-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 2, 2007 10:22:33 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thinking Points
Thinking Points
Discussion of Chapter 3 – Part 2: Insights from Cognitive Sciences
Created by joe_at_rockridge
Rockridge Institute, March 29, 2007 01:44 PM
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/04/02/thinking-
points-discussion-of-chapter-3-part-2-insights-from-cognitive-sciences
Continuing our discussion of chapter 3 in Thinking Points, we
explore the insights provided by the cognitive sciences to discover
that many common assumptions about the human mind are flawed. In
this section, the second of three installments on chapter 3, we can
see that our “common sense” understanding of rational thought leads
to erroneous predictions about political behavior.
Chapter 3 of Thinking Points looks at framing, the implications of
cognitive science for political behavior, and key words used in
political discourse that have been redefined so that they no longer
reflect traditional American values. This article explores the
middle sections of the chapter to give insight into the workings of
the human mind so that we can better understand our political nature.
Lessons From Cognitive Science
In recent decades there have been tremendous strides in the
cognitive sciences (neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, cognitive
psychology, artificial intelligence, etc.) to help us better
understand our own minds. Many of the discoveries have challenged
the basic tenets of Western philosophy in a manner that calls for
re-evaluation of our most basic assumptions about the mind.
Chapter 3 of Thinking Points presents the following eight lessons
we can learn from these empirical studies.
The use of frames is largely unconscious. In fact, most of our
thoughts -perhaps as much as 98% - are structured in significant
ways before they become conscious. The use of frames occurs at the
neural level and is not accessible for conscious consideration when
they are activated. Thus the right-wing message machine can impose
its frames upon an unknowing public - regardless of the political
views held by individuals. This is why right-wing language is
often used by progressive journalists and politicians without even
knowing it!
Frames define common sense. What is considered to be common sense
varies from person to person but always depends on the frames you
use. Right-wing think tanks and media conglomerates have embedded
their frames in the brains of the public, causing our concepts to
shift toward the strict father worldview and changing our
understanding of "common sense."
Repetition can embed frames in the brain. The technique of using
repetition of the same words or to express the same idea is
effective. As we saw in the discussion of Part 1 about frames,
words are structured by surface frames that are connected to deep
frames that shape our worldview. Each time these frames are
activated in our brains, their neural connections are strengthened
and become more pronounced in shaping our thoughts.
Activation links surface frames to deep frames and inhibits
opposition frames. Deep frames provide the foundation for our
worldviews. Meaning is not stable when incompatible worldviews
emerge together. Our brains do not allow this to happen. When one
scenario is activated in the brain, all others that are
incompatible with it are suppressed. If this did not happen, our
thoughts would easily jumble together and nothing would ever make
sense.
Existing deep frames don't change overnight. Frames are hardwired
into our brains. In order to change them we need to weaken
existing neural connections and strengthen (or create) alternative
connections. This is a labor intensive process that takes time and
this is a good thing. If the parts of our brains that provide
stable meaning could be altered easily and quickly, we would not be
able to make sense of long-term memories or build sophisticated
bodies of knowledge over time. Related to politics, this means we
need to be persistent when using new frames. Repetition is essential!
Speak to biconceptuals as you speak to your base. Every one of us
has the mental structures in our brains that are necessary to
understand strict father and nurturant parent moralities. We call
this phenomenon biconceptualism - or as Rockridge staff member
Sherry Reson likes to call it, conceptual pluralism. Both moral
systems are incompatible and, therefore, the activation of one will
inhibit the other. This is why it is so important to speak to
swing voters using the values that authentically represent your
moral base. If you express values incompatible with your moral
base, you will suppress the moral worldview you endorse in the
minds of swing voters while simultaneously activating the opposing
moral worldview.
The facts alone will not set you free. Have you ever considered
what it means for something to be a fact? A fact - in our everyday
use of the word - is a piece of knowledge that is true regardless
of opinion or interpretation. Sounds simple enough, but here is
the wrench in the gears: any piece of knowledge that is true
requires a context to make sense! If I tell you that the Earth is
flat, it is a fact based on the context we see standing on its
surface. The fact that the Earth is a sphere only makes sense when
we consider its shape from a context that is looking down on the
surface from above. Facts require a context! And frames provide
that context.
