George Lakoff: neuroscience of politics
George Lakoff is well known as a cognitive linguist who looks at how language affects culture, specifically how much the metaphors we use impact the way we think. During the last presidential election, he grabbed a lot of attention with his book Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, about how Republicans are masters at "framing" debates to their benefit. His new book, The Political Mind, explores the same territory but in the context of cognitive science. The New York Times reviewed The Political Mind yesterday and it sounds fascinating. From the NYT:
Previously on BB:
• George Lakoff on how to argue with conservatives Link
• George Lakoff on why the conservatives seem to be winning Link
Link to NYT review, Link to buy The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century BrainLakoff blames “neoliberals” and their “Old Enlightenment” mentality for the Democratic Party’s weakness. They think they can win elections by citing facts and offering programs that serve voters’ interests. When they lose, they conclude that they need to move farther to the right, where the voters are.
This is all wrong, Lakoff explains. Neuroscience shows that pure facts are a myth and that self-interest is a conservative idea. In a “New Enlightenment,” progressives will exploit these discoveries. They’ll present frames instead of raw facts. They’ll train the public to think less about self-interest and more about serving others. It’s not the platform that needs to be changed. It’s the voters.
The basis of Lakoff’s theory is simple: the mind is the brain. Any connection that forms between your thoughts also forms between your neurons. As you internalize a metaphor, a circuit in your brain “physically constitutes the metaphor.” This parallel development continues as mental complexity increases. “Narratives are brain structures,” he proposes.
Previously on BB:
• George Lakoff on how to argue with conservatives Link
• George Lakoff on why the conservatives seem to be winning Link
the latest
latest episodes
>Nrscnc shws tht pr fcts r myth nd tht slf-ntrst s cnsrvtv d.
Hlrs! Hnstly, f ppl lk ths ddn't ctlly xst, Rpblcns wld b nvntng thm jst t mk Dmcrts lk rdcls.
You said it pooklord. No conservative, I, but liberals need to get over this idea about perfecting voters. This is nothing but the eugenics of thought.
@1: Especially considering that the whole point behind liberalism's rise was self-interest. It was quite explicitly developed in the 18th and 19th centuries as a movement to allow people freedom from communal conservative ideals like state churches and protectionism.
Lakoff is a genius. His "Don't think of an elephant" book was brilliant. The Democratic party as a whole should read it and maybe grow a spine.
His other book, Thinking Points, is online for free here:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints
Has Lakoff ever debated Chomsky? They have the same background (linguistics, neuroscience, left-politics), but appear to come to rather different conclusions about the nature of power and whether or not an ethical person can manipulate public opinion.
I know they debated linguistics, but I was wondering more about politics and ethics.
how many young people who were genuinely raised and educated to believe in the revolution later changed their minds?
Ummm, I think this book was already written. It was called The Political Brain by Drew Weston.
Amazon Link
I really do hate this stuff.
David, you missed the key quote from the NYTimes review:
But this one's also good:
@11
No need to point out any factual errors by quoting the text and showing how in fact it is at odds with the historical progression. No, simply make some vague statements about a few events that should be taken by the reader as showing how careful an historian the author is. No need to demonstrate factual errors in Lakoff's model of cognition or neurology. Simply claim that "if you know any science" you won't believe it.
Typical that right-wingers and libertarians would leap at that type of logic. I can't think of a better way to prove Lakoff's point then what Saletan has said. And repeating it is the icing on the cake.
What does he mean when he says "Neuroscience shows that pure facts are a myth"? He may have a point within certain limited definitions of "pure facts". His larger point, that "[Liberals] think they can win elections by citing facts and offering programs that serve voters’ interests" is I think correct. As the last 30 years has shown the GOP has been kicking our ass by framing issues in their favor. Democrats have done exactly what he said. When we lose our leadership concludes that we need to move to the right. This is a losing strategy but try telling that to Rahm Emanuel.
He lost me at democrats moving right. Also, the "voters' best interests" line had me in stiches. Either that is a lie or dmcrts r mrns.
The content of the post sort of predicts the impossibility of agreement in the comments, eh?
