It has seemed very enlightening to me. I have seen reflected in the explanations examples taken from the news about the behavior of "the right", both domestic and foreign. What I have not found are examples of what he calls "the left" or "the progressives".

Either I don't know how to see them, or they don't exist in my imagination.

What he describes as progressive, in my understanding, is as idealistic as it is non-existent.

In any case, I recommend the book. It is short and easy to read but it leaves you with concepts that make you reflect. It makes you think about the different political positions and how they are presented and understood. It also makes you question your own assumptions and beliefs about what is right and wrong in the political sphere. Overall, it is a thought-provoking read that I would recommend to anyone interested in politics or social issues.

Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, delved into 30 years of scientific research on the human brain and posed some profound political questions. What he discovered was that the political divide isn't merely confined to geography, religion, or even power. Instead, it exists right within our minds.

Our country emerged from the age of Enlightenment when reason reigned supreme, and emotion was considered irrelevant. Emotions were regarded as mere distractions that muddled the issue at hand. The belief was that an educated, well-informed, and rational society would make rational, logical, and fact-based decisions and be capable of effective self-governance. The concept of rational beings making rational decisions forms the very foundation of our society, spanning from the judicial system to the nightly news. However, Lakoff reveals that we don't always act rationally and prompts us to question why.

Science informs us that a staggering 98% of our thought processes occur unconsciously, with us only being aware of a mere 2%. Lakoff showcases how this significantly impacts our society through word choice, metaphors, and the framing of issues. For instance, when the Republicans discussed the Democrats' plan for a timeline to exit Iraq, they used the term "cut and run." This phrase instantly evokes feelings of cowardice or surrender in the listener. Another example is the use of the term "surge" in the Iraq war instead of "escalation."

Lakoff offers some constructive criticism of the "liberal" thought process. Liberals tend to present arguments by listing facts like an encyclopedia, expecting people to absorb them mechanically and reach logical, rational conclusions. Does this sound familiar? It did to me. In contrast, the "conservative" thought process leans more towards using emotions rather than lists of facts. However, it's important to note that these thought processes aren't exclusive to liberals or conservatives, as Lakoff argues against the simplistic metaphor of politics being described as right and left.

Lakoff enriches the science of the brain with elements of pop culture, maintaining the reader's interest and making them aware of the deeply ingrained nature of the topics he is discussing. He incorporates the Anna Nicole saga, Reagan's fictional "Welfare Queen," the latest in neural science, and an analysis of framing and metaphors to provide insights into why reason alone is ineffective and why we need emotion and a new form of enlightenment.

Without a doubt, this was the best book I read all year. It taught me to truly listen to what people are saying during a political conversation, rather than simply thinking about what I'll say next to refute what I think they're saying. We all have more in common than we might initially believe, and this common ground should serve as the starting point for change, rather than the areas where we differ. This book has the potential to transform you into a better communicator, listener, and thinker.

This slim handbook, subtitled “Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives,” was originally published in 2004. It consists of slightly more than one hundred pages that summarize the major ideas Lakoff wrote about as a cognitive scientist in a book called “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think,” first published in 1996 by the University of Chicago Press. “Moral Politics” is now in its third edition, published in time for the 2016 election. Last year, Lakoff also published an essay on his website called “Understanding Trump” subtitled “How Trump Uses Your Brain Against You.” Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972.

I am astonished that Lakoff’s brilliant insights are not better utilized by the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders took the lessons to heart and began pounding out a new single-note message so that we couldn’t miss it. But why was he alone? Why didn’t the entire liberal left start with reframing—after all, we had a handbook—and completely change the way business was done?

One could argue that Hillary Clinton did use Lakoff’s cognitive science approach by allowing the “Stronger Together” message to express her values. I vaguely recall hearing “This is not who we are” when Trump said or did something particularly egregious. However, it seems to me that Hillary’s team could have been much more explicit about the ideas in Lakoff’s book, reframing arguments and changing the discussion. She just couldn't manage to relinquish control and involve us.

Bernie Sanders had just one message, and he said it loudly and often. Even if we didn’t know what he would do in different foreign affairs situations, we knew his basic playbook: “Man is basically good. Citizens working together unleash the creative potential in the population. Who wants to be rich when people are starving next door? We have some big problems but we’ll get there together.”

This book is a series of conclusions, and reading it is a bit like mainlining information if you’ve never seen it before. It may take reading it a couple of times before the information sticks in your head and you can apply the techniques he shares with us. Many of these ideas probably seem familiar if you have been thinking about what happened in the last election. I hadn't been able to articulate my own thoughts, but the instant I saw what Lakoff wrote about conservatives and the “strict father” way of looking at the world, it sounded so right.

