3 ms·

It can't really be as simple as reading vs hearing though. People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to them better afterwards.

It can't really be as simple as reading vs hearing though. People watch videos of political opponents all the time and don't relate to them better afterwards. How does Jon Stewart exist if that's the case? How does Hannity? What's missing?

nailer 10y ago
Political pundits generally play small soundbytes of their opposition, then afford themselves a 10 minute rant.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Would you relate to Trump more if you had to watch him for an hour? Would anyone but supporters?
  - arximboldi 10y ago
    Actually I did watch Trump for an hour once and it made me relate to him much more. It did not change my general opinion about him, but it made me understand why people support him.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      Huh. Your point is well made. Kudos for trying to understand someone else.
      - elcapitan 10y ago
        There are some videos with him from a couple of years before the election (on Letterman), I watched those a week ago and found him quite likeable as well. Even with the background knowledge of the disastrous policy he is now implementing.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I think it probably would - Trump is actually a very good persuader. I showed a clip of him speaking to a bunch of Indians who saw virtually nothing of him except whatever they read in TOI. (TOI and most other Indian English language papers can be thought of as being Indian branches of the cathedral, at least for this purpose.) They started by mocking him, yet they quickly quieted down and watched the video with rapt attention until the end. After watching this video they were very much against Trump cutting off the rest of the world to Make America Great Again. As in, they were using Trump's language and accepting his premises, in spite of knowing they were wrong. This is one of the great failings of democracy. People like Trump (or Obama, who had similar abilities) can blatantly lie or just say nothing meaningful, and people will relate to them and follow them.
  - pchristensen 10y ago
    I forced myself to watch the debates. Coming in, I despised Trump because I had only heard news about him, not from him. But after 3 hrs of hearing him in debates, I didn't disagree with him so much as I was frustrated that there was nothing of substance to disagree with. He made claims but did not back them up, he deflected rather than addressed questions, and he made judgements so broad that you could interpret them any way you wanted. I went from hating him to just being frustrated at how vacuous he was.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    If you watch him critically, you'd see there's more depth than the cartoon character that you typically see. I don't agree with his politics and methods... but he isn't some bumpkin. He is genuine in his fakeness. Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it. The details are where it breaks down. Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force. If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences, but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.
    - u_wot_m8 10y ago
      this, look at the 180 switch in his persona from the 80s to after his struggles in the 90s. He was fairly soft-spoken and thoughtful then transitioned to his current brash persona to build his brand to do licensing deals. Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia like his father and you have present day Trump.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - agentgt 10y ago
    I actually the more I see or hear Trump the more I empathize with his plight. Like Howard Stern I'm concerned the presidency will do serious mental harm to him. Trump has what best can be called a serious addiction to praise. It his hard to imagine empathizing a narcissist but from an abstract level it isn't much different from many psychological ailments. When Trump is criticized he may appear to be strong to some but I now imagine based on watching him it is extremely painful for him.
    - nailer 10y ago
      Really? I dislike his policies, but running Trump's business empire was probably about the same level of stress as the presidency.
      - macintux 10y ago
        He didn't face nearly the same level of scrutiny and hostility from the press and public, and he could always walk away from a business by letting it go bankrupt. He also tended to flatter powerful people, so the most hostile people were probably the small businesses he randomly refused to pay. Now he's made many powerful enemies during the campaign. I have to imagine this is wildly more stressful.
  - Jweb_Guru 10y ago
    Since a bunch of people are responding with anecdotes I'll throw in mine: most people I know who hate Trump continue to hate him after watching a bunch of footage of him.
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_%28U.S._TV_series%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_%28U.S._TV_seri...
jerf 10y ago
While I don't think this is the entirety of the problem, I think the relatively advancement and pervasive use of the following article template is a big problem right now, when combined with the forces that lead to clickbait: Those crazy idiots are up to it again! You won't believe that you're the same species as these people once you see this. As all right-thinking people know, the best flibbets are the ones that gyrate. Of course you know that; everybody around you knows that, that's why you were taught in school about how important gyration is in flibbets. I mean, fucking duh, right? But wait until you get a load of what these doofuses recently vomited forth on their latest Sunday morning talk show appearance: [very unflattering picture of the speaker here] "Gyrating flibbets are... the worst things ever. Everyone knows that flibbets... should wobble." And they go on for a while, but as you can imagine they never give any reason for their crazed beliefs about flibbets! Ha ha! I won't even dignify their rant with a link. How could you think flibbets should wobble? What's a flibbet experience without a bit of quality dizziness brought on by the gyration? Of course, in actuality, the "..."s obscure some serious (if rhetorical) argument, and the part where they went "on and on" they actually do give some sort of reason. It's really a very dangerous rhetorical pattern; it makes you feel like you understand the opposition better when in fact you actively understand them worse; not only do you still have no idea why they believe what they believe and probably a terribly inaccurate idea of what they believe, you've been inoculated against the entire idea of even trying to find out, ever, for any reason, lest you end up being socially mocked. Personally I recommend to everybody that you eschew all such sources of commentary like Stewart or Oliver... at this point I don't even think the fact that they are funny is enough to offset the very significant cognitive dangers they pose. If your news feed is hilarious, turn it off; you're being propagandized, not informed. (This is not particular to John Stewart or Oliver... due to the success of the pattern everyone is doing it! I mean, absolutely everyone is doing it now. I don't know if I just recently sensitized to it or if there really has been a huge shift in the past couple of years here.) (I don't know if it's just me or what lately, but I've also been seeing a lot of claims lately that "there is no evidence that..." when in fact there is some sort of evidence; simple denial of existence is now substituting for even sneering dismissal. Evidence is actually pretty easy to come by in a complicated world; any time you here that there is no evidence your ears should perk up. The problem that makes the real world such a challenge is that it's too easy to find evidence to support any given position, not that there isn't any.)