It seems almost obvious to me that politics has been mainly about propaganda as a means of bypassing the rational mind for a loooong time now. Interested parties might want to reference "The Century of the Self" (which a quick search reveals has been linked to several times in BB comments for an exploration of how psychology is applied towards these ends with an unsettling degree of efficacy:
http://www.archive.org/details/AdaCurtisCenturyoftheSelf_0
(this is a link to part 1. there are 4 parts, the rest of which are also on archive.org)
I'm not sure how much a neurological perspecive changes things (as opposed to a psychological perspective) but it sounds like another interesting avenue of investigation.
Oh my god I hate this kind of crap. Not the change the debate not the policy stuff -- that's fine, that is how politics works.
I hate the citation of neuroscience (or evolutionary biology, or quantum physics or whatever) to back up personal or political philosophy. We understand shockingly little about how the brain works, what individual thoughts are, how memory works and so on. When some writer starts telling you that our understanding of neurons backs up their social point, they are bullshitting you like you wouldn't believe.
What does he mean when he says "Neuroscience shows that pure facts are a myth"?
The way I read Lakoff, nothing can be communicated as a "pure fact" because everyone listens to the communication through whatever frame or worldview they filter the world through.
2+2=4 is a fact and most people can agree on it. But start stating scientifically proven facts like global warming or evolution or insert politicized topic of your choice, and do that enough, and you start realizing that the facts you're stating won't get through the person's filter if the filter disagrees with the fact.
The urban legend story of Galileo's telescope and the church leaders who refused to look is pretty much what Lakoff is talking about.
To be able to hear the facts but have them bounce off because they do not agree with the person's worldview. When someone hears something that doesnt' agree with their worldview, there first response is always to question what they heard, not their worldview.
Everyone does it. The only difference between people is how long before they'll bring their worldview under equal scrutiny. Some never.
Reminds me a bit of Neal Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
which essentially argues that late 20th century Americans are post-rational, as television by its very nature excludes rational discourse. (That doesn't mean TV is necessarily bad, though you certainly get that suggestion from the book.)
There is some question whether this is still true, given the internet, though I imagine "the internet" bifurcates into rational and irrational segments (e.g., political debate forums vs. DIY YouTube videos posted by drunken frat boys).
I hate the citation of neuroscience (or evolutionary biology, or quantum physics or whatever) to back up personal or political philosophy.
He isn't citing how quantum mechanics gives the determinist a place to hide free will. He isn't using thermodynamics to "prove" God must (must not) exist
He's talking about how the mind listens to things people say. He applies it specifically to political arguments. But the point is, he's a cognitive linguist talking about how language makes people think and how people's thinking is (and isn't) affected by language.
That's not like using the second law of thermodynamics to "prove" God must (not) exist.
It's like using thermodynamics to explain how an internal combustion engine works.
We understand shockingly little about how the brain works, what individual thoughts are, how memory works and so on.
Are you a neurologist?
Keratacon,
Your invective, funnily enough, gives me no information that might incline me to consider your point. Did you want to back your statement up with some facts?
dn't ndrstnd th rsnng bhnd prtty bvs "jmp-t-cnclsns" typ f blf lk "lbrl dmcrts ls lctns bcs thy dn't >frm th sss prprly". Why nt jst ssm th bvs nd rcgns tht lbrl Dmcrts smtms ls bcs th vtrs dn't lk thm r thr ds? t's nt "frmng"--t's rjctn.
t rmnds m f th bk "Wht's th Mttr wth Knss?: Hw Cnsrvtvs Wn th Hrt f mrc " whr th bfddld thr (T.Frnk) jst cldn't wrp hs hd rnd th fct tht smngly sncr, ntllgnt ppl cld rjct crtn lbrl ds nd vls.
#20
"It's like using thermodynamics to explain how an internal combustion engine works"
Umm . . . I'm also not a neuroscientist and I get your point but I think the laws of thermodynamics are more established and better understood than cognitive neuroscience or the workings of the human mind in general.
Why not just assume the obvious and recognise that liberal Democrats sometimes lose because the voters don't like them or their ideas? It's not "framing"--it's rejection.
