Politics

January 21, 2006 9:39 AM

Algorithm detects politicians' spin.
posted by semmi (11 comments total)

This is a disappointing article. I'd like to know more about the alorithm and less about what it shows about the Canadian election.
posted by 327.ca at 9:54 AM on January 21, 2006

I don't know...I mean the algorithm is based on studies of "lying and truthtelling", presumably in experimental or general conditions.

So the algorithm presumes that using the words "however" or "unless" predicts the probability that someone is lying*. But it seems like the meaning of those words is different in political discourse where "however" or "unless" are very important concepts in any policy discussion.

Second, the article argues that the effects on speech patterns may be the result of subconscious tendencies. But they're analyzing speeches. Now how would a politician's subconscious affect the text of a speech given that the speech will have been written by someone else?

*Note that the article talks about "spin", but then they say they mean situations where the speaker's words convey something different from what the speaker actually believes. That's lying. That's not spin. Spin is taking what you want (or are obliged) to say and going out of your way to frame it in a way that you think will be more acceptable than other potential framings.
posted by duck at 10:05 AM on January 21, 2006

I think there should be a moratorium on New Scientist articles. That magazine is an embarassment - hyped up claims, poorly researched articles. Every time one is posted here we end up wasting a lot of our breath pointing out how useless it is.
posted by vacapinta at 10:12 AM on January 21, 2006

there are much easier ways to tell if a politician is lying. for example, if you can see a politician's teeth he's lying.
posted by carsonb at 10:18 AM on January 21, 2006

What a shitty article.

Really, really, really shitty.

Is this what "new" scientists do? Is this like "new" math?
posted by ryanhealy at 10:39 AM on January 21, 2006

I'm pretty sure that politicians are set on "spin" by default.
posted by grimcity at 10:41 AM on January 21, 2006

Harper is the most carefully scripted IMO. It is spooky how similar his pattern of speech is to that of "make no mistake" George. He is also hiding anybody who might speak their conservative mind. Psychology aside, just compare what candidates are saying now to what they've said in the past. The guy who apologized in the Wall Street Journal for Canada not sending troops to Iraq is now whistling a different tune.

If Harper wins, watch how fast our "free trade" disputes are solved in return for Diebold running our next election.

ryanhealy : It's what science magazines do to increase circulation.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:50 AM on January 21, 2006

I don't need none of yer fancy al-go-rhythms to tell me when a politician is lyin' sonny.
posted by Relay at 10:51 AM on January 21, 2006

Michael Moore on the Canadian election.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:33 AM on January 21, 2006

Bah, Michael Moore is just another Osama.
posted by homunculus at 11:38 AM on January 21, 2006

"I think there should be a moratorium on New Scientist articles. That magazine is an embarassment - hyped up claims, poorly researched articles. Every time one is posted here we end up wasting a lot of our breath pointing out how useless it is."--vacapinta

Oh Rly?
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:18 PM on January 21, 2006