George Lakoff: Moral Politics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июл 2024
- UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to people's values instead of their support for specific government programs in this public lecture sponsored by the Helen Edison Series at UC San Diego in 2005. [11/2005] [Show ID: 11194]
More from: Helen Edison Lecture Series
(www.uctv.tv/helen-edison)
Explore More Public Affairs & Politics on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/public-affairs)
Public Affairs UCTV goes beyond the headlines to explore economics, public policy, race, immigration, health policy and more. Hear directly from the researchers so you can be informed to make important decisions.
Explore More Humanities on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/humanities)
The humanities encourage us to think creatively and explore questions about our world. UCTV explores human culture through literature, history, ethics, philosophy, cinema and religion so we can better understand the human experience.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)
This is one George Lakoff's best talks and is indeed profound in every way. I will continue to watch and recommend it to all those who believe in the progressive movement.
I consider myself to be a moral person. My dad always taught me to be a good person and do the right thing. What I noticed is that my beliefs always tended to lean more towards the liberal side instead of the conservative. I always wondered why that would be. Helping the poor. Honesty. Responsibility. "Love your neighbor as yourself." I thought these were THE morals. After watching this video... I finally get it.
This is merely liberal bias.
There's tons of conservative / religious institutions that promote: " Helping the poor. Honesty. Responsibility. "Love your neighbor as yourself." "
In reality there are a few fundamental moral values and its rather that liberals have some moral values that are underdeveloped.
The fundamentals are: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression.
Liberals over emphasise the care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations... whereas conservatives respond to all the fundamentals. What separates the left-libertarians and the right-libertarians is the liberty/oppression fundamentals.
Excellent explanation for our present political world in 2015 and frightens me how difficult it is to change a person's perception of what is morally good or evil, since it is so embedded in our psyche. It frightens me because we seem to be living in a country where fear is being promoted and empathy and compassion is going out the window. We are so divided. We have to continue to live HOPE --it is our only chance for LIFE.
+bdog111 drasticly decreased attendence
I'd be curious to know what you think 7 years later.
Having gone through the Trump administration, I feel like these ideas were played out in a way that illustrated everything Lakoff was talking about in a cartoonish manner. Feels like this man saw our political souls early on.
How do you think we can best get Democrats to learn these lessons, or do we need to rely on primaries to replace those who have shown they are unwilling or unable to learn?
Listening to this in 2023 brings up a lot of stuff I forgot about and even more that is newly enlightening.
Thank you.
We need you George. Much gratitude for all you do. Blessings and keep up the great work!
it’s annoying how accurate this still is in 2021 🙃 still enjoyed the lecture though!!!
Though 10 years old, this is absolutely applicable today, explaining the framework of Republican and Democratic outreach and discourse. But he doesn't go so far a to discuss the fundamental tendency, which almost seems to have a genetic basis, of open versus closed perceptions, empathy versus authoritarianism, etc which seem fundamental to our world views and are almost beyond changing.
he's spoken about this in other talks, where he suggests its a matter of early education - you're born with one quadrillion neural connections in the brain, and within the first few years the unused ones die off, about *half*. this directly correlates with your ability to form and work with new frames.
This lecture, along with Lakoff's works, are absolutely essential to deciphering modern politics and more. Profound and universal. Terrifying. I look forward to using this information.
why does this only have 56k views. He is brilliant
Fascinating. Lakoff explains what I've somehow always felt about the liberal and conservative minds.
Let me guess, you are a LEFTIST?
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@TheWorldTeacher Except if that's true, then they aren't 'poor breeding strategies', are they? If they're causing shifts in the genetic pool, then they're highly successful breeding strategies.
@@contentfreecornucopia499
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Great presentation. Thank you Prof. Lakoff
It unpacks the principles of liberal and conservative arguments and morality. In a two-party system, as in the US, this information is indispensable. That is, it's an analysis of the basis of thought behind the two parties governing American politics.
People, I wish I could lure you, in this age of short attention span and quickies, to watch this full address by Lakoff. Hey. Only 58 minutes and 57 seconds...not even an hour. It's more than "food for thought." It's food for action.
