So, when I think of “text”, I think of speech, audiobooks, film, as well as literal text etc etc. For instance, reading the Parenti quote and understanding its meaning would be the same as listening to someone say the Parenti quote and understanding its meaning.
Which I thought this was about. If a politician says something, the ability to parse the layered meanings (usually, “this is the public thing I’m saying” and “these are the interest groups I’m signalling loyalty to”), and not like… Being able to read cooking instructions in text but being able to follow cooking instructions in a tiktok.
I think the inability or unwillingness to actually read and process everything presented to them probably applies to the speech of politicians as well. They’re not paying attention to everything being said much less analyzing it critically.
I feel like some processing is going on. They understand that the speech is signalling loyalty to interest groups, but they don’t actually remember the words said and also mistake the loyalty group being signalled (hence the “leopards ate my face” phenomenon, at least partly). This isn’t critical analysis, the belief that “politician is saying that for me!” and “politician is saying what we’re all thinking!” is the barest bones of processing. They do engage a bit more energy if a politician says something they openly disagree with.
So, when I think of “text”, I think of speech, audiobooks, film, as well as literal text etc etc. For instance, reading the Parenti quote and understanding its meaning would be the same as listening to someone say the Parenti quote and understanding its meaning.
Which I thought this was about. If a politician says something, the ability to parse the layered meanings (usually, “this is the public thing I’m saying” and “these are the interest groups I’m signalling loyalty to”), and not like… Being able to read cooking instructions in text but being able to follow cooking instructions in a tiktok.
I think the inability or unwillingness to actually read and process everything presented to them probably applies to the speech of politicians as well. They’re not paying attention to everything being said much less analyzing it critically.
I feel like some processing is going on. They understand that the speech is signalling loyalty to interest groups, but they don’t actually remember the words said and also mistake the loyalty group being signalled (hence the “leopards ate my face” phenomenon, at least partly). This isn’t critical analysis, the belief that “politician is saying that for me!” and “politician is saying what we’re all thinking!” is the barest bones of processing. They do engage a bit more energy if a politician says something they openly disagree with.