservative? Because without that info, quite frankly the discussion seems a bit pointless. For instance, I’m never quite sure if someone is pro-choice but also for the death penalty, does that make them a liberal or a conservative? If you are anti-federal-government spending on most levels, but support taxpayer funded health care for all, I’d ask the same question. Now, there are people that are undeniably liberal – Ted Kennedy comes to mind – and conservative – I’ll go with William F Buckley. You get the idea. But I would imagine that most people don’t fit so easily into either category, so that when discussions come up like this, the only way to be sure they don’t devolve into so much conjecture, you need to know exactly who the people are involved and have a very good idea of exactly where they fit on the political spectrum.
Here’s another question about the study: the first part mentions a twenty-five year period of speeches that were analyzed. Do liberals/conservatives even believe the same things they did that many years ago? I know a few people who’ve changed their minds on gay marriage over the years, for example. And were the same speakers used throughout the study? Because if they weren’t, that seems to me to be a major issue with it.
In any case, with all that being said, since I fully admit I haven’t read the actual study, I’ll just leave these as some thoughts that popped into my head.
The speeches were given by presidential candidates on the campaign trail.
That’s not the question.
Missed my edit window. In the first page it says that in the first study they were on the campaign trail. In the other 4 studies their political alignment was ‘self reported’.
If you do a quick (Ctrl-F) search for “reported”, you can read a bit more about that.
The abstract of the report says -
I can’t tell from the study if they are assuming that self-identified conservative’ is synonymous with Right-Wing Authoritarian and/or Socially Dominant.
Regards,
Shodan