Scan barcode
adamrbrooks's review against another edition
4.0
This book kept coming up in discussions; realized I had to read it. It's smart an interesting, though not as life-changing as I had imagined. (And I'm not sure if it's central premise about two kinds of families is based on research or conjecture.)
Also, it almost seems out of date, because it exists in a world where both sides attempted to argue real facts. When one side will say "Greatest ECONOMY EVER" -- despite the statistical evidence -- how can you have any real understanding?
It all ties in nicely with what I think about how we need to question certain assumptions which frame debates. (For instance: "Corporations' only moral duty is to maximize shareholder value." That's not some natural law. That's a choice.)
Biggest takeaways:
* Do NOT repeat the other side's messaging and let it become the dominant metaphor
* Thinking differently requires speaking differently
* Facts matter, but they must be framed in terms of moral importance
* "Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary - and the language carries those ideas."
* "The moral hierarchy is an implicit part of the culture wars."
* "You do not have very much freedom if there is no opportunity or prosperity. Therefore, opportunity and prosperity are progressive values."
* "People do not necessarily vote their self-interest. They vote their identity." (This has become MASSIVELY clear in the last few years.)
* HUGE idea... conservatives invest in think tanks and such, for long-term strategy. Progressives invest in SERVICES to people in need, which creates a structural imbalance.
* People have a very hard time understanding "systemic causation." If we can't say "X caused Y" people throw up their hands and say "Oh, too complex. We'll never know." Climate change doesn't cause Hurricane Joe.... but we can see it's causing more, and more powerful, hurricanes.
* Re-read the Declaration of Independence ... it's not just about the rights, it's also about why government matters to secure those rights.
* Companies have two kinds of employees -- assets (irreplaceable) and resources (commodities)
Also, it almost seems out of date, because it exists in a world where both sides attempted to argue real facts. When one side will say "Greatest ECONOMY EVER" -- despite the statistical evidence -- how can you have any real understanding?
It all ties in nicely with what I think about how we need to question certain assumptions which frame debates. (For instance: "Corporations' only moral duty is to maximize shareholder value." That's not some natural law. That's a choice.)
Biggest takeaways:
* Do NOT repeat the other side's messaging and let it become the dominant metaphor
* Thinking differently requires speaking differently
* Facts matter, but they must be framed in terms of moral importance
* "Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary - and the language carries those ideas."
* "The moral hierarchy is an implicit part of the culture wars."
* "You do not have very much freedom if there is no opportunity or prosperity. Therefore, opportunity and prosperity are progressive values."
* "People do not necessarily vote their self-interest. They vote their identity." (This has become MASSIVELY clear in the last few years.)
* HUGE idea... conservatives invest in think tanks and such, for long-term strategy. Progressives invest in SERVICES to people in need, which creates a structural imbalance.
* People have a very hard time understanding "systemic causation." If we can't say "X caused Y" people throw up their hands and say "Oh, too complex. We'll never know." Climate change doesn't cause Hurricane Joe.... but we can see it's causing more, and more powerful, hurricanes.
* Re-read the Declaration of Independence ... it's not just about the rights, it's also about why government matters to secure those rights.
* Companies have two kinds of employees -- assets (irreplaceable) and resources (commodities)
frog_bird's review against another edition
4.0
This book was a worthwhile read. It both contextualized, and also gave detail to, ideas that I have and gave me more tools to debate. I did think that it was a bit too heavily based in the "two party system" and that author based most examples and ideas within the two major parties. In addition, the author didn't really give much attention to leftists (anti-capitalists). That was needed, especially with such a strong focus on bringing together progressives. I think a lot of this is very implementable for me as a leftist in my discourse and political understanding.
edit: i think about this book a lot especially in its points about political psychology (soft, compassionate progressive side vs. tough, individualistic conservative side), and also framing which i didnt fully understand at the time but i get more now
edit: i think about this book a lot especially in its points about political psychology (soft, compassionate progressive side vs. tough, individualistic conservative side), and also framing which i didnt fully understand at the time but i get more now
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
Goerge Lakoff is phenomenal, and I wish more people read his work. I loved his other book Moral Politics and was about to reread it but then remember I haven’t read his other books. I wouldn’t say this book is better, but it’s just as good. For those who don’t know, Lakoff is a cognitive scientist who studies how we think about values, morals and politics. This book focuses on how we frame issues and try to sway others. Basically, he explains why the right is amazing at this and the left sucks at it.
If the left hopes to consistently win elections, we need to learn how to frame things and talk to people. So, for the love of all that is holy, read this damn book.
If the left hopes to consistently win elections, we need to learn how to frame things and talk to people. So, for the love of all that is holy, read this damn book.
bryan8063's review against another edition
3.0
For Democrats, this is a good handbook on how conservatism think. The first chapter alone is worth reading as the cognitive scientist delves into the conservative mind. Author argues that Democrats need to create their own powerful message the GOP has done.
rumbledethumps's review against another edition
3.0
Of the three books I've recently read on political messaging and tactics, this is by far the best. It doesn't have the snarky cynicism of Frank Luntz's book, and avoids the "Ends Justify the Means" attitude of Saul Alinsky. Instead, Lakoff recommends that progressives focus on values they truly believe in, and stop responding to the debates in ways that conservatives have framed.
He believes that progressives have "lost" the culture wars because of their inability to properly frame their arguments, and instead have only responded with truth and facts. "It is a common folk theory of progressives that 'the facts will set you free.' If only you get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope."
