Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Demosthenes11]

You wouldn't know a physical change if one hit you in the face. Just stop posting already, you're not impressing any of us with your mangled interpretation of cognitive behavioral theory.

I'm not trying to impress anyone lol
Neurons move close to each other - physical change.

Please, refute that

[Kuya]

Why don't you still understand what you're doing?

[Demosthenes11]

I'd be happy to say I'm wrong if you tell me what I'm saying incorrectly. I didn't sleep last night so maybe I'm just missing it here

[Kuya]

It's not that anyone implicitly disagrees with you; it makes sense that certain language when used properly will cause a person to automatically associate, and those that know about brain plasticity may think it possible that it "programs" into the brain, but you continue to bring it up as if anyone was rejecting the theory. No one is rejecting it; you're just being annoying by bringing up the "IT'S PHYSICAL IT CAN'T CHANGE" point over and over and over again for no apparent reason. You are coming off as someone who just learned a new word and wants to share it with everybody.

[Elvis]

You're just a woman. A woman with a small brain.

It's science.

[Demosthenes11]

It's not that anyone implicitly disagrees with you; it makes sense that certain language when used properly will cause a person to automatically associate, and those that know about brain plasticity may think it possible that it "programs" into the brain, but you continue to bring it up as if anyone was rejecting the theory. No one is rejecting it; you're just being annoying by bringing up the "IT'S PHYSICAL IT CAN'T CHANGE" point over and over and over again for no apparent reason. You are coming off as someone who just learned a new word and wants to share it with everybody.

but people are disagreeing?

You wouldn't know a physical change if one hit you in the face.

It's definitely our fault Demo.

even you kuya:

Unless we intend to raise most people to such a level of intellect that they are immune to this

That and the insistence upon there being no science behind this lol. I really am not sure why so many deny this

[Kuya]

None of those things even come close to denying the theory, and worse, my comment isn't even related to what you're saying.

[zoobernut]

How did we move on from the whole neuron thing only to come back to it when no one really understands what the heck is going on?

Lets just say communication got crossed somewhere and move on.

[Demosthenes11]

None of those things even come close to denying the theory, and worse, my comment isn't even related to what you're saying.

I don't get it then. So you are saying people should be annoyed at me, they are just using bad reasons to be annoyed with me?
I feel like I could post the sky being blue here and people would refute it simply because of my name and it's pretty sad, especially when I was trying to post all this as purely subjective.

When you learn something new, you want to talk about it and apply it to things.

[Beckwin]

I think you're misinterpreting the science; you're trying to imply that by repeating "maverick" enough that it forces people to think positively of mccain and how they interpret the word can NEVAR EVAR change (BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICAL IT CAN'T CHANGE). I'm going to assume the science is more or less an explanation for association at the neural level, as in when someone makes a positive association with a word that resonates with them, repetition causes neuron interactions/whatever that build upon the strength of the association.

You're going to make linguists, psychologists, and brain scientists explode if you keep insisting that there's a list of magic words that trigger uncontrollable responses in the human brain/psyche BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICAL AND IT CAN'T CHANGE!!!!!

[Kuya]

Your posts are coming off as saying that these suggestions control you whether you are aware of them or not, and that you being knowledgeable of the facts does not counter act the suggestions. That is annoying some people.

According to what i'm reading; democrats are the ones supporting the 700b and some such, and the republicans are opposing it. Interesting.

[Demosthenes11]

I think you're misinterpreting the science; you're trying to imply that by repeating "maverick" enough that it forces people to think positively of mccain and how they interpret the word can NEVAR EVAR change (BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICAL IT CAN'T CHANGE). I'm going to assume the science is more or less an explanation for association at the neural level, as in when someone makes a positive association with a word that resonates with them, repetition causes neuron interactions/whatever that build upon the strength of the association.

You're going to make linguists, psychologists, and brain scientists explode if you keep insisting that there's a list of magic words that trigger uncontrollable responses in the human brain/psyche BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICAL AND IT CAN'T CHANGE!!!!!

It's true, but not in the way you are saying. "Maverick" is already a frame in our minds from years of life. The neurons for both maverick and hero both fire when you hear the word, and that makes you think hero, even if at a subconscious level. The words always were not associated with each other, but when you heard the terms synonymously for x years, (here comes) a physical change occurred in your brain that makes them do this. Our brains have thousands and thousands of these frames. Republicans don't make new frames, they take advantage of the ones we already have. It's not even that they hear the word maverick and think of McCain then as a hero. They just know the word maverick is being used to attempt to describe McCain (hence the word isn't neutral). And in our brains, McCain -> Maverick -> hero. It doesn't mean we have to think of McCain as a hero, it means that the word is brought up in our brains.
You do this over a sample size large enough as the american people, you are going to subconsciously sway some people. Lots of people respond with reasons why they vote for a candidate, and when those reasons are shot down, they still have an innate desire to. This is more than likely pathos thinking manipulated by frames.

