Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Zosi]

I think that's sort of what you've been getting at, but were focusing on the underlying science of the brain.

Thanks for the translation, I had something similar half-written, but you did a much nicer job.

[Weeks]

Any reactions? A lot of people said she got destroyed but I didn't think she did too horrible outside of her spouting the usual talking points. Then again, her bar is pretty low.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4476173.shtml

This exchange is Katie Couric politely, verbally pummeling the living shit out of a flustered and overmatched Palin. This is the kind of thing that sinks entire campaigns.

[Beckwin]

uh, I kinda think at best you can talk about word-association over a period of time. if you want to think about it in terms of semiotics, it's training the brain to recognize a new signifier (or taking advantage of an already existing one). there's nothing political about neurons, nor can you say they have some inherent reaction to words.

[archibaldcrane]

When I think of "maverick", I actually think about how terrible the 80s were

I think about Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster.

Which is worse?

[Maxxthepenguin]

I think about Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster.

Which is worse?

Mel Gibson vs Tom Cruise vs Sarah Palin!
Religious wacko maverick fight- GO!

[Zosi]

I think about Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster.

Which is worse?

I actually thought of the guys from Megaman X, but there was definitely a hint of Gibson. He *was* good in it.

[archibaldcrane]

God, the seething, barely concealed contempt beneath Katie Couric's veneer as Palin continues to delve deeper into political retardation is fucking priceless.

That fucking north-woods accent (see northern wisconsin, fargo, alaska apparently) is just...wow. Bobby's mom from Bobby's world is trying to be the VP kids!

[Beckwin]

doncha know

[archibaldcrane]

She's so folksy! It really comes out in her last line of the interview.

[Demosthenes11]

It's pretty simple, really. Words like "maverick" and "game-changer" and "Sarah barracuda" are attributed to the two Republican candidates. These words provoke imagery of stalwart heroes saving the day and tough renegades fighting for the everyman.

"Change" and "hope" are all well and good, but there is no target meaning for them. Change to what? Hope for what? That has to be defined individually, which is why McCain can adopt them so readily in his own campaign. Everyone has their own hopes and changes they can attach to these "neutral words."

Unless you play too much Megaman X, mavericks can be counted on to stick up for the little guy in the face of those in power, whether it be masked outlaws or the current administration. These words aren't inherently politicized, but are forcefully attached to either party through campaign mantra. So, once that is set, even though Obama may deride McCain's "maverick" claim, saying that word in reference to him triggers the cognitive link and those warm and fuzzy feelings get attached to McCain.

I think that's sort of what you've been getting at, but were focusing on the underlying science of the brain.

wow that's basically verbatim what he said >.>;
It's not necessarily about your initial reaction to a word, because 98% of your thought is in the subconscious mind (not sure how they got that number, fired neutrons?). On the science part, when you are young your brain obviously has billions of neurons. As you view the world, even things you aren't paying attention to fire these neurons. As you watch someone fill a glass of water, the neurons for quantity fire with the neurons for height. Because of seeing this a bunch of times, the neurons fire more and more together, and physically move closer to each other until they are right on top of each other. This is a permanent change in our brains. We now, whether consciously or subconsciously, associate a increasing volume to a big height. These are called frames in cognitive linguistics (my gf had been babbling about this stuff for a while but I only recently really got into it). This relates to maverick because as you grow up, you hear the word and associate it with a "hero" and someone that saves you. Whether you like it or not, when you hear the word, the neurons "hero" and "maverick" fire together. So whether you hear the word negatively or positively, your brain also "thinks" hero. Yahtzee, john mccain benefits oh so slightly.

Edit: another fun political frame is "tax relief." this is a carefully constructed phrase by conservatives. When you hear relief, your neurons for affliction and pain also fire. In this way, tax is that "pain." Oh so clever. There's no changing it.

[archibaldcrane]

So the fact that describing McCain as a maverick used to make me go "yeah, he really tried to fuck those republicans by going across the aisle and co-authoring a finance reform bill with Feingold" and smile, and now it makes me roll my eyes because McCain has totally sold himself out to the rightwing nutjobs of his party...

...how does this play into cognition again? My perception of the word "maverick" (mel gibson aside) shifts with the context. I used to like it as "hero" or whatever, now I see it as "ironically laughable". I'm not seeing the "There's no changing it" brain-chemistry whatever nonsense here.

Could I possibly be a superhero?

[Kuya]

Demos is beating around the bush about something, but i can't quite put my finger on it.

[archibaldcrane]

I get what he's saying, it's just his "these facts are immutable, unchangeable, and you are being manipulated by this all the time, objectivity is impossible, stop trying, you're a zombie to words" attitude is ...wrong?

[Elmer the Pointy]

I would not say wordplay is unavoidable brainwashing, but it helps convince those who do not have the time or energy to meticulously study all the facts. It manipulates that "gut feeling" so many Americans like to go with. Of course it will not magically sway people.

