[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Michelle Obama vs Ann rMoney - Conquer Club
One week after Ann Romney set a record for delivering a speech written at the lowest grade level in convention history by the wives of presidential nominees, Michelle Obama delivers a speech written at the highest ever grade level.
The First Lady's speech on Tuesday evening was delivered at a grade level of 12.84. The wife of the 2012 Republican presidential nominee gave a speech written at just a 5.80 grade level.
Is it because Ann can't make out the complex words? Is it because Republicans can't understand the complex words? Is it because Republicans think at a 6th grade level, while Democrats think at a 13th grade level?
While discussing this, it's important to keep in mind this line from the article:
...a simplistically written speech does not necessarily mean it is a poor speech, nor that a speech with longer sentences is necessarily superior.
Phatscotty wrote:Maybe it has something to do with Ann's speech being twice as long?
That actually makes sense to you?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Night Strike wrote:Apparently lying and twisting the truth don't bring down your grade level?
It sure don't. Now, I doesn't know much about the two, but length isn't the determining factor when we consider speeches. Anyone can write fluff (not to discredit Ann, as I haven't heard either of them. Her's might have been great. I'm working ITT)
Night Strike wrote:Apparently lying and twisting the truth don't bring down your grade level?
It sure don't. Now, I doesn't know much about the two, but length isn't the determining factor when we consider speeches. Anyone can write fluff (not to discredit Ann, as I haven't heard either of them. Her's might have been great. I'm working ITT)
I honestly think both women are intelligent and articulate. I have a lot of respect for Michelle Obama's initiatives on children's lunch/diet, while definitely recognizing that there are serious limits to what she can do. I suspect if MItt Romney is elected, then Ann will pick a similarly "nuetral", but positive issue to promote. That is what first ladies do.
I don't think I would want either to be president, but then... they are not running.
One week after Ann Romney set a record for delivering a speech written at the lowest grade level in convention history by the wives of presidential nominees, Michelle Obama delivers a speech written at the highest ever grade level.
The First Lady's speech on Tuesday evening was delivered at a grade level of 12.84. The wife of the 2012 Republican presidential nominee gave a speech written at just a 5.80 grade level.
Is it because Ann can't make out the complex words? Is it because Republicans can't understand the complex words? Is it because Republicans think at a 6th grade level, while Democrats think at a 13th grade level?
While discussing this, it's important to keep in mind this line from the article:
...a simplistically written speech does not necessarily mean it is a poor speech, nor that a speech with longer sentences is necessarily superior.
Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
jimboston wrote: Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
this is the most accurate summary so far in this thread.
using big words and complex grammar is often a barrier to effective communication. sometimes simple writing is indicative of a lack of intelligence, and sometimes it's indicative of a desire to communicate effectively with the largest amount of people.
i personally follow the maxim that simple vocabulary and grammar can communicate almost all ideas better than complex ones can. you'll rarely see me using unusual terminology or grammar on this forum despite the fact that i'm perfectly capable of doing so (i got a perfect score on the english ACT, for what it's worth). usually the people who take it as a sign of lower intelligence are the superficial morons who are only worried about how ideas look at first glance, as opposed to whether they are actually true
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
jimboston wrote: Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
this is the most accurate summary so far in this thread.
using big words and complex grammar is often a barrier to effective communication.
Oh please.. the idea that Democrats were just some remote educate elite, and that education is somehow bad is one of the most destructive arguments in politics that exist. Sorry to see you have bought into it....
jimboston wrote: Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
this is the most accurate summary so far in this thread.
using big words and complex grammar is often a barrier to effective communication.
Oh please.. the idea that Democrats were just some remote educate elite, and that education is somehow bad is one of the most destructive arguments in politics that exist. Sorry to see you have bought into it....
wtf? you didn't even read my post.
it takes wisdom to know how to communicate most effectively. wisdom and education are completely different, but that doesn't mean education is bad.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
jimboston wrote: Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
this is the most accurate summary so far in this thread.
using big words and complex grammar is often a barrier to effective communication.
Oh please.. the idea that Democrats were just some remote educate elite, and that education is somehow bad is one of the most destructive arguments in politics that exist. Sorry to see you have bought into it....
wtf? you didn't even read my post.
it takes wisdom to know how to communicate most effectively. wisdom and education are completely different, but that doesn't mean education is bad.
waiting (with baited breath) for Player to reply...
