Scan barcode
lastpaige111's review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
adamrbrooks's review
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
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