It's more like wearing a nice suit to a job interview or telling people your ugly friend has a "great personality." It's creating a positive image to make more voters more inclined to stick with a particular candidate, or perhaps make them more receptive to what the candidate has to say.

[geno]

wow that's basically verbatim what he said >.>;
It's not necessarily about your initial reaction to a word, because 98% of your thought is in the subconscious mind (not sure how they got that number, fired neutrons?). On the science part, when you are young your brain obviously has billions of neurons. As you view the world, even things you aren't paying attention to fire these neurons. As you watch someone fill a glass of water, the neurons for quantity fire with the neurons for height. Because of seeing this a bunch of times, the neurons fire more and more together, and physically move closer to each other until they are right on top of each other. This is a permanent change in our brains. We now, whether consciously or subconsciously, associate a increasing volume to a big height. These are called frames in cognitive linguistics (my gf had been babbling about this stuff for a while but I only recently really got into it). This relates to maverick because as you grow up, you hear the word and associate it with a "hero" and someone that saves you. Whether you like it or not, when you hear the word, the neurons "hero" and "maverick" fire together. So whether you hear the word negatively or positively, your brain also "thinks" hero. Yahtzee, john mccain benefits oh so slightly.

Edit: another fun political frame is "tax relief." this is a carefully constructed phrase by conservatives. When you hear relief, your neurons for affliction and pain also fire. In this way, tax is that "pain." Oh so clever. There's no changing it.

I think I agree with you on this that these do provide a benefit to McCain in the form of that warm/fuzzy/comfortable association some may have for him. But quantifying that benefit is difficult, especially when trying to trace it all the way back to the "who will you vote for?" question. Its just one of the many, many, maaaany things a presidential candidate does to improve his chances of winning. I can't help but feel that almost everything you see relating to these campaigns is planned out to the most minor of details. The obvious like photo-ops and speech/press conference location, but also the less noticeable like speaking style, vocabulary, dress, demeanor, posture, etc. Obama is probably better at most of these (though not entirely his fault; John McCain does still have a lasting effect on his posture and the way he moves his arms from his POW days). How can you measure the tangible benefit of any of this though? I think the best option for these candidates it to have people poll testing literally every thing they do and adjust accordingly. But who's to say they aren't already doing that?

[geno]

I get what he's saying, it's just his "these facts are immutable, unchangeable, and you are being manipulated by this all the time, objectivity is impossible, stop trying, you're a zombie to words" attitude is ...wrong?

Yeah I don't quite agree with that either. I think using specific words helps you get a higher percentage of people to like you, but that percentage isn't 100%.

Just some anecdotal evidence for this: I for instance, never developed such a positive correlation to the word maverick, probably because it was never really popular during my lifetime. Other words have taken its place... for instance, hero. That one does have a positive connotation, probably for a lot of people. Whenever people call John McCain a hero, I'll concede that that paints a positive picture in my mind. Maverick though, not so much.

[archibaldcrane]

Even hero gets thrown around so much it makes me roll my eyes.

Dying in a war doesn't make you a hero, no matter how many times it's repeated. If a mortar had hit a different building in Iraq and killed my sister, it wouldn't make her a hero, it would just make her unlucky. You have to actually -do- something heroic to be a hero.

[Deftscythe]

Even hero gets thrown around so much it makes me roll my eyes.

Dying in a war doesn't make you a hero, no matter how many times it's repeated. If a mortar had hit a different building in Iraq and killed my sister, it wouldn't make her a hero, it would just make her unlucky. You have to actually -do- something heroic to be a hero.

While I agree with you in general about the term, I think McCain choosing to stay in the POW camp when offered the chance to leave because other people had been there longer than him could rightfully be called heroic.

[Kwijiboe]

Even hero gets thrown around so much it makes me roll my eyes.

Dying in a war doesn't make you a hero, no matter how many times it's repeated. If a mortar had hit a different building in Iraq and killed my sister, it wouldn't make her a hero, it would just make her unlucky. You have to actually -do- something heroic to be a hero.

Not that I feel strongly about it, but I do think dying as a soldier in a war versus being a victim of an attack are slightly different.

You fight knowing that there is a possibility of dying; it was a soldier's choice to put his life on the line. That makes them a hero, at least, in my eyes.

[geno]

Even hero gets thrown around so much it makes me roll my eyes.

Dying in a war doesn't make you a hero, no matter how many times it's repeated. If a mortar had hit a different building in Iraq and killed my sister, it wouldn't make her a hero, it would just make her unlucky. You have to actually -do- something heroic to be a hero.

And even ignoring the two posts above me, you have to admit you are in the small minority if you don't have a positive connotation to the word hero. Unlike maverick which, while still a minority, is probably not as small. Yay young people!