You've said not to use the language of the Right. Is that "ever"? For a long time, I have felt that the Pro-Choice mantra of "MY body, MY choice!" sounds cold, especially to those who feel genuine compassion for the fetus/potential child. I've thought we should "FLIP the Script" and declare that it's liberals and progressives who are the ones who are Pro-life since we do all that we can to protect children and other humans after they are born, and Right-wingers are generally fighting policies to protect the health and lives of people AFTER birth. Your thoughts on the occasional use of 'flipping" their language? Thank you.
One of the challenges in Australia, as in the US, is the rise of conservative voting among the blue collar working people. There's a gender overlay here as working class jobs are often highly segregated and, in Australia, blue collar unions are often male-dominated at membership and leadership levels and have a distinctly "Disciplinary Father" culture. How might reframing impact on these political and workplace cultures effectively?
Are Strict Father Morality, and Nurturant Parent Morality worldviews unique to American politics, or are they also common in other cultures around the world? The two contrasting notions of family parenting styles seem like they might have been around for a long time, perhaps since the dawn of humanity?
For what it's worth, the section on The Ideal Person around pages 44-5 of DTOAE shed light on differences between Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberal/Progressive has both a well-being system and an empathy system, and tries to balance taking care of oneself with empathy for others and taking care of others. The Conservative moral system centers on well-being and personal responsibility alone. These would seem to be hard-wired and not amenable to change.
There is a long literature about the Authoritarian Personality, and there exist questionnaires that can ascertain a person’s authoritarian tendencies. Would it be correct to say that those who align with the Strict Father morality also have authoritarian tendencies? On the flip side, those who align with the Nurturing Parent morality exhibit empathy. In this regard, some years ago Simon Baron-Cohen wrote a book called “The Science of Evil” on people who lack empathy, and presents a scale for detecting the Zero-Empathy person. Three diagnostic types for zero empathy are Narcissist, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Psychopath. Comments?
Sandra, I was thinking about that, as well. Forcing men to take, at least, financial responsibility. Some men shouldn't have custody. :-( (Some women, either, but given biology, there's less of a choice with women having custody from the start.) On the other hand, I don't like that there are unfortunately women who knowingly trick men in hopes of trapping them (by saying they are using birth control). But I suppose the legal threat to men that their DNA will be used may get a lot more of them to use protection and be careful.
I'm still not keen on the argument coming down to control over one's own body -- that hasn't been working for the last 40-50 years+, so I think we should take the hint. So, the only other thing I can think of is focusing on the fact that many liberals and progressives care far more about protecting life and preventing suffering of children and everyone else -- and we need your (conservatives) help with that. I'd love to know what un-turned stones there may be on this issue.
There seems to be a lot of shared talking points between USA right-wing media such as Fox News and Russia Propaganda outlets and recent speeches by Putin. It seems that the strong father metaphor applies to not only the GOP but overseas dictators. I would be interested in comments by George and Gil. Thank you!
Florida Senator Rick Scott has provided an "11-point plan to rescue America." In Heather Cox Richardson's telling, which looks like it quotes Scott, Republicans "will protect, defend, and promote the American Family at all costs." By this is meant "The nuclear family is crucial to civilization; it is God's design for humanity, and it must be protected and celebrated. To say otherwise is to deny science. The fanatical left seeks to devalue and redefine the traditional family, as they undermine parents and attempt to replace them with government programs. We will not allow Socialism to place the needs of the state ahead of family." Further, the 11-point plan seeks to roll back business regulation and the social safety net, and "stop socialism." It would appear that this is the GOP platform for 2022. The belief is that "government should not be doing anything that the private sector can do better and cheaper," even though a private sector solution must allow for profits.
It would be great for George and Gil to look at the GOP 11-point plan.
Although you refer to the religions of the Puritans and/or Pilgrims in the Q&A section at the end of the book (noting that it was the Quakers, Unitarians, and Universalists who offered a kinder theology), I don't think you use the word "Calvinism" anywhere in the book. As I see it, the Strict Father model is an embodiment of Calvinism. That brand of theology also had the view that if one was born rich, it was a sign of God's favor, and of those who were poor, widowed, orphaned, etc., that God just didn't love them and they were going to hell (the destination of the majority of people), so they didn't even bother with any sort of charities, just poorhouses. And they believed there was nothing a person could do about their predetermined fate, no matter how she/he lives their life. A "saved" person would be known by the upright way s/he appeared and conducted themselves, and even if they did bad things, they were still saved. And a saint of a damned person would still spend eternity in hell.
My understanding is that ~70% of those living in New England in 1776 were Calvinists. 250 years isn't that Widespread belief systems like that don't just disappear, although they can morph some.
