Scan barcode
Reviews
The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics by George Lakoff
xinetr's review against another edition
4.0
This important book furthers the ideas from _Don't Think of An Elephant_ but has a little more to say about what to do about it. In brief, the idea that much of the way we think is based in metaphors that are activated by things that typically co-occur in our lives, especially our early lives (p. 256 finally gives a more satisfying discussion of this than either Elephant or _Metaphors we Live By_ had). He claims the American nation-as-family metaphor yields distinctly different thought systems: conservative for folks who have a strict-father family concept and progressive for folks who have a nurturing-parent family concept. Further, he says that the fundamental values of American government are deeply progressive: government existing to protect and empower the people (the roles of nurturing). However, conservatives have spent at least 30 years developing ways to talk about their ideas and most importantly frame their agendas that progressives have not. And until we talk about the frames and change the frames, we are stuck in them. Activating the frame has more impact than whatever you say about it apparently, so progressives need to resist using conservative frames and get better at using progressive frames.
One of the frames to resist is the whole idea of a continuum from left-right wing. He gives the example of mandatory health insurance being an attempt of the "left" to compromise with the "right" but really to use the insurance frame means to take the "right" wing point of view. Health insurance is a business, Lakoff points out, that makes its money by charging healthy people and then finding reasons to deny services to sick people. Health care would take a view that everyone at some point may need medical care. [I would add that with a single payer Care system, doctors and hospitals would have an incentive to actually try to cure diseases rather than let people experience chronic states, let's remember they're a business, too]. Warning: I actually felt in kind of a bad mood for the 4 days it took me to read this book when thinking about how the strict-father, obedience to authority, maximum-profit-shows-discipline, model has allowed scandals like Blackwater and Enron and how it continues to allow privateers to bilk the middle class taxpayer.
But luckily he says many people are "biconceptual," using conservative concepts in some thought areas and progressive concepts in other areas. These would be nonoverlapping thought domains so a conflict is not noticed. However the more a progressive can connect with someone around those areas in which they may use progressive concepts, the more progressive frames get activated. I love this paragraph from the chapter called "What if it works?" "The vital importance of childrearing would be recognized. The public would understand that a child's brain is largely shaped during the first three to five years by the large-scale death of neurons. The ones that go unused die off. Early childhood education would be recognized as vital. Studies showing that nurturant upbringing is far better for children-and for society-would be well-known. Nurturant forms of childrearing and teaching would be instituted nationwide. Child-beating and other child abuse would be outlawed. Advocates of strict father upbringing--like James Dobson and Dr. Laura--would be recognized as harmful to children." (p. 269)
Environmental concerns are also woven throughout the book; they are the ultimate example perhaps of how we are all in this together and changing our metaphors about survival and about our relationship to natural resources to more protective, nurturing metaphors could make a world of difference for us all.
One of the frames to resist is the whole idea of a continuum from left-right wing. He gives the example of mandatory health insurance being an attempt of the "left" to compromise with the "right" but really to use the insurance frame means to take the "right" wing point of view. Health insurance is a business, Lakoff points out, that makes its money by charging healthy people and then finding reasons to deny services to sick people. Health care would take a view that everyone at some point may need medical care. [I would add that with a single payer Care system, doctors and hospitals would have an incentive to actually try to cure diseases rather than let people experience chronic states, let's remember they're a business, too]. Warning: I actually felt in kind of a bad mood for the 4 days it took me to read this book when thinking about how the strict-father, obedience to authority, maximum-profit-shows-discipline, model has allowed scandals like Blackwater and Enron and how it continues to allow privateers to bilk the middle class taxpayer.
But luckily he says many people are "biconceptual," using conservative concepts in some thought areas and progressive concepts in other areas. These would be nonoverlapping thought domains so a conflict is not noticed. However the more a progressive can connect with someone around those areas in which they may use progressive concepts, the more progressive frames get activated. I love this paragraph from the chapter called "What if it works?" "The vital importance of childrearing would be recognized. The public would understand that a child's brain is largely shaped during the first three to five years by the large-scale death of neurons. The ones that go unused die off. Early childhood education would be recognized as vital. Studies showing that nurturant upbringing is far better for children-and for society-would be well-known. Nurturant forms of childrearing and teaching would be instituted nationwide. Child-beating and other child abuse would be outlawed. Advocates of strict father upbringing--like James Dobson and Dr. Laura--would be recognized as harmful to children." (p. 269)
Environmental concerns are also woven throughout the book; they are the ultimate example perhaps of how we are all in this together and changing our metaphors about survival and about our relationship to natural resources to more protective, nurturing metaphors could make a world of difference for us all.
robinfowl's review against another edition
3.0
he makes some great points.
The writing teacher in me, though, was irritated by the choices he made in his arguments. He makes lots of asides that aren't really central to his argument and that would alienate conservatives... and he sets up what seem to me to be straw-men arguments (suggests conservative positions that seem to me untenable-- either he's not being fair to conservatives, or people are crazier than I think...).
