Comments on: Debate 2: Obama vs McCain http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/ Tracking the Candidates' Words in the 2008 Election Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:58:02 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Hans http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-131 Hans Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:20:14 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-131 Great article! Recently there was an article in the same newspaper I got your URL from - NRC here in The Netherlands - stating that people who communicate tend to feel better. The article suggested that the brain while thinking faster when communicating releases endorphins. Could it be that communicating is a genetic hardcoded survival trait? It sure seems that way. Before you say "Doh..", I'm no scientist, just an interested reader :-) Excuse me for my bad English, ir is not my native language. Hans. Great article!

Recently there was an article in the same newspaper I got your URL from – NRC here in The Netherlands – stating that people who communicate tend to feel better. The article suggested that the brain while thinking faster when communicating releases endorphins.
Could it be that communicating is a genetic hardcoded survival trait? It sure seems that way.
Before you say “Doh..”, I’m no scientist, just an interested reader :-)

Excuse me for my bad English, ir is not my native language.

Hans.

]]> By: Everything You Know About English Is Wrong » Taking debate http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-128 Everything You Know About English Is Wrong » Taking debate Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:42:28 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-128 [...] one. Anyway, pretty interesting stuff—check New York Times coverage for specifics. And check his blog for analysis devoted to the presidential [...] [...] one. Anyway, pretty interesting stuff—check New York Times coverage for specifics. And check his blog for analysis devoted to the presidential [...]

]]> By: Readings in Journalism Blog » What does our language use say about us? http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-107 Readings in Journalism Blog » What does our language use say about us? Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:56:38 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-107 [...] here’s the guy’s blog - full of very interesting findings and discussions! If everyday language use is something [...] [...] here’s the guy’s blog – full of very interesting findings and discussions! If everyday language use is something [...]

]]> By: Word-loving as science « The Hannibal Blog http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-106 Word-loving as science « The Hannibal Blog Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:08:39 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-106 [...] In this post, Pennebaker actually counts how often the candidates use various categories of words. [...] [...] In this post, Pennebaker actually counts how often the candidates use various categories of words. [...]

]]> By: Libby http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-96 Libby Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:51:56 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-96 What does "social thinking" mean in linguistic analysis? I'm studying distributed teamwork and have noticed that teams where people talk about their concern for one anothers' goals may be more successful than teams who do not display this kind of social orientation. I'm wondering how "social thinking" as it's used here and in the VP debate analysis relates to what I'm seeing and what words fall under "cognitive mechanisms". I tried searching, but all those words are common enough that I get more results than I can reasonably parse. Any help unpacking these terms or pointers to sites or articles that do would be welcome. Thanks! What does “social thinking” mean in linguistic analysis? I’m studying distributed teamwork and have noticed that teams where people talk about their concern for one anothers’ goals may be more successful than teams who do not display this kind of social orientation. I’m wondering how “social thinking” as it’s used here and in the VP debate analysis relates to what I’m seeing and what words fall under “cognitive mechanisms”. I tried searching, but all those words are common enough that I get more results than I can reasonably parse. Any help unpacking these terms or pointers to sites or articles that do would be welcome. Thanks!

]]> By: heather http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-89 heather Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:16:27 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-89 I agree with Nancy, regarding McCain's use of "my friend(s)", which is an insincere bit of political style, and an expression of personal dominance. If you look at the personal pronouns breakdown... -- Obama is higher scored in the inclusive "We, us" and the more altruistic "you, yours" subcatagories. -- McCain is higher in "I, me, my" simply because of his cynical overuse of "my friend(s)", and in "he, she" and "they, them" because he spent a lot of effort blaming the opposite party and its candidates for things his own party was responsible for, as well as trying to make a few out-and-out lies fly. The analysis shows some pretty interesting reasons why I have come to trust Obama -- for being less impulsive and more thoughtful, for nonetheless being more action-oriented (higher counts in relativity, motion, space, and time), for thinking more deeply about things, for being inclusive, for being nicer, more trustworthy, less fearful, more aware of how others feel and think, and what they want, and more honestly willing to try to find solutions for our national problems. I agree with Nancy, regarding McCain’s use of “my friend(s)”, which is an insincere bit of political style, and an expression of personal dominance.

If you look at the personal pronouns breakdown…

– Obama is higher scored in the inclusive “We, us” and the more altruistic “you, yours” subcatagories.

– McCain is higher in “I, me, my” simply because of his cynical overuse of “my friend(s)”, and in “he, she” and “they, them” because he spent a lot of effort blaming the opposite party and its candidates for things his own party was responsible for, as well as trying to make a few out-and-out lies fly.

The analysis shows some pretty interesting reasons why I have come to trust Obama — for being less impulsive and more thoughtful, for nonetheless being more action-oriented (higher counts in relativity, motion, space, and time), for thinking more deeply about things, for being inclusive, for being nicer, more trustworthy, less fearful, more aware of how others feel and think, and what they want, and more honestly willing to try to find solutions for our national problems.

]]> By: Nancy Jane Moore http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-88 Nancy Jane Moore Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:13:35 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-88 I would speculate that one reason McCain ranks so high in the use of the first person singular is that it includes "my" and he says "my friends" or "my friend" all the time. That phrase makes me cringe; over the course of a debate or interview it begins to sound condescending. It's been bothering me since the debates -- the only time I've listened to McCain much -- and I found it alienating. Of course, I was already an Obama supporter and that must be factored into my reaction. But I wonder how it plays with real independents. I would speculate that one reason McCain ranks so high in the use of the first person singular is that it includes “my” and he says “my friends” or “my friend” all the time. That phrase makes me cringe; over the course of a debate or interview it begins to sound condescending. It’s been bothering me since the debates — the only time I’ve listened to McCain much — and I found it alienating. Of course, I was already an Obama supporter and that must be factored into my reaction. But I wonder how it plays with real independents.

]]> By: Yitai http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/debate-2-obama-vs-mccain/#comment-82 Yitai Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:29:13 +0000 http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/?p=346#comment-82 Past study indicated the effect of picturing vote from third-person perspective cause people to be more likely to vote in the presidential election (Libby, Shaeffer, Eibach, & Slemmer, 2007). If this linguistic style can explicitly or implicitly manipulate the voters’ perspective, could it be possible to alter voter’s preference or behavior? Advertisers take product placement or embedded marketing to promote their commercial products. Could we use “perspective placement” to mentally brand an election image through language? Past study indicated the effect of picturing vote from third-person perspective cause people to be more likely to vote in the presidential election (Libby, Shaeffer, Eibach, & Slemmer, 2007). If this linguistic style can explicitly or implicitly manipulate the voters’ perspective, could it be possible to alter voter’s preference or behavior?

Advertisers take product placement or embedded marketing to promote their commercial products. Could we use “perspective placement” to mentally brand an election image through language?

]]>