Born to Etiquette

The difference in language and communication between Republicans and Democrats is not simply a matter of messaging; it is a fundamental divergence in how each side conceptualizes and deploys language to establish power and belonging. Republicans have mastered a form of rhetoric that appeals to white heterosexual Protestant men by embedding deep historical and cultural subtexts into their speech. This is not a haphazard or accidental success—it is the intelligence of a tribe whose pedigree has refined its language through centuries of trial and error. Their words function as signals, activating a shared history, a familiar rhythm, a code that needs no further explanation for those within the group. It is language as an inheritance, a structure that has been reinforced by generations of adaptation, where the subtext is as potent as the spoken word.

Fig. 33 In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God. Language is what distinguishes man from all other mammals. Every elaboration of our metaphysics including physics itself is inconceivable without the richness of our languages. It should come as no surprise, then, that LLMs are the mode of AI that transformed this industry beyond promise to .. cadence?

Democrats, in contrast, often misunderstand this subtextual intelligence, mistaking the opposition’s linguistic provocations for straightforward ideological statements rather than strategic bait. They fall into a trap of engaging with these words at face value, responding with moral indignation rather than counter-tactics. This grammatical miscalculation stems from an overemphasis on explicit rules—rules of inclusion, rules of decorum, and the belief that language must always reflect and reinforce progress. The modern Democratic lexicon, infused with the concerns of DEI, 21st-century feminism, and the outraged vocabulary of Millennials and Gen Z, operates as a school of resentment, where the function of language is not to build or signal an in-group but to police and restructure social relations. This approach assumes that linguistic change alone is tantamount to structural change, overestimating the power of words detached from embodied practice.

While Republicans have refined a way of speaking that feels natural to their audience—instinctive, almost biological—Democrats often sound engineered, as if they are playing linguistic catch-up in a game whose rules they do not fully grasp. There is a reason Republican rhetoric thrives on visceral slogans, gut-punch appeals, and coded language that appears straightforward but carries layers of meaning. By contrast, Democratic rhetoric often aims for precision, correction, and an intellectualized clarity that fails to spark deep allegiance. The Republican approach is built on a generational accumulation of linguistic efficiency, where words are sharpened through political survival. The Democratic approach, on the other hand, seeks to introduce new linguistic frameworks but often underestimates the inertia of inherited language.

In this dynamic, Republicans excel at triggering emotional and identity-based loyalty, while Democrats too often rely on what they perceive as linguistic enlightenment, assuming that educating their audience into new ways of speaking will translate into new ways of being. This divide is not just about political ideology but about the fundamental difference between a language that functions as a living tradition and one that operates as an ongoing social experiment. Until Democrats understand the organic power of the former, they will continue to be ensnared in their own linguistic idealism, missing the deeper tribal mechanisms that make communication effective.

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network layers
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Suis': ['Genome,  5%', 'Culture', 'Nourish It', 'Know It', "Move It", 'Injure It'],  # Static
        'Voir': ['Exposome, 15%'],  
        'Choisis': ['Metabolome, 50%', 'Basal Metabolic Rate'],  
        'Deviens': ['Unstructured-Intense', 'Weekly-Calendar', 'Proteome, 25%'],  
        "M'èléve": ['NexToken Prediction', 'Hydration', 'Fat-Muscle Ratio', 'Amor Fatì, 5%', 'Existential Cadence']  
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors():
    color_map = {
        'yellow': ['Exposome, 15%'],  
        'paleturquoise': ['Injure It', 'Basal Metabolic Rate', 'Proteome, 25%', 'Existential Cadence'],  
        'lightgreen': ["Move It", 'Weekly-Calendar', 'Hydration', 'Amor Fatì, 5%', 'Fat-Muscle Ratio'],  
        'lightsalmon': ['Nourish It', 'Know It', 'Metabolome, 50%', 'Unstructured-Intense', 'NexToken Prediction'],
    }
    return {node: color for color, nodes in color_map.items() for node in nodes}

