Lakoff contends that simply presenting facts and logic is insufficient to alter others' beliefs. People possess conceptual frameworks that they embrace and that dictate whether new information and ideas appear to "fit." I find this assertion plausible. A key theme in its application to politics is his belief that people's minds metaphorically view society as a family with one of two parenting modes. He posits that conservatives envision society as a family with a strict father, while progressives see it as a family with nurturing parents. Initially, I found this reasonable, especially for those who were dissatisfied with their parents' treatment or whose parents shielded them from external threats. However, upon further reflection, it seems that many conservatives do not consistently act as "good children" obeying a strict "father." For example:

(1) Catholic conservatives may align with the Pope or Catholic tradition on abortion but disregard it on capital punishment.

(2) Conservatives advocate for laws mandating genital coverings, yet neither Christianity nor US law prohibits mouth and nose coverings (e.g., a scarf in winter). Medical experts or the CDC would be appropriate father figures regarding mask-wearing during a pandemic, but conservatives rebel against this as both public health advice and law.

(3) Conservatives seem to be able to selectively choose their strict father figure. It could be a conservative president, but they may be dismissive of a liberal president. They can also, when convenient, demand states' rights so that the "father figure" is at the state rather than the federal level. They can look to a mayor, governor, president, clergy, or Fox News host depending on who says what they want to hear. In a strict father family, kids don't get to choose their "father."

(4) If a conservative's father raised him in a religious denomination that now permits women and/or gay clergy, they don't necessarily remain in that denomination because of family tradition or because that denomination is a metaphorical father figure claiming to be the right one for him.

Someone might argue that Lakoff tells us that the (non-metaphorical) strict father tells his children what to do until they are adults, and then the father should not interfere with his adult descendants. But if adults are not metaphorically children obeying metaphorical societal father figures, then what is the metaphor? It seems to me that a person's political beliefs can determine which father figures he adopts, rather than the father figure necessarily dictating which social policies he should support.

Lakoff claims that nobody votes based on economic interests but rather on their worldviews and family metaphor for society. I understand that people may not always vote in a well-informed manner regarding their economic interests. However, I find it difficult to believe that something as crucial as a person's life security and the well-being of their loved ones is not often a significant factor. At the very least, I would suggest that a person's parenting metaphor for society may not be as powerful and decisive as their feelings and views towards their own actual family. From either a strict or nurturing parent approach, one would want to provide well for their family's needs and have the income to do so.

In some ways, Lakoff also seems to have an idealized view of Democrats.

This article is a must-read for anyone attempting to understand how and why people seemingly vote against their own self-interest.

It delves into the complex factors that influence voting behavior, exploring the various psychological, social, and political aspects at play.

By examining real-world examples and case studies, the article aims to shed light on this puzzling phenomenon.

It analyzes how people's beliefs, values, and emotions can sometimes override their rational assessment of what is in their best economic or personal interests.

Additionally, it discusses the role of misinformation, propaganda, and group identity in shaping voting decisions.

Through a comprehensive and in-depth analysis, this article provides valuable insights into the fascinating world of voter behavior and the mysteries of why people sometimes make choices that seem to go against their own self-interest.

I’m an Independent voter with a mix of right/left opinions. I’d vote for either side whose policies align most with my concerns.

Years ago, my daughter brought this book home from college. At that time, I was too busy to read it. Now that I’ve read it, I clearly understand one thing. If this was study material years ago, it’s no wonder today’s adults are so firmly certain of their beliefs that discussion seems impossible. Gone are the “rap sessions” of old.

I wasn’t even going to review this book as I don’t need to get into the mess of politics. However, it’s not the right or left viewpoint that bothers me. It’s the writing style.

Lakoff, a linguist, uses his knowledge to manipulate speech and subtly belittle his opponents. The careless reader might not even notice. He conveys a self-important and arrogant attitude. He says conservatives aren’t bad or stupid, but then makes statements like how Republicans “figured out” to come together and win (which he implies is bad), hit their children (again, a negative connotation), or uses language that makes right-wing people seem stupid. I’m not sure he realizes there’s no right or left at church. Where are these radical right churches? Show me.