Good job, George Lakoff. I wish you had a wider audience. Progressive America, mainstreaam smart liberals and conservatives, we need to take back our language as well as our country.
This is extremely helpful and educational, thank you for uploading!
I feel your frustration! I have tried to pass on informative articles to people I know, but few really give a damn! That is why I call the American affliction that you are referring to as voluntary or deliberate ignorance! I have heard it said that Americans are the most over-entertained and under-informed people on the planet.
One of my favorite quotes, "no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people"
Be well!
What a brilliant lecture. And he was able to keep me very interested throughout.
7:15 "If you argue against the term, it's just the same as arguing for it..." - HUGE!!! I see so many of us getting this wrong, including journalists, all the time. We must reframe (underlined), instead.
THNX SO MUCH PRO SIR
Read Lakoff's analysis carefully.
How could anyone be surprised by Lakoff's assertion that the current catastrophe in communication (maximal example: our current President and his bizarre choice of modes for 'speaking" to his constituency) is best addressed by an examination of how the only mechanism we have available to us to effectively transport and transfer our ideas - language - has become so devalued. Sorry to sound so stuffy but this comes from someone who witnessed the last hurrah of oratory when, in 1959, I heard Hubert H. Humphrey rock the Senate chamber with both his wisdom and his style. More than any time in history (I might suggest) we need diliberative, thorough and unambiguous discourse coming from our leaders.
That explains why I am so confused about modern politics... I have Asperger's syndrome. I struggle with the notion of metaphor; even more with collective identity; instead I have trained myself in understanding and analysing the rationality of decisions - a very Cartesian approach.
No metaphors HERE:
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@TheWorldTeacher Do you have references to his demonstrations?
@@cboisvert2, check his RUclips channel.
@@TheWorldTeacher I mean academic work? Peer-reviewed work? I'm not a anthropologist, so I'm looking to the anthropology community to judge the quality of his publications.
@@cboisvert2, I suggest you do some research on basic genetics, since his claim rests mainly in that field.
I am currently reading Professor Lakoff's book, Moral Politics. I will pick this book apart like a fried chicken when I read & study back through it - bit by bit. As for now, early on in the reading, the professor is sounding like Vizzini, the character in The Princess Bride who drank the poison while dueling wits with Wesley.
OK - here's my take. First of all. Now that I've been watching Dr. Lakoff's videos for a weeks now - many of them (interviews AND lectures), I find some ideas that I think are quite illuminating as he presents them: Frames, metaphors, and his presentation of political 'moderation' as a myth. Good stuff. I also really like his bit on 'embodied cognition' (more form other works besides this). These are important concepts (btw, I have my Doctorate in Music from Indiana University, and studied music ed. as well - reviewing and conduction research). I may have sounded flip w/ the Princess Bride character analogy (but what is RUclips for, anyway?) I appreciate Dr. Lakoff's work immensely. Now having said that, while I understand the need to use models as a starting point of discussion, they are invariably oversimplified - for example the 'Strict Father' and 'Nurturant Parent' metaphors. Oversimplified does not mean without value, but now I'd like to see more work on how swing voters think. A small percentage are among the most brilliant members of society, and they include artists and authors who are so intellectually flexible that they didn't need to leave their Mid-American surroundings permanently the way the Mark Twains and Willa Cathers of the world did in order to thrive...for example: the author Scott Russell Sanders. However - they have often done their share of traveling - but able to stay balanced on the cutting edge of a rocky ravine without losing sanity and falling in. (How's that metaphor?) I would also like to discuss more about the 'myth of moderation' w/ Dr. Lakoff and see more writings about what he call 'bi-conceptualism' - and more importantly: 'multi-dimensionalism' which is where my interest lies, but he BARELY gets into it. Lakoff looks at politics as a dichotomy with combinations, but while I think his most important topic - which I see more of in other videos: 'embodied cognition' is an utterly fascinating area that needs more coverage. So many topics, so many neurons - so little time. Thanks for the work, Dr. Lakoff! Also - be careful NEVER to underestimate the intelligence of the swing voter. Swing voters often grow up in what you call 'strict...' (not the best term, but I know why you like to control metaphor usage now) that also NURTURE a CULTURE OF EMBODIED COGNITION!