Last edited by jimboston on Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bedub1 wrote:Democrats think at a 13th grade level?
If someone told me that my cognitive ability matched that of a 13-grader, I'd feel insulted. Just sayin'
I suppose the reason you're not is that none of you diehard liberals or conservatives, republicans or democrats can think for yourselves.
Once you get into college, unless you specifically enter an English or writing major, your English skills/comprehension don't increase that much. If you're not constantly learning about it, you're using whatever level of english you last learned, which is in most cases, freshman or sophomore year of college.
Yes, some people who didn't go into english fields will have a better comprehension than others, but the base common denominator for english comprehension is a college understanding, not necessarily graduate etc.
Yes?
Please don't invite me to any pickup games. I will decline the invite.
jimboston wrote: Because Republicans have to talk to the entire country, and unfortunately the average/median comprehension level of the voting population in this country is pretty low. Republicans want to make sure EVERYONE can understand where they stand on the issues.
The goal of the Democrat writers is to confuse the voting public into thinking they stand for one set of values, when in fact they stand for the opposite ideas. They achieve this goal by delivering speeches with language that the vast majority of their constituency can't understand. Their constituents are then confused, and impressed by their use of language, and like the mice from the story of the Pied Piper they just blindly follow.
this is the most accurate summary so far in this thread.
using big words and complex grammar is often a barrier to effective communication. sometimes simple writing is indicative of a lack of intelligence, and sometimes it's indicative of a desire to communicate effectively with the largest amount of people.
i personally follow the maxim that simple vocabulary and grammar can communicate almost all ideas better than complex ones can. you'll rarely see me using unusual terminology or grammar on this forum despite the fact that i'm perfectly capable of doing so (i got a perfect score on the english ACT, for what it's worth). usually the people who take it as a sign of lower intelligence are the superficial morons who are only worried about how ideas look at first glance, as opposed to whether they are actually true
RE: JB's second paragraph, it's only accurate at certain times. Politicians of both parties play that balancing act between "dumbing down" the speech and being more eloquent. In some cases, being unnecessarily complex may work, or it may backfired. I have yet to see the evidence on either party's effectiveness of their speechcraft. So, I must conclude 'that due to insufficient data, an accurate opinion cannot be formed.'
RE: your last paragraph, it depends on your target audience. Sometimes, speaking in layman terms can be frustrating (and unnecessarily wordy) in some circles; whereas, using technical terms can be unintentionally misleading and discouraging for other circles.
john9blue wrote:obviously it depends on the audience. that's why politicians fake southern accents when they visit southern states.
I'm just highlighting that "i personally follow the maxim that simple vocabulary and grammar can communicate almost all ideas better than complex ones can" isn't always good advice. In other words, I'm against the "almost all" qualifier. The most accurate assertion would be: "it depends." I know I'm nitpicking, and you'd probably agree with me, but if not, please let me know.
For example, Thomas Sowell does a great job explaining Hayek in his book Intellectuals and Society (see parts on knowledge and economics). He uses simple vocabulary and grammar; however, he effectively uses big words at times. He's a great example of that balance which both you and I are discussing in regard to the general public.
How to Write a Speech and keep things simple. Few members in the audience will be impressed by your perficient choice of aberrant eclectic colloquialisms. So learn why you need to write on 5th-grade level and keep PhD-isms out of your speeches
As you can see the elitist snobs will be ... well elitist snobs, but the people who actually work on writing speeches for a living will tell you to do what Ann Romney did ... write at the 5th grade level. This isn't a thesis argument.
When we start writing and toying with persuasive speech ideas, it’s natural to want to sound smart and use the biggest words we know. But as any great and effective communicator will tell you: Keeping it Simple is usually smarter! It's one of those speech writing tips that will get you far indeed.Some speeches sound like PhD dissertations and it's obvious that the author went out of their way to use the fanciest words imaginable then sprinkled it with some technical jargon and finally threw in a few cryptic acronyms for good measure.
But by using complex and obscure sentences, instead of simple, clear and direct language, you are usually extending and open invitation to your audience, to start daydreaming.
