Scan barcode
migueldavid's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting book about framing ideas. Unfortunately, it’s all too US centric and a very us vs them narrative. Us being Progressives/Democrats and them being Conservatives/Republicans.
lastpaige111's review against another edition
3.0
I wish he'd edited the lectures he combines here for one streamlined rant, as it's a really good one.
waynediane's review against another edition
5.0
I thought this book was exactly what the liberal party needs to read and implement. The right wing is very well explained in how they use key words and phrases to making something negative and turn it around so it sounds positive and vice versa. Great Book.
bartonstanley's review against another edition
3.0
Useful information but too strident and biased, which limits it's credibility. It's this type of withing that makes progressives look bad, imho.
ameyawarde's review against another edition
5.0
All progressives should read this short book before having another political debate/conversation. It's legit important information if we care at all about learning how to be persuasive (while still being honest) and countering the linguistic manipulation that the think tanks on the right have been churning out for decades!
dee9401's review against another edition
3.0
I just finished reading George Lakoff’s don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. Published in 2004, it appears to be a collection of essays and thoughts he has pulled together over the years. Frankly, it could have been reduced to about a 30-40 page primer that might get a wider audience. However, at 119 pages, it’s a quick read.
The book is about frames, i.e. how we understand the world, how we know what we know. Frames control how we deal with new facts that are presented to us. If a fact agrees with the frame, it’s accepted. If a fact disagrees with the frame, in more cases than not, the fact will be discarded, regardless of whether it is true or not. According to Lakoff, frames rule our world.
His book is for progressives and goes a long way to de-vilefying conservatives and “red-state voters”. He notes that progressives can’t call people who voted for Bush as stupid or moronic. The frames they have developed, and that have been reinforced by 40 years of conservative communications, simply won’t allow these facts to overwhelm their worldview. Lakoff urges progressives to think in terms of ideas, frames, and moral values. Everyone has these and it’s a matter of framing progressive values and repeating them often to get our message across. It can’t be done overnight, and as he repeats often, “the truth will not set you free”. Facts by themselves are not sufficient. One of his best examples is the frame of “tax relief”. It just sounds good, doesn’t it? Relief. Relief is a good thing. Relief from what? Taxes. If it’s relief, then taxes must be bad. If progressives talk about tax relief and say that it isn’t any good or helps the wrong people, they’re still using the tax relief frame and are simply reinforcing the idea of relief. We need to talk about it differently. We need to talk about how government built the interstate system, how it created the internet, how cures and vaccines have been developed by the national health institutes. Paraphrasing Lakoff, your tax refund can’t pay to build a highway to drive to work.
One thing I’d like to mention is his differentiation of framing from spinning. He sees spin as manipulative use of a frame. However, I would argue that it’s spin, regardless of whether it’s for good or for manipulation. Speaking in frames is an attempt to manipulate, or change, an individual’s world view and how they process facts. We frame it one way in order to counter another frame. He says framing is good if we articulate frames we believe in and that we see as morally good. But, isn’t that what conservatives, and all groups, do? They believe in what they’re saying and use a frame that articulates that belief system. Propaganda, as Lakoff rightly points out, is something entirely different and bad. He defines it well by calling it the use of a frame that is known to be wrong and selling that frame for political or economic benefit of the purveyor.
To end on a high note, his last chapter on how to respond to conservatives is a must read. That chapter along with the introduction of frames and a few examples make this book worth a look, but it really should have been edited down to a few dozen pages.
The book is about frames, i.e. how we understand the world, how we know what we know. Frames control how we deal with new facts that are presented to us. If a fact agrees with the frame, it’s accepted. If a fact disagrees with the frame, in more cases than not, the fact will be discarded, regardless of whether it is true or not. According to Lakoff, frames rule our world.
