Hacker News Comments on
George Lakoff: Moral Politics
University of California Television (UCTV)
·
Youtube
·
2
HN points
·
14
HN comments
- This course is unranked · view top recommended courses
Hacker News Stories and Comments
All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.In this lecture on Moral Politics, George Lakoff addresses the “nonsensical” speech, metaphors, framing and more.Changed how I listen to mass media and political speech.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
Also highly recommend his Truth Samndwich methodology to defanging propaganda messages in the media.
https://twitter.com/georgelakoff/status/1068891959882846208?...
I highly recommend Lakoff’s lecture on framing and metaphors in political speech and discourse.Changed how I listen - to anyone - forever.
His framelab podcast is also excellent.
May I recommend this talk on the neuroscience of language and thought by George Lakoff?https://youtu.be/JJP-rkilz40?t=280
And also this one on political language, morals and metaphors?
It will change how you listen to political speech, and especially political speech targeting people with different political orientation -- which can often sound nonsensical, but is actually carefully constructed to activate their metaphors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM
Basically, the ideas of enlightenment (we are rational beings) are not true.
A couple of slides from the first lecture:
Myth:
Reason is conscious, you know what you think.
Science:
Reason is mostly unconscious, estimates are about 98% unconscious.
Conscious thinking is linear. Brain circuitry is massively parallel.
Myth:
Ideas are made meaningful via their direct connections to the external world.
Meaning is a matter of truth conditions.
Science:
Ideas are made meaningful via the brain's connections to the body and our embodied experience.
Myth:
Emotion gets in the way of rationality.
Science:
Emotion is necessary for rationality.
His framelab podcasts are informal and easily digestable.I highly recommend
* truth sandwich time (if you only listen to one make it this one)
* how republicans really think (if you only listen to one make it this one, too)
* how trump uses twitter to control the media (very eye opening)
* guns over people (on how to frame the gun debate)
Also, this lecture on political language exposes the leverage hooks politicians and propagandists use to hook and manipulate us. You will never listen/read political speech the same.
The right[2] looks at intent because that's what matters in a hierarchical view of society. This division is from a fundamental difference in what societies are. This can be observed din how they use language; from one of the most enlightening articles[1] I've ever read:> One of the biggest problems of the entire Culture Wars is that people like us [the left[2]] use language impart information. We usually are not aware that a nice big chunk of population does not use language in that way at all. Their use of language is that of Phatic Language [...] In a hierarchical society [the right[2]], language is [often] not used for exchange of information [...] It is used to establish social hierarchy.
For a good explanation of how this works, George Lakoff's lecture[3] "Moral Politics".
[1] https://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-res...
[2] The "left"/"right" labels are being use in a general psychological sense, which doesn't always match the political groups with the same names.
This would be a great way to prevent polititians from framing the bills.For more on framing, see George Lakoff’s lecture on moral politics — reveals the way political language uses metaphors and How framing a debate ensures its outcome.
Repeating the frame reinforces the intended meaning. Merely Using the name of the bill defines its outcome.
“Tax Relief” - no one wants to fight a “relief” effort. Tax cuts for the rich would be the correct name.
“Clear sky initiative” is the name of a clear cutting bill.
⬐ ModernMechLast year, the senate called their bill that would strip millions of healthcare the "Better Care Reconciliation Act"⬐ NoneNone⬐ cvwright> strip millions of healthcareThat's a funny way to say "stop forcing people to buy healthcare".
⬐ giggles_giggles"Reconciliation" seems to be the choice euphemism for budget cuts. I was reviewing some legislation (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/sconres36/text) recently which failed to pass (budget slashing proposed by Rand Paul) and noticed that almost the entire text of the bill itself is "X Reconciliation", "Y Reconciliation".⬐ gjm11Isn't that just because it used the process whose name is "reconciliation", which allows certain kinds of legislation to make its way through the Senate and the House with simple majorities and thus avoid filibustering?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_...
TL;DR - skip straight to [1]> I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone
It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language, because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1].
> Only new facts will do the trick
Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression[2][3] first.
A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts, so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important.
To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
[1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatic_expression
[3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people may prefer George Lakoff's explanation[4] about "framing", which is a different interpretation of essentially the same ideas.
⬐ chronic7ulPlease do give me a fact as to why I should pay for green initiatives when someone else, like those in Europe, are more willing to pay. I reap their benefits, for free.
George Lakoff did an excellent linguistic analysis of conservative vs. liberal political speech, metaphors and framing in his lecture Moral Politics. I found it extremely valuable in understanding the driving and defining forces behind the two movements.
You've probably seen this, but for those who haven't George Lakoff give's this a fairly good treatment in this[1] on 'Moral Politics'.By 'this' I mean the idea that the Left and the Right have different experiences of what is moral.
My issue with politics is that I think we need to extricate it from morality. Like we have separation of Church and State a la Secular Society, we need amoral politics.
On that note, I found this talk on Moral Politics by George Lakoff[1] elsewhere on HN.The basic idea is that people who have different political opinions to you aren't necessarily stupid or greedy or bad actors, they just have different morals and therefore a different set of rationales.
⬐ refurbHonestly, I would estimate 95% of Americans all have the same goals for the country. A healthy environment, prosperous economy, healthy population, stability, etc.The differences come about as to how to get there. If you have different foundational beliefs as to how things work, of course you'll disagree as to what needs to be done to fix things.
I tend to lean toward agreeing with you, by the way, but the other side of this argument is: We already know that giving money and food to poor people doesn't resolve poverty, when the aid / social welfare stops the poverty returns because aid / welfare prevents people from innovating your way out of poverty.Of course, which side of the argument a person lands on probably depends on their moral politics, see[1] - basically I'm referring to the progressive vs. conservative divide.