Brent McPike Yes, they are inevitably oversimplified. But really, so was Newtonian Physics. What is notable about this is that it represents an advance over Cartesian ideas and traditional justifications that are even more oversimplified.
That is, this is a start. It's sort of vaguely in a better direction than the ways people have been trying to explain cognition for thousands of years. Cognitive Science is, at most, 20 years old, as it emerged as a discipline from the remains of the Linguistics Wars of the 1980s.
So it isn't terribly good yet. What do you do? The impulse, of course, is to smash it and cackle wildly over the remains.
Skepticism, of course, is essential for science and is highly valuable. However, there is a danger when you smash things utterly and prematurely. The danger is going back to older ideas that are even worse (in the sense of less accurate, complete, and subtle), only people don't know that they are worse, because they have been exposed to them over and over again. (Which, ironically, Cognitive Science has come far enough to explain.)
I myself have been analyzing the impulse to restrict contraception and abortion. I've come to the conclusion that what Lakoff says doesn't explain that at a Cognitive Science level. The explanation I'm working on is, in most important details, different. However, there is also a similarity, one that I don't think make sense until one understands the differences.
To get back to the physics metaphor, of course, Newton was just plain wrong (though some of the classical physicist that came after were more wrong). It was good that Einstein and others did work on relativity and quantum mechanics, which appear to be right, though in the future we may come to think that was just plain wrong. However, smashing Newtonian physics just leaves Aristotelian physics, which is wrong.
To say that pi is 22/7 is wrong, but it's less wrong than saying that it's 3, which is again less wrong than saying that it's 182. In science, we get progressive improvement, with any luck. Sometimes things get worse, as with classical physics that said F=ma, whereas Newton himself said F=dp/dt, though not in so many words. But we have to let imperfect ideas grow.
Brent McPike
This is also oversimplified but may have some value. Lakoff says that people isn't only one model all of the time all of your life.
Eric Pepke I just have to poke at "Linguistics Wars" to say is it: Fauxskin or Foreskin; Intactivists or Intact istivists or Intact Activists or Anti-circumcision Group (apparently an ABC CBS news favorite for not framing intactivists. See also Intactnews about censorship); Circumcision or Penile Reduction or Genital Cutting or Genital Bloodletting or Genital Modification or Genital Mutilation? Is it Genesis 15 or Genesis 17? First Testament or Second Testament? His penis or Family penis?
+Frank McGinness Is "family penis" a concept in social responsibility?
To answer your concern, you need to watch the entire speech, especially the part that begins here: 25:10
this hits different now
He seemed surprised that he couldn't understand the conservative rally and also that neither progs nor cons were being rational.how did this intellectual maintain a lifelong interest in politics without realizing this? Its common sense to me....
lyndon bailey This is assuming he was being honest / truthful.
he is probably a "useful idiot"
Highly interesting! Even before the disaster of Sandy...yes, he's thinking in terms of how people think, which in itself is a thinking person's subject! So it may follow that those who are simply "framing" rather than seeing the whole picture of the political structure can be bypassed by the implications of which he speaks.
Fantastic lecture. Well worth the hour I spent on it.
He is open about his partiality and he doesn't impose his views in his analysis and conclusions (only a bit in the way he presents them).
I.m.o. this is much better than when a speaker unconsciously taints the material he presents with his own world view.
Very good video (just like any other Lakoff's speeches). Lakoff really knows how to use framing. He's a good framer, he creates a frame that there is something like frames, framing etc. I guess that's the best proof for his own theory ;o)...
You really framed that well
Love
What this man did was to shed light on the power of language and what gives it meaning. It’s rooted on unconscious material, which we are unaware of by defitition, but always subject to. When democrats learn to harness the power of their unconscious material, understand its meaning, learn to translate into language, and use their intellect to tie it to history, politics, social context and relationships, and then execute grounded on that material, the world will benefit from politics that align witht the deper forces of nature and the psyche.
