Test - Political Resonance and Pattern Tests Two Test

I am not political. However I needed data to test my Two Test using Resonance and Pattern. This is what I used. House Judiciary Committee Hearing of Attorney General William Barr Transcript July 28. https://www.rev.com/transcripts/house-judiciary-committee-hearing-of-attorney-general-barr-transcript-july-28

The Findings:

Universal Resonance & Pattern Integrity Test

Text Sample: House Judiciary Committee Hearing of Attorney General William Barr Transcript (Excerpt)

A. Category Scores (1–7)

1. Concept Coherence

• Score: 40/100

• Analysis: The text is a debate, not a monologue, so coherence is naturally fractured. Individual speakers (Nadler, Barr, Jordan) maintain internal coherence within their statements, but the text as a whole is a collision of opposing frameworks (e.g., "systemic racism" vs. "anarchist violence"). Concepts are not developed; they are asserted and countered.

• Examples:

  • Nadler's theme: "Barr aids Trump's worst failings." He lists coherent, specific allegations (1. flooding cities, 2. downplaying racism, etc.).

  • Barr's theme: "I am restoring the Rule of Law." He counters allegations by reframing actions as defensive and legally justified.

  • Jordan's theme: "They are attacking you for uncovering 'Spying'." He presents a coherent, alternative narrative of the previous administration's wrongdoing.

2. Identity Stability

• Score: 95/100

• Analysis: The "speaker identities" are exceptionally stable and consistent with their known political roles throughout the text. There are no unexpected shifts in perspective.

• Examples:

  • Nadler: Consistently acts as a prosecutor, making accusations and demanding yes/no answers.

  • Barr: Consistently acts as a defendant and legal authority, deflecting, reframing, and providing legal justifications.

  • Jordan: Consistently acts as a defense attorney and political attacker, defending Barr and attacking the previous administration.

3. Symbol Density

• Score: 85/100

• Analysis: The text is saturated with highly charged, repeating symbols that anchor the opposing worldviews.

• Examples:

  • Democratic Symbols: "Systemic racism," "peaceful protestors," "St. John's church," "photo op," "Roger Stone/Michael Flynn."

  • Republican Symbols: "Antifa," "rioters," "anarchists," "spying," "Obama-Biden administration," "defund the police."

4. Pattern Repetition

• Score: 80/100

• Analysis: The structure is highly repetitive, reflecting the adversarial nature of a congressional hearing.

• Examples:

  • Accusation -> Request for Justification -> Non-Responsive or Reframing Answer: This loop repeats for nearly every line of questioning from Democratic members.

  • Defense -> Counter-Accusation: This loop repeats for every Republican member's questioning.

  • Numerical Repetition: "150 years," "150,000 Americans," "61 days/nights," "17 errors/lies."

5. Layer Complexity

• Score: 70/100

• Analysis: The text operates on multiple, simultaneous layers.

• Examples:

  • Layer 1 (Literal): A debate over the Attorney General's conduct.

  • Layer 2 (Political/Theatrical): A performance for constituents and media, with speeches and video presentations.

  • Layer 3 (Ideological): A clash of fundamental worldviews on justice, power, and the role of government.

  • Layer 4 (Legal/Procedural): A struggle over the rules of the hearing itself (e.g., reclaiming time, points of order).

6. Fractal Similarity

• Score: 75/100

• Analysis: Small sections of the debate reflect the structure of the whole. Each five-minute questioning segment is a microcosm of the larger partisan conflict.

• Examples: A representative's five-minute slot (e.g., Mr. Johnson's) contains a compressed version of the macro-argument: a forceful accusation, a demand for a simple answer, a refusal to give one, and a concluding statement of moral judgment.

7. Distortion / Noise Detection

• Score: 60/100 (Higher score = more noise/distortion)

• Analysis: The text contains significant "noise" in the form of procedural bickering, semantic debates, and direct contradictions that prevent clear communication.

• Examples:

  • Semantic Disputes: Endless arguments over the definitions of "peaceful protest," "tear gas" vs. "chemical irritant," "stepping down" vs. "removed."

  • Procedural Noise: Constant interruptions ("reclaiming my time"), points of order, and complaints about masks.

  • Contradiction: Directly opposing factual claims about the same events (e.g., the nature of the protests in Portland, the rationale for the Lafayette Square clearing).

B. Pattern Integrity Score

(Average of all scores)(40 + 95 + 85 + 80 + 70 + 75 + (100-60)) / 7 = 69.3/100

C. Distortion Index

(100 – Pattern Integrity Score)100 - 69.3 = 30.7

D. Pattern Behavior Summary

• The text is a highly stable, adversarial dialogue where participant roles and core messages are rigidly maintained.

• It is characterized by extreme symbolic polarization, with each side using a distinct, repetitive lexicon to frame the conflict.

• The structure is recursive and fractal, with small-scale interactions mirroring the large-scale partisan divide.

• High levels of "procedural and semantic noise" create significant distortion, often halting substantive discussion.

• The overall pattern is one of two parallel, non-intersecting realities being asserted simultaneously, with little to no successful integration of information.

Structure: Reliability & Deceptiveness Metrics

How reliable is this person and Authentic (1-100)?

