Quotes About Analysis

Human communication above and beyond the words that we say is so nuanced. It makes it difficult to not only analyze the vocabulary you use but the intention behind it. That's something even humans have difficulty doing, let alone a robot.

In fact, it is Shakespeare who gives us the map of the mind. It is Shakespeare who invents Freudian Psychology. Freud finds ways of translating it into supposedly analytical vocabulary.

But I would lie on the floor and analyze everything. I'd listen to all the strings and the background vocals on the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack and try to pick out the different instruments.

Critics at their best are independent voices; people take seriously their responsibility to see as many things as they can see, put them in the widest possible perspective, educate their readers. I really do think of myself as a teacher.

To analyze Trump is to discover only bottomless appetite and need, and to carve at him is like carving at an online troll: The only thing to discover is the void.

Volatility may be rising simply because investors must digest more information every day.

Listen to market strategists, and a word that comes up a lot these days is 'volatility.'

Most biographers are apt to be discouraged by the sheer volume of papers left behind by their subject.

I don't think many people have ever read the report. Who has read 26 volumes of this case? How many read the summary? If you read the summary, it takes a long time.

Put on the game tape. The game tape speaks volumes because I'm in live action, I'm out there making reads, going through progressions, redirection protection, signaling hot routes, getting the offense in and out of the right play.

I am neither a sociologist nor a psychologist, but you don't have to be one to see that Turkey is in a vortex of problems, isolated from the world.

I guess you'd call me an independent, since I've never identified myself with one party or another in politics. I always decide my vote by taking as careful a look as I can at the actual candidates and issues themselves, no matter what the party label.

During my time as a political strategist, one of the most vexing problems was figuring out why so many people vote against their perceived interests.

It's not wrong to be skeptical. I was one who participated in the debate on Iraq and voted against the resolution because I was skeptical of the intelligence. But that was based on looking at the facts, analyzing the case in as rational and as logical way as you can, not simply concluding or dismissing facts.

Brexit was not a coup. Far from it. In the eyes of most analysts, it was a clear sign that people are frustrated and fed up with the status quo; this is particularly the case with independent voters.

American voters tend to make their decisions based on a variety of vectors. Professional political satirists employ rather more scientific criteria. Namely: who will provide us with better material over the next four years?

One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of 'undecided' voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds.

The pollsters and pundits will keep trying to read voters' minds.

Coach Kiffin calls plays based on matchups and what he sees.

Like every other self-respecting academic, I'm distrustful of self-help books.

Science is a self-sufficient activity.

You can't do anything sensible until you know what the situation is that you're in.

TV has become long-form now. A season can be like a 13-hour film, separated into episodes, so you can analyse a character for five years and talk about the things that films used to talk about but don't any more.

I read a lot about serial killers.