nailer 10y ago

Political pundits generally play small soundbytes of their opposition, then afford themselves a 10 minute rant.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Would you relate to Trump more if you had to watch him for an hour? Would anyone but supporters?
- arximboldi 10y ago
  Actually I did watch Trump for an hour once and it made me relate to him much more. It did not change my general opinion about him, but it made me understand why people support him.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Huh. Your point is well made. Kudos for trying to understand someone else.
    - elcapitan 10y ago
      There are some videos with him from a couple of years before the election (on Letterman), I watched those a week ago and found him quite likeable as well. Even with the background knowledge of the disastrous policy he is now implementing.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I think it probably would - Trump is actually a very good persuader. I showed a clip of him speaking to a bunch of Indians who saw virtually nothing of him except whatever they read in TOI. (TOI and most other Indian English language papers can be thought of as being Indian branches of the cathedral, at least for this purpose.) They started by mocking him, yet they quickly quieted down and watched the video with rapt attention until the end. After watching this video they were very much against Trump cutting off the rest of the world to Make America Great Again. As in, they were using Trump's language and accepting his premises, in spite of knowing they were wrong. This is one of the great failings of democracy. People like Trump (or Obama, who had similar abilities) can blatantly lie or just say nothing meaningful, and people will relate to them and follow them.
- pchristensen 10y ago
  I forced myself to watch the debates. Coming in, I despised Trump because I had only heard news about him, not from him. But after 3 hrs of hearing him in debates, I didn't disagree with him so much as I was frustrated that there was nothing of substance to disagree with. He made claims but did not back them up, he deflected rather than addressed questions, and he made judgements so broad that you could interpret them any way you wanted. I went from hating him to just being frustrated at how vacuous he was.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  If you watch him critically, you'd see there's more depth than the cartoon character that you typically see. I don't agree with his politics and methods... but he isn't some bumpkin. He is genuine in his fakeness. Supporters hear the (real) problems he describes and a commitment to fix it. The details are where it breaks down. Many public people who are good at what they do are amazing at flattening complex problems and making people understand and agree. Bill Clinton in his prime was capable of that -- he had a Steve Jobs like magnetic force. If you look at some of more right-wing political people, many of them lack charisma, but use speech and body language techniques that are taught to evangelical pastors and others and are really effective in those audiences, but come off creepy to others. Kinda like how Mormons are awesome telemarketers because of skills acquired on missionary work.
  - u_wot_m8 10y ago
    this, look at the 180 switch in his persona from the 80s to after his struggles in the 90s. He was fairly soft-spoken and thoughtful then transitioned to his current brash persona to build his brand to do licensing deals. Combined with the fact he may be suffering from early Alzheimer's/dementia like his father and you have present day Trump.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- agentgt 10y ago
  I actually the more I see or hear Trump the more I empathize with his plight. Like Howard Stern I'm concerned the presidency will do serious mental harm to him. Trump has what best can be called a serious addiction to praise. It his hard to imagine empathizing a narcissist but from an abstract level it isn't much different from many psychological ailments. When Trump is criticized he may appear to be strong to some but I now imagine based on watching him it is extremely painful for him.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Really? I dislike his policies, but running Trump's business empire was probably about the same level of stress as the presidency.
    - macintux 10y ago
      He didn't face nearly the same level of scrutiny and hostility from the press and public, and he could always walk away from a business by letting it go bankrupt. He also tended to flatter powerful people, so the most hostile people were probably the small businesses he randomly refused to pay. Now he's made many powerful enemies during the campaign. I have to imagine this is wildly more stressful.
- Jweb_Guru 10y ago
  Since a bunch of people are responding with anecdotes I'll throw in mine: most people I know who hate Trump continue to hate him after watching a bunch of footage of him.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_%28U.S._TV_series%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_%28U.S._TV_seri...

