Bespoke translation by yours truly. Original article [A] by Danisch
Why do leftists sing so frequently during their congregations?
Why does everything need to be presented to them in rhyme and verse?
Why do they so frequently use rhyming paroles in protests and similar events?
Found a file from 2024 just now while tidying up an old, so-far-not-tidied-up data pile that I once copied from the hard drive of a computer into my archive, but neglected to sort the data:
The Keats heuristic: Rhyme as reason in aphorism interpretation.
Matthew S. McGlone, Jessica Tofighbakhsh
Department of Psychology, Lafayette College,
Easton, PA 18042, USA
in Elsevier, Poetics 26 (1999) 235-244
Poetry researchers (such a thing exists ...?) presented statements to test subjects in rhyming and non-rhyming ways and questioned them.
Even though there was no finding according to which the rhymed versions were perceived as easier to understand, which why they denied that as a reason, they found that rhyming statements were being interpreted as more accurate, more precise, more correct:
That means that people have much stronger beliefs in rhyming statements than those that don't rhyme, even though they are not consciously aware of it and deny it when being asked about it.
The principle of folk sayings.
That's why leftists like singing, rhyming, making statements in verse. To indoctrinate people with nonsense.
It rhymes, so it's true
Why do leftists sing so frequently during their congregations?
Why does everything need to be presented to them in rhyme and verse?
Why do they so frequently use rhyming paroles in protests and similar events?
Found a file from 2024 just now while tidying up an old, so-far-not-tidied-up data pile that I once copied from the hard drive of a computer into my archive, but neglected to sort the data:
The Keats heuristic: Rhyme as reason in aphorism interpretation.
Matthew S. McGlone, Jessica Tofighbakhsh
Department of Psychology, Lafayette College,
Easton, PA 18042, USA
in Elsevier, Poetics 26 (1999) 235-244
Poetry researchers (such a thing exists ...?) presented statements to test subjects in rhyming and non-rhyming ways and questioned them.
Even though there was no finding according to which the rhymed versions were perceived as easier to understand, which why they denied that as a reason, they found that rhyming statements were being interpreted as more accurate, more precise, more correct:
Do people distinguish between the form and propositional content of a statement when evaluating its truthfulness? We asked people to judge the comprehensibility and ostensible accuracy of unfamiliar aphorisms presented in their original rhyming form (e.g., Woes unite foes) or a semantically equivalent non-rhyming form (Woes unite enemies). Although the different versions were perceived as equally comprehensible, the rhyming versions were perceived as more accurate. This ‘rhyme as reason’ effect suggests that in certain circumstances, people may base their judgments of a statement’s truth value in part on its aesthetic qualities. Our results are consistent with models of persuasion which assume that people rely on heuristic cues to evaluate messages when they lack the evidence and/or motivation to scrutinize message content (e.g., Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). © 1999 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.
[…]
Planned analytical comparisons (Keppel et al., 1992) indicated that the mean accuracy ratings for the rhyming forms of each aphorism (6.3
were significantly higher than those for either of the non-rhyming forms […]. The perceived truth advantage of the rhyming forms cannot, however, be attributed to participants finding them easier to understand than their non-rhyming counterparts. There were no differences whatsoever in the mean comprehensibility ratings for the rhyming and non-rhyming forms, […]. Furthermore, this advantage also cannot be attributed to an explicit belief on the part of participants that rhyming aphorisms are more accurate than non-rhyming ones. When asked if they held such a belief, all 60 participants responded ‘no’ and, anecdotally, many gave us quizzical looks.
were significantly higher than those for either of the non-rhyming forms […]. The perceived truth advantage of the rhyming forms cannot, however, be attributed to participants finding them easier to understand than their non-rhyming counterparts. There were no differences whatsoever in the mean comprehensibility ratings for the rhyming and non-rhyming forms, […]. Furthermore, this advantage also cannot be attributed to an explicit belief on the part of participants that rhyming aphorisms are more accurate than non-rhyming ones. When asked if they held such a belief, all 60 participants responded ‘no’ and, anecdotally, many gave us quizzical looks.That means that people have much stronger beliefs in rhyming statements than those that don't rhyme, even though they are not consciously aware of it and deny it when being asked about it.
The principle of folk sayings.
That's why leftists like singing, rhyming, making statements in verse. To indoctrinate people with nonsense.