Fortunately for me I live in Australia where we have social welfare to the tune of $527.60 a fortnight for a single adult[2], and $952.80 for a couple. But of course we still have bunches of poverty, but I've never been to the US so I can't really say how it compares.
Also, I think the example of the Nordic countries is a poor comparison. The 'Nordic Countries* as a whole have a population of 26.6 million, comparable to Australia. Sweden has a population of about 10 million, the others are close to half that or much less.
In a country that has a population the size of Melbourne (4.5 million) or Sydney (4.9 million) I would imagine it would be a lot easier to want to care for other people. I think that matters a lot.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM 2. https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/payment-r...
⬐ matt4077There's probably some parents silently crying themselves to sleep because they fear they'll be homeless soon while people here have the time and resources to bloviate about "innovating your way out of poverty."⬐ TheSpiceIsLifeYes, I agree with you. I believe we need a strong social welfare system and affordable (cheap / free, as in no, or little, out of pocket expense) healthcare.The net cost to society of not having those things is probably magnitudes of order greater than paying for them, both in the economic sense and the social costs.
He refuses to use the commonly established language which distorts reality. It is a radical choice (given how well established the manipulative language is).I can see how some may find this irritating. You may want to take a look at this lecture to see why language is so important and influential.
⬐ aninhumerSome of his substitutions are arguably valuable rhetorical devices, but the majority are just childish digs which don't add anything because they're far more distracting than they are challenging.Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.
⬐ NoneNone⬐ Spivak> the majority are just childish digsI do think there is something important to be gained by those childish digs which is avoiding branded terms while still being able to communicate about them. Take Crapple for example, they have hundred million dollar marketing campaigns designed to get people to associate Apple and iPhone with $desired_positive_qualities and you want to break your readers out of those associations. You can get around this by genericizing the brand (e.g. iPhone -> smartphone) but this doesn't work when you don't have a problem with the generic term or you want to talk about a specific companies product.
⬐ p4wnc6> Every time I run into one of his idiosyncratic terms, it interrupts my train of thought, and dislodges any argument he had been constructing there.In the spirit of ergodic literature, such as the use of extensive, awkward footnotes in Infinite Jest, some consider this to be a good and effective thing. If the reader isn't willing to put in the cognitive effort to constantly overcome this and extract the meaning of the overall argument, then that reader was probably just looking for some easy confirmation bias reason to disgree or criticize in the first place.
By constantly jarring you out of feeling comfortable while reading, it means that, if you are determined to read it seriously, you will have to exert more effort and by the end will likely have gotten much, much more out of it than if it had been designed to feel pleasant for the reader.
I actually love this style of writing and can't get enough of it. I also like the music of the band Swans and eat lots of meals with bitter foods (like huitlacoche, bitter melon, extremely earthy green tea). I don't know what it is, but I feel this kind of constant, just-on-the-cusp-of-being-too-unpleasant disruption for almost any sense qualia really leads me to appreciate things more, dig into them more deeply, retain more about them later on, and quickly separate things I do care about consuming from things I don't care about consuming.
It's kind of like putting up with the pain of a deep tissue massage to get the more satisfying muscular relaxation that comes later.
⬐ vacriI take it that you've never had to grade essays at a college level?⬐ aninhumerWell it's nice that the true believers get something entertaining to read, but there are a lot of people looking for reasons to disagree or criticise who might find themselves converted if he put in some effort to address his arguments to them. As the figurehead of Free Software, we should expect more from him than esoteric literature.⬐ p4wnc6It's not the true believers who should be happiest about the effects of ergodic writing. Instead, it's the ones who disagree, but for serious reasons. If someone would only be converted if the writer makes it super easy, then I think e.g. Stallman feels like why should he waste his time on someone like that?
I think you'll enjoy this lecture by linguistics professor George Lakoff: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqMAmong other things he speaks of the think-tank-driven concerted effort to influence political support by using language invoking specific metaphors to frame important issues.
Like "Tax Relief" for dramatically reducing taxes for the rich etc.
Changed how I process political speech and pretty much any media-supported narrative.
⬐ beefieldI recommend also Lakoff's book "Don't think of an elephant"I thought it is a good story how rethoric and framing is used nowadays in politics.
⬐ ovtLakoff and framing seemed to be in the air around 2003 or 2004, and it was a very good development.And then everyone forgot it, or maybe were encouraged to forget it.
⬐ igraviousThank you for this link. More and more I am appreciating this guy's research. Have never seen him speak, what a natural speaker, very enjoyable as well as edifying.⬐ cbHXBY1D⬐ kerkeslagerNever meet your heroes. I was a big fan of his work before taking a class with him. He's the rockstar of the cogsci department at Berkeley but he's known as a massive ego and a poor professor.⬐ ktRolsterHe's the rockstar of the cogsci department at Berkeley but he's known as a massive ego and a poor professor.I don't want to be harsh here, but it might be worth for you to consider that you were also a poor student.
⬐ cbHXBY1D⬐ DotnaughtSure, it's a fair consideration. But before asking that question you should have just quickly googled some other student opinions.I took one of Lakoff's classes in 1987 and found his work to be compelling. Metaphors We Live By should be required reading.http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992...
In the same vein, Orwell's Politics and the English Language[1] is an earlier observation of similar phenomena.⬐ mathattackI was just going to reference this. He was a master on the power of words, in both explaining it (as in your reference) and showing it in 1984 and Animal Farm.
I highly recommend the Moral Politics talk by Linguistics professor George Lakoff: http://youtu.be/5f9R9MtkpqMIn short, the two sides of the debate speak different language representing different world views rooted in upbringing and triggered / exploited by metaphors. This talk changed my view on political speech and narrative dramatically.