
Changing emotions with a word: The subtleties of semiotics - known
https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21741543-science-looks-subtleties-semiotics-how-change-emotions-word
======
nwatson
The HBO film "Conspiracy" (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(2001_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_\(2001_film\))
) is a great example of (domestic) diplomacy, diplomatic language, persuasion
vs force, using language to steer actions that will have terrible
consequences. There is no "action" ... it revolves around the preparation and
execution of an elaborate meal and conference at a Third Reich mansion ... and
yet it's one of the most gripping movies I've ever seen.

------
frereubu
There's a wonderful novel by Javier Marías, A Heart So White, where the
opening focuses on a simultaneous translator at a meeting between a thinly
disguised José María Aznar and Margaret Thatcher. He starts to take small
liberties with the translation of what "Aznar" is saying, watching reaction of
"Thatcher"'s female translator, each time taking slightly bigger liberties
because she doesn't say what's happening. It's a lovely portrait of a risky,
silent conspiracy, all in the name of testing boundaries rather than ulterior
political motives.

------
alexpetralia
I recommend this essay by Eric Weinstein on Russell Conjugations:
[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/27181)

~~~
sudouser
thanks, very enlightening

------
TravelAndFood
"...they suspected that employing nouns (“I am in favour of the removal of
settlers”), rather than verbs (“I am in favour of removing settlers”), to
convey support for policy positions would have a calming effect."

This article is pretty frustrating. Another reason for this effect, and one
I've always thought true, is that using nouns in English is often more
circuitous, using more "fillers" like prepositions to convey the same idea,
thus softening or obfuscating the harshness of the meaning communicated.

In other words, they don't seem to prove that nouns cause this effect, but
that English's use of nouns causes this effect.

~~~
yosito
Anecdotally, I know a lot of programmers who use hedge words to soften their
code reviews. So I think you might be on to something here.

------
insickness
To have a political discussion without getting people too self-defensive, it's
good to pose opinions in the third person:

"I support Trump because he's tough on immigration."

vs.

"People support Trump because he's tough on immigration."

Others are less likely to get combative when it seems like you are making an
observation about a third party rather than planting a flag on a core belief.

~~~
everdev
That's always annoyed me with US politics. In the US politicians have a habit
of saying "The American people..." Which immediately triggers my thought: "I'm
an American person and I don't think that way".

The speaker seems immediately out of touch with me when they use the third
person. However, when they use the first person and take responsibility for
their own unique views, I can understand them better even if I don't agree.

~~~
haZard_OS
I agree with your point but I suspect the problem with statements like the one
you identified is that they claim too much.

In other words, if I say "The American people want X", there are surely some
Americans who don't want X and I just alienated them. If, however, I say "many
Americans want X", I'm making a weaker claim that is easier to defend.

In general, I prefer that people err on the side of making a weaker claim.
It's less frustrating to communicate with people willing to do so (for me, at
least).

The one downside of criticizing "weasel words" is that more people start
making overly broad claims that you and I do not care for.

~~~
kthejoker2
My favorite hedge is "The American people have spoken" whenever 350 or so
adults with landlines answer a loaded question by saying they "somewhat
agree."

------
insickness
Bypass paywall: [https://archive.fo/lqb1Z](https://archive.fo/lqb1Z)

~~~
skibz
Browsing incognito works, too.

------
gumby
Surely this is language dependent! Different languages apply different
emphasis to the use of verbs vs nouns/gerunds. There's plenty of good work in
that area. I presume the students were all Hebrew speakers?

~~~
zwkrt
I only have moderate experience in other languages, but I would suspect that
there are other ways of achieving the same effect. My aunt is a professor of
Spanish, and in her words English is adjective-heavy, while Spanish is verb-
heavy which reduces the need for very specific adjectives. So in English you
might have to add color to a boring verb to add emotion, but in Spanish you
would just pick a better verb.

------
deanCommie
Maybe this is a naive reaction, but it is genuinely horrifying to me that
these basic tricks could influence professional diplomats, who are negotiating
treaties and policies influencing the lives of millions of people.

Sure, I understand that a random person on the street might be more supportive
of "I support the division of Jerusalem" over "I support dividing Jerusalem".

But someone who's entire skillset, career, and purpose is to deal with this
question? SURELY, even in this post-truth age of Trump, the facts have to
matter for SOMETHING?

~~~
simonh
I doubt it's as effective in diplomatic contexts. Dipolmats (in the broadest
sense, including politicians) do not walk into a room, get faced with a single
question and then vote yes or no. They work in teams, they discuss issues over
many years, they engage in numerous debates and conduct studies and
theoretical scenarios. No one phrase on a topic is going to decide their
objectives, policies or strategy.

What this sort of thing can do his promote trust or at least tolerance of
individuals prepared to talk in this way. That's not necessarily a bad thing,
someone who puts in the effort to use diplomatic language, is more likely to
be someone who considers their words and actions more carefully, so this could
be a useful and actually relevant social signal.

------
jmartrican
The sample size was pretty small and the difference in average was small too.
I do not know if this warranted an article on the Economist.

This reminds me of some of the points that Nassim Taleb makes in his books
"Skin in the Game" and "Fooled by Randomness". In "Skin in the Game" warns
against scientists studying humans in controlled environments and how its not
relevant to how humans behave when they have skin in the game. Sort of like,
you reveal to me your believes by what stocks you buy or what actions you
take. And in "Fooled by Randomness" he talks about how we make out patterns of
out randomness.

------
cryptoz
Doesn't this change the meaning of the sentence, though? I learned this in
school as the 'active voice' and the 'passive voice'. My understanding is that
when you change nouns to verbs and vice versa you are also changing the
meaning of the sentence.

How can this research be done, then? Since the two sentences mean entirely
different things, obviously people will react differently to them - they are
_not_ interchangeable, they have specific and different meanings!

"I support the division..."

and

"I support dividing..."

mean entirely different things. The first one is passive and indicates that
the speaker/author is outside of the decision to divide\ and possible outside
of the area itself.

The second one is active and implies that the speaker is going to be involved
in the dividing activity itself.

Obviously the words will get different reactions from people because they mean
different things. Without additional tests to query what the population
_understood_ the sentence to mean, along with how they feel about it, would
make sense.

But as it is, this is like finding out that people react differently to "let's
use fire" vs "lets use a blanket". They are totally different things.

~~~
conistonwater
That is definitely not what active voice and passive voice mean, they are
relatively precise terms in linguistics, see for example _Fear and Loathing of
the English Passive_ by Geoffrey Pullum
([http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf)).
Both _I support the division..._ and _I support dividing..._ are in active
voice.

~~~
brain5ide
"The division is supported by me" would be an actual passive.

~~~
conistonwater
That doesn't sound grammatical to me, it doesn't sound like the sort of thing
anybody would even try to say. I think it violates the rule that Pullum
discusses in 2.4.2 p.8 (new-information condition) in that link.