Simply negating the other side's frames only reinforces them. We
use frames even when we negate them. A simple meditation exercise
I learned once involved sitting for 15 minutes and trying not to
think of a white horse. Of course, every time I tried NOT to think
of a white horse the image of a white horse popped into my head
("Okay, I'll think about a green tree because it's not a horse and
it certainly isn't white. Dang it!") This phenomenon works in
politics as well. When Richard Nixon declared, "I am not a
crook." Everyone created an image in their minds of Nixon as a crook.
By incorporating these lessons into our understanding of politics,
we can see that we need to reconsider our strategies if we want to
win. We cannot simply "tell it like it is" without considering how
the "it is" gets structured using frames. We need to clearly
understand and articulate our progressive values using appropriate
frames to be authentic and to activate our moral base in
listeners. This process takes time so we need to start today and
persist for the long haul.
The Problem of Rationalism
If I were to guess how you will respond to criticisms of
rationality, I would probably place you in one of three camps:
You are inclined to listen with suspicion because you resonate
strongly with the value of behaving rationally;
You are inclined to welcome the message warmly because you have
long felt that rationality is missing something important;
Or you are inclined to wonder what rationality is and why you
should care about it.
Just in case any of you fit into the last camp, I will present a
brief overview in a moment. But first I wonder if there is a
pronounced divide between the other two camps among the rest of
you. As you might suspect if you've been following my other posts,
I fit into the second camp...though I recognize the importance of
rationality as a beneficial component of the human condition. The
thing we need to emphasize here is that many aspects of the Theory
of Rational Action - which is often used to justify free market
economic principles - are flawed in significant ways that are
relevant to politics.
Brief Overview of Rationalism
Our understanding of rationality has been informed by the
Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He worked diligently to
develop the idea of Pure Reason, which he claimed to be the
defining attribute of human beings. In order for there to be a
form of reason that is universal to all humans, it is necessary to
assume that all people reason in the same way.
Reason is defined as our human capacity to think logically, to set
ends for ourselves, and to deliberate about the best means for
achieving those ends. The doctrines resulting from Kant's work
include:
Morality must be based on pure reason alone.
The source of morality is our capacity to give moral laws to
ourselves.
All moral laws are universally binding.
We have an absolute duty to treat rational creatures as ends-in-
themselves and never as means only.
Morality can consist only of categorical imperatives such as “Act
only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
become a universal law.”
Rationalism is built upon these doctrines. The Theory of Rational
Action is an extension of Kant’s philosophy of morality. It is a
mathematical theory that treats “rational choice” as being literal,
logical, disembodied (existing independent of the human brain),
dispassionate, and consciously calculable. This means a rational
choice is a decision based on pure reason (devoid of emotion or
passion) that has numerical merit as its sole means of comparing
choices. In other words, to make a rational choice is to consider
all of the options, weigh the benefits against the costs, and
choose the option that maximizes self-interest (benefits – costs).
A Good Thing About Rationalism
Rationalism claims reason is what makes us human and all human
beings are equally rational. This is a basic truism for
democracy. This claim says anyone is capable of participating in
government. Prior to the widespread acceptance of universal reason
it was accepted as fact that only special people were fit to rule,
such as a king or pope. (See how the truth of any fact is
dependent upon context!) The discovery of universal reason allowed
for the possibility for self-government through collective
rule...democracy.
Limitations of Rationalism
Rationalism comes with several false theories about the mind:
Rationalism claims that all thought is conscious. Cognitive
science research shows that most thought is not conscious.
Rationalism claims that all thought is literal. Yet we know from
cognitive science research that thought is dependent upon frames,
metaphors, and worldviews.
Rationalism claims that we all have the same form of reason. We
know from cognitive science research that different people have
different worldviews and may reach different conclusions from the
same facts. Some aspects of reason are universal, but many others
are not!
Rationalism claims that thought uses classical logic. Work in the
cognitive sciences shows that logic is bound to the frames that
structure our thoughts. "Real" logic does not work in the ways
classical logic assumes.
