Care to comment on a "Lie To Me" evaluation of Palin?

Tweet

Amatuer analysis of Palin resignation speech. Designed only as platfom for discussion or further analysis. With the wild rumors and conjecture surrounding Sarah Palin's recent resignation from her Governorship, the Constant Vigil team has decided to do a breakdown of the speech based on the facial and body language indicators made popular by the new show Lie to Me. Lie to Me is based on the work of Paul Ekman, a noted psychologist who has done extensive work on the universality of facial expressions and "micro-expressions" that we all subconsciously allow to creep onto our face. Using a rudimentary version of this type of analysis, we have dissected Palin's formal goodbye speech. The overall news for Palin and supporters is good. As we will attempt to show, she seems to really believe in the policies she has fought for and is apparently a devoted family person. However, their are some interesting inconsistencies that we might use to form questions for her. The following is the breakdown, from video filmed by local Alaskan tv, KTUU. The video is available in 2 parts on their website: ktuu.com, and the time stamps we indicate come from that presentation. Part 1: 0:05 = "appreciate you all being here . . . appreciate speaking to the people of Alaska" With her hands forced together, as her political advisors probably tell her to stand, she is noticeably pricking each thumb with the other. This can be a sign of "no confidence" in what one is saying. In this case, it seems likely she is either not appreciative that everyone is there or not appreciative that she is speaking to the people of Alaska. Given that she has had problems with the press and giving her the benefit of the doubt, we believe the former: she may not be "happy" with some of the news crews there. 0:30 - 0:54 = a scripted run, right from the notes, though oddly she does fidget her hands again, this time at the words "what they all fought for". This did not seem important at the time. 1:01 = "those that know me . . . nothing more important, other than famliy . . . our beloved Alaska" immediately after this she smacked her lips and wrinkled her face, not quite a disgust motion, but a definite reaction to her current thinking. Could be just a reaction to the thought that anything could compare to how important her family is to her. Another scripted run follows where the camera no longer catches her hands in the frame most of the time. Occassionally she would do a stab motion that popped into frame, which is to be expected for a person who "talks with her hands" as evidenced by a more recent video we watched with her in the more comfortable condition of family fishing work. In fact, failure to use her hands probably makes it difficult for her to transfer the emotion she would like. When she is passive with her hands, it becomes possible to say she has no emotion behind the words coming out, a situation that does occur often with politicians reading speeches. 2:31 = "Alaska is of such import for American security" Instant high pitch, a blink of disbelief and shrug of her head leads us to believe she has no confidence in this statement. 3:54 = She was definitely off-script at this point as she was very excited and used her hands to show the emotion of pride in what her administration had accomplished, but she stumbles over the concept that the Aegis [sp?] project was something new. We believe she may not feel that particular project was as revolutionary as she stated. 5:26 = "personal luxuries" Her whole body heaves and her eyes briefly roll. She was talking about fighting against elected officials taking advantages and she either really hates the concept or does not like the thought that she personally has to comply. Her opponents would like it to be the latter, but there is no reason to think that from this particular body motion. 5:36 = "No to our pay raises" Talking about her Vice-Governor and her refusing raises, she speaks in a quited voice with a glaze to her eyes. At this point she is either upset that she had to do so or just apologetic that she made her Vice-Gov do it too. Given the quick look she gave the Vice-Gov, we'll go with the latter. 7:23 = "as mandated in the Tenth Amendment" She immediately gets a nasty look of disgust, but rather than disliking the 10th Amendment, it is more likely she was dreading the next subject as she looks at her notes about the news not reporting on the good parts of her administration. 7:36 = "True American Hero" Talking about McCain she micro-frowns, doesn't look up and takes a deep clearing breath. She apparently has no confidence in that statement. 7:42 = "I say others changed" Talking about how she has been thought of in politics, she shows clear disgust. Likely for her opponents. 7:55 = "accused of all sorts of frivolous . . . " Pitch change, body perk and emphasis on frivolous is interesting: Over dramatization or deflection of responsibility? 8:02 = "jacket with a logo on it" She has a rolled eye dismissal. Clearly she does not think this is a violation. 8:04 = "answering reporters' questions" Again a lip smack and a show of minor disgust at having to deal with the press. Pattern definitely developed here. 8:09 = talking about all 15 charges being dismissed she has a micro-expression of relief. 8:34 = While talking about the evils of politics of personal destruction and political absurdity she shakes her head "no". She is essentially contradicting herself on this argument. 8:52 = "spending other peoples' resources" She shows disgust again. Completely within her platform. Shows how good this works. 10:27 = "strong national security for our country" Micro "no" movement. See below. Also a micro "no" for "milk it", showing her disgust at overspending and a nose wrinkle when talking about others knowing what is best for Alaska. 10:34 = "energy independence" She shakes her head "yes" showing how important and true this is to her, and reaffirming the view that her "no" shakes are significant and not just an false tell for her. 10:53 = "and I don't care what party they're in, or no party at all" Talking about supporting others that fight for the good of Alaska, she sucks her lip and micro-shakes "no", seeming to indicate that she may not be that welcome to the idea of "reaching across the aisle" as they say in Washington, despite what she says. Part 2: Her hands become more involved when talking about her administration doing good without her. It seems she really believes this. 2:00 = The sports analogy here gets her particularly worked up. She seems to solidly believe in the concept she is expounding here. 2:24 = "sound priorities" Speaking of this list she does another micro "no". 2:59 = "some Alaskans may not mind wasting taxpayer dollars" This she shrugs of with a facial expression of no confidence. We believe this could be because she really doesn't believe any Alaskans think this way. Since she was making a rhetorical point it makes sense. 3:24 = "prayer and consideration" Talking about how she came to her decision, she stumbles and adds "prayer" as an afterthought. Then she looks downward in dismissal. She may not be that religious, but would like it to look like she is for political reasons. 3:59 = Again the look of disgust before talking about people who attacked her youngest. Perfectly understandable, and again showing how well this interprettation seems to work. 4:45 = Here talking about the troops, she is using her hands and appears very genuine. 5:18 = "As Governor . . . I love my job" Again the head says "no". Not to be unexpected when someone is quitting the job, for whatever reason. The only strange result in all of this is her apparent questioning of herself when she speaks of the military. At the end it is very clear she supports the troops as she is emotional with her hands again, but earlier she seems to doubt the "importance" of Alaska in US military terms, McCain's record of service and financial support of the military. All this could be because she has not served and has trouble relating, or because she thinks we overspend even on the military, or some other opposition she is hiding. Someone should ask her. Sorry so long . . . What do you think? Is this helpful? Should we do this for other speeches of other politicians? Any suggestions?