Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Liberals Are Manic Depressive Girly-Men

The Washington Post carries a short report this morning (page A2) that I can’t find an online link for about a forthcoming article in the Journal of Research in Personality that analyzes in detail the language used by Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards in the 2004 campaign. (The study was done by linguists at the Univesity of Texas/Austin--a blue outpost in that red state). The finding: "Sen. Kerry seemed the most depressed and suicidal. And Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards, sounded most like a ’girly man.’"

It gets better (and even more depressing for liberals): "Cheney easily sounded the smartest of the four. . . Edwards also was the most likely to use feminine speech patterns and ’female’ words, while Cheney sounded most like a man’s man. . . The Vice President sounded the most honest of the four, and Kerry the least." The study’s authors said that Bush also used a lot of feminine language (that’s the trouble with compassionate conservatism), but at least he wasn’t depressed like Kerry.

Sounds like liberals could use a dose of Manliness. And also this.

Discussions - 44 Comments

After watching Cheney debate Edwards it is hardly surprising that he was considered to "sound the smartest."

Steven is this link you are looking for? Washington Post

Yes, that’s the link. Don’t know why I couldn’t find it.

I’ve met Pennebaker, and I like his research. I wish he had a scale that would help us to predict "worst hunting partner," or "most likely to use, "catapult" and "propaganda" in the same sentence.

I wonder why he didn’t analyze DeLay?

Sounds to me like Conservatives need to find something new to do with their time . . .

I guess Mr. Hayward has put us liberals in our place.

With all due respect Matt I think you missed Mr. Hayward’s point and it becomes apparently obvious you didn’t read the WaPo article which starts out with the statement "Forget the Swift boat ads, the economy or international terrorism. Here’s what really may have decided the last presidential election:" In the article Morin is trying to explain by using the aforementioned study how the last presidential election could have been influenced in part by speech. As he states "Voters are most favorable toward those candidates who are the most optimistic," Slatcher said. "The depressive language that Kerry and Edwards used during the campaign may have contributed negatively to the way in which they were perceived by the public."

One can sort of relate this to the Governor race in Virginia last year. Kilgore, who was a several point favorite a couple months out, starting running negative campaign ads while his opponent was more optimistic and illustrating his “plans to move Virginia forward”. No surprise that Kilgore slowly but surely fell below Kaine and lost.

Let’s not forget that in the last election the public’s number one concern was national security. When an election is about national security it seems to me that if you are perceived by the public as weak, dishonest and depressed that is not a good thing.

Is "girly man" a scientific term? Sounds like a pretty valid study!

I think that "girly man" was a quote used in the WaPo article, but not in the research article.

I’m waiting for Dain to attack this article as Social Scientist hogwash, and typical leftist liberal boilerplate biased scum-sucking waste-of-time pseudoscientific blarney.

Interestingly, separate studies have demonstrated repeatedly that people who are more depressed tend to perceive events more accurately than do people who are not depressed.

It is also interesting that Bush won (narrowly, remember) on the strength of his optimism (as opposed to realism) and despite his inarticulateness. (While the WaPo article doesn’t say it explicitly, the results COULD be interpreted to suggest that Bush was perceived as the most stupid of the four.

So, now, 6 years later, what have we got? Democrats saying " I told you so," and Republicans wondering how things got so bad despite Mr. Optimism.

Interestingly, separate studies have demonstrated repeatedly that people who are more depressed tend to perceive events more accurately than do people who are not depressed.

What are you talking about Fung? I have never heard this before and you are jumping to conclusions on Bush being the "dumbest of the four." It simpley doesn’t say that in the article at all. Just a hunch, if that is what was found, I believe the WaPo would have said it too.

I seem to remember that Bush got an MBA (and good grades) from Harvard. Tell me, Fung, where did super genius John Kerry go to law school? I bet you don’t even know. Too bad his actual performance doesn’t live up to the left’s rhetoric.

Stephen,
First lesson I should’ve learned, don’t hit enter when commenting.
Anyway, the real link to the actual study follows. Unfortunately, if you’re not a memeber, it’ll cost you $30.
Mike

Link

I watched the debate with Cheney and Edwards and I could tell that Cheney won because Edwards kept fluttering his eyes. Then Edwards would stick his nose up in the air and look down on Cheney when he was talking to him. Both Edwards and Kerry are very spoiled, shallow people.

Bush has degrees from both Yale and Harvard. Kerry has a degree in marrying rich women.

(While the WaPo article doesn’t say it explicitly, the results COULD be interpreted to suggest that Bush was perceived as the most stupid of the four. Comment 10 by Fung

President Bush and Vice President Cheney sounded more presidential than their Democratic counterparts. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) seemed the most depressed or suicidal. And Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), sounded the most like a "girly man." (from the article)

Hmm...So...If you sound more presidential, less depressed and suicidal and less like a girly man you must be the stupidest candidate? Rudolph Nureyev could only envy the leaps you make.

It probably is social science hogwash. And pointless...the election’s over.

Dain - exactly.



Lisa - I’m really sure Bush would’ve gotten into Yale and Harvard easily had his father not been an extremely rich and influential politician. Please don’t try to tell me that Edwards and Kerry are spoiled and Bush and Cheney are not. They’re all ridiculously rich and spoiled. Heh. It makes for an entertaining election . . .