The results of fact: Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The results of framing: When the US invaded Iraq, March 2003, 45% of Americans thought Saddam was personally involved with 9/11.
Anyone who thinks political discourse is nothing but facts arguing against facts is fooling themselves.
#17:
"We understand shockingly little about how the brain works ..."
Yet, what we /do/ understand of how the brain works backs up Mr. Lakoff. Our brains lie to us, they invent models of the future, they ignore facts - intellectual or sensory - that don't mesh with the model it has built.
When each of us, for example, has a visual blind spot but have to undergo some rigamarole to prove it to ourselves: Sit still, stare at this spot here, watch the five-pointed-star disappear from your peripheral vision.
The same visual game can be used to cause a blue light to transform "miraculously" into a red light: Set up a two-colour LED, look at it while it is blue, then move the image of the LED into the non-cone all-rod portion of your retina (look at another spot about thirty degrees away) and flip the switch. YOU don't see the colour change until YOU look straight back at it, and the colour changes dramatically; You'd SWEAR it was still blue and people can even TELL YOU it's changed to red and you will still see the blue until you LOOK.
People are even soothed by a consistent world view and are even able to get an adrenaline and neurostimulation high from arguing to defend their world view.
When our brains are set up to build for us a coherent worldview and to constantly LIE to us, understanding when and how they do that is important - the "why" we may not yet know, but that is coming and doesn't stop us from the When and the How.
"... what individual thoughts are, how memory works and so on."
We know terribly little about the ultimate nature of the magnetic field, or how gravity actually works. HOWEVER we know a great deal about what is OBSERVED of these things.
We can't build a brain from scratch, but we know a terrible lot about the behaviours of the brain.
I'd like to use America and Germany in WWII as an example.
This is a wonderful example to apply these notions to.
On the one side, we have an industrial nation that successfully used propaganda, jingoism, and the nationalist sympathies of the population to mobilise a large military force.
On the other hand we have Nazi Germany.
Seriously - both sides used the same techniques to manipulate the average person on the street, and pull together a nation. One of them was terribly evil; Yet, most of the individual people in Germany were OK people, not evil /per se/; Many of them were hungry, depressed, had little hope for the future and were taught by their culture and religion to scapegoat outsiders, especially Jews.
The United States did not roll out the WAR! TERROR! PRIDE! engine of propaganda until Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor, and then stood it down (for the most part) when we were victorious.
Now, we can never be victorious, and so it can never be stood down; We must TEAR IT DOWN.
There was a recent study on "implicit bias" that shows that "fact" and "mind" are completely unrelated.
They had a group of people. I think they were all Asian American women. They had some sort of math quiz that they gave them. Before one test, they gave the subjects some kind of speech that repeated the fact that they were all Asian. Before the next test, they gave another speech that repeated the fact that they were all women.
The groups did statistically better when the pre-test speech focused on them being Asian than when it focused on them being women.
They had an implicit bias of what it meant to be Asian (good at math) and what it meant to be a woman (bad at math), and those same biases could be invoked and affect how well they did on their tests in a statistically signifcant manner.
That's just a hint of what framing can do.
No one, and that means literally not a single one of you, would sit down to a similar test that played on your own personal biases and not do differently depending on how the test was framed just before you took it. The only question would be a matter of finding the subject matter and finding your biases.
test subject material: prisoners in gitmo. bias: fighting terrorism/strength? or due process/justice?
Pooklord (#22) -- I do agree that sometimes the issue is simply that of rational disagreement over open issues. However, it appears (though I haven't read it) that the book challenges the more fundamental question of why a large segment of the population seems systematically to reject the Enlightenment program.
speak for yourself
not a biased bone in your body, takuan?