The only difference I see with those who currently live by the Strict Father model is that it doesn't seem they live entirely in predestination. One can be saved by accepting Jesus (and doing as the church tells them). And in their thinking, even if born poor or "lowly," it is possible to become rich, and therefore upright, moral, and worthy.
I'm curious if you noted the parallels, and if so, why you didn't mention Calvinism. Thank you!
Do you have suggestions on how to create new frames? I realize it is necessary and helpful with research institutes and larger frame labs but is this something grassroots can experiment with on a smaller scale? If so, suggestions on how to do that?
Thank you for identifying how the term hypocognition identifies a huge and ongoing progressive deficiency. I don't know if this is jumping ahead, but I'll be writing on the abortion issue where conservative "prolife" and "partial-birth abortion" framing has drastically affected the abortion debate for many years. I recently read where a progressive group used the term "forced birth," I assume to counter progressive hypocognition in this area. I was thinking of adding "state-mandated forced birth" when describing pregnant women now devoid of legal abortions as an realistic health choice. Any thoughts? Feel free to use my name.
It took me a long time to process the concept of "people vote their identity/values", but I finally got it. It was hard to give up that "facts won't set you free"! I certainly still struggle with it. I've recently read The Status Game by Will Storr. He suggests we all are consisted of a variety of identities and there is a status game associated with each. As long as we recognize and play a multitude of different identities, we stay healthy and maintain relationships. When we focus in on one/few - the game starts to tighten and close up - leading to ridiculous levels of fealty and to the point where insulting and breaking the norms and values of other identities is not just ok, but vital. Sounds a bit familiar to me.
I'm wondering if you have read that and what insights/comments/connections you have/see?
Could you give an example of a progressive issue framed with and without values and principles... So examples of the same issue but with different framing.
I have a question. "Don't Think of an Elephant" makes the point about how even negating a frame reinforces it but is there ever a point where the necessity of refuting something might outweigh that? For example, would it hurt Democrats more to simply say "I do not support or agree with defunding police" or would reframing look like trying to avoid the issue at this stage vs a blunt refutation?
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. Thank you for all you do to promote pro-empathy use of cognitive science. In fact, the Empathy Surplus Network USA - https://empathysurplus.com - has been promoting pro-empathy framing with our Pro-Empathy Freedom Declaration initiative. Here’s the link to our toolkit - https://bit.ly/PEDtool. In addition, we’re inviting caring citizens in our centers of influence to make their pro-empathy freedom declaration and pledge to use a common vision, your fives sets of three values words, and your progressive ten-word philosophy when engaging candidates and elected officials. Moreover, we are using all of the recommendations in the toolkit to fashion our 4th Communication on Engagement to the United Nations Global Compact, which invites businesses to align their operations around ten principles focused on human rights, life work leisure, and anti-corruption of government for the sake of climate survival.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And we’ve committed to a vision of America as a strong, committed community of nurturing families that care for each other’s human rights in their ethical businesses, their civil society organizations, and in local government task forces. Moreover, we especially encourage human rights advocates to COMMIT to framing their advocacy around EMPATHY for (Article 1) and RESPONSIBILITY to (Article 29) human beings’ human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, we encourage them to use four other sets of the values laid out in Don’t Think of an Elephant. First, PROTECTION, FULFILLMENT, and FAIRNESS. Second, FREEDOM, OPPORTUNITY, and PROSPERITY. Third, COMMUNITY, SERVICE, and COOPERATION. And fourth, TRUST, HONESTY, and OPEN-COMMUNICATION.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And in addition to our common vision and values, we are encouraging pro-empathy voters to reframe authoritarian conservatism’s five two-word philosophies wherever they can. Therefore, we encourage commitment to first reframe stronger militaries to STRONGER AMERICA(NS). Second, reframe free markets to PROGRESSIVE MARKETS. Third, reframe lower taxes to BETTER FUTURES. Fourth, reframe less government to EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT. And fifth, reframe family values to MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. However, progressives are slow to change their language. In fact, in the last several weeks I’ve had significant pushback for reframing from ALL of the Ohio state wide candidates for governor and the US Senate, saying in public that they will NOT be embracing pro-empathy language. The same is true for a small but committed group of human rights advocates of the former US Human Rights Network. Nevertheless, we continue to attempt to make empathy, the soul of democracy, the center of debate when we engage. And, in addition, we always try and compare and contrast anti-empathy authoritarian conservatism with pro-empathy nurturing progressivism.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And we’re committed to staying the course. What do you suggest we do differently, or the same? Thank you in advance for your advice. Please feel free to use my name, as well as our organization in your answer.