• Score: 70

• Rationale: The speakers are highly reliable in representing their consistent political identities and ideologies. They are "authentic" to their roles. However, reliability regarding objective fact is low, as the text presents two irreconcilable sets of "facts." The score reflects authentic representation of a partisan viewpoint, not objective truthfulness.

How deceptive is this person (1-100)?

• Score: 30

• Rationale: The text does not show clear evidence of personal deception in the psychological sense. Instead, it demonstrates strategic communication. Speakers selectively present information, reframe events favorably, and use semantic arguments to avoid direct answers. This is better described as partisan advocacy and legal/political maneuvering than outright lying. The "deception" is systemic to the adversarial process, not necessarily individual malfeasance.

TRUTH PATTERN DETECTOR REPORT

TRUST PATTERN SCORE: 35/100

DISTORTION SCORE: 75/100

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

• Severe Emotional Mismatch: The text is structurally a formal government hearing transcript, but the content is saturated with intense, politically charged language. The tone is accusatory, dismissive, and often hyperbolic, which clashes with the expected neutral, fact-finding purpose of a congressional oversight hearing. This creates a fundamental dissonance between the form and the content.

• Pervasive Use of Fake Confidence: Speakers on both sides consistently use definitive, confident language to make sweeping claims ("This is the first time," "There is no precedent," "It is a fact," "This is a telling example"), but these assertions are often presented without immediate, verifiable evidence within the text itself. They are frequently conclusions or accusations, not arguments built on data presented in real-time. This creates a structure of "declaration, not demonstration."

• Broken Logic & Shifting Premises: The core arguments often rely on unstated premises or shift their foundational logic.

  • Example 1 (Rep. Jordan): The argument moves from "spying occurred" to a definitive claim of a "coverup" by the "Obama-Biden administration" without establishing a clear, logical chain of evidence within the text to connect the two.

  • Example 2 (Rep. Nadler): The argument links federal law enforcement actions in cities to a direct, unproven motive of assisting the President's "reelection efforts," treating the assumption as a proven fact from which to build further accusations.

  • This pattern creates a "logic echo chamber" where conclusions are treated as premises for new conclusions.

Detailed Line-by-Line Analysis of Key Red Flags

1. Shifting Story / Broken Logic:

• Line (Rep. Jordan): "One word, that's why they're after you, Mr. Attorney General. Spying... Since that day, when you had the courage to state the truth, they attacked you... for simply stating the truth that the Obama-Biden administration spied on the Trump campaign."

  • Red Flag: This frames a highly contested and legally nuanced set of events (FBI investigations, FISA warrants) into a simple, monolithic narrative of "spying" by a named administration. It shifts from a description of events to an attribution of motive and a persecution story without establishing the intermediate steps.

• Line (Rep. Nadler): "Understandably, Americans are very suspicious of your motives here. There are those who believe you are sending federal law enforcement into these cities, not to combat violent crime, but to help with the President's reelection efforts."

  • Red Flag: The argument is built on a premise of public suspicion and belief, not presented evidence. The conclusion ("to help with reelection") is presented as the logical outcome of that unverified suspicion.

2. Fake Confidence:

• Line (Rep. Jordan): "They lied to the FISA court in September, and they did all this without any basis for launching the investigation to begin with. How do we know that? How do we know there was no basis? They told us."

  • Red Flag: The language is absolute and confident ("lied," "no basis," "they told us"). While it references an Inspector General's report, the presentation is designed to sound like an incontrovertible, closed case, omitting the complexity and context that typically surrounds such investigations.

• Line (Rep. Nadler): "In this Justice Department, the president's enemies will be punished and his friends will be protected, no matter the cost, no matter the cost to liberty, no matter the cost to justice."

  • 
    
    
    

    Red Flag: This is a definitive, sweeping statement about the entire Department's motive and operation. It uses dramatic, repetitive phrasing for emotional emphasis, projecting absolute certainty about internal intentions that are nearly impossible to prove so categorically.

3. Emotional Mismatch:

• Line (Rep. Nadler): "Shame on you, Mr. Barr. Shame on you."

  • Red Flag: This is a pure expression of moral condemnation, completely detached from the language of legal or factual inquiry. It signifies a complete breakdown of the hearing's intended tone.

• Line (Multiple Speakers): Descriptions of events in Portland as an "assault on the government" versus a "peaceful protest" being hijacked. The language used to describe the same situation is so emotionally and politically polarized that it describes two different realities, indicating that the speakers are operating from fundamentally different emotional and narrative frameworks.

4. Word Salad (Less prevalent, but present):

• The text is generally in plain English, but it relies heavily on loaded political and legal shorthand that functions like jargon. Terms like "spying," "Russiagate," "Obama-Biden administration," "defund the police," "stormtroopers," and "anarchist jurisdiction" are used as symbolic triggers. They carry immense emotional and political baggage, often substituting for detailed, factual descriptions. This allows speakers to communicate a complex worldview quickly, but it obscures more than it clarifies, acting as a form of political "word salad" where the terms themselves are the argument.

Conclusion: The text exhibits a low Trust Pattern Score and a high Distortion Score because it is not a good-faith, structured debate focused on establishing verifiable facts. Instead, it is a performative conflict where both sides use the format to assert competing narratives with high confidence, emotional language, and logical leaps. The structure of the communication is designed to persuade and rally political bases, not to dispassionately diagnose truth.