One thing Lakoff points out is that when conservatives start using Orwellian language—language that is the opposite of what they mean—they are weak. Just as they are vulnerable on their position on the environment and global warming, they are weak on the “healthcare” bill. We should take these issues and run with them, turning every argument into a referendum on what they are not doing to solve these problems. We own the moral arguments here. They have nothing. Be smart. Be smarter. The far right has even appropriated the word “freedom.”

The far right uses “freedom” to mean “freedom from coercion from others,” which at first blush sounds good. But then they go on to express the need to “save capitalism from democracy,” so that laws won’t constrain their money-making and power consolidation. They object to paying taxes in excess of the amounts one would voluntarily contribute. Why pay taxes for schools if one does not have children oneself? is a common argument. They feel coerced to pay for social welfare.

Conservatives are also very big on “tort reform,” or putting limits on awards in lawsuits. “If parties who are harmed cannot sue immoral or negligent corporations or professionals for significant sums, the companies are free to harm the public in unlimited ways in the course of making money.”

Liberals look at freedom differently: freedom to express one’s creativity, to pursue one’s interests; or freedom from anxiety, from hunger, exploitation, environmental degradation. To achieve these freedoms, we need groups of people working together, doing what they do best.

A recent interview with the president of Princeton University, Christopher L. Eisgruber, confirmed something I'd noticed but wasn’t sure was a blip or a real, observable phenomenon. Eisgruber said that the students at Princeton gave him enormous hope for the future. They are engaged, and their values are upright. I only hope they continue to exhibit those values in their jobs and at the ballot box in the years to come, and perhaps even help other people understand that the “strict father” model is an unsatisfactory way for adults to engage with their world.

Read this book. It’s important. It’s short.

A pretty short volume, but I thought it was truly fantastic.

Lakoff's dissection of the "strict father" model alone (pages 7 - 11) was more than worth the price of entry. I couldn't help but laugh out loud, and at the same time, I was deeply struck by the internal logic that he was meticulously laying down.

I have a great love for the idea of applying rationality and metaphor to understand the conservative movement. I firmly believe that Lakoff is really onto something significant here. The discussions about framing issues for your own benefit are also of crucially important nature - lessons that the right wing has most certainly taken to heart.

Truly, I learned a great deal from reading this book. It opened my eyes to new perspectives and ways of thinking about political and social phenomena. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of the conservative movement and the power of language and framing in shaping our beliefs and actions.

This book is not an overly simplistic read.

However, it is an excellent one that offers a fresh perspective on the political policies of the Democrats and Republicans.

It delves deep into the differences and similarities between the two major political parties in the United States.

The author presents a comprehensive analysis of their stances on various issues such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy.

By exploring these policies, readers can gain a better understanding of the political landscape and the implications of different political decisions.

Whether you are a political enthusiast or simply interested in learning more about American politics, this book is definitely worth a read.

It provides valuable insights that can help you form your own opinions and make informed decisions.

Overall, it is a great addition to any political literature collection.

I recently read the latest issue.

However, I have to say that the original one from 2004 might be a little bit better.

The new issue has its own merits, of course. It presents some fresh perspectives and updated information.

But there was something special about the 2004 version. Maybe it was the writing style, which seemed more engaging and captivating.

Or perhaps it was the topics covered, which were more relevant and thought-provoking at that time.

Nevertheless, both the new and the old issues have their own value.

They can both provide us with interesting reading materials and help us expand our knowledge and视野.

It's just that for me, the 2004 original holds a certain charm that the new issue doesn't quite match.

But who knows, maybe with time and further reading, my opinion might change.

This is a truly great book.

It is one that should be regarded as required reading for anyone who often finds themselves frustrated when engaging in debates with conservatives.

In today's society, political discussions and debates are becoming increasingly common. However, when debating with conservatives, many people may encounter difficulties and feel frustrated.

This book provides valuable insights and strategies that can help readers better understand the conservative mindset and effectively communicate their own views.

By reading this book, readers can gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand, learn how to present their arguments in a more logical and persuasive manner, and ultimately improve their ability to engage in meaningful political discussions.

Whether you are a seasoned debater or someone who is new to political discussions, this book is sure to provide you with the tools and knowledge you need to succeed.

Rereading this five years later, it is astonishing to see how much has come to pass. We find ourselves still fighting the same battles, unfortunately, using the very language that has been co-opted by the Right. We seem to be trapped within their frames, their words. But we must try harder.

I am a liberal. Before coming to Oklahoma, I had no idea there was a term like "Yellow-dog Democrat." I probably would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the Democratic ticket.

I had high hopes for this book, but alas, it's not the one I need. Conservatives have been highly successful in framing social issues, carefully choosing their language. Take "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" for example. In reality, the true purpose of this law is to fail schools and the children within them. This kind of branding infuriates me.

I have read other pieces by Lakoff, so I understand the different visions we have of the family and how that impacts politics, such as the strict father vs the nurturing family. I see this clearly and totally agree. However, I was hoping for the next step. I wanted to know "now what?" I渴望重新构建关于教育、教学和学习的讨论。I want to have the right words to use and the effective strategies.