# Define edge weights (hardcoded for editing)
def define_edges():
    return {
        ('Genome,  5%', 'Exposome, 15%'): '1/99',
        ('Culture', 'Exposome, 15%'): '5/95',
        ('Nourish It', 'Exposome, 15%'): '20/80',
        ('Know It', 'Exposome, 15%'): '51/49',
        ("Move It", 'Exposome, 15%'): '80/20',
        ('Injure It', 'Exposome, 15%'): '95/5',
        ('Exposome, 15%', 'Metabolome, 50%'): '20/80',
        ('Exposome, 15%', 'Basal Metabolic Rate'): '80/20',
        ('Metabolome, 50%', 'Unstructured-Intense'): '49/51',
        ('Metabolome, 50%', 'Weekly-Calendar'): '80/20',
        ('Metabolome, 50%', 'Proteome, 25%'): '95/5',
        ('Basal Metabolic Rate', 'Unstructured-Intense'): '5/95',
        ('Basal Metabolic Rate', 'Weekly-Calendar'): '20/80',
        ('Basal Metabolic Rate', 'Proteome, 25%'): '51/49',
        ('Unstructured-Intense', 'NexToken Prediction'): '80/20',
        ('Unstructured-Intense', 'Hydration'): '85/15',
        ('Unstructured-Intense', 'Fat-Muscle Ratio'): '90/10',
        ('Unstructured-Intense', 'Amor Fatì, 5%'): '95/5',
        ('Unstructured-Intense', 'Existential Cadence'): '99/1',
        ('Weekly-Calendar', 'NexToken Prediction'): '1/9',
        ('Weekly-Calendar', 'Hydration'): '1/8',
        ('Weekly-Calendar', 'Fat-Muscle Ratio'): '1/7',
        ('Weekly-Calendar', 'Amor Fatì, 5%'): '1/6',
        ('Weekly-Calendar', 'Existential Cadence'): '1/5',
        ('Proteome, 25%', 'NexToken Prediction'): '1/99',
        ('Proteome, 25%', 'Hydration'): '5/95',
        ('Proteome, 25%', 'Fat-Muscle Ratio'): '10/90',
        ('Proteome, 25%', 'Amor Fatì, 5%'): '15/85',
        ('Proteome, 25%', 'Existential Cadence'): '20/80'
    }

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, x_offset):
    y_positions = np.linspace(-len(layer) / 2, len(layer) / 2, len(layer))
    return [(x_offset, y) for y in y_positions]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    colors = assign_colors()
    edges = define_edges()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    
    # Create mapping from original node names to numbered labels
    mapping = {}
    counter = 1
    for layer in layers.values():
        for node in layer:
            mapping[node] = f"{counter}. {node}"
            counter += 1
            
    # Add nodes with new numbered labels and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        positions = calculate_positions(nodes, x_offset=i * 2)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, positions):
            new_node = mapping[node]
            G.add_node(new_node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[new_node] = position
            node_colors.append(colors.get(node, 'lightgray'))
    
    # Add edges with updated node labels
    for (source, target), weight in edges.items():
        if source in mapping and target in mapping:
            new_source = mapping[source]
            new_target = mapping[target]
            G.add_edge(new_source, new_target, weight=weight)
    
    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    edges_labels = {(u, v): d["weight"] for u, v, d in G.edges(data=True)}
    
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=9, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.2"
    )
    nx.draw_networkx_edge_labels(G, pos, edge_labels=edges_labels, font_size=8)
    plt.title("OPRAH™: Frailty, Fractals, Factorials", fontsize=25)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 34 Glenn Gould and Leonard Bernstein famously disagreed over the tempo and interpretation of Brahms’ First Piano Concerto during a 1962 New York Philharmonic concert, where Bernstein, conducting, publicly distanced himself from Gould’s significantly slower-paced interpretation before the performance began, expressing his disagreement with the unconventional approach while still allowing Gould to perform it as planned; this event is considered one of the most controversial moments in classical music history.