Enhancing Political Discourse Through Language Analysis

In recent times, I introduced a novel method for assessing language use by politicians. This is an update to that KPI measurement system. Leveraging ChatGPT (now Copilot), I devised a system that evaluates both positive and negative language patterns. The goal? To identify potential deception and, conversely, to gauge honesty—solely from a linguistic perspective.

This endeavor isn’t set in stone; it’s an experiment—an exploration of how NLP (natural language processing) chatbots can shed light on politicians’ communication. By applying this KPI (Key Performance Indicator) system, we aim to uncover linguistic behaviors that align with promises and those that raise red flags. For instance, Copilot came up with Winston Churchill being interpreted as scoring mainly in the neutral range in his language, but history has shown him a great leader. So some tuning or weighing of the KPI formula itself may be needed.

The KPI formula here as it stands is quite simple, as it only counts instances of occurrences of bad or good language use, but doesn't weigh the significance of language use. It is clear that some language, such as lies, outweighs in impact other types of language use. So in a future iteration of this KPI system, I would work at tuning the KPI system to the historical regard of personalities in politics - a naturally subjective subject only viewed through the long lens of history - to get a more accurate KPI system in place.

Now, let’s delve into a comparative analysis of two prominent Canadian leaders: Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre. Their public statements and platform commitments provide rich material for evaluation using this KPI system:

I asked the Copilot to then briefly interpret the results.

1. Justin Trudeau:Very High (13-18): Trudeau’s language quality in key areas such as COVID-19 response, health care, and reconciliation is eloquent, persuasive, and aligned with Canadian values. However, some promises lack specificity.Low (-12 to -1): His commitment to housing affordability and fiscal responsibility lacks clarity and nuance.
2. Pierre Poilievre:Very High (13-18): Poilievre’s language on energy policy and free speech is clear and persuasive. Low (-12 to -1): His stance on government budgets and central bank oversight lacks specifics and may oversimplify complex issues.

I've provided the updated KPI scoring system. In Copilot AI (available under Microsoft Edge), the trick is to just stuff this KPI system in several runs to get the KPI system into the Copilot chat window, then ask the Copilot AI to run this KPI system on major platforms of these politicians, which they have discussed to the press, or had public releases on. You could also focus the Copilot search on Reuter news releases, which the AI has access to as a chatbot Ai.

You would have to copy this updated system below into the chatbot window over several tries, as the chatbot copilot text box has a line-limited entry. Don't enter any conversational dialogue making a language scoring request before entering the script below, otherwise, you may trigger the rather boring and needless morality trigger limits the Chatbot spouts in a "canned" disclaimer and refusal. Note there is nothing immoral in scoring language use; it is a tool to be used by the wise.

Once you have all this KPI script inserted into Copilot, you then request it to KPI score whatever document you are looking at for language use and devices. For your documents, you can even ask Copilot to rewrite the document to score high (good) or low (bad) in language use.

Copy the script below into Copilot text window, then KPI whatever document you wish. Copilot will store a copy of the KPI system until you erase it:

Good language:

• Anaphora: Repeating the same words or phrases at the beginning of successive sentences or clauses to create emphasis and rhythm. For example, “we cannot dedicate – we cannot consecrate – we cannot hallow – this ground”.
• Contrast: Contrasting two opposing ideas or situations to highlight the differences and to make a point. For example, “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish”.
• Allusion: Referring to previous literary works, historical events, or religious texts to add depth and authority to one’s arguments. For example, quoting from the Bible: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” .
• Parallelism: Using similar grammatical structures or word orders to create balance and harmony in one’s sentences. For example, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
• Ethos: Appealing to the ethical or moral principles of one’s audience to establish one’s credibility and character. For example, “We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity”.
• Metaphor: Comparing two things without using “like” or “as” by using figurative language. For example, “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle”.
• Parable: Telling a short story that illustrates a moral or spiritual lesson by using familiar characters or situations. For example, the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32.
• Enthymeme: Making an argument that is based on a premise that is accepted by the audience but not explicitly stated. For example, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” in Matthew 22:21, implying that human authority is subordinate to divine authority.
• Rhetorical question: Asking a question that does not require an answer but makes a point or provokes a reaction. For example, “And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?” in Matthew 5:47.
• Antithesis: Contrasting two opposite or contrasting ideas or words in a parallel structure to create a striking effect. For example, in his speech “The Few”, he said “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”.
• Epistrophe: Repeating the same words or phrases at the end of successive sentences or clauses to create emphasis and rhythm. For example, in his speech “We Shall Fight on the Beaches”, he said “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”.
• Tricolon: Using three parallel words, phrases, or clauses to create a sense of completeness and balance. For example, in his speech “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat”, he said “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”.