This book, unfortunately, isn't the one that meets my needs. It's merely a collection of essays written years ago, with very little coherent connection among them. I even went to Lakoff's foundation website, only to find it closed.

This book frustrated me far more than it enlightened me. That being said, the last statements will still keep me going: "Show respect. Respond by reframing. Think and talk at the level of values. Say what you believe." I know I can do that.

This is a book that initially gets you excited when you start reading, but after the first chapter ends, you feel that the author overly emphasizes and repeats the criticism of the conservative ideology and praises the liberal ideology to the extent that the content seems to be all fat. Moreover, at the end, there are FAQs, and it seems that this small book will become a self-development guide for the liberal camp to move forward and create a flimsy narrative against the conservatives.

After reading it all, you can easily understand why the conservatives have an advantage in the global stage. Because if you compare them evenly, the progressive side seems to be so idealistic that it is like drawing a plane in the air. For example, the statement that "everyone can access high-quality medical care at an affordable price" contradicts the real world with limited resources. While the right side is more in line with the real world, that is, everyone has to work hard to access "high-quality medical care" and the government should not interfere (anyone can endure using lower-quality things).

I would feel much better if in the last chapter, the author took the angle that "Do you feel more inclined to be a conservative? Because I have deliberately emphasized and repeated the above ideas in this book (even if it is in a negative way)." According to the title of the book "Don't Think of an Elephant", because even if it is prohibited or mentioned in a negative way, in the end, I still feel inclined towards the conservative side because this book seems to give a large space to explain the basic ideas, working methods, and different groups on the right side, making it impossible to resist following. (If you analyze the words, I think the author mentions the conservative ideology about 2 - 3 times more than the liberal ideology).

This book presents an extremely convincing analysis of a framework that unifies the Republican's political platform: the government as a strict father.

It details a decades-long strategy to train intelligent individuals and mentor leaders to utilize coherent language and gain dominance in the media. As a result, the Republicans manage to define our concepts regarding the most crucial issues, while the Democrats are left to oppose them, still relying on their own language.

The author advocates that the Democrats develop their own language within the framework of a nurturing parent. By doing so, they would be able to convey their goals more effectively to the public. This communication is of great significance as voters cast their ballots based on their values rather than their best interests.

It is truly fascinating how deeply ingrained in our cultural subconscious - and yet so evocative - the symbolic language he analyzes is. For instance, he discusses Bush's use of "permission slip" when arguing for the US to enter the war with Iraq despite the lack of cooperation from the UN. Indeed, anyone who comprehends the strict father model will accept this without having to consider all its implications. It implies, "Of course we are the ones in control. We are not the schoolkids. In fact, the positions are reversed - we have to show all those underdeveloped UN countries that don't know how to be as good as we are."

I likely need to spend some time on the Rockridge Institute website.

Framing is a crucial concept that goes beyond mere language. It involves finding the right words that align with one's worldview. The ideas themselves are of primary importance, and the language serves as a vehicle to carry and evoke those ideas.

I had heard glowing reviews of this book from my fellow progressives, and in general, I tend to agree with their assessment. However, I must admit that I found this book to be incredibly repetitive. It seemed to cover the same ground over and over again, which made it a bit of a slog to get through.

I also can't help but wonder how the author would have updated the book after the 2016 election. With the election of Donald Trump, George W. Bush no longer seems like the worst president in US history. This new development surely would have had an impact on the author's arguments and the way he framed the debate.

Despite these drawbacks, the book does make a strong case for the importance of framing the debate and promoting progressive values. It offers valuable insights into how language can be used to shape public opinion and influence policy. However, the repetitive nature of the text and the need for an update after the 2016 election do somewhat detract from its overall appeal.

All in all, while this book has its merits, it also has its flaws. It's a good read for those interested in the power of language and the importance of framing, but it could have been presented in a more engaging and updated way.

Cognitive scientist George Lakoff presents a short and lucid handbook that elucidates the linguistic framing underlying conservative talking points and arguments.

He contends that the most efficient approach to engage in a debate is to present the matters you are concerned about within the context of your values such as Equality, Freedom, Security, and Responsibility.

I refrained from conducting in-depth research, yet the science appears to be solid. The framing techniques he advocates might seem somewhat Orwellian, but not overly manipulative. His analysis of conservative talking points, by itself, makes the book worth perusing.

I will likely reread this book just prior to Thanksgiving.

It offers valuable insights into the power of language and how it can be used to shape our understanding and perception of various issues.

By being aware of the linguistic framing employed by different sides, we can better navigate debates and discussions and arrive at more informed and rational conclusions.

Overall, Lakoff's work provides a thought-provoking perspective on the role of language in political and social discourse.