Due to my background, I can detect this kind of thing from a mile away. I’m familiar with such techniques as I was raised in a non-political religious cult that used written material and speech with clever wording and labels to convince and brainwash. They made their “flock” feel more intelligent and special. Any argument from an outsider was dismissed with a smile instead of being listened to.

This technique is evident from the start of this book, with Lakoff’s labeling of different viewpoints as “nurturing” versus “strict father”. Which term sounds more appealing on the surface?

The reader is encouraged to memorize responses to statements made by Republicans. This means instead of listening to the other person’s point of view, the reader will be thinking about what to say in response. This is exactly the technique used by my old religious organization. If you do this, you stop listening and stop learning. Your thinking becomes rigid.

Repetition is also crucial as the more someone reads or hears something, the more they accept it as truth. And this book is extremely repetitive.

I’ll seek inspiration elsewhere, definitely not here. The name of this book should be shortened to Don’t Think. And I don’t think I can recommend it.

This gave me a simple and much-needed toolkit for conceptual framing and communication as a progressive.

I had been on the lookout for something precisely like this.

However, it is not without its flaws.

It is extremely US-centric, which means it may not fully capture the nuances and complexities of other regions and cultures.

Largely, it elides intersectionality, failing to consider the multiple and intersecting identities and oppressions that people experience.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend it to progressives who have been struggling mutely.

They find themselves only able to sputter "WTF" in response to an escalatingly fucked-up world.

This toolkit can provide them with a starting point, a way to begin to make sense of the chaos and to formulate their ideas and responses more effectively.

It may not be perfect, but it can be a valuable resource in the fight for a more just and equitable world.

Superinteresante!!

I believe that after reading this book, I have a better understanding of what people mean when they self-identify as "right" or "left." It is truly fascinating how this book has provided such insights.

I would really love to read a critique of this book by a conservative person. I am curious to see how they would view the ideas and perspectives presented in it. Would they agree with some of the points? Or would they completely disagree and offer a different interpretation?

It would be extremely interesting to compare and contrast the views of different people on this topic. Maybe through such discussions and exchanges of ideas, we can gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the political spectrum and the diverse beliefs and values that exist within society.

Overall, this book has opened my eyes to a whole new world of political thought and has left me eager to explore further and engage in more in-depth discussions on this important topic.

This was one of my recommended texts in the public speaking course I enrolled for.

I am truly glad to have read this book. It has been an eye-opening experience for me. It has not only helped me to gain a deeper understanding of the Republican and Democrats politics but also enabled me to extrapolate those concepts to my own political environment.

The book is mainly about framing, and it contains numerous important insights on how to improve your debate skills. By learning about different frames and how to use them effectively, one can become a more persuasive and influential speaker.

Thank you, Lakoff, for writing this important book. It has definitely made a significant impact on my public speaking abilities and my understanding of politics. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in improving their communication skills or learning more about political science.

The title of this book has the potential to spark the interest of anyone well-versed in positive thinking literature. When aiming for success, one should tell oneself, "I'm a success" rather than "I'm a failure." When entering a room and desiring to avoid awkwardness, one should tell oneself, "I am calm, relaxed, and comfortable." Why? Because if you repeatedly say, "don't be awkward; don't be awkward; don't be awkward," you are simply presenting yourself with the idea of being awkward, and what is more likely to occur? Therefore, when sharing your views, don't use conservative frames and language as it only reinforces the existing frames and prejudices.

Reframing, as discussed in this book, is about honesty and integrity. It is the antithesis of spin and manipulation. It involves bringing to the forefront our deepest beliefs and modes of understanding. It is about learning to express what we truly believe in a way that allows those who share our beliefs to understand their own deepest convictions and act upon them.

What Is Rationality? The brain and cognitive sciences have revolutionized our understanding of what reason is and what it means to be rational. Regrettably, far too many progressives have been taught a false and outdated theory of reason itself, one in which framing, metaphorical thought, and emotion have no place in rationality. This has led many progressives to the view that the facts alone will set you free. Progressives are constantly presenting lists of facts.