Hr's thng t gnw n.
n 2003 ntrvw, Lkff ffrd th fllwng:
>...th prgrssv wrldvw s mdld n nrtrnt prnt fmly. Brfly, t ssms tht th wrld s bsclly gd nd cn b md bttr nd tht n mst wrk twrd tht. Chldrn r brn gd; prnts cn mk thm bttr. Nrtrng nvlvs mpthy, nd th rspnsblty t tk cr f nslf nd thrs fr whm w r rspnsbl.
nd:
>Th cnsrvtv wrldvw, th strct fthr mdl, ssms tht th wrld s dngrs nd dffclt nd tht chldrn r brn bd nd mst b md gd. Th strct fthr s th mrl thrty wh spprts nd dfnds th fmly, tlls hs wf wht t d, nd tchs hs kds rght frm wrng. Th nly wy t d tht s thrgh pnfl dscpln--physcl pnshmnt tht by dlthd wll bcm ntrnl dscpln.
Gt tht? "Prgrssv" qls "nrtrng mpthy." "Cnsrvtv" qls "physcl pnshmnt." Prgrssvs lv chldrn. Cnsrvtvs thnk chldrn r bd nd nd t b btn.
Ths s prt f th wrldvw tht nfrmd Lkff's "nn-prtsn" thnk tnk, th Rckrdg nsttt, whch clsd n prl f ths yr.
Lkff ss scntfc-sndng pstmdrn bllsht t shr p hs dlgcl prjdcs.
Thanks GregLondon, that's what I thought and inline with my understanding too.
Yeah, pretty much the entire Bush administration has been built on a worldview of "We can protect you from the boogeyman". That's pretty much the father/authority figure.
Conservatives think children are bad and need to be beaten.
Uh, have you seen Abu Graib or Gitmo?
Lakoff isn't talking about literal children, he's talking about the way a conservative politician might view a criminal.
You think conservatives generally approve of capital punishment because it deters crime? Capital punishment isn't about detering crime. It's about fitting their worldview onto the world.
h ys. Dmcrtc vtrs r rtnl, ndpndnt thnkrs, Rpblcn vtrs r jst prdcts f clvr prpgnd. nd wht Dmcrts nd t d t rch ths Rpblcns s b bttr prpgndsts.
gss h's prvd hs wn pnt thgh.
Clrly, Dmcrts >d sck t frmng. Smn wh ws gd t frmng cld b cndscndng, ltst, nd t f tch wtht sndng s cndscndng, ltst, nd t f tch.
David, did you read the review?
"As [Lakoff] acknowledges, current brain-imaging technology is far too crude to see specific neural activity. Cores? Narrative structures? Issue-to-worldview binding? It’s all speculation."
As the kids say, FAIL. Lakoff is avowedly peddling metaphors gussied up to seem like science, but in fact has no empirical basis. How is this not intelligent design for the left?
Can't somebody make George Lakoff go away? He is a rude, lazy, fame-seeking pseudoscientist whose books try to recycle a few lame ideas into some sort of authority on political thought. His linguistic work has fallen off (though that's no great loss) and all he does now is mold the conjecture that he spouts in his linguistic work into pop-psychology. Please stop buying his books. All it does is feed his ego and help him to justify his laziness as a scholar.
I have yet to see a substantive argument against George Lakoff in this thread. He might be completely wrong, but all I've seen so far are political screeds.
moi! Biased???? There is not a prejudiced piece of cartilage in my body, even the gods themselves kneel before my more-than-Olympian detachment.
@ #31: Instead of "scientific-sounding postmodern bullshit" don't you mean religious sounding bullshit. The strict parent model is espoused by nearly all Evangelical Conservatives, just pick up any of their parenting books or go to one of their websites. Republicans have framed their policies this way to woo those voters. They speak in a language they understand.
Now, that doesn't mean that religious conservatives are mean rotten parents. In fact, I've seen a lot of religious conservative parents be incredibly lenient on their children and liberals be incredibly strict. From what I've seen conservatives tend to be engaged by one type of language and liberals are engaged by another.
Lakoff seems to think we all react to language in the same way. I'm not sure how that could be true though. If we're all scared to death of the phrase "war on terror" how come almost half the population voted Democrat in the last presidential election?
All of us, left or right, or in Takuans case, cephalopodian, view the world through the mirror of language. So it makes sense that if you want to manipulate the public, which is what politics is about, then you would manipulate the linguistic structures through which people perceive the world.
oooh Philip K Dick flashback, oooh! with tinges of Robert Anton Wilson and soupcon of Tim O'Leary!