Until then, we will continue to be led astray, subject to the corruptive power of dualistic thinking and narrow-minded politics.
You're missing the point. Of course he's biased and of course he is framing his presentation. That is what he's arguing that democrats should do!
He's saying there is no "neutral" speech, that a presentation of reality is always bias and framed. He doesn't "fall into a trap" of using words that way - he constructs his presentation like that. If you think that's wrong to do, consider the fact that the only reason you could see he was doing that was because he taught you about the very mechanism
Is that Mathew Fox (Dr. Jack Shepherd from Lost) in the audience?!??! Around 27:00 - 27:07 on the far left of the screen?!!
I didn't think he would be attending lectures on cognitive science....
I am dying for real examples of how to use the knowledge he has. He leaves it to us to figure out and I don't get it. I'm pretty average, I'm not the only person struggling to understand how to use this knowledge in real life. I'm also pretty honest so I'm the only one saying this out loud.
Look up interviews with Anat Shenker-Osario. She uses a great deal of this, and demonstrates how to use it. But Dr. Lakoff does have a little book called The Little Blue Book about how to talk Progressive Politics. Our entire DNC and all leadership should be studying this until it is second nature. The right has Frank Luntz. We have Dr. Lakoff but they are not utilizing him as he should be called on to advise.
@@abitcrazy22 Thanks I will look them up. And I agree. It's almost like they're watching the republicans kick their ass and they're not learning anything or even trying. Like if they were being paid off or something. Just pretending to be for the average guy.
The Conservative family and father figure frame reminded me of the article written by James McGill Buchanan criticizing Christ for the Good Samaritan Parable. He went on to win the Swedish Banks Award in memory of Alfred Nobel - not the real Nobel prize - for Public Choice Theory which was in part funded by the Koch Brothers - now one - and libertarian values. For details see Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean.
I need to finish watching this sometime when it's not 3 AM. ._.
mistake in the translation into Spanish. Lacoff says the conservatives were against " "tort reform", not against torture.Later on there is another mistake: when a conservative put on the TV and Opra (Winfrey) comes on, not opera.
Excellent analysis of our political situation.
OR, an excellent piece of leftist indoctrination...
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@engage45 i think you and me do because we obviously have the ittelectual competence to understand the dynamics of the context given in font of us. this is a rare trait and cannot be blanketly made all people..... in other words most people are dumb, we are not we need to help fix that
An amazing video.
Does anyone know if Lakoff has ever tried to apply his analysis of Democrats and Republicans to left wing anti-capitalists who are conservative in the social-cohesion frame (against individualism) and liberal in the progressive nurturing frame? He doesn't seem to have much to say about political ideologies like Anarchism or socialism or any of its variants.
It used to drive me crazy when people - especially liberals - would without a clue used the opponent's language/terms!!!
Seems like you're still lingering on the crazy
No. This just reminded me.
+A Estes What in the name of fuck are you on about?
Regressive? None of the Democratic candidates ever put down education!! You stupid republican! It's going to be so much fun when Trump starts doing things that you wanted him to do! Looks like you just got screwed over by one of the North Eastern Elite!
What are you? (To paraphrase Trump) A 400 lb idiot that lives at home with your mother? Go get a date if you can!
BTW I am college educated and I can understand why people look down on trash like you!
And W admitted himself that you have to keep inundating the public with the rhetoric to convince, although I don't think he used the word, 'rhetoric'.
Every NEW VOTER coming out of High School..needs to WATCH THIS!!!!
I disagree. Language and politics are almost inseparable. Language is how people are manipulated, how ideas are transmitted, how thoughts are given life. (All of this is assuming that you don't live in an anarchic society.) 1984? Newspeak?
Josh Rahn exactly correct. look for example at the etymology of the word FAMILY, it means SLAVES. So what this implies, and when you research this factually, that the legal status of normal men and women is that of a servant to the greater society. E. Pluribus Unim. Etc etc.. and spelled out in a publication called Leviathan from the 1790s. My point is they manipulated language and made something that would otherwise be really bad, that of having the legal status of a servant and not a master, to being mainstream speak. I completely agree with your concept and to me this and another example is the word Villan. Villian etymologically DOES NOT mean a bad guy, it means a VILLAGER! A person who inhabits a villa or estate. So a super villan is someone empowered by means beyond the normal villager to combat the status quo. Not a malevolent criminal.