Part I: Framing 101

We all utilize the family as a metaphor for our nation. However, conservatives employ a strict father model, while progressives use

The strict father model commences with a set of assumptions: The world is a perilous place and always will be, as there is evil in the world. The world is also challenging as it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad in the sense that they simply wish to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they must be made good…Given opportunity, individual responsibility, and discipline, pursuing self-interest should enable one to prosper.

You simply reward the good people (who have demonstrated their goodness through their prosperity). In this view, the rich are more moral. And God has ordained it this way. The strict authoritarian worldview also teaches that everything is okay if you don't get caught.

I believe the most significant problem with this is that (to make it work), you have to assume that everyone has the same opportunity. And that's where many of our conflicts arise - race and affirmative action, and race and poverty, to name a few.

Progressives adopt the nurturant parent model:

Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our task is to work towards that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers of others.

Interesting Myths:

People listen to facts. (Hint: they don't)

People do things in their self-interest (Hint: they don't)

These are the reasons why progressives are not expressing their ideas very effectively. We present facts to people and explain why our policies will benefit them - but this fails to convince anyone.

Part II: Framing 102

With framing, one has to consider the long-term perspective. This section contains more excellent information on framing.

…simply telling someone something usually does not transform it into a neural circuit that they use daily or even a neural circuit that easily fits into their pre-existing brain circuitry - the neural circuits that define their previous understandings and forms of discourse. It is challenging to say things that you are not certain the public is ready to hear, to say things that have not been said hundreds of times before.

One of our concerns is systemic causation - it is difficult to trace and observe the impacts of global warming, privatization of education, fracking, etc.

Our political divisions归根结底 are moral divisions, characterized in our brains by very different brain circuitry.

This is extremely difficult to overcome!!

This is fascinating. One of the ways conservatives reinforce their framing is by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of government impotence:

Once in office, conservatives can not only assert that government cannot function and must be minimized and privatized, but by being in the government, they can also prevent it from working, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. How? By cutting taxes, by reducing funding, by passing laws, and, in the Supreme Court, by reinterpretating laws.

So many people do not understand the importance of funding public agencies: Public resources make private life possible.

It is a fact that the private depends on the public - perhaps the most central fact of American democracy - and yet strict conservatives either cannot see it or view it as a form of immorality so fundamental that it must be defeated at all costs.

Um. Wow. Mind. Blown.

Taxes for the wealthy have been reduced by conservatives, who have defended enormous tax loopholes and have even drastically cut funding for the IRS so that there are insufficient IRS workers or modern computers for the IRS to monitor tax evasion - mostly by the wealthy. Since the 1970s, the concept of taxation has shifted from the source of necessary and often revered public resources to the idea that taxation is a burden - an affliction in need of “tax relief.”

What we need people to understand:

Public resources enable freedom in numerous cases, opening up all kinds of opportunities in life.

Without taxes, we wouldn't have the freedoms we enjoy.

Remember when Obama said, "do you have a small business? You didn't build that?" It was a significant misstep. What he was attempting to convey is that you didn't build it all by yourself. All the infrastructure that taxes pay for - roads, the Internet, mail, etc., etc., contributed to your success. And taxes are a means to support that infrastructure. But conservatives didn't care about his intended meaning. They took it out of context and ran with it to turn people against him. This is framing.

Part III: Framing for Specific Issues

One of the major errors made by the Democratic Party is to focus on election campaigns rather than on the continuous framing of public discourse. All politics is moral.

So true!

As we have seen from a careful reading of the original Declaration of Independence documents, the progressive meaning lies at the core of our democracy, and it is time to reclaim it. Most of the issues in public discourse, both in elections and in everyday decision-making, ultimately come down to issues of freedom.

Current calculations suggest that if the government forgave all student loans, it would boost the nation's economy far more than the cost of the loans. Nevertheless, conservatives oppose both loan forgiveness and reducing the interest on student loans to the same rate that banks pay. Or, conservatives are assholes. (I mean, come on! This would benefit everyone, wouldn't it?)

If you provide rich people with more money, they will save and invest it - not give a boost to the economy. If you give middle and poor people more money, they will spend it - resulting in an immediate boost to the economy. It's not rocket science.

All these are freedom issues - and life issues. How do we successfully frame this without the right immediately stating that “you are free to make all the money you want” - thereby making all of these non-issues??

