Great. Now we have Damocles interpreting the body language of Michele Obama during the Clinton speech, who couldn't have been on the screen for all that long.
For Christ's sake, make it stop . . .
Pretty good summary of Hillary's speech
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Great. Now we have Damocles interpreting the body language of Michele Obama during the Clinton speech, who couldn't have been on the screen for all that long.
For Christ's sake, make it stop . . .
I watched the entire speech, it wasn't just me either. My wife and sisters noted the same thing. And no, they are not all in agreement with my political view. I find your dismissal of somebody who largely agrees with you as some sort of hack (Thorn, not me), just because she saw much of the same things I did, spurious and based in your own hackery, you attempt to project onto me how you would act and miss the target. I seek to learn from these speeches, and to improve my own speaking abilities.
As it were they flashed to Michelle often on the channel we watched on, at least 10 times during the speech and the only time that I saw the smile was when she mentioned that Michelle would be beneficial to Obama as a first lady.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wow, you sure do seem to be getting worked up over someone else's OPINION.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Do you think it possible that perhaps, just perhaps, you may not have watched the speech on the same channels? That could explain the discrepancy. Just an observation.
Thorn
Member
That's possible too. I watched it on MSNBC; got home from class just in time to see it. I didn't see any big smiles from Michelle Obama, really I didn't. With a onetime exception, I thought she looked as if she were stifling an expression of annoyance in response to many of the statements in the speech. This can't be put down to editing as it was in real time.
Okay, so you saw what I saw pretty much then.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is just it, when in real time, the various stations are cutting to different scenes/people at different times. MSNBC may have shown a frown or displeasure one moment, while CNN showed her smiling a minute later...
Not sure why Dung and Lorax are getting so upset that other people got different impressions from a speech than they did. As you mentioned, personal opinions on the speaker will also influence to an extent the perception of the speech as a whole.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think you answered your own question.
Acting like those who gave opinions on what they saw and perceived from the speech is equivalent to "amateur hour" indicates your panties are once again in a bunch because someone has a different opinion than you.
Or would you care to explain to us WHY it is that people discussing their impressions of the speech is amateurish?
Actually, the different stations cutting to different scenes/people at different times is an unlikely explanation since the various networks use the same feed.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Ok. Was not aware that they were all tied to the same exact shot at all times.
It was just a theory. I stand corrected then.
Damo specifically pointed to a reaction of Hillary's which he later said he thought was probably her responding to someone off-camera, as a way of interpreting how she "really" felt when she was saying the words just prior to the reaction. If she was responding to someone else, her body language didn't betray anything but a normal reaction. It was not indicative - by Damo's own admission, in his opinion - of anything subliminal or related at all to what she was saying.
That's what body language interpretation is all about; it's not supposed to delve into what a normal reaction to something might be. That's what I meant by "amateur hour." I surely wasn't upset about it; I just thought it was kind of ridiculous that Damo was, once again, talking out of his arse.
But of course you, in a prissy sort of fit, always feel the need to jump in & defend him, without the least bit of knowledge.
No problem. Just pointing it out. There was a bit of a dust-up over it this year since the DNC feed is controlled by . . . FOXNews.
And I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions of the speech at all, but when we delve into body language interpretation to support our biased view of the speech and the speaker I think we've veered off into bullshit territory. That's all.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Fair enough... but body language and tone are a part of how we react to a speaker.
Think of how many ways you can change the tone of the phrase "I'm Sorry" (just as an example). It can alter your meaning or the perception of your meaning.
The same can be true with regards to body posture, facial expressions etc...
They all go into how we perceive and interpret our impressions of events.
Here are some people who actually do this for a living: they said she was egocentric, yes, but both authentic & believable:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...body_language_experts_debate_hillary_cli.html
It's a tough one for me; Damo, or people who actually study this stuff...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...body_language_experts_debate_hillary_cli.html
It's a tough one for me; Damo, or people who actually study this stuff...
Agreed, but the interpretation and perception of postures, facial expressions, etc . . . are mainly based on our inherent biases.
Basically, what I am saying is that the reaction to Clinton's body language is driven by the inherent bias against Clinton, not by the body language. Blaming your reaction on the body language just allows you to pretend you aren't really biased. Instead, it's is her fault that you reacted as you did.
Thorn
Member
From my own perspective, I think that the foregoing parses the situation too far. I watched the speech, curious as to how it would be handled and what would be said and how. Generally, in an effort to be fair, I tend to go overboard in recognizing mitigating factors that may influence my response to something. Definitely the speaking style -- the discontinuity of phrases, the reliance on emotionally recognizable phrases, the not talking in sentences (which drives me crazy), the "poster-child vignette" approach to examples, to me represent a cheap way out. I realize that political speeches are just that, but I was hoping for more than I saw and heard.
As I mentioned before, I did appreciate her appeal at the end to her supporters to consider what it is they want to vote for: is it a personal vote for an individual or a vote to change the political machine at the helm? I heard her words inother respects but was not convinced that they were spoken sincerely at all.
Like you, DH, I have a pretty good built-in BS detector, and have had since I was very, very young. At an early point, this caused my mother to question my reaction to one of my grandmother's friends. Not having the vocabulary yet to express myself, I stuck out my tongue. Bad, bad move. OK, I was three, but obviously I've never forgotten it and can say that this detector has been working pretty well for many years. It was sounding bells last night, too.
Rubbish, I wondered if anybody else had caught that unfortunately timed incident.
My impressions are based on what I saw other than at that moment, which I stated clearly that I believed had something to do with something outside the speech. I was not stating that as evidence of the perception I had of the speech itself.
The reason I speak on these types of things is because I learn how to improve my public speaking by seeing how others do it, whether it feels genuine, why it does or doesn't etc.
She wasn't going to say anything that would have convinced me to vote for Barack Obama, so I watched for whether or not she might convince others. Asking people who are not worshipers is vital to this type of information gathering. Pretending you have some perfect knowledge others do not and that all other opinions than yours are "amateur hour" is just the posturing of a worshiper.