You've said not to use the language of the Right. Is that "ever"? For a long time, I have felt that the Pro-Choice mantra of "MY body, MY choice!" sounds cold, especially to those who feel genuine compassion for the fetus/potential child. I've thought we should "FLIP the Script" and declare that it's liberals and progressives who are the ones who are Pro-life since we do all that we can to protect children and other humans after they are born, and Right-wingers are generally fighting policies to protect the health and lives of people AFTER birth. Your thoughts on the occasional use of 'flipping" their language? Thank you.
One of the challenges in Australia, as in the US, is the rise of conservative voting among the blue collar working people. There's a gender overlay here as working class jobs are often highly segregated and, in Australia, blue collar unions are often male-dominated at membership and leadership levels and have a distinctly "Disciplinary Father" culture. How might reframing impact on these political and workplace cultures effectively?
Are Strict Father Morality, and Nurturant Parent Morality worldviews unique to American politics, or are they also common in other cultures around the world? The two contrasting notions of family parenting styles seem like they might have been around for a long time, perhaps since the dawn of humanity?
Thanks!
- Tom from Lansing, MI
For what it's worth, the section on The Ideal Person around pages 44-5 of DTOAE shed light on differences between Liberals and Conservatives. The Liberal/Progressive has both a well-being system and an empathy system, and tries to balance taking care of oneself with empathy for others and taking care of others. The Conservative moral system centers on well-being and personal responsibility alone. These would seem to be hard-wired and not amenable to change.
There is a long literature about the Authoritarian Personality, and there exist questionnaires that can ascertain a person’s authoritarian tendencies. Would it be correct to say that those who align with the Strict Father morality also have authoritarian tendencies? On the flip side, those who align with the Nurturing Parent morality exhibit empathy. In this regard, some years ago Simon Baron-Cohen wrote a book called “The Science of Evil” on people who lack empathy, and presents a scale for detecting the Zero-Empathy person. Three diagnostic types for zero empathy are Narcissist, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Psychopath. Comments?
Sandra, I was thinking about that, as well. Forcing men to take, at least, financial responsibility. Some men shouldn't have custody. :-( (Some women, either, but given biology, there's less of a choice with women having custody from the start.) On the other hand, I don't like that there are unfortunately women who knowingly trick men in hopes of trapping them (by saying they are using birth control). But I suppose the legal threat to men that their DNA will be used may get a lot more of them to use protection and be careful.
I'm still not keen on the argument coming down to control over one's own body -- that hasn't been working for the last 40-50 years+, so I think we should take the hint. So, the only other thing I can think of is focusing on the fact that many liberals and progressives care far more about protecting life and preventing suffering of children and everyone else -- and we need your (conservatives) help with that. I'd love to know what un-turned stones there may be on this issue.
There seems to be a lot of shared talking points between USA right-wing media such as Fox News and Russia Propaganda outlets and recent speeches by Putin. It seems that the strong father metaphor applies to not only the GOP but overseas dictators. I would be interested in comments by George and Gil. Thank you!
Florida Senator Rick Scott has provided an "11-point plan to rescue America." In Heather Cox Richardson's telling, which looks like it quotes Scott, Republicans "will protect, defend, and promote the American Family at all costs." By this is meant "The nuclear family is crucial to civilization; it is God's design for humanity, and it must be protected and celebrated. To say otherwise is to deny science. The fanatical left seeks to devalue and redefine the traditional family, as they undermine parents and attempt to replace them with government programs. We will not allow Socialism to place the needs of the state ahead of family." Further, the 11-point plan seeks to roll back business regulation and the social safety net, and "stop socialism." It would appear that this is the GOP platform for 2022. The belief is that "government should not be doing anything that the private sector can do better and cheaper," even though a private sector solution must allow for profits.
It would be great for George and Gil to look at the GOP 11-point plan.
Although you refer to the religions of the Puritans and/or Pilgrims in the Q&A section at the end of the book (noting that it was the Quakers, Unitarians, and Universalists who offered a kinder theology), I don't think you use the word "Calvinism" anywhere in the book. As I see it, the Strict Father model is an embodiment of Calvinism. That brand of theology also had the view that if one was born rich, it was a sign of God's favor, and of those who were poor, widowed, orphaned, etc., that God just didn't love them and they were going to hell (the destination of the majority of people), so they didn't even bother with any sort of charities, just poorhouses. And they believed there was nothing a person could do about their predetermined fate, no matter how she/he lives their life. A "saved" person would be known by the upright way s/he appeared and conducted themselves, and even if they did bad things, they were still saved. And a saint of a damned person would still spend eternity in hell.
My understanding is that ~70% of those living in New England in 1776 were Calvinists. 250 years isn't that Widespread belief systems like that don't just disappear, although they can morph some.
