Donald Trumps speech style - what may have helped him win and influence the American nation.

If you were asked the unlikely question of "Who is Donald Trump?" One of the possible answers you could give would be, "The President of the United states - and a controversial one at that." But what is most controversial about President Trump is how he addresses large crowds and responds to anything anyone says to him. It's unlike any President that's preceded him. Or any other politician for that matter. 

One of the reasons Donald Trump is so seemingly unique is due to his unorthodox speech style. From an objective stand point he uses very straight forward and simplistic language to get his points across - though not always coherent but it is very straight forward and much easier to absorb what he is saying for anyone who doesn't often keep up with a lot of politics or do not fully understand it.   

Some also say he speaks with brutal open honesty which has helped him win his Presidency while others say he has little composure and low impulse control which can may often attribute to his need to use aggressive language when put on the defensive or just simply disagrees with whoever he is against. What we'll speak about is what aspects of his speech style has helped win over the people of America and ultimately influence the nation to win his Presidency.

His simple outspoken conversational style.

It's no secret that Donald Trump doesn't seem to come across as someone with a sophisticated and large vocabulary when comparing to other politicians and if anything his way of speaking since being in the political arena comes across as even surprisingly simplistic. Coupled with him often just speaking his mind and not seeming to be as measured with his words like other politicians this in itself has made him stand out tremendously because he just doesn't seem to want to fit the mold of how a politician would typically act and behave like and this build a sense of intrigue whilst at the same time being easy listen to due to his seemingly small vocabulary.

He frequently uses quick punchy phrases which really makes anything he says easy to comprehend and remember. Similar to how advertising campaigns use mottos to keep their brands memorable and easy to associate with. For example Kit Kat – “Have a Break, Have a Kit Kat” or KFC – “Finger Lickin’ Good”.

Some of Donald Trumps own memorable phrases:

"I will build a great wall—and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me—and I’ll build them very inexpensively"

"We don’t have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don’t have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating - let’s say China - in a trade deal? I beat China all the time. All the time"

"Rocket man is on a suicide mission."

Incoherence and confusion

Due Trump's speech style being so unorthodox and disruptive, this means that the audience is forced to pay more attention to making sense of his of what he is saying. And because of this that means that the listeners are more likely to be influenced and persuaded. Though this isn't fool proof but effective nonetheless.

The majority of Trump sentences are essentially sentence fragments where two or more unrelated thoughts are thrown into one confusing sentence. Words are arranged in a way that not everyone can grasp, even if you have a good command of the English language. (“There is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself, and the Russians, zero”). - quoted from President Trump himself.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

The use of repetition.

Our brains are excellent pattern-seekers and because repetition breeds familiarity we tend become accustomed to what we are regularly exposed to - be it a song we hear on every other radio station or a movie trailer we see on every other television channel or maybe it's a slogan we may often hear such as "Red Bull - it gives you wings." This can be described as the mere exposure effect which is written in more detail here.

George Lakoff, a graduate professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California – Berkeley, explained that the brain is made of a vast amount of interconnected neurons that form circuits similar to a network, and these carry out every single word or thought we have. When these circuits are activated by words or the things we see, they become stronger, and if repeatedly activated, they can become permanent. To be put simply - by repeating something to someone you are training them to think a certain way.

In Trumps case he punctuates his speeches with repetition. It helps to bring his point across without the risk of his messages being forgotten and can also serve as a way to keep his messages memorable. Also it’s also a delaying tactic, giving him time to think of the next thing he needs to say. 

Some of Donald Trumps own repetitive phrases:

“That’s wrong. They were wrong. It’s The New York Times, they’re always wrong. They were wrong.”  

"I went to an Ivy League school. I'm highly educated. I know words. I have the best words, I have the best, but there is no better word than stupid. Right?"

"(on fellow candidates) All of 'em are weak, they're just weak. Some of them are fine people. But they are weak."

Continue

Book Review: The Lucifer Effect How Good People Turn Evil.

The Lucifer Effect, a New York Best Selling book written by research psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo  highlights an uncomfortable but honest observation regarding human nature: That even the most seemingly ordinary, up-right and good person can become a perpetrator of evil. When we're trying to understand behavior that is destructive, irrational and malicious we often direct our focus primarily onto innate characteristics or personality traits which would have lead to such behavior, while ignoring any circumstantial factors which would have shaped such behaviors. Similar to the Fundamental Attribution Error which you can read more about here.