His book is for progressives and goes a long way to de-vilefying conservatives and “red-state voters”. He notes that progressives can’t call people who voted for Bush as stupid or moronic. The frames they have developed, and that have been reinforced by 40 years of conservative communications, simply won’t allow these facts to overwhelm their worldview. Lakoff urges progressives to think in terms of ideas, frames, and moral values. Everyone has these and it’s a matter of framing progressive values and repeating them often to get our message across. It can’t be done overnight, and as he repeats often, “the truth will not set you free”. Facts by themselves are not sufficient. One of his best examples is the frame of “tax relief”. It just sounds good, doesn’t it? Relief. Relief is a good thing. Relief from what? Taxes. If it’s relief, then taxes must be bad. If progressives talk about tax relief and say that it isn’t any good or helps the wrong people, they’re still using the tax relief frame and are simply reinforcing the idea of relief. We need to talk about it differently. We need to talk about how government built the interstate system, how it created the internet, how cures and vaccines have been developed by the national health institutes. Paraphrasing Lakoff, your tax refund can’t pay to build a highway to drive to work.
One thing I’d like to mention is his differentiation of framing from spinning. He sees spin as manipulative use of a frame. However, I would argue that it’s spin, regardless of whether it’s for good or for manipulation. Speaking in frames is an attempt to manipulate, or change, an individual’s world view and how they process facts. We frame it one way in order to counter another frame. He says framing is good if we articulate frames we believe in and that we see as morally good. But, isn’t that what conservatives, and all groups, do? They believe in what they’re saying and use a frame that articulates that belief system. Propaganda, as Lakoff rightly points out, is something entirely different and bad. He defines it well by calling it the use of a frame that is known to be wrong and selling that frame for political or economic benefit of the purveyor.
To end on a high note, his last chapter on how to respond to conservatives is a must read. That chapter along with the introduction of frames and a few examples make this book worth a look, but it really should have been edited down to a few dozen pages.
noahwags's review against another edition
5.0
I cannot underscore how important this book is for progressive understanding and success. We need to understand how we understand the world, how conservatives understand the world, and how folks who fall in between understand the world and then how they ACT on that understanding. We need to learn how our messaging can work for us or if we're lazy, against us.
Lakoff is brilliant. If you're interested he also has a podcast called "FrameLab".
Main takeaways:
- If you say "Don't think of a pink elephant," the first thing someone does is think of a pink elephant. In order to not think about something, you first have to think about it to know what to not think about.
- The private sector depends on the public.
- Systemic causation IS a type of cause and effect (pollution does CAUSE global warming).
- Conservatives understand the world through a strict-father morality. Progressives understand the world through Nurturing Parent morality. Bi-Conceptuals view the world with a little bit of both.
- People DO NOT act rationally if it doesn't fit with their understanding of the world.
- Facts aren't effective if they don't fit your worldview.
- The most effective way to bring people closer to progressive worldview is to highlight and strengthen their empathy.
Read this then share it with someone else.
Lakoff is brilliant. If you're interested he also has a podcast called "FrameLab".
Main takeaways:
- If you say "Don't think of a pink elephant," the first thing someone does is think of a pink elephant. In order to not think about something, you first have to think about it to know what to not think about.
- The private sector depends on the public.
- Systemic causation IS a type of cause and effect (pollution does CAUSE global warming).
- Conservatives understand the world through a strict-father morality. Progressives understand the world through Nurturing Parent morality. Bi-Conceptuals view the world with a little bit of both.
- People DO NOT act rationally if it doesn't fit with their understanding of the world.
- Facts aren't effective if they don't fit your worldview.
- The most effective way to bring people closer to progressive worldview is to highlight and strengthen their empathy.
Read this then share it with someone else.
pickleballlibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
George Lakoff hits the nail on the coffin! Unfortunately, the republicans have maintained control of the frame during the last few elections.
I have used information on this book to understand other aspects and people I deal with. "Strict Father" and "Nurturing Mother" models are good to understand.
I have used information on this book to understand other aspects and people I deal with. "Strict Father" and "Nurturing Mother" models are good to understand.
alexisvana's review against another edition
4.0
WILDLY redundant (to the point where I asked myself "didn't I already read this chapter?" at least two times). I'm upgrading it a star because the redundant points were still decently mind-blowing.