I could go on, but these are just two terms that opened my eyes.
Lakoff has a lot of the pieces to understand what's going wrong with our culture right now, other important thinkers of our time David Korten, Iain McGilchrist and Deepak Chopra. Check out David Korten's speech Radical Abundance, and Iain's Divided Brain RSA video and Chopra's book The Shadow Effect.
I'm reading this book right now. It's great. I've already read Thinking points and Dont think of an elephant.
The U.S. Political system entertains one party which is treated like a pre-game Coin. One side has a Donkey and the other has an Elephant. In the rarest of cases, the coin may land on the edge of another party though, regardless of the coin toss, the coin is still a product of the world bank.
I am listening to a repeat of his appearance on The Dennis Prager Show and I agree with you completely. He claims his latest book, The Political Mind, combines objective science with his left-wing political views but gives readers no good way to discern between the two; at the same time, he snaps at anyone who is not able to independently discern between the two. He claims that terms like "conservative" and "liberal/progressive" have outlived their usefulness yet uses them continuously.
Simply because he's a Linguist it doesn't mean that one should automatically trust him with words. One should still be vigilant in listening & carefully take notice of what he says. He actually contradicts himself quite a bit. Early in his lecture he casually & even jokingly makes reference to Conservative "greed". But nevertheless, one is made consciously aware of it as he makes the suggestive association between conservative & greed. Then, at about 21:15, in alluding to greed, he presents
What about sociolinguistics?
The constant stress of daily fear...
conservatives as pursuing their self interests. However, at about 36:20, he then presents Liberal Democrats as "correctly" & "rationally" pursuing their self interests. Its quite interesting how "self interests" can transform from defect to virtue within the span of 15 min., depending on who is pursing them. Also, he alluded to America's founders while suggesting that they established the nation from an "enlightenment", rationalist mentality. The rationalism he associated with Liberal Democrats
Thanks for sharing. I agree in principal about the causes that create the two different thoughts that determine political views. However I don't feet that the analysis gets to the deepest depths of what causes the origin of the two rationales. Psychologists know that the two most powerful human motivations are love and fear I believe that it is the failure of the conservative mind to overcome their fear that leads to their immorality. Their whole subconscious is fear based . 90 percent of every decision they make is out of fear. This fear limits their ability to think beyond their own nose. Out of fear comes hate , the fear to change ,bigotry ,the need to control. I should add that these are the same character flaws arising out of fear and hate that can lead to crime. In fact I would venture to say that when these values that are supposed to work, create prosperity and happiness , but doesn't that when this conflict arises within a person of a conservative mindset overcome problems thrown at them in life that the result is often an act of crime. Loving is working with God. If we fear God who needs satan
Why should it be required viewing for anyone who votes? Are you just saying that because you agree with the video?
#FeeltheBern
+Mel Cooper Bernie 2016!
For the hell of it. :)
psychotronik13
Morality in politics and all the content of this presentation. Can't help but think of Bernie.
psychotronik13
Yep. Our attention spans are longer than insulting one liners. Our memories go back farther than seven years. And we know how to look shit up.
All of of which are of little to no value to Trump supporters. lol
Bernie betrayed his supporters when he refused to call out the Hillary camp for dirty tricks during the 2016 Democratic Primary.
How long will reformers try to "reform" the Democrat Party "from the inside"?
Bernie Sanders failed, sabotaged by his own fellow Democrat partisans.
Dennis Kucinich showed promise to lead the Dems, but was similarly sidelined.
Ralph Nader was the people's champion. But the two-party system effectively kept him from meaningfully participating, as they do with any political alternatives.
Meanwhile, the political center constantly shifts rightward, as Democrats pose little to no opposition to the Republican Party's constant rightward push.