What Zimbardo hypothesized is that it is possible for external situations and systems to become key influences of  change in behavior and that they can often override a persons morals and values and be a corruptive force in extreme circumstances. The analogy of Lucifer within this book was that he was God’s favorite angel, but due to Lucifers fall from grace when he challenged God’s omnipotent authority, Lucifer was transformed into the forever recognized symbol of evil, Satan. This is the idea of people turning from good to evil.

In The Lucifer Effect, the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 is the ideal starting point for Zimbardo as he recalls from first person accounts on how the events of the experiment unfolded. He describes how he and the other researchers set up a simulated prison in the basement of one of Stanford University's academic buildings and then selected 24 students to participate and play the roles of both prisoners and guards. The students he said were chosen from a larger group of 70 volunteers and were chosen specifically because they had no criminal background, had no psychological issues or medical conditions. The student volunteers agreed to participate during a one to two-week period in exchange for $15 a day.

Lasting only a premature six days due to the experiment having to be stopped early Zimbardo describes in gripping detail how the students began to sink deeper and deeper into their roles and how they as guards became abusive, and the prisoners begin to show more signs of extreme stress and anxiety as their time in the experiment went on. While the prisoners and guards were free to interact in any way they pleased, the interactions became hostile and malicious. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive, depressed and show signs of anxiety.

He writes that even the researchers themselves began to lose grip of the situation and lose sight of their objective whilst potentially leaving the students open to psychological damage. Zimbardo, who acted as the prison warden, repetitively overlooked the hostile behavior of the jail guards until graduate student Christina Maslach voiced her concerns as to the conditions in the simulated prison and the morality of continuing the experiment. Zimbardo aptly draws out every bit of emotion and drama involved in the experiment in 1971, which keeps the  reader in awe every step of the way. The Lucifer Effect is brilliantly written, intriguing, and keeps you emotionally engaged throughout reading it. In reference to the end of the experiment Zimbardo beautifully quotes in his book "Only a few people were able to resist the situational temptations to yield to power and dominance while maintaining some semblance of morality and decency; obviously, I was not among that noble class,"

The book doesn't stop there.

In the remainder of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo goes to show how important the concept of the Stanford Prison Experiment is and extrapolates that to some of the more horrifying real world events in recent times, such as the abuse at the hands of agents of the US at Abu Ghraib, the genocide in Rwanda and the rape of Nanking. He discusses how the insidious and corrosive effect of power often leads to the creation of a corrupt system corrupting the people involved.

The prison study of Abu Ghraib in Iraq is used as an example. Zimbardo became thoroughly involved in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib when he was asked to be an expert witness for Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of the accused who inevitably stood trial for alleged prisoner abuses. Through his research into what transpired at the Abu Ghraib prison, Zimbardo was able to gain insight into what it was like for the soldiers who spent long weeks working shifts within a military prison, and although the accused was eventually sentenced to eight years hard time in another military prison, Zimbardo was able to document the failures in leadership that led to many of the abuses and states that the military system itself was the leading proponent and should be to blame for the conditions in which such atrocities could take place.

In conclusion, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Much of the book has much of a darker sombre feel to it compared to other books due to the descriptions of how ordinary good people can perform evil acts. The final chapters of The Lucifer Effect offers us a lighter tone reminding us that some people are able to resist situational influence and can have an unbending resolve against peer pressure and systemic evil. Zimbardo gives examples of such unique individuals which include Christina Maslach, the graduate student who spoke up to Zimbardo to end the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Private Joe Darby, the soldier who blew the whistle on the atrocities that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison.

If you want to learn more about The Lucifer Effect and read other book reviews about it...

Check it out here on Amazon.

Continue

The mere exposure effect: You may have seen it before.

In psychology the phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect first identified by Robert Zanjoc in 1968 is when an unfamiliar object you either dislike or feel indifference towards becomes familiar and something you grow to feel favourably towards because of repeat exposure. So in essence, the more you see, hear or taste something the more you like it. Humans like comfort and familiarity, and when faced with a choice between two opposing options for example such as buying shoe's from a well known brand versus buying shoe's from a new unknown brand, nine times out of ten you will choose the shoe's from the brand you know and are familiar with because of previous exposure. This goes to show that the comfort and familiarity that came with the known brand is key when it came to choosing between these two options, because what people are mainly looking for when making a choice similar to this one in question is whether or not it is a brand they can trust, and for the most part comfort and familiarity builds trust. 

