In this case, by implying that only a ""minority"" of 20% believes May Day is devoted to protest, the announcer is indirectly highlighting the contrast between that minority and the majority. This creates social pressure on the audience to align with the ""majority"" perspective that May Day is associated with spring celebrations. By asking ""What do you think?"" immediately after citing the minority percentage, the announcer is inviting viewers to reflect upon their opinions and potentially question or reconsider their own thoughts, unconsciously siding with the larger group.


Basic thought control and the peril of being a social animal.  If I wanted to find a more appropriate video I could, but this video presents the flip side of the same coin, that's good enough.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 02, 2025, 05:22 PM

In this case, by implying that only a ""minority"" of 20% believes May Day is devoted to protest, the announcer is indirectly highlighting the contrast between that minority and the majority.

Well...if you put your personal perpective into those words you might arrive at that conclusion. I didn't. Reading into a general comment some implication tends to be a personal thing I would bet.

Quote from: K-DogThis creates social pressure on the audience to align with the ""majority"" perspective that May Day is associated with spring celebrations.

Social pressure on those with your perspective perhaps...wouldn't create a milli-psi on me. Are audiences in Washington different than ones someone else might be familiar with?

Quote from: K-DogBasic thought control and the peril of being a social animal.  If I wanted to find a more appropriate video I could, but this video presents the flip side of the same coin, that's good enough.

Apparently only basic for some folks who think as you've described. "Basic thought control"? Might work with those who can't think for themselves rather than those who can?

How would you know if it did not work on you.  I do not think you would know.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 02, 2025, 10:40 PMHow would you know if it did not work on you.  I do not think you would know.

Not understanding or knowing me very well, it is unlikely you have a clue what would or would not work on me. You've explained how this thing works, and it isn't even apparent that it would register. You are arguing that in the nuance of simple language exists a social control mechanism. While I can agree that some folks are so mentally unorganized as to fall for anything, including this idea, it doesn't even register. I don't accept words being twisted into something else that appears to be the core of this idea.

Abraham Lincoln is created with playing off the "How many legs does a cow have?"  "Four". "If I call a cows tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?"

The people who fall for what you are describing answer 5. People who think know the answer is 4. I use this all the time as a general test sometimes, the number of people who fall for it is substantial. Maybe you are thinking about folks like this falling for word games? But you are reaching beyond that, into being so STUPID they don't even know it was a word game...and after answering "5", stand around slack jawed and confused when you explain to them why that is the wrong anwer?

You can play the same game with mean and average, I've tripped over that one before. But it was a PhD physicist and I was just a smartass doing stochastic modeling and sliding between the two synonmously, when I should have been more careful.