Quantifying the debate
« previous post | next post »
Following up on "Type-token plots in The Economist" (9/6/2024), I lost some sleep last night doing some analyses of the presidential debate, which I shared with writers at The Economist to be published as "An alternative look at the Trump-Harris debate, in five charts", 9/11/2024. They lead with another type-token graph:
One of their other "charts" is a table of each candidates most-used words. In some cases the explanation is obvious, like Harris using "former" 15 times while Trump uses it only once. But sometimes the difference may seem puzzling, like the fact that Trump used the word "they" 230 times, while Harris used it only 10 times. Why?
As the article explains, scanning the contexts of use makes the political content clear. Many of Trump's "they" referents are of two kinds, exemplified already in his opening turn — 5 references to the Biden administration, and 8 references to immigrants:
In fact, they never took the tariff off because it was so much money. They can't it would totally destroy everything that they've set out to do. They're taking in billions of dollars from China and other places they've left the tariffs on.
On top of that, we have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums. And they're coming in and they're taking jobs that are occupied right now by African-Americans and Hispanics. And also unions. Unions are going to be affected very soon. And you see what's happening. You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio, you look at Aurora in Colorado, they are taking over the towns, They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they're destroying our country. They're dangerous. They're at the highest level of criminality.
More later on other aspects of the article — meanwhile for background on the calculation of characteristic words, see e.g. "The most Trumpish (and Bushish) words" (9/5/2015), or "The most Kasichoid, Cruzian, Trumpish, and Rubiositous words" (3/11/2016), where the method is motivated and explained. The whole list of words from this debate, ranked by Trumpishness, is here — or here, ranked by Harrisianity.
Update — loon in the comments wrote:
The 'They' out in full force. Heidegger is resting easy.
This is relevant but (I think) wrong — in fact backwards, at least if I understand the implication.
Wikipedia explains Heidegger's "the They" this way:
One of the most interesting and important 'concepts' in Being and Time is that of Das Man, for which there is no exact English translation; different translations and commentators use different conventions. It is often translated as "the They" or "People" or "Anyone" but is more accurately translated as "One" (as in "'one' should always arrive on time").
And from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
It is important to understand what Heidegger means by ‘Others’, a term that he uses interchangeably with the more evocative ‘the “they” ’ (das Man). He explains:
By ‘Others’ we do not mean everyone else but me—those over against whom the ‘I’ stands out. They are rather those from whom, for the most part, one does not distinguish oneself—those among whom one is too… By reason of this with-like Being-in-the-world, the world is always the one that I share with Others. (Being and Time 26: 154–5)
In contrast, Trump's "they" are Democrats, immigrants and others from whom he most definitely distinguishes himself, and from whom he wants his listeners to distinguish themselves as well.
AntC said,
September 11, 2024 @ 8:01 pm
This analysis seems to be Radio NZ's own work. I'm most surprised: usually they take syndicated copy for international topics.
loon said,
September 12, 2024 @ 1:04 am
The 'They' out in full force. Heidegger is resting easy.
David Marjanović said,
September 12, 2024 @ 10:15 am
It is backwards; man, as in "one does not simply walk into Mordor", always includes the speaker if at all applicable.
Part of the reason, though certainly not the whole reason, why Trump used 2000 more words than Harris was that he simply spoke for a few minutes longer.
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
September 12, 2024 @ 11:05 am
Elephants and Donkeys use "them" as an exercise in demagoguery to mean "not us"; Heidegger, if I "get" him correctly, uses "das Man" to refer to all the rest of the "beings" (Seiende) (with whom we are "thrown") that prevent the "poet" from "authentically" (eigentlichkeitlich) participating, i.e., ontologically, in the field of Being because they get us too caught up in the "idle talk" (Geräde) of being-(socially)-in-the-world.
In other words, we'll never find the ground (Grund) of being (Sein) of Van Gogh's "Shoes" if we're just shuffling around the museum doomscrolling on our 3" x 6" Geräde-devices.
So, I'm not sure that metaphysical veracity is what either Donny or Kammie are getting at. They just want you to not like the other guy.
Nat said,
September 12, 2024 @ 3:10 pm
The way that Trump is using "they" is closer to Simone De Beauvoir's "otherness". I would guess that her "other" is related to, perhaps derives from, Das Man. But, as people are pointing out, they're quite different concepts.
Viseguy said,
September 12, 2024 @ 10:46 pm
Trump's habitual use of the "othering 'they'" (for want of a better descriptor) is unremarkable. The usage that jumped out at me during the debate was in his answer about Jan. 6th: "I had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech. I showed up for a speech." A transparent attempt to distance himself from his co-conspirators in order to deny complicity in the event — as if, as president, he had no choice, no agency in the matter. Perhaps that usage should be called the "pathetic 'they'".
Andrew Usher said,
September 13, 2024 @ 7:37 am
I see nothing linguistically remarkable about that either. Rewrite it like this (which changes nothing): "I had nothing to do with it, except that they asked me to make a speech – and I showed up for a speech." and it's clear the structure is perfectly normal. It is possible and usual that lies and deception adhere to all the norms of ordinary English use.
k_over_hbarc at yahoo.com
David Marjanović said,
September 13, 2024 @ 10:03 am
Whoa. If Heidegger had wanted to say authentisch or echt or even wirklich, he'd have done that. Instead, as usual, he created a monster: actually-ness-ly.
If that's not Gerede (a homonym for me but probably not for him), it's another monstrous creation that might contain Rad "wheel"… or did you simply misremember?
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
September 13, 2024 @ 11:00 am
DM:
WARNING — I've only ever read Heidegger in French or English! He probably did just say "eigentlich" and "Geräde" is probably my oral rephonation of "Gerede".
But "In-der-Welt-sein" and "das Gewürf" are 100% Heidegger, he won't weasel out of those'ns.
Viseguy said,
September 13, 2024 @ 10:10 pm
@Andrew Usher: I may have veered off-topic — I'm not a linguist — but I think it was perfectly clear that I was not talking about "the structure" of what Trump said. "Lies and deception", oh yes — and disingenuousness, too. Wonderful things, those norms of ordinary English.
Yves Rehbein said,
September 13, 2024 @ 11:04 pm
The ZDF Heute Show from September 13th even titled
"THEY ARE EATING THE PETS"
It's a dog whistle. Dog whistles are unremarkable by definition, iconspicious to the naked eye.
The man (the overman) is fitting much better as a literal translation when the They is democrats.
Heidegger's coinage das man is a comment on grammar since the indefinite pronoun man does not belong to higher registers. It evokes a certain distance that is born out by the neutrum in analogy to das Ego, das ich, or Freudian Überich and Es ("Id", "it") rather than masculine Mann, der. Trolling is a art, as it were.
Rodger C said,
September 16, 2024 @ 10:16 am
eigentlichkeitlich
Authenticitously.