I think it's pretty funny that you are all arguing about a review of a book that you haven't even read. Kind of makes the point that people ignore facts.
I think Lakoff is pretty insightful but narrowminded. Let me explain...
His methods are useful, for analyzing how minds and brains interact with ideas, communications, society, media etc. Not uniquely insightful, but useful.
But he can't break out of his own ideology when trying to apply those ideas.
Around the time of Desert Storm he wrote "Metaphor of War". I was at Berkeley at the time. I tried to engage him by asking him to apply the same methodology he'd applied to pro-war commentary / media / rhetoric / psychology to the anti-war crowd, to see how both sides behave when analyzed with the same tools.
He really didn't seem to appreciate my asking.
I think he's a nice guy, and a bright guy. And he has some insight into mental processes. But he's got the mental fault of having the conceit of thinking that his personal biases are obviously right, and therefore he only has to use his analytical tools to belittle his opponents, not introspectively on his own beliefs and political spectrum. In this, he fails the test for greatness.
Ths gy s sch gs-bg.
Thr s n sch thng, ntnlly, s "cnsrvtv".
ll pltcs r lcl pltcs.
Dmcrts r lwys tryng t fgr t wht knd nml Rpblcn s bcs, dpndng n wht prt f th nml y s (r prt f th cntry y lv n) t lks lk dffrnt nml.
Dmcrts r prtty strght frwrd. Thy r Sclst prty. n ths cntry Sclsm s drty wrd. S thy s phrss lk "Sclly Prgrssv" nd th lk.
T sm Dmcrts, Rpblcns r sn s pr, hlf-lltrt trlr-prk bbl-thmpng rdncks. T thr Dmcrts, Rpblcns lk lk rch Wll Strt pn-strpd sts, jt-sttng rnd wth bgs f gld.
Dmcrts r strght frwrd. Thy blv n stt tht tks cr f ctzns frm crdl t grv. Ths s dn trgh ggrssv txtn, nd wlth rdstrbtn. n ffct, thy tk mny wy frm n dmgrphc (th grp tht dsn't vt fr thm) nd dsbrs t t th ppl wh d vt fr thm. Thy r vry hnst bt ths. Thy tll thr spprtrs, vt fr m nd wll tk bnch f mny wy frm ppl y dn't lk (slly sng drgtry trms lk "rch") nd gv thr mny t y, thrgh gvrnmnt snctnd wlth rdstrbtn prgrms, f y vt fr m.
Rpblcns r mch mr cmplx prty. Thy r "bg tnt" prty md p f fctns tht ftn dsgr wth ch thr n th xtrm. Thr nly cmmn grnd s tht thy r ll ppl wh r nt Dmcrts.
-----
Th Rpblcn Prty s md p f frl llgnc f cnvnnc btwn ths fr grps:
1.
Lbrtrns - Cnstttnl cnsrvtvs wh fvr vry strct dhrnc t th cnstttn nd vry lmtd gvrnmnt pwr. dmnt prtctrs f th bll-f-rghts. Pr-gn wnrshp. Dstrstfl f gvrnmnt. Cr vls r ndvdl lbrty nd ndvdl prprty rghts. Th fndtn fr Lbrtrnsm n mrc cms prmrly frm th pltcl wrtngs f Thms Jffrsn.
2.
Cptlst - Fscl cnsrvtvs wh fvr blncd bdgts, lw txs, trt rfrm, nd fr-trd. dmntly pr-bsnss, thr thght-ldrs r cnmsts. Thy trc thr rts t dm Smth. Mr cntmprry phlsphrs ncld yn Rnd nd Mltn Frdmn.
3.
Scl Cnsrvtvs - Chrstn Fndmntlst "Vl Vtrs" wh pps brtn nd gy mrrg, nd wsh t mntn mrc s Chrstn dmntd ntn "ndr Gd".
4.
N-Cnsrvtvs (NCns) - ntrntnl ntrvntnst wh fvr mltrstc frgn plcy t shp wrld rdr thrgh mrcn mltry mght.
