Political Communication as Epistemic Consumption: A Neuroeconomic Perspective

Gojart Kamberi, Drenusha Kamberi, Bajram Kamberi

Abstract


The aim of this paper is to contextualize and unify existing interdisciplinary literature by introducing the concepts of a non-semantic type of communication, namely pragmatic communication. Despite the utility of cognitively deducing the connotative and denotative meaning of the message we also propose that communication without semantics contains a so called expectancy violation utility which causes neurophysiological changes that help the receiver to reduce the uncertainty (or prediction errors) about its environment. Increasing the uncertainty of the environment where the public lives, would create the tendency for the publics to prefer the more surprising messages, that is, more information rich political messages. This uncertainty reduction with uncertainty seeking behavior illustrates the shift from exploitative into explorative behavior of the audience which indirectly impacts the value of the political message, by making the political message obsolete. 

Keywords: non-semantic type of communication, communication theory, verbal and non-verbal communications, semantic analysis, Barack Obama, etc.


References


Allyn, J., & Festinger, L. (1961). The effectiveness of unanticipated persuasive communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1), 35.

Barton, S. (1994). Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. American Psychologist, 49(1), 5.

Broadbent, D. E. (2013). Perception and communication. Elsevier.

Chowdhury, G. G. (2003). Natural language processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 51–89.

Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., & Angela, J. Y. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 933–942.

Durrett, R. (2010). Probability: theory and examples. Cambridge university press.

Foerster, H. von. (1980). Epistemology of communication. The Myths of Information: Technology and Postindustrial Culture, 18–27.

Freeman, W. J. (1999). Consciousness, intentionality and causality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 143–172.

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127.

Friston, K., Kilner, J., & Harrison, L. (2006). A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 100(1–3), 70–87.

Hanc, J., & Taylor, E. F. (2004). From conservation of energy to the principle of least action: A story line. American Journal of Physics, 72(4), 514–521.

Honner, J. (1987). The description of nature: Niels Bohr and the philosophy of quantum physics.

Itti, L., Koch, C., & Niebur, E. (1998). A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20(11), 1254–1259.

Jensen, K. (1995). The social semiotics of mass communication.

Knill, D. C., & Pouget, A. (2004). The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. TRENDS in Neurosciences, 27(12), 712–719.

Kullback, S. (1997). Information theory and statistics. Courier Corporation.

Lee, C., & Lee, G. G. (2006). Information gain and divergence-based feature selection for machine learning-based text categorization. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 155–165.

Neyman, J. (1977). Frequentist probability and frequentist statistics. Synthese, 36(1), 97–131.

Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 884–892.

Rao, R. P. N., Olshausen, B. A., & Lewicki, M. S. (2002). Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function. MIT press.

Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267.

Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 473–500.

Shannon, C. E. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3–55.

Stapp, H. P. (1972). The Copenhagen interpretation. American Journal of Physics, 40(8), 1098–1116.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.0001/ijllis.v7i3.1667

Copyright © 2012-2019 ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies,Tetovo, Republic of North Macedonia.

All Rights Reserved.

The publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License (CC BY) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  View Legal Code                                                                                                                 

ISSN (print): 1857-8179. ISSN (online): 1857-8187.

Disclaimer: Articles on Anglisticum have been reviewed and authenticated by the Authors before sending for the publication.

The Journal, Editors and the editorial board are not entitled or liable to either justify or responsible for inaccurate and misleading data if any. It is the sole responsibility of the Author concerned.