Advertising
Advertising is notorious for using the mere exposure effect, when a company releases a new product their marketing campaign makes the use of bill boards, posters, television adverts, newspaper adverts, magazine adverts.... you name it. This gives this new product a sense of omnipresence when you add it all up but the real intention behind this is to get it noticed at least once a day so when you do finally come across this new product in the shop you feel a sense of familiarity towards it, this is because of the repeated exposure and now are that much more likely to purchase it. The use of trailers for movies are also a form of the mere exposure effect, by giving you a small sample of the movie you become aware of it, then with enough repeat exposures you become familiar with it and may decide to go out and watch it because you've begun to favour it more and more over time. Lastly music is unmistakeably something that commonly uses the mere exposure effect as a tool, at some point you may have decided you didn't like a piece of music or a tune based on your initial impression of it but after hearing it a few times on the radio and seeing a promotional advert of it on television a couple of times then even hear your friends talk about it which evokes social proof, you slowly come round to deciding that you want to know what the fuss is about and may even go out your way to listen to it and even purchase a copy. Quite effective.

SIGN UP. VERIFY. RECEIVE $5 IN FREE BITCOIN. ONLY WITH NBX! CLICK HERE!

An experiment conducted by social psychology pioneer Robert Zajonc in 1968 involving him showing a group of American participants images of a selection of Chinese characters varying different exposures up to 25 times then questioning the participants about what they saw asking how favourably they felt to each character that was shown. Keeping in mind that each character had no initial meaning to each of the American participants, the results were that the characters that were rated favourably and had more positive connotations were shown more frequently than the others which were shown less frequently. Zajonc concluded that the extra favourability some of the Chinese characters received was because of the familiarity gained by each repeated exposure.

Human relationships

The mere exposure effect is prevalent in human relationships, similar to how advertising works; the more time spent with someone or even just seeing an individual the more likely you are to form a positive opinion about them. This is provided that they haven't done anything overly negative. There are many situations where being in close proximity to someone increases the likelihood of being favourable to a person or a group of people through repeated exposure where you otherwise would not have in a one off situation. These situations would include college dorms, holidays where you would be staying for a period of time, your local supermarket, the gym, your workplace, your local bar... the list is endless. This principle goes for attraction in human relationships also, the feeling of liking increases the chances of someone being a potential partner (think people who date people at their workplace) because of their positive opinion of them as a result of repeated exposure and due to this we find we can be comfortable around them, and as people we are attracted to things we feel we are comfortable with. 

An unusual experiment regarding the mere exposure effect was carried out by Professor Charles Geotzinger in 1968 in his classroom at Oregon State University where he had a mystery student attend one of the professors classes for two months in a black bin bag with only his bare feet showing, this occurred every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 11:00 am with the student sitting at the back of the classroom. None of the 20 students that attended his class knew the identity of this mystery student. To begin with the students showed hostility towards the person in the black bag, and then over time this changed to curiosity, then some time after that the students eventually showed a positive attitude and developed a friendship with this mystery student.

Continue

How we learn: The Principles and Mechanics. Chapter two

So in the last chapter I spoke about the general physiological aspects of how we learn and process information, and continuing from that I will be visiting some principles and concepts discovered by psychologists to help anyone reading this to have a more concise understanding of how learning takes place.

Classical conditioning.

If you have a steady interest in psychology you may have heard of the name ''classical conditioning'' floating around, this is where you have a stimuli along side an emotional response though they have no relationship with each other, now if you repeat this process of activating the stimuli along side this emotional response eventually there will be a cause and effect. The stimuli just by itself will elicit this emotional response. Interesting stuff.

An example of this just to simplify, if you hear a song that you are normally indifferent to you would forget about it right? it would have no significance to you. Now if you are in high spirits for whatever reason (you may have had a pay rise, you've won a luxury car etc.) and you hear this song at that very point, the very next time you hear it you will have a positive emotional response, why? because the last time you heard it you was in a good mood anyway so when you did hear it you unconsciously made the association between those good feelings and that song, I'm gathering most of us has been through this at some point or another. 