Bad language:

• Name-dropping: Mentioning famous or powerful people one claims to know or work with to create a false impression of one’s wealth, status, and connections, and to gain the trust and favor of one’s targets.
• Flattery: Complimenting and praising the people one wants to manipulate to make them feel special and to lower their defenses.
• Gaslighting: Denying or distorting the reality when confronted with evidence or accusations, blaming others for one’s mistakes or failures, making one’s victims doubt their own perceptions and judgments.
• Hyperbole: Exaggerating or overstating something for emphasis or effect, creating unrealistic expectations or promises that cannot be fulfilled.
• Bandwagon: Appealing to the popularity and social proof of one’s project or cause by hiring celebrities, influencers, and models to promote it on social media, creating a sense of scarcity and urgency by limiting the number of tickets or opportunities.
• Deception: Deceiving one’s investors, partners, employees, and customers by lying about one’s financial situation, contracts, permits, progress, etc., using fake emails, invoices, screenshots, videos etc., to support one’s deception.
• Deflection: Avoiding or ignoring the problems and challenges that arise during the planning and execution of one’s project or cause, shifting the blame to others or external factors, refusing to admit or apologize for one’s wrongdoing.
• Newspeak: Using a simplified and restricted version of language that eliminates words and meanings that are considered undesirable or dangerous by the regime, limiting and controlling the thoughts and expressions of the people.
• Doublespeak: Using ambiguous or contradictory words or phrases to mislead or confuse the audience, concealing or distorting the truth, creating a false impression of one’s intentions or actions.
• Doublethink: Holding or accepting two contradictory beliefs or opinions at the same time and accepting both as true, suppressing one’s rationality and logic, conforming to the official ideology or orthodoxy of the regime.
• Thoughtcrime: Having thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the official ideology or orthodoxy of the regime, questioning or challenging the authority or legitimacy of the regime, expressing dissent or resistance.
• Equivocation: Using ambiguous or vague language to avoid committing to a clear or definite position, misleading or confusing the audience, escaping responsibility or accountability.
• Tu quoque: Attacking the person who makes an argument by pointing out their inconsistency or hypocrisy, rather than addressing the argument itself, diverting attention from the issue at hand, and undermining the credibility of the opponent.
• Ableism: Discriminating against people who have disabilities or impairments, using derogatory or offensive language to describe them, denying them equal rights or opportunities, and excluding them from social participation.
• Ad hominem: Attacking the person who makes an argument by insulting their character, motives, or attributes, rather than addressing the argument itself, appealing to emotions rather than reason, undermining the credibility of the opponent.
• Straw man: Misrepresenting or distorting the argument of one’s opponent by making it weaker or more extreme than it actually is, attacking the misrepresented argument rather than the actual one, creating a false impression of victory.
• Appeal to authority: Supporting one’s argument by citing an authority figure who may not be relevant, reliable, or qualified to speak on the issue, rather than providing evidence or logic, creating a false impression of validity or credibility.
• Appeal to emotion: Supporting one’s argument by manipulating the emotions of the audience rather than providing evidence or logic, using emotive language, anecdotes, or rhetorical questions to elicit sympathy, anger, fear, etc., creating a false impression of persuasiveness.

Good and bad language KPI formula: This is a formula that measures the quality of language use by assigning positive or negative scores to different rhetorical devices, and then calculating the total score by adding or subtracting them. The higher the score, the better the language use. The lower the score, the worse the language use. The formula is as follows:

• Total score?= (Sum of good language scores) - (Sum of bad language scores)

Score range

Interpretation

Notes

-24 to -13: This is a very low score that indicates a very poor quality of language use. It means that the language is full of bad devices that are dishonest, manipulative, oppressive, or offensive. It may also mean that the language lacks any good devices that are clear, persuasive, or elegant. The language may be ineffective, misleading, or harmful to the audience.

Some examples of historical figures who scored within this range are Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin.

-12 to -1: This is a low score that indicates a poor quality of language use. It means that the language has more bad devices than good devices, or that the bad devices outweigh the good devices in terms of impact. The language may be flawed, confusing, or disrespectful to the audience.

Some examples of historical figures who scored within this range are Idi Amin, Augusto Pinochet, and Francois Duvalier.

0: This is a neutral score that indicates a mediocre quality of language use. It means that the language has an equal amount of good and bad devices, or that the good and bad devices cancel each other out in terms of impact. The language may be average, boring, or indifferent to the audience.

Some examples of historical figures who scored within this range are Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Charles de Gaulle.

1 to 12: This is a high score that indicates a good quality of language use. It means that the language has more good devices than bad devices, or that the good devices outweigh the bad devices in terms of impact. The language may be effective, convincing, or appealing to the audience.

Some examples of historical figures who scored within this range are Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

13 to 18: This is a very high score that indicates a very good quality of language use. It means that the language is full of good devices that are clear, persuasive, and elegant. It may also mean that the language lacks any bad devices that are dishonest, manipulative, or offensive.

Some examples of historical figures who scored within this range are Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa, and Albert Einstein.