There is a list, and it's thousands and thousands of words and phrases long

[Demosthenes11]

Your posts are coming off as saying that these suggestions control you whether you are aware of them or not, and that you being knowledgeable of the facts does not counter act the suggestions. That is annoying some people.

It's not so much "control" to the extent you describe.
It doesn't matter how negatively or positively you act toward something, your brain is going to have a few things firing that it associates with that word. Even when you are aware of this it happens.

It's like the frame we use for the word "bottle." We know what a bottle is, we have a pretty good picture in our minds what it is. If everyone suddenly tells you a blanket is a bottle, your brain will always fire off that initial vision of a bottle, even if it's on a subconscious level.

edit: I'm sure more than anything you want to know where I'm going with this. It's theorized that this all has a pretty significant impact on the populace. Since it's widespread use in the early 70s, Republicans have won the majority of the elections even when their candidate fails on issues. If it isn't logic about the issues which is swaying people, what is?

[Senoska]

WE'LL DO IT LIVE!

O'Reilly Erupts at Right-Wing Radio Liars and Barney Frank!

OH OREILLY, Shit goes wrong and he pulls the "Independent card"

[geno]

You do this over a sample size large enough as the american people, you are going to subconsciously sway some people. Lots of people respond with reasons why they vote for a candidate, and when those reasons are shot down, they still have an innate desire to. This is more than likely pathos thinking manipulated by frames.

Remember, I don't fundamentally disagree with this whole linguistic concept, but like I mentioned in a post a little while ago, its really impossible to quantify the effect. There are a large number of these subconscious and behavioral issues that go on in an election, and theres no way of knowing if the one you are talking about is even that strong in relative terms.

For instance, I think an even bigger effect than that neural level linguistic association would be an inherent push for the status quo and fear of change. I don't mean this as a McCain=Bush or Obama=change talking point; I mean that if they have already picked a candidate and publicly supported him, changing that is difficult for people and can lead to people defying their own beliefs so they can maintain their position.

edit: I just saw your last post and edit, and before you say anything else, I do agree with you that is has had a substantial effect on most every election from the 70s to now in favor of the Republican party. I don't know if I'd would go so far as to say its the same thing in this one though -- the method was significantly more successful in elections like 2004 where the opposition was especially weak to it and where it came down to issues (climate change vs global warming; tax relief vs raised taxes; death tax vs estate tax). I don't think the association with Maverick is as strong as these other words have been for previous candidates, and whats more, Obama has managed to use words almost as effectively. I know you said change is a neutral word, which is why McCain has recently taken to adopting it (though not as closely as he uses 'reform'), but even so, it helps him. This is shown in polls, where a majority of people claim to want change in the White House when asked, and a majority of people more closely associate the word change with Obama than McCain; this is pretty clear proof that he has kept the concept more closely tied with himself. And then theres the thing I said earlier about other aspects that effect the election beyond issues and personality.

[Demosthenes11]

OH OREILLY, Shit goes wrong and he pulls the "Independent card"

O'Reilly says a lot of independent things along with his conservative things. I'd call him a pretty moderate conservative

[Kuya]

To finish this neuron conversation now: first of all, neural plasticity isn't exactly a mainstream science with countless experiments to its credit. It is relatively new and still under investigation, so you're making baseless statements and jumping to conclusions. Second, there is nothing that postulates this as permanent nor dominant; you simply do not fully understand what you're talking about.

[Maxxthepenguin]

From Demosthenes11's stuff, it sounds like when Obama wins, it really means he is like 200x better than McCain as a candidate since his bullshit isn't as good and all he has is substance.

[Demosthenes11]

For instance, I think an even bigger effect than that neural level linguistic association would be an inherent push for the status quo and fear of change. I don't mean this as a McCain=Bush or Obama=change talking point; I mean that if they have already picked a candidate and publicly supported him, changing that is difficult for people and can lead to people defying their own beliefs so they can maintain their position.

But why do they think like that? Why do they desire that? Cognitively and linguistically, that's what it comes down to

You don't just think a certain way, it's because of something. More than likely, this is from frames and metaphor in our brain

[Demosthenes11]

To finish this neuron conversation now: first of all, neural plasticity isn't exactly a mainstream science with countless experiments to its credit. It is relatively new and still under investigation, so you're making baseless statements and jumping to conclusions. Second, there is nothing that postulates this as permanent nor dominant; you simply do not fully understand what you're talking about.

perhaps not dominant, but the question I asked before is why they are looking so deeply into this. What accounts for the republicans dominance in presidential politic when they fail so hard with policy. Permanence isn't really debatable because (why do you keep making me repeat myself?) neurons don't simply move away from each other once a link is established - no matter how seldom it's used. Saying there is nothing that postulates permanence would get you laughed out of a cognitive scientists room.

A lot of these breakthroughs have occurred since 1950 (then again so has all cognitive theory) but there is a lot of proof behind all of this.

edit:

From Demosthenes11's stuff, it sounds like when Obama wins, it really means he is like 200x better than McCain as a candidate since his bullshit isn't as good and all he has is substance.

perhaps yes. But it could also mean democratic strategists are using very similar methods