The writing teacher in me, though, was irritated by the choices he made in his arguments. He makes lots of asides that aren't really central to his argument and that would alienate conservatives... and he sets up what seem to me to be straw-men arguments (suggests conservative positions that seem to me untenable-- either he's not being fair to conservatives, or people are crazier than I think...).
onceandfuturelaura's review against another edition
3.0
Says that once upon a time, we reasoned our way from our hypotheses about reasonable people to our conclusions about the best way to structure government:
• Since all people have the capacity for reason, we can govern ourselves, without bowing to higher authorities like kings or popes or oligarchs.
• Reason makes us equal, and so the best form of government is a democracy.
• We use reason to serve our interests, and so an optimal government would serve the interests of all.
• Since we all have he same reason, the same laws can apply to all; this we can be governed by general, rational laws, not individual whims.
• Our inherent rational nature accords us inherent rights and freedoms.
• Government should be dedicated to the rational interests of all citizens, and must be structured so that no authority an overwhelm them.
• Reason contrasts with blind faith, and so government should be separate from, and independent of, religion.
• Science is based on reason, and so our government should recognize, honor, and develop scientific knowledge.
• Therefore, a government committed to reason will be a democratic government.
• When democratic values are violated, it is reason that must be restored.
(6). Then he explains why he doesn’t think people make decisions on this basis, which I suspect is true. Also talks about “neural binding,” which I don’t know what is.
He says a lot of things that make me feel good, like, “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy,” (47) and “Conservative thought . . . begins with the notion that morality is obedience to an authority – assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, knows right from wrong, functions to protect us from evil in the world, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil.” (60). He equates hierarchy, punishment, discipline.
I liked it. Didn’t feel like I knew enough to judge a lot of what he was saying. The idea that metaphors are ultimately physical (he suggests we say a loving person is warm because we remember being cuddled; we say prices are rising because we saw water rising) is a little beyond my competence. But the basic notion that 18th century nation building had a certain conception of the human mind that has not stood the test of time – that seems dead on to me. That the republicans figured out how to take advantage of that before the democrats? Yeah, probably. That the reason some folks freaked out about gay marriage had to do with the threat to their own identity? I just don’t know.
Certainly he’s dead on that we fail when we accept our opponent’s framing of the case. But that’s first year lawyering.
Is he right in a deep level? Again, he might be, but he didn’t persuade me, and I’m pretty sympathetic to his politics. Glad I read it, not sure I’ll read it again.
• Since all people have the capacity for reason, we can govern ourselves, without bowing to higher authorities like kings or popes or oligarchs.
• Reason makes us equal, and so the best form of government is a democracy.
• We use reason to serve our interests, and so an optimal government would serve the interests of all.
• Since we all have he same reason, the same laws can apply to all; this we can be governed by general, rational laws, not individual whims.
• Our inherent rational nature accords us inherent rights and freedoms.
• Government should be dedicated to the rational interests of all citizens, and must be structured so that no authority an overwhelm them.
• Reason contrasts with blind faith, and so government should be separate from, and independent of, religion.
• Science is based on reason, and so our government should recognize, honor, and develop scientific knowledge.
• Therefore, a government committed to reason will be a democratic government.
• When democratic values are violated, it is reason that must be restored.
(6). Then he explains why he doesn’t think people make decisions on this basis, which I suspect is true. Also talks about “neural binding,” which I don’t know what is.
He says a lot of things that make me feel good, like, “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy,” (47) and “Conservative thought . . . begins with the notion that morality is obedience to an authority – assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, knows right from wrong, functions to protect us from evil in the world, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil.” (60). He equates hierarchy, punishment, discipline.
I liked it. Didn’t feel like I knew enough to judge a lot of what he was saying. The idea that metaphors are ultimately physical (he suggests we say a loving person is warm because we remember being cuddled; we say prices are rising because we saw water rising) is a little beyond my competence. But the basic notion that 18th century nation building had a certain conception of the human mind that has not stood the test of time – that seems dead on to me. That the republicans figured out how to take advantage of that before the democrats? Yeah, probably. That the reason some folks freaked out about gay marriage had to do with the threat to their own identity? I just don’t know.
Certainly he’s dead on that we fail when we accept our opponent’s framing of the case. But that’s first year lawyering.
Is he right in a deep level? Again, he might be, but he didn’t persuade me, and I’m pretty sympathetic to his politics. Glad I read it, not sure I’ll read it again.
krk's review against another edition
4.0
Excellent insight. Oh if only we had all read this book before 2016.
jcheidel's review against another edition
4.0
Quite a bit of the book is way too academic. It could have been shorter. But nevertheless, the information is timely and important.
brea's review against another edition
5.0
this book just changed my ideas about politics. although throughout most of it, i kept thinking, "yeah, of course conservatives manipulate language," Lakoff really dug deeper into things i had never thought about.
there's not a whole lot of science in this book, but that's okay because it makes it easy for all the lib arts majors like me to read. and we understand ideas like framing concepts and reflexive thought. hurray! i feel like i know some science now.
there's not a whole lot of science in this book, but that's okay because it makes it easy for all the lib arts majors like me to read. and we understand ideas like framing concepts and reflexive thought. hurray! i feel like i know some science now.
jade_fangurl93's review
informative
medium-paced
2.0
probably more approachable for the more general reader, but a bit too vague for my academic purposes. however, i would recommend this read to those interested in politics and societal change. it's very American-centered though.
More...