Th Scl Cnsrvtvs r th nwst, bst rgnzd nd mst tspkn rm f th Rpblcn prty. Brght n drng th "Rgn Rvltn", th Fndmntlst Chrstn vt hd prvsly bn stnch mmbrs f th Dmcrtc Prty tht wr lft dsnfrnchsd by th Cvl Rghts ct. s Lyndn B. Jhnsn lftd hs pn t sgn th Cvl Rghts ct, hs lst wrds wr tht th Dmcrtc Prty wld nw ls th Sthrn vt fr t lst cntry. Bfr ths, th Fndmntlst Chrstn vt ws knwn s th "Sld Sth" bcs th Dmcrtc prty cld b grntd t wn vry Sthrn stt n mttr wh thy rn. ls knwn s "yllw dg Dmcrts," thy wld snr vt fr yllw dg thn vt fr Rpblcn. vstg f th Cvl Wr, th fthr f th Rpblcn Prty ws brhm Lncln wh nvdd th Sth. Fr bt 100 yrs, Sthrnrs wld nvr vt fr Rpblcn. ftr th Cvl Rghts ct, Rchrd Nxn dptd th "Sthrn Strtgy" t tk dvntg f ths dvlpmnt. Frd dd nt prs th th Sthrn Strtgy nd lst t Grg Dmcrt, Jmmy Crtr. Rgn ws tspkn tht th Sthrn Strtgy shld b dptd prmnntly by th Rpblcn prty, nt jst sngl lctn strtgy. t hs bn rcky rltnshp snc. Scl Cnsrvtvs r ftn lss cncrnd bt th Rpblcn prty's thr pltfrm sss (n fct, thy ftn hld sclst pstns n cnmc sss, bt pt rlgs cnvctn frst). Thr ht-bttn ss s brtn, nd thy r ftn sngl ss vtrs fr Pr-Lf prsdntl cnddts wh prms t ppnt mmbrs t th Sprm Crt wh wll vrtrn R vs Wd.
Th NCns r ls rltvly nw t th prty. nc gn, tcsts frm th Dmcrtc prty, th n-cnsrvtv mvmnt ws rgnlly cr grp f Sclst ntllctls fndd by rvng Krstl. Ths grp's vls rs t f Wrld Wr . Prr t th Wrld Wrs, mrcn frgn plcy hd bn sltnst. ftr WW, th thnkng mng sm n th lft ws tht th wrld cld b shpd fr th gd, by ntrvntn. Sclst dls sd, thrgh gvrnmnt ntrvntn f wlth rdstrbtn, scl lls cld b slvd. Ths sm phlsphy ws ppld t frgn plcy nd th blf tht glbl lls cld b slvd thrgh gvrnmnt ntrvntn brd (Ths s why sm "ld" cnsrvtvs mckngly rfr t Ncns s "Lbrls wth Gns"). Th 1972 Dmcrtc nmntn f nt-wr cnddt Grg McGvrn csd th dprtr f th ncns wh thn mgrtd t th Rpblcn prty.
(Sm mght rsnbly rg thr s 5th fctn: "Txs l Crns", bt thy r mr pwr cntr thn vtng blck.)
WARNING - Never read this Lakoff guy. So I'm already wasting your time.
But I am reminded of a book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink. In it he describes research similar to that described by GregLondon in #27 above. The bias is detected by a very slight hesitation when the subject tries to identify, for example, a black man with a briefcase, or a white man with a gun. This slight hesitation isn't present when it's the black man with the gun, or the white man with the briefcase (I'm leaving out technical details I would have to find my copy of Blink to verify). This effect is present regardless of the race of the subject themself.
The interesting story Mr. Gladwell tells about this research is the story of one of the researchers, who had made a habit of running this test on himself every morning. One morning he found that this effect has suddenly diminished. He couldn't think why. So he asked others to try, and in the end those who had lower hesitation times also had in common - they had just seen a black man given a gold medal in an Olympic newcast that morning over breakfast.
We hear you Eustace! NEVER READ LAKOFF! KILL THE HERETIC!
Irony at 44.
arrrggghh... gurgle...
ha HA! Survived again!
