Trump converts "smart" to "not very stupid" at about 1:05 in the following clip:
As it happens, I’ve been reading this summer about the subtle ways in which bias and stereotypes are conveyed though language. In particular, I’m enjoying an article by Camiel J. Beukeboom and his colleagues, “The Negation Bias: When Negations Signal Stereotypic Expectancies,” which explores why we sometimes say “smart,” and other times, “not stupid.” It has to do with whether we expect the subject of our conversation to be smart. If we categorize someone as “smart” (a professor, for instance), and then that person does something stupid, we are more likely to say the act was “not smart.” The negation-construct (“not smart”) seems more appropriate, and is easier to understand, when it is used to communicate “expectancy-inconsistent” information. If we expect someone to be not smart (stupid), and we want to communicate the idea that they did something smart, the phrase “not stupid” comes to mind more readily.
Beukeboom’s research is focused on how stereotypes get transmitted and reinforced, and to be clear, his experiments are really about how we talk about other people, about whom we hold stereotypical expectations. The Trump episode raises the fascinating possibility that this linguistic phenomenon can also happen when people talk about themselves. If we hold a negative opinion about ourselves (not smart), and we are told that we just did something smart (against all expectations), it appears that we are more likely to process this as “not stupid.”
This is all about the unconscious expression of our implicit assumptions about people (and perhaps about ourselves), and what words and concepts are most “accessible” to us as we try to describe them (or ourselves) and their (or our) actions. From Beukeboom's article:
When describing a person who made an awkwardly dim comment, one might be inclined to use the term stupid. However, the prior knowledge that this person is a professor will make stereotype-consistent terms, such as smart, temporarily more accessible, and stereotype- inconsistent terms, such as stupid, temporarily less accessible. Due to these differences in accessibility, the description of the dim behavior of a professor is relatively likely to contain a negation (i.e., She is not smart). Conversely, when describing a person who made a clever comment, one might be inclined to use the term smart. Yet, the prior knowledge that this person is a soccer hooligan will render the concept stupid more accessible (and the term smart less accessible) and as a result lead to a description containing a negation (i.e., He is not stupid rather than He is smart).
Cited: The negation bias: When negations signal stereotypic expectancies.
Beukeboom, Camiel J.; Finkenauer, Catrin; Wigboldus, Daniël H. J.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(6), Dec 2010, 978-992.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020861