Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

News flash: Lakoff is correct

Posted by Don Hazen at 2:23 AM on January 25, 2006.


M.R.I. scanners show "the facts will not set us free."

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Echo Chamber in your
mailbox!

 

As the New York Times writer Benedict Carey reports:

"Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional."

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.

"Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here," said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.

Well, folks, this is pretty interesting stuff when it comes to figuring out how to communicate ideas and change minds... it is very hard to change anyone's partisan mind. And this is no surprise to George Lakoff, who has been banging away at us, telling us that in communicating ideas to people, we have to understand the emotional reaction to language that evokes frames that are part of of people's world views.

Lots of us liberals and progressives stubbornly believe that if you present people with the facts, they will make the right decision -- do the right thing. But Lakoff has argued, and not always getting a receptive audience, that that notion is false."It's in our inheritance from the enlightenment. Where, in the enlightenment that everybody is a rational person, all you have to do is just tell them the facts, they'll reason to the right conclusion." But that is wrong.

Lakoff adds: "And of course the Republicans have learned that it's false. They've set up a frame, they set up a narrative, and they set it up in terms of their values. And they get it as part of normal, everyday language and normal everyday thought. Once they've done that, the facts are irrelevant unless the Democrats can learn to re-frame the issues from their point of view, and then make the facts fit other frames. Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary -- and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas."

In terms of the chances of overcoming the biases that have been established in people, the author of the study Dr. Westen says, "It is possible to override these biases, but you have to engage in ruthless self-reflection to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.'" He added, "It speaks to the character of the discourse that this quality is rarely talked about in politics."

Digg!

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.


Peace in Lebanon -- now!
The USA has a moral obligation to resolve the conflict raging in Lebanon and rest of the Middle East -- and it can.
Post by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. July 24, 2006.
President Bush sent me an internet
Democrat v. Democratic and the Iraq War
Post by Evan Derkacz. July 24, 2006.
A new kind of money
Today's money is based on the belief that it's worth something. Crazy, no? Why not back your dollar in sustainable energy produced in your hometown?
Post by Julian Darley. July 20, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Suspicious
Posted by: drone on Jan 25, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you look at this model more closely, what you have is a recipe for historical stasis, a model of anti-change. If you look at historical sea changes, these aren't the result of propaganda and reframing. They're the result primarily of violence and secondarily of general calamity (e.g.; state collapse, market collapse, etc.). If framing were that critical to changing the affinities of populations, then we'd still have a vigorous Soviet Union. This suggests that personal experience is still largely the foremost variable to effective persuasion. The problem, of course, is that we can only live one life at a time.

In the meantime, if you reference cognitive studies, could you please link to them if it's possible? Some of your readers can read data, and it helps in the dialogue if we can engage on the merits of that data (I guess I have the capacity for ruthless self-examination, huh?).

One last thing: the weak link in cognitive science is the assumption that cognition functions--which include the receptivity to persuasive acts--is largely organic, meaning that those little brain signals are the products of biology and not conditioning, and like most behavioral research, that assumption itself is still unresolved, and frequently counterintuitive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Suspicious Posted by: Deanna Zandt
» RE: Suspicious Posted by: drone
» RE: Suspicious Posted by: Deanna Zandt
» RE: Suspicious Posted by: drone
Don't confuse me with the facts!
Posted by: Kneel on Jan 25, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Failure of edification. Hardly new.

Would be interesting to see the study, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Truth can set you free but in the 'democracy' known as Israel
Posted by: eileenflmng on Jan 25, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twenty years ago Mordechai Vanunu blew the whistle on Israel’s WMD Program in the Negev Desert and while ‘free’ is prohibited by the Israeli government to speak to media or foreigners. He stands trial TODAY!!!
January 25, 2006 for exercising the inalienable right of free speech.

On January 15, 2006 LINK TV made the announcement that they were the only USA media outlet to air an interview with Vanunu. LINK’s exclusive with Vanunu was twenty seconds of him saying what he has said before, they offered no new news just a rebroadcast the 2003 BBC Documentary 'Israel's Secret Weapon'
The Israeli government banned the correspondent of that film because he addressed a major taboo in Israeli society: nuclear weapons.
Israel is the only democracy in the world where media is subject to Military Censorship.
Both the New York Times and CNN declined to broadcast their recent interviews with Mordechai Vanunu.

WAWA has an exclusive indepth interview with Vanunu in Chapter I: KEEP HOPE ALIVE II
AND the only video of Vanunu that did not go through Military Censors:
WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You see this in "secular" responses to religion.
Posted by: dirkster42 on Jan 25, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amazing to me how irrational the heirs to the Enlightenment get when it comes to religion. You get blanket condemnations from people who claim to be proponents of Reason, which one would think would mean a commitment to looking at facts dispassionately. My roommate, who is not Christian or Jewish, has her children read Bible stories - not because she wants her kids to "believe" them, but because she wants them to know history, to have a reference point for paintings in museums, etc. Her friends (we're in San Francisco) look at her like she's been abducted by aliens when they find out about it.

This seems to reinforce the point of the article, that people approach facts with preconceived frames (in this case, "the Bible is the book the fundies read,"), which shuts out other information (like, "the Bible is a book Martin Luther King, Jr. read and quoted publicly.")

