|
|
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
From what you say and how you say it regarding this particular topic in contrast with how you have responded on other topics and in particular with regards to the Labour party, I believe it underlies a desire to either down play islamaphobia and or the ethics of the Tory party or overplay the problems with the Labour party and antisemitism - or both.
My argument is long winded but provided for clarity below:
What people say, when and how they say it is the result of both their conscious and subconscious mind. Be it the truth as they see it, an attempt to over or underplay the truth or even an outright lie, more often than not, there are patterns and tells which can give insights into the thinking(conscious and subconscious) behind them.
We all for the most part attempt at some basic level to assess and gauge the character and intention of people we interact with as a fundamental part of our evolved social behaviours.
It's how we attempt to establish friend from foe, a fair deal from a pig a poke.
When we have direct physical interaction with others such as when playing poker in a club, players have verbal and physical tells which indicate when they are bluffing. The same applies with children, our partners or loved ones when we know they are trying to pull a fast one, over time their unique mannerisms, phrases or tone more often than not allows us to catch them out.
Some tells are quite common, while others are unique to the particular individual. One individual might be signalling that they are lying, while another just naturally behaves or talks that way.
It is a combination of observation, intuition and multiple examples of a person behaving in different contexts that helps build up a picture of someones tells. It's not an exact science, the perceptiveness and experience of the reader and the characteristics of the individual being observed play a significant role in the confidence of any predictions.
Therapy, psychology, criminal interrogators etc attempt to utilise more refined and tested techniques to not only establish truth from lies, but especially in the case of therapy/psychology, intuit subconscious thoughts, feelings and emotions that a subject may be consciously avoiding or even unaware of themselves.
Virtually all human beings behave in ways that sometimes they are completely unaware of the underlying reasons and thoughts.
Watching video footage of a person will often reduce the confidence level of any deductions because it removes the direct ability to interact, but still allows us to notice physical mannerisms and facial expressions.
Conversely, a telephone conversation prohibits us from seeing those tells of a physical nature, but the ability to interactively guide a conversation allows us to pose specific questions with which to gauge the tone and words used in response.
Attempting to analyse and deduce what is said purely in the written word is obviously more limited and restrictive without the ability to see physical gestures or hear the tone in which the words are said. That does not however, automatically preclude meaningful or useful observations.
For example, the world of literature and poetry is full of attempts to analyse and deconstruct not only what the authors of those texts where attempting to communicate, but also insights into their minds, thinking and contemporary/historic influences.
In the context of forums, emails and to some extent text messages, it is possible to combine the aspects of literature analysis with the interactive nature of a conversation or discussion to draw some conclusions and insights into the character, intentions and sincerity of a poster. |
|
Author: BobbyMac
26-11-2019 01:07:45