ChrisG, thank you for that lovely rant. And a preemptive thanks for the flamewar to follow, hopefully.
http://usloonyparty.tripod.com/
I'll even cast the first match:
"The Social Conservatives are the newest, best organized and most outspoken arm of the Republican party. Brought in during the "Reagan Revolution", the Fundamentalist Christian vote had previously been staunch members of the Democratic Party that were left disenfranchised by the Civil Rights Act."
I would like to extend to anyone who felt disenfranchised by the Civil Rights Act this heartfelt message of sympathy - you will never really fathom just how deeply I feel for you.
Oh, well. Maybe it's too late at night for a flamewar. So I'll tell an ecumenical joke.
A Republican walks down a beach, sees a drowning swimmer, throws a rope halfway and yells "Swim for it!"
A Democrat walks down a beach, sees a drowning swimmer, throws a rope to him, then drops his end and runs off to find the next drowning swimmer.
All the arguing about the (il)legitimacy of neuroscience, etc... to me there's a real kernel of truth that rings to true to how I see things. And that is that the Republicans, at least in the last ~25 years or so that I've been paying attention, are much better than the Dems at the "war of words".
I followed one of the links to here:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml
Where I found this quote fro Lakoff: "A policy direction is something like "Let's have a sustainable environment" and "Working people shouldn't be living in poverty" and "Everybody should have health care." The problem is that the Democrats have wanted to talk about programs rather than policy directions, and programs call up distinctions, which tend to separate people."
The Right is much better than the Left at coming up w/ simple, straight-forward, 1-sentence phrases or arguments.
Its enough to get me interested in his work. I think I'll try and find something used and see how I like it.
If you're going to read him, remember the link waaaaaay up at #5.
EUSTACE says:
> A Republican... A Democrat...
-----
An independent learns how to swim and doesn't join gangs.
#5?! I'm #5! Wheeee.
This thread resembles when evolutionary psychology pops up on metafilter and the like. There are an awful lot of people who seem to be under the impression that their beliefs and biases stem from some sort of Platonic ideal which they have perceived rightly and their enemies are too stupid to understand.
Politics isn't about what you believe, it is where your loyalties lie. And the Republicans are good at pushing all the right buttons to trigger loyalty for themselves and hatred for their enemies.
And yes, the freepers will try to level that accusation at liberals, which is valid, more or less. I mean, think about it: the Republican "enemy" is a caricature, a wimpy hippy who wants to take your money and give it welfare queens. The Democratic "enemy" is the President of the United States, whose policies have weakened our nation and destroyed all our moral credibility.
There is just something unbalanced about that, but I can't put my finger on it...
and to any outside observer,Americans are all clearly quite mad.
new game: before you post here, feel free to indicate which works by Lakoff you've actually read, if any. (Note, reading someone else's crank review of it doesn't count)
I read Lakoff's "Don't think of an Elephant". It was good. It's a book about linguistics, debates, and how words make people think. It is about "framing" an argument.
Anyone who thinks they filter all the frames, all the spins, all the loaded language from all the news, editorials, and opinions they here day in and day out, anyone who thinks they're some kind of Vulcan or Android who is purely logical, is fooling themselves.
Being aware of framing doesn't make you not susceptable to framing, but knowing your susceptable means you're more likely to take a look at the frame of what your saying and what you're hearing once in a while.
and to any outside observer,Americans
Speaking as an outsider, takuan?
Humans think in stories. They are prejudiced because that's how the human brain processes input. Smart manipulators, like Gingrich, Reagan, and Rove, tell stories that jibe with people prejudices. Smarter people try to appeal to the brain's higher functions by presenting statistics, reasoning, science, math. People instinctively growl at that which threatens the story of what is going on outside their heads.
Appeal to their favorite stories, they give you trust and money and power. Challenge them, and they lynch you.
"Frame" is just another word for "story". He is telling us that we need to tell the story of objective facts in terms that integrate with people's internal narratives of the universe. Tell 'em what they need to know, but set it in terms of what they want to hear.
in other words: con them
You can't con someone out of something that doesn't exist.
just their confidence in you