Rationalism claims that thought is separate from emotions. We have
learned that emotions play a critical role in effective decision-
making and shape our moral intuitions.
Political Implications Are Profound
If rationalism were true, the world of politics would work very
differently than it actually does. Rationalism says that people
vote on the basis of their material self-interest, that they are
consciously aware of why they voted for what they did, that they
can tell a pollster what their most important concerns are, and
that they vote for the candidates who best address those concerns.
We now know that this is not the way people actually vote. During
the 1980 election there were many people who disagreed with
Reagan's position on a broad range of issues but still voted for
him because they felt a connection with him personally. People do
not vote for candidates who create a list of programs that address
their concerns (the Laundry List Trap).
If you believed in rationalism you would believe that the facts
will set you free, that you just need to give people the
information, and they will make the right decision by reasoning
their way through the facts. (My experiences in the world have
shown that there are quite a number of people among us who still
believe this is true!) What we need to realize is that the hidden
structure of the concepts we use - a.k.a. frames - shape the
pathway to possible solutions. Here is how it is described in
Thinking Points on page 40:
"We know this is false, that if the facts don't fit the frames
people have, they will keep the frames (which are, after all,
physically in their brains) and ignore, forget, or explain away the
facts."
The progressive world is filled with false notions about the human
mind. Here are a few of them:
Rationalist policy makers believe frames, metaphors, and worldviews
play no role in characterizing problems or solutions to problems
Rationalists believe that solutions are rational and that the tools
used to arrive at them include classical logic, probability theory,
game theory, cost-benefit analysis, and other aspects of the theory
of rational action
Rationalists believe in the classical theory of categories. This
leads to the "issue silos" that presume health care is independent
from environmental pollution or that social security has nothing to
do with foreign policy (one key way these are connected can be seen
by looking at the funding of the occupation of Iraq - social
security funds are drained away!).
Rationalist-based political campaigns miss out on the heart of
American politics. They overlook the symbolic, metaphorical,
moral, emotional, and frame-based campaigns. Real rationality
recognizes these crucially important aspects of mental life.
Exploring Cognitive Politics
Let's talk about these issues. How has this information shaped
your thinking about politics? What do you feel progressives need
to do differently than we have in the past? Do you feel like any
of the issues that arise from cognitive science findings will be
difficult for progressives to deal with? Please share your
thoughts with the rest of us. We would love to hear them!
(Part 3 of Chapter 3 will look at key words in politics including
life, patriotism, and freedom that meaning entirely different
things when framed in strict father and nurturant parent terms. We
will explore these issues starting next Monday, April 9th, here on
Rockridge Nation.)
Thinking Points Discussion
Read Thinking Points. Discuss chapters below:
Chapter 1
Chapter 2 - Part 1
Chapter 2 - Part 2
Chapter 3 - Part 1
Chapter 3 - Part 2
All recent Thinking Points content…
Tag Cloud
Common Good Congress Economy Education Environment Equality
Fairness Freedom Foreign Policy Gender Health Housing Immigration
Integrity Iraq Justice Labor Media Other Religion Responsibility
Security Strategic Initiative Taxes Terrorism Thinking Points Trade
Transportation Values Voting
Latest Content
Re-Framing the "War on Terror" by drogue, Monday, April 2, 2007
07:42 PM
0 comments
How should we frame what war is the USA getting in to next? by
keechiegreen, Monday, April 2, 2007 06:55 PM
1 comment
The National Center for Public Policy Research by Moriji, Monday,
April 2, 2007 04:08 PM
1 comment
Knock, Knock: Terror at Your Door? by arianna_at_rockridge, Monday,
April 2, 2007 03:34 PM
0 comments
Getting to values by dvoronoff, Sunday, April 1, 2007 07:13 PM
0 comments
All recent content…
Forms
Propose an article for discussion on the blog.
Report a technical problem you encountered here.
Why We Exist
"Rockridge is America's best hope for changing the definition of
what America is today and what America should be tomorrow."
—Mark, Rockridge online donor from Iowa
Lend your support
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