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Healthy Mix of Frames & Facts Is Necessary - Part 01 of 02
Posted by: foodnotoil on Jan 25, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd have to say, I'm wary to believe that this framing debate is used on every single interaction we have between liberals & conservatives. The report mentions that people have to "digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them" through a network of frames; but what about issues, regardless of the political hacks that claim to take them on?

Facts do exist outside of all framing debates. We're living in an environment that is so indifferent to framing, that it's threatening the very survival of human life and the billions of other living species on earth...

Just take abortion for instance, and the pro-war pre-emptive mentality. Think about global climate change as a massive abortion of the future of life on earth... Global climate change can bypass every single security check we have, and yet there has been little if not any pre-emptive "attacks" to reverse this "Society of Carbon Smoke." Walk out to any major highway and you'll see republicans & democrats alike driving their vehicles like there is no tomorrow; releasing greenhouse gasses that is likely to kickstart a chain of events that will abort trillions upon quadrillions of fetuses from their destined future. and guess what! George Bush just rammed CAFTA down our throats, ensuring free trade for more products, so that more and more greenhouse gasses get released. Again, the frames don't fit with reality anymore. People do need a healthy mixture of facts and frames. It cant be all frames because that would just be an empty bubble that can be popped or reversed at any time by the opposite spin machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This does not bode well...
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 25, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If politics are to remain in the realm of the emotion, we are doomed. It means that we do not use our intelligence to come up with new ideas and better ways of dealing with life, rather we take ourselves as center and try to make life fit our prejudices. The movie "Intolerance" comes to mind.

But sadly, as I pedal my bicycle down highways clogged with SUVs and see elections hijacked by issues of gay marriage when there are many more important issues on the table, is suspect that the author got it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Framing" is Useless without infrastructure
Posted by: Sammy J. on Jan 25, 2006 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Framing is all well and good but what good is it if no one hears about it? We have been framing properly for some time now to the corporate media and look at the results.

Lakoff puts the cart before the horse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank God "framing" is getting the attention
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Jan 25, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am SO glad that the concept of "framing" has been getting quite the attention from the progressive community to the point that it has started to work on it more aggressively. There is no doubt that this past year the progressive community worked hard at "framing" the public debate and while they were successful in some instances and in others they were not, I believe that this practice contributed to the victories that the left was able to accomplish this past year. Let us not forget that President in the beginning of this past year seemed invincible. Many were left wondering "what changed?" Well I believe that part of the reason was framing. It is just moronic to criticize "framing" as just superficial because those criticisms underestimate progressives altogether. Of course "framing" should not be the end to the means! I mean what idiot does not know that? Framing is just another tool that can be at the progressives disposal with the proper research. So please stop pointing out the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To summarize, then:
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 25, 2006 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A new study says it's a fact that people don't change their minds when presented with facts outside of or divorced from context or experience. The study says that a person's brain may even get a little shot of pleasure as it rejects an argument that, while factually true, does not contain an emotional reference of some sort. And progressives, who have championed the calm, objective, "They will be convinced by the evidence, there is no need to appeal to emotion or get anyone riled up" approach, are reluctant to believe that this study's facts are reliable. Someone, please hand me a knife. I need to cut the irony.

For all the progressive's progressiveness, it really does come down to who is more willing to get down and dirty with emotions in an argument. We can talk all we want about framing, but we're not good at it precisely b/c we try so hard not to interject our own emotional biases. Better to be hot or cold than lukewarm....and, "There is nothing wrong with gay marriage," is nowhere near as appealing as, "Gays are sinners!" for someone looking for a position to glom onto.

Michael Moore can frame an issue. He is an excellent propagandist, albeit a little too free with the truth-stretching. Many on the left feel he is an embrassment--he appeals to emotion blatantly and I think some people are kind of embarassed by that. Why he can't he just be a good progressive and stick to the facts, I figure some wonder. Personally, I don't like his combative conversational style, but I can't deny that it is effective about getting people to remember what he said, and even more hopefully, to think about it.

We needent stop spreading facts. But we need to get over our own superiority about our emotionless arguments and not be afraid to risk being a little confrontational, at times even --dare I say it?--rude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To summarize, then: Posted by: drone
» RE: To summarize, then: Posted by: bettsoff
framing stupidity
Posted by: sln70 on Jan 26, 2006 4:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally think the problem is that Progressives always want to sound high-fallutin. The current government, which has excelled at propaganda, doesn't even try to LOOK smart. And it must be much wiser than it appears.

Al Gore gave a WONDERFUL speech on MLK day, as we all know. But it was long. It used quotes, and language. It was not injected with any gaffes or personal interactions. ...

I've been watching a lot of videos of Bush at various engagements lately and the thing about him is he comes across so fallible, human, and "up for a laugh" that even I like him while I'm watching him.

The only time the Bush admin officials ever talk in that hoity-toity way is when they are trying to speed through a "boring" non-issue like say.. oh I dunno .. trade relations or senate reform. You know, stuff alot of Republican die-hards figure they haven't got a hope in hell of figuring out anyway. BUT... when they talk about the war or about security or about jobs.. they always give themselves room to be passionate but poorly presented.

I think that appeals to a lot of people. I think they figure "Hey.. this guy is like ME!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

logos
Posted by: logos on Jan 26, 2006 11:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, didn't Kant (the Critique of Practical Reason) tell us a couple of centuries ago that there was an involuntary conformation of incoming sensoria to apperception mass?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]