Today’s New York Times featured a profile of psychologist James W. Pennebaker, and his work analyzing word usage as a cue to psychological well-being and intentions. His work has helped to monitor the progress of therapy on victims of trauma, to analyze the threats of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, and most recently, to examine the electibility of the presidential candidates. By counting how many pronouns are used (and what type of pronouns, I vs. we, etc.), and analyzing incidence of positive vs negative and specific vs. vague words through the use of a special software called LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count), Dr. Pennebaker asserts that he can tell a confident person from a shy one, a liar from a honest man, etc.
His theories are most interesting in application. While Pennebaker’s blog, Wordwatchers, examines all four of the candidates speech patterns, I highly recommend the analysis of Gov, Palin’s word usage. The most interesting aspect of this analysis is looking at how Palin’s word usage shifts drastically between her speeches (likely written by experienced members of the campaign) and her in-person interviews with the likes of Gibson and Couric. Her lack of specific words, under usage of “I” and over-reliance on non-exclusive words, suggests a level of deception not present in the other 3 candidates speech-patterns. Read the full post here.
The conclusion of the blog puts it best, “Using less ‘I’ and fewer exclusive words is a hallmark of deceptive language or spin. She might find more empathy than pity in her audience if, when cornered, she admitted her shortcomings rather than unsuccessfully evading the truth.” Amen.
Creative Kismet
3 hours ago