This form of learning was discovered by a world renowned Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov who created an experiment with his dog, a bell and dog food. By ringing the bell the dog basically took no notice, nothing. So Pavlov rang the bell and soon after fed it. Eventually after repeating this all Pavlov did was ring the bell without feeding the dog and it would salivate thus the bell creating a physiological response in the dog proving that the dog made an association between the bell and its food.

Operant conditioning.

Another interesting one where you are ''learning by consequences'' as opposed classical conditioning which is learning by automatic preprogrammed responses. In other words operant conditioning teaches the subject to increase their behaviour by reinforcement or decrease it by punishment, much like when a parent wants you to stop misbehaving and do your homework he/she will send you to your room until you behave and do your homework. Once you have behaved and done your homework you are rewarded with ice cream. Being sent to your room is your punishment the ice cream is your reinforcement thus making you more likely to do as your told.

There are four types of operant conditioning by which behaviour may be altered.

Positive reinforcement: This is typically when you are rewarded for your behaviour, e.g. if you help a neighbour clean his car and he lets you borrow his gaming console, you are more likely to clean his car next time.

Negative reinforcement: Negative reinforcement happens when a behaviour is increased as a result of a negative condition or negative stimuli, e.g. if you don't clean your bedroom you will have to clean the toilet instead. To avoid cleaning the toilet you clean your bedroom thus strengthening that behaviour.

Punishment: Punishment is simply a behaviour decreased as a result of a negative consequence, e.g. by placing your hand on a hot stove you end up burning it/feeling discomfort, as a result of this you learn to not place your hand on a hot stove. very simple.

Extinction: Another simple one where a behaviour is decreased by typically no response. There is no negative or positive consequence, e.g. A mischievous young child screams for attention. There is no response. The child learns not to repeat behaviour.

B.F Skinner was the psychologist who introduced these theories of operant conditioning which was based off Edward Thorndikes law of effect that stated any behaviour which had good consequences will be repeated and any behaviour which had bad consequences will be avoided. Skinner conducted experiments where he would put rats and pigeons in a box with an electric grid where there was a lever to press to receive food. They quickly learned to press the leaver.

Free £59.50 from Topcashback. Click here to learn how!

Observational learning

Also known as social learning theory, where typically you learn by watching your surroundings whether it by watching people advertisements, magazines etc etc. The thinking behind this ''what ever has worked for the this person must work for me'', with children they look up to adults and other children for successful behaviour while adults look to their peers and anyone that may have authority or success over their hobbies and interests. Its the good old game of ''monkey see monkey do.'' 

The opposite is true as well if somebody is seen having a negative response due to a performed action the observer learns not to repeat that action to avoid the same treatment, this similarly goes back to Thorndikes law of effect. Learning by observation involves four different processes...

Attention: The observer cannot learn unless he is paying attention to what's going on around them, this process is influenced by how much they have in common with the model, the characteristics, and how much the observer like the model also. Expectations and mood have an influencing factor also.

Retention: The observer must be able to remember and retain the observed action for an extended period of time and during so rehearse the action mentally or physically but this all depends on the observers ability to structure the said action in his/her mind.

Production: The observer must be able to reproduce this act, how well it is performed is dependant on the observers general skill level, experience and ability. You can watch a gymnast do three somersaults in a row, it doesn't mean you can reproduce it without practice.

Motivation: Motivation is generally dependant on the incentive to perform the observed action, it all depends if the action results in a punishment or a reward.

Attention and retention account for acquiring an action and production and motivation control the performance.

A psychologist named Albert Bandura believed behaviours and actions were learned through imitation. He conducted an experiment with a bobo doll where he had a group of nursery children observe an adult male or female behave aggressively towards a bobo doll, prior the experiment the researchers observed the children just to see how aggressive they were on an everyday basis and take notes of their base/regular behaviour. 


During the experiment the adult participants behaved towards this doll differently each time, some would use a hammer, others would throw around the doll, some would shout ''Pow.'', ''Boom.'' and other random words.

Another group of children were exposed to a non-aggressive model and a final group was not exposed to any model at all.

Soon after each child were invited in to an experimental room containing toys including the bobo doll to be observed on how they interact with the toys and the doll.

It was discovered that the children who observed the aggressive models were found to more aggressive than the ones which observed the non-aggressive model and the ones who didn't have a model. Well no surprise there. Also boys were more likely to imitate same sex models while this didn't prove strong for girls, it was also found that boys were more physical aggressive than girls though when it came to verbal aggression there was no not much difference at all.

Continue