(Interesting: one thing Lakoff doesn't want is slogans, but then says things like “workers are profit creators”.)

So what's the solution? I can discuss this with my friends. I can post about it on social media - until all my friends turn a deaf ear because they're annoyed by my politicizing. But what beyond that?

It begins by strengthening the framing for the progressive moral system and for the progressive view of democracy based on empathy and the responsibility that stems from that empathy. In other words, we have to care about others - fellow citizens of the world we have never met and never will meet - and recognize the fact that the private depends on the public. That in turn depends on another systemic effect - the effect of language and the brain on public discourse, and the failure in universities to teach that effect.

Oh, is that all??? No problem!

But if those in power - who possess wealth, own the media, and control the politicians - are dictating all the frames, what chance do we have? If money is speech, why is it fair that the ultra-rich have a billion times more free speech than I do?

And corporations governing us is terrifying! What do we do??

I'm really looking forward to the “From Theory to Action” section (Part V)!

Part IV: Framing: Looking Back a Decade

This part does a good job of reframing current domestic and international issues. For some reason, I didn't jot down any thoughts or questions from this section - only that I thought it had some excellent examples.

Part V: From Theory to Action

Ok - so is Lakoff going to get to the heart of the matter? Sort of.

He discusses what conservatives truly desire. A great deal of this really resonated with me - and we need to understand this to keep moving forward.

Conservatives who are “pro-life” are mostly, as we have seen, against prenatal care, postnatal care, and health care for children, all of which have a major causal impact on the life of a child. Thus, they are not really pro-life in any broad sense.

Yes! We need to be communicating this!

Both same-sex marriage and abortion are surrogates for the general strict father values that define for millions of people their identities as conservatives. That is the reason why these are such highly charged issues for conservatives. To understand this is not to overlook the real pain and difficulty involved in the decisions made by individual women to terminate a pregnancy. For those truly concerned with the lives and health of children, the decision to end a pregnancy for whatever reason is always painful and anything but simple. It is this pain that conservatives are exploiting when they use ending pregnancy as a wedge issue in the cultural civil war they have been promoting.

…to remain in power, conservatives require the support of the conservative poor. That is, they need a significant percentage of the poor and middle class to vote against their economic interests and for their individual, social, and religious interests. This means that what appears to be a division among conservatives based on domains of interest actually constitutes strength for conservatism as a whole. Conservatism in all those domains of interest is necessary for conservatism to prevail.

And then he talks about how liberals can unite. And at the conclusion of these progressive values, he says:

Don't just read about these values here and nod. Get out and say them aloud. Discuss them wherever you can. Volunteer for campaigns that give you an opportunity to discuss these values loudly and clearly in public.

Not precisely a plan of action, but I suppose it's a start.

At the end, he reaffirms the integrity of this approach.

The reframing I am suggesting is neither spin nor propaganda. Progressives need to learn to communicate using frames that they truly believe, frames that express what their moral views truly are. I strongly oppose any form of deceptive framing. I believe it is not only morally reprehensible but also impractical because deceptive framing usually backfires sooner or later.

He also discusses the way to respond to conservatives; I think it's great. It's a paradigm shift, but I think it makes sense. That doesn't mean it'll be easy.

Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four truly important ones:

-Show respect

-Respond by reframing

-Think and talk at the level of values

-Say what you believe

So, there are no simple or short solutions. It's going to take some time. It's going to require some effort. But if we truly want to change the world, it will be worth it.

תיקון עולם

I got to know it thanks to my Politics and Communication class. I highly recommend it even if you don't know much about politics, because it is more about the evolution and how the narratives and conceptual frameworks of different concepts that we have internalized are constructed.

It focuses solely on the United States, but still, it is very interesting for understanding the importance of political communication.

This course offers a unique perspective on the intersection of politics and communication. It delves into the historical and contemporary aspects of how political ideas are formed, disseminated, and received. By studying the evolution of political communication in the US, students can gain insights into the power dynamics, media influence, and public perception that shape political landscapes.

Even if you are not particularly interested in US politics, the principles and theories explored in this course can be applied more broadly. It helps you develop critical thinking skills and understand the role of communication in various social and political contexts.