Interestingly, separate studies have demonstrated repeatedly that people who are more depressed tend to perceive events more accurately than do people who are not depressed. Comment 10 by Fung

I guess I missed those studies. Would you cite them please?

59 million people accurately perceived the results of the ’04 election and were not depressed. 53 million people accurately perceived the results of the election and were depressed. Democrats are smarter than Republicans so you must be right.

"I’m really sure Bush would’ve gotten into Yale and Harvard easily had his father not been an extremely rich and influential politician"

And John FORBES Kerry had less influence? LMAO. Oh yeah, Kerry’s GPA was worse than Bush’s.

So, now, 6 years later, what have we got? Democrats saying " I told you so," and Republicans wondering how things got so bad

More like Democrats lying about "how bad" things are, and Republicans rolling their eyes at them.

There are alot of things about Bush’s administration that I don’t like, but the Moonbat conspiracy theories and constant nitpicking and whining have immunized him from legitimate criticism.

Kerry and Edwards and their party’s leadership seem to suffer from low levels of "thumos" and having no "cajones" regarding foreign policy.

Oh yes, I’d rather hunt with VP Cheney than ride with Teddy Kennedy.

Fen - did you read my comment?



They’re all ridiculously rich and spoiled.

Uncle Guido-

here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Does anyone else have formatting problems on this post?

Lincoln Hawk- How do you interpret this from the WaPo article?

"Cheney easily sounded the smartest of the four, while Edwards and Bush favored the least sophisticated language patterns."

Just as an aside, When did this blog begin to revere Harvard and Yale? I thought they were bastions of grade inflation and elitism. But, when anyone criticizes Bush, we hear about his trials and tribulations at Yale AND Harvard. Ooooohh! And "Professor Mansfield," too. He’s on the faculty at Harvard!!!!

I know I’m new to this, but I thought we didn’t like elitist, ivory tower traditions, and mean gpa’s of 3.9???? Please, tell me who to hate!!!

This study conforms too much to my own perception of a male Democrat, so I treat it with some suspicion. Unlike Democrats, who treat any report that conforms to their biases as not-to-be-questioned truth.

No, you can criticize the President.

However, if it the criticism is the same tired, word-out ’Bush Lied’, Bush was AWOL’, etc variety, then you have a problem because they are the criticism of the unhinged and of the partisan hack.

If you criticism is met with derision, it may still be valid criticism, but is something that some may try to prove unfounded.

I am absolutely dumbfounded whenever folks say you can’t criticize the President. Every conservative commentator from Rush to George Will have been critical of the President on various issues.

In regards to Ivy League schooling. No one has every suggested that folks that have attended there should suppress that part of their educational history. I am not sure where you are going with that.

I guess I missed those studies. Would you cite them please? Comment 20 by Uncle Guido

here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism Comment 25 by Fung

Thanks. I suppose I should give wikipedia much more credit than I do.

Does anyone else have formatting problems on this post? Comment 25 by Fung

Grow up.

Interestingly, separate studies have demonstrated repeatedly that people who are more depressed tend to perceive i>events

more accurately than do people who are not depressed. (emphasis added). Comment 10 by Fung here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Some studies have shown (Dobson and Franche, 1989) that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception .of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Fung, the article you cited does not support your statement.

FMG, I like the new moniker! Damned clever, whoever came up with that...and so apt!

Guido- Other than sarcastic, irrelevant comments, is there a point you are trying to make? Do you suggest that one’s own perceptions of one’s own locus of control, importance, and abilities is not an important component of how one interprets and perceives events?

As for Wikipedia, it does no good for me to provide you with links to search engines that you have no access to. Wikipedia was one that I thought you could handle. As for growing up: Up yours.

Dain - I like it, too.

Up yours Comment 32 by FMG

Brilliant argument. You have a realistic perception of your importance. You must be terribly depressed. I pity you.

Fung the Moral Giant (FMG) says:

Do you suggest that one’s own perceptions of one’s own locus of control, importance, and abilities is not an important component of how one interprets and perceives events?

And says:

It is also interesting that Bush won (narrowly, remember) on the strength of his optimism (as opposed to realism) and despite his inarticulateness. (While the WaPo article doesn’t say it explicitly, the results COULD be interpreted to suggest that Bush was perceived as the most stupid of the four.

and cites this to support his logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Following his logic, therefore, by referring to himself as a moral giant, he is either wrong about his perception of himself, in which case he’s stupid, or he’s right about himself, in which case he’s depressed.

Fung, if you think my comments are either too sarcastic or irrelevant, don’t read them.

No, Guido, I cited the WaPo article itself to support my argument:

"Cheney easily sounded the smartest of the four, while Edwards and Bush favored the least sophisticated language patterns."

Guido, if you want to critique someone, why don’t you analyze quotes about finding the leak in the White House? You can measure the honesty quotient of the words coming out of the First Liar’s mouth.

Guido, if you want to critique someone, why don’t you analyze quotes about finding the leak in the White House? You can measure the honesty quotient of the words coming out of the First Liar’s mouth. Comment 36 by FMG

Question: Why bring B.J. Clinton into this?

Answer: see 4) below.

1) If the facts are against you, argue the law;

2) If the law is against you argue the facts;
3) If the facts and the law are against you, dazzle them with bull sh*t;

4) If you can’t dazzle them with bull sh*t, change the subject.

Guido: You eat with that m*uth?

Up yours. Comment 32 by FMG

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8358