jerf 10y ago

While I don't think this is the entirety of the problem, I think the relatively advancement and pervasive use of the following article template is a big problem right now, when combined with the forces that lead to clickbait: Those crazy idiots are up to it again! You won't believe that you're the same species as these people once you see this. As all right-thinking people know, the best flibbets are the ones that gyrate. Of course you know that; everybody around you knows that, that's why you were taught in school about how important gyration is in flibbets. I mean, fucking duh, right? But wait until you get a load of what these doofuses recently vomited forth on their latest Sunday morning talk show appearance: [very unflattering picture of the speaker here] "Gyrating flibbets are... the worst things ever. Everyone knows that flibbets... should wobble." And they go on for a while, but as you can imagine they never give any reason for their crazed beliefs about flibbets! Ha ha! I won't even dignify their rant with a link. How could you think flibbets should wobble? What's a flibbet experience without a bit of quality dizziness brought on by the gyration? Of course, in actuality, the "..."s obscure some serious (if rhetorical) argument, and the part where they went "on and on" they actually do give some sort of reason. It's really a very dangerous rhetorical pattern; it makes you feel like you understand the opposition better when in fact you actively understand them worse; not only do you still have no idea why they believe what they believe and probably a terribly inaccurate idea of what they believe, you've been inoculated against the entire idea of even trying to find out, ever, for any reason, lest you end up being socially mocked. Personally I recommend to everybody that you eschew all such sources of commentary like Stewart or Oliver... at this point I don't even think the fact that they are funny is enough to offset the very significant cognitive dangers they pose. If your news feed is hilarious, turn it off; you're being propagandized, not informed. (This is not particular to John Stewart or Oliver... due to the success of the pattern everyone is doing it! I mean, absolutely everyone is doing it now. I don't know if I just recently sensitized to it or if there really has been a huge shift in the past couple of years here.) (I don't know if it's just me or what lately, but I've also been seeing a lot of claims lately that "there is no evidence that..." when in fact there is some sort of evidence; simple denial of existence is now substituting for even sneering dismissal. Evidence is actually pretty easy to come by in a complicated world; any time you here that there is no evidence your ears should perk up. The problem that makes the real world such a challenge is that it's too easy to find evidence to support any given position, not that there isn't any.)