Overall, it is a fascinating and valuable course that provides a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between politics and communication.

Good read!

Lakoff provides us with an incredibly comprehensive explanation of how we construct our ideas and convey them.

If you have a keen interest in understanding the rationales underlying different ways of thinking, then this book is an absolute necessity.

It delves deep into the cognitive processes that shape our thoughts and the means by which we communicate them.

Lakoff's detailed analysis offers valuable insights into the complex world of human thought and expression.

Whether you are a student of philosophy, psychology, or simply curious about the inner workings of the mind, this book has something to offer.

It challenges our preconceived notions and encourages us to think more critically about how we form and present our ideas.

Overall, it is a thought-provoking and engaging read that is sure to leave a lasting impression.

I use this book in the bullshit class as a foil for the Orwell. It's really quite terrible.

Lakoff indeed has certain reasonable claims regarding conservatives' manipulation of language. However, his positive suggestions for how the Democrats should modify language are simply preposterous. Moreover, the cognitive science background underlying his recommendations gives the impression that Democrats and Republicans are unable to understand each other because their brains are wired differently.

This view seems rather simplistic and fails to take into account the complex nature of political differences and the role of ideology, values, and personal beliefs. While there may be some neurological differences between individuals, it is highly unlikely that these differences alone can explain the vast gulf in understanding and communication between the two major political parties in the United States.

Furthermore, Lakoff's proposed language revisions for the Democrats may not be as effective as he hopes. Changing the way one speaks and frames issues is not enough to bridge the ideological divide. It requires a more comprehensive approach that includes listening to the other side, finding common ground, and working towards mutually beneficial solutions.

I'd seen this book mentioned, I think, on the same Contrapoints video that mentioned "Conflict is not Abuse". It's an unashamedly lefty book. Essentially, it points out that the Right Wing of politics is, frankly, much better at persuasive argument than the Left, and is also much better organized.

Lakoff's main point is about framing. Basically, how setting the context for the argument is half the argument. Lakoff argues that the Left often falls into the trap of trying to engage with politics using facts and figures and tends to view reframing as some sort of unethical action. The book explores examples of both ethical and unethical framing and how to make it work for lefty politics.

For example, let's say I'm caught stealing my workmate's lunch. When caught, I lament: "I didn't realize it was Ross' sandwich." This places the frame of the argument on my knowledge of the sandwich ownership being important. Now, assuming the desired outcome is an apology, the facts approach would be to say "It's got Ross' name on it". But this is where it gets interesting from a Framing point of view. That's a valid point but is kind of a distraction, for example, trying to determine how obvious Ross' sandwich was.

A reframing would be someone saying to my greedy self: "Surely a grown man would recognize a lunch that wasn't his." That changes the argument to what would be an appropriate action for a grown-a** man.

Slightly more seriously, Framing is a common tactic in political debate where an issue is steered towards a distraction or a sub-element of the whole thing that isn't as relevant. Take, for example, the common assertion that welfare creates "dole bludgers". This frames the debate morally about people's character, but it's a bit of a dead end trying to explain that human behavior is more complex than that. Instead, you can reframe the concept as "welfare is good for economic growth as it supports consumerism".

Oddly, this book was published in the mid-2000s, so it has a lot of references to George W Bush and 9/11. I mean, they're not irrelevant topics, but it's odd to read about that time politically. However, most of Lakoff's points are still completely relevant.

The question this book poses is truly a remarkable one.

In the US, Democrats and Republicans seem to be at odds on nearly every front. Why is this the case?

Lakoff's response is that it all stems from different ways of conceptualizing the family. Republicans operate under the assumption that people are essentially bad. They envision an authoritarian father figure who demands obedience and, in return, safeguards the family from both a hostile external world and their own wayward desires. On the other hand, Democrats assume that people are fundamentally good and view the parents' role as one of nurturing children and facilitating their coexistence with the rest of society. While I don't wholeheartedly believe his analysis, it is indeed thought-provoking.

The subsequent sections offer guidance on how the Democrats should "reframe" political issues to present them from their own vantage point, rather than succumbing to the trap of adopting the Republicans' perspective. I can't help but wonder if the victorious Obama campaign incorporated some of these insights?