The only difference I see with those who currently live by the Strict Father model is that it doesn't seem they live entirely in predestination. One can be saved by accepting Jesus (and doing as the church tells them). And in their thinking, even if born poor or "lowly," it is possible to become rich, and therefore upright, moral, and worthy.
I'm curious if you noted the parallels, and if so, why you didn't mention Calvinism. Thank you!
Do you have suggestions on how to create new frames? I realize it is necessary and helpful with research institutes and larger frame labs but is this something grassroots can experiment with on a smaller scale? If so, suggestions on how to do that?
Thank you for identifying how the term hypocognition identifies a huge and ongoing progressive deficiency. I don't know if this is jumping ahead, but I'll be writing on the abortion issue where conservative "prolife" and "partial-birth abortion" framing has drastically affected the abortion debate for many years. I recently read where a progressive group used the term "forced birth," I assume to counter progressive hypocognition in this area. I was thinking of adding "state-mandated forced birth" when describing pregnant women now devoid of legal abortions as an realistic health choice. Any thoughts? Feel free to use my name.
Book Club question - using my name is ok.
It took me a long time to process the concept of "people vote their identity/values", but I finally got it. It was hard to give up that "facts won't set you free"! I certainly still struggle with it. I've recently read The Status Game by Will Storr. He suggests we all are consisted of a variety of identities and there is a status game associated with each. As long as we recognize and play a multitude of different identities, we stay healthy and maintain relationships. When we focus in on one/few - the game starts to tighten and close up - leading to ridiculous levels of fealty and to the point where insulting and breaking the norms and values of other identities is not just ok, but vital. Sounds a bit familiar to me.
I'm wondering if you have read that and what insights/comments/connections you have/see?
Thank You.
Could you give an example of a progressive issue framed with and without values and principles... So examples of the same issue but with different framing.
I have a question. "Don't Think of an Elephant" makes the point about how even negating a frame reinforces it but is there ever a point where the necessity of refuting something might outweigh that? For example, would it hurt Democrats more to simply say "I do not support or agree with defunding police" or would reframing look like trying to avoid the issue at this stage vs a blunt refutation?
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. Thank you for all you do to promote pro-empathy use of cognitive science. In fact, the Empathy Surplus Network USA - https://empathysurplus.com - has been promoting pro-empathy framing with our Pro-Empathy Freedom Declaration initiative. Here’s the link to our toolkit - https://bit.ly/PEDtool. In addition, we’re inviting caring citizens in our centers of influence to make their pro-empathy freedom declaration and pledge to use a common vision, your fives sets of three values words, and your progressive ten-word philosophy when engaging candidates and elected officials. Moreover, we are using all of the recommendations in the toolkit to fashion our 4th Communication on Engagement to the United Nations Global Compact, which invites businesses to align their operations around ten principles focused on human rights, life work leisure, and anti-corruption of government for the sake of climate survival.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And we’ve committed to a vision of America as a strong, committed community of nurturing families that care for each other’s human rights in their ethical businesses, their civil society organizations, and in local government task forces. Moreover, we especially encourage human rights advocates to COMMIT to framing their advocacy around EMPATHY for (Article 1) and RESPONSIBILITY to (Article 29) human beings’ human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, we encourage them to use four other sets of the values laid out in Don’t Think of an Elephant. First, PROTECTION, FULFILLMENT, and FAIRNESS. Second, FREEDOM, OPPORTUNITY, and PROSPERITY. Third, COMMUNITY, SERVICE, and COOPERATION. And fourth, TRUST, HONESTY, and OPEN-COMMUNICATION.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And in addition to our common vision and values, we are encouraging pro-empathy voters to reframe authoritarian conservatism’s five two-word philosophies wherever they can. Therefore, we encourage commitment to first reframe stronger militaries to STRONGER AMERICA(NS). Second, reframe free markets to PROGRESSIVE MARKETS. Third, reframe lower taxes to BETTER FUTURES. Fourth, reframe less government to EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT. And fifth, reframe family values to MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. However, progressives are slow to change their language. In fact, in the last several weeks I’ve had significant pushback for reframing from ALL of the Ohio state wide candidates for governor and the US Senate, saying in public that they will NOT be embracing pro-empathy language. The same is true for a small but committed group of human rights advocates of the former US Human Rights Network. Nevertheless, we continue to attempt to make empathy, the soul of democracy, the center of debate when we engage. And, in addition, we always try and compare and contrast anti-empathy authoritarian conservatism with pro-empathy nurturing progressivism.
Framing is for pro-empathy voters. And we’re committed to staying the course. What do you suggest we do differently, or the same? Thank you in advance for your advice. Please feel free to use my name, as well as our organization in your answer.