Instead, progressives should do four things to win the culture wars: "Show respect. Respond by reframing. Think and talk at the level of values. Say what you believe."
It is interesting in that it mirrors much of what Jonathan Haidt argues in "The Righteous Mind." But where he loses me is in defining which moral models of the family progressives and conservatives adhere to. Progressives use the nurturant family model, where they believe "the world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others." But conservatives use the strict father model, where "what is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong."
He does an effective job at explaining how these models define adult world views, but a less than adequate job of proving these moral models to be true. His idea that "preserving and extending the strict father model is the highest moral value for conservatives" is a bit of a straw man.
Overall worth a read, though, as it does give a different perspective of why people cannot seem to agree about important issues.
He believes that progressives have "lost" the culture wars because of their inability to properly frame their arguments, and instead have only responded with truth and facts. "It is a common folk theory of progressives that 'the facts will set you free.' If only you get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope."
Instead, progressives should do four things to win the culture wars: "Show respect. Respond by reframing. Think and talk at the level of values. Say what you believe."
It is interesting in that it mirrors much of what Jonathan Haidt argues in "The Righteous Mind." But where he loses me is in defining which moral models of the family progressives and conservatives adhere to. Progressives use the nurturant family model, where they believe "the world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others." But conservatives use the strict father model, where "what is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong."
He does an effective job at explaining how these models define adult world views, but a less than adequate job of proving these moral models to be true. His idea that "preserving and extending the strict father model is the highest moral value for conservatives" is a bit of a straw man.
Overall worth a read, though, as it does give a different perspective of why people cannot seem to agree about important issues.
kurtliske's review against another edition
1.5
Disappointed. Had to wade through A LOT of progressive confirmation bias and strawman assumptions to get a few marginally useful thoughts.
stolencapybara's review against another edition
5.0
Linguistics and politics - this book caters to my tastes, but more importantly, was like turning on the light on some of the problems in American politics. It is gratifying to see how well the Democrats listened to Lakoff, and how well it paid off. A bit populist sometimes, but the best short political read I know.
ben_miller's review against another edition
4.0
Joe Biden was inaugurated this week, and it was a perfect time to read this book, because Biden and his predecessor illustrate the contrasting moral frameworks that form the basis of Lakoff's theory and really crystallized the idea for me.
Biden epitomizes the "nurturant parent" moral framework that liberal & progressive people gravitate to. In 2017, when he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he talked about leaning on his wife and children during difficult times, and joked that "we've never figured out who the father is in this family." With my moral framework, I see his humility, vulnerability, and self-deprecation as signs of strength. A conservative with a "strict father" moral framework would see them as weakness. They believe the father should dominate the family and make all the decisions with absolute authority. This is how Donald Trump leads his family, and that's why Republicans see him as strong when to me he appears weak. Trump would never describe himself as dependent on anyone, or admit to not knowing what to do in a given situation, even though the results of his decisions show that he is frequently at a loss for the right answer. Biden has said that in a way his sons raised him—a horrifying concept to a strict father conservative. Trump's children are there to serve him, do his bidding, and reflect his glory back at him. A conservative would say this is exactly how it should be, while I find it sick and degenerate. (His hyper-narcissism and sociopathic cruelty are separate issues—few people of any orientation exhibit these traits to such an extreme degree.)
Lakoff theorizes that we all have both of these frameworks, we just tend to favor one over the other. Both frameworks can and are used to manipulate the people who identify with them, and both groups will reject facts that don't fit their frame. Lakoff argues that over the years conservatives have done a much better job of exploiting these frameworks to their advantage. Obviously, I feel that one is objectively morally superior to the other, but the real point is that it helps to understand why people believe the things they do, and how to respond.
Biden epitomizes the "nurturant parent" moral framework that liberal & progressive people gravitate to. In 2017, when he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he talked about leaning on his wife and children during difficult times, and joked that "we've never figured out who the father is in this family." With my moral framework, I see his humility, vulnerability, and self-deprecation as signs of strength. A conservative with a "strict father" moral framework would see them as weakness. They believe the father should dominate the family and make all the decisions with absolute authority. This is how Donald Trump leads his family, and that's why Republicans see him as strong when to me he appears weak. Trump would never describe himself as dependent on anyone, or admit to not knowing what to do in a given situation, even though the results of his decisions show that he is frequently at a loss for the right answer. Biden has said that in a way his sons raised him—a horrifying concept to a strict father conservative. Trump's children are there to serve him, do his bidding, and reflect his glory back at him. A conservative would say this is exactly how it should be, while I find it sick and degenerate. (His hyper-narcissism and sociopathic cruelty are separate issues—few people of any orientation exhibit these traits to such an extreme degree.)
Lakoff theorizes that we all have both of these frameworks, we just tend to favor one over the other. Both frameworks can and are used to manipulate the people who identify with them, and both groups will reject facts that don't fit their frame. Lakoff argues that over the years conservatives have done a much better job of exploiting these frameworks to their advantage. Obviously, I feel that one is objectively morally superior to the other, but the real point is that it helps to understand why people believe the things they do, and how to respond.
dead_vole_jumpscare's review against another edition
3.0
p enlightening and makes you think about how to use languages and frames to convince people in politics (and other issues i guess), would recommend for someone who doesn't know the frames and is interested in politics/linguistics intersection