Same words, different responses

From Ann Althouse, I think it's valuable to read the transcript and judge Trump's words on their merit, not just to remember how you felt as you heard this....  She is contrasting her response to Trump's spoken delivery to the same actual words when read in text.

I have noticed something similar.  Trump almost always is in provocative mode.  Sometimes he is exaggerating and speaking loosely at a rally.  Sometimes he is raining invective down on his opponents.  Sometimes he is making claims that are directionally correct but over or understated.  He tends towards rhetoric rather than empirical persuasion.

And it broadly works for him.  He is far better at extemporaneous speaking than any of his recent predecessors.  Even suave Obama was at a loss without his teleprompter.  

But it certainly drives his opponents crazy, always taking his exaggerated declarations literally, failing to acknowledge their rhetorical nature.  

I saw about five minutes of Trumps speech Thursday.  His delivery was still seasoned with his normal provocative style but he struck me as playing the serious role, which he does occasionally.  Few wild claims, a steady demeanor and delivery, a somewhat slower pacing.  

That is the fundamental element with Trump - he is a thespian entertainer.  He adapts to the audience, the context, and the circumstances.  Usually his mode is boisterous but he can do playful, serious, sober, humorous, etc.  He plays his crowd depending on context and circumstances.  Yesterday was serious.

And while delivered reasonably deliberately, there were few accusations made which were not straight out of public reporting.  He was delivering documented criticisms of outrageous actions with restrained contempt.  

Althouse responded differently than did I.

But I want to be clear about what I felt, listening to Trump in real time yesterday, compared to what I think reading the transcript this morning. As I say above, "I got the feeling he was making wild accusations and that he ought instead to stay very closely connected to the evidence." When I read the transcript, it seems much more disciplined and close to the evidence than it seemed to me after listening yesterday. 

After listening, I had thoughts like: The President is going crazy. He's putting his interest in winning above the our interest in peace and security, trying to make us think everything is going to hell when, really, it's a pretty normal election under the highly unusual COVID circumstance. He should make his argument, but he needs to ground it solidly on evidence and not just say anything and everything that comes into his head as he fights for his personal victory and plays on our unstable emotions.

But reading the text — and the part I excerpted is where I expected to see the craziness — I am amazed how much it sticks to specific assertions of fact, actual observations, and not vague, broad claims about corruption everywhere. 

It is an example of just how powerful can be the emotional response to an event, distinct from the analytic response.  

Empiricism is no ultimate decider on a correct decision.  Most answers are multi-causal, complex, entail many undesirable trade-offs and involve incomplete information.  Emotion is an important contributor above and beyond deracinated data.  But boy, the emotional filter can mislead us sometimes as well.