Maybe, to survive in a republican talkshow, you just need to be real smart. When the host asks you "Are you for or against tax relief?" You need to say: I'm all for it. I think the working class (and - why not? - the middle class) desperately needs tax relief. The upper classes need to grant them tax relief (by contributing more themselves).
would you believe that there still exist people who neither laugh nor scream at the word 'morality'?
So compelling especially in the last half of the lecture. He takes time setting up. But it's necessary to define the basics: framing and metaphor, their manipulation & impact on the subconscious.
All liberals need to view this.
His final words, that it's the whole political view of conservatives which have failed this country. (Dobson's "strict father" model)---not the govmint. Also, that liberal leadership does nothing to expose conservative lies. Why do they win and we fail? Ha!
There is no doubt that this is a Liberal video and is specifically aimed at promoting a Liberal point of view. That does not take away the value of what is being said, you just have to sort through the bias to get to the details that can be useful That said, I found one part of the discussion, toward the end, to be less than adequately expanded on. He talked about how he wrote letters to Liberal leaders and they were ignored. He did not examine why that may have been, or at least not to a large degree. In my own opinion, this can be attributed to the fact that the leaders of both sides are ultimately supported by money from the same people. As in our corrupt political system, money always flows in one direction, and conservatives are swimming with the current while Liberals are swimming against it. As such, the current is what would make these leaders ignore his letters. They are not permitted, by their benefactors, to act against their interests. It is the same reason Democrat administrations cannot seem to move the ball very far down the field during a Presidential term. It appears they are trying to move their agenda upstream, yet the Republican administration's agenda seems to be on steroids while they are in office. They BOTH are depending on the same benefactors, and the Republican platform is better aligned with those benefactors.
Here from Rationality Rules via Twitter? Every upvote makes the internet faster.
@ucannotescape
I don't think you understand what socialism or communism means when you use them in the same phrase like that.
By the way, income tax is good. It makes up a very good portion of what pays for our basic infrastructure.
A friend of mine who's a linguist - and one of the most intelligent persons I know - told me about Lakoff. Haven't even started to start to grasp his linguistics. I know a bit about Propaganda, though, and the reason the US is how it is nowadays are those who, like him, thought the way to oppose conservatives was not through genuine action but through more and better Propaganda. This is from 2008, btw. Remember how the Democrat who followed Bush dealt with the 2008 crash? I think the US needs antiquate conservative politicians - from the Democratic and Republican parties.
Matt Whedon obviously didn't really listen to the lecture or did and choses to misrepresent what was said with every one of his comments.
just a thought; 'nature protection' n nurture relating to this... n referal to addresses? ..as (?) .. im sure ther...ehm... sensible attendence intent content signified dignified w exchange valuables? ... i mean, ... so what does it mean to an ending depending up on ... where does self interest come if placed alL folLowing order? ...
narcissism pond nurtured by surveilLence? :');
+Katja Tissarj n.
'god save the queen" mean thereas question coming lean? ..
i fucking love this video
jared loughner believed government manipulated language to change public opinion, and he's considered a looney. yet lakoff says similar things and he's respected. by the way, i agree on many things with lakoff.
if you could formulate these concepts into system then you and know your listener it could be stronger and more real than hypnosis. A way to change minds (program some one) they way Darren Brown does intuitively.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who have leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@TheWorldTeacher and you agree with them, do you?
What authority has an anthropologist to discuss genetics?
Genetics are the domain of natural sciences like biology not social sciences like anthropology who couldn't tell the difference between DNA and his own dick.
And as your world teacher, have you seen pictures of him? He would be considered as a village idiot in most town centres in the west.
Finally, I don't think you understand what is the meaning of being on the LEFT hand side of the political spectrum.
I suggest you study the history of French Revolution to see where the word LEFT in the context of politics comes from.
What is considered RIGHT in the west is referred to LEFT in say China or Russia.
So those on the LEFT in those places have the same "genetic mutation" as well, although they call for many right wing policies in the west?
Were surrounded by a constant stream of messages~cues~signals .Millions of ongoing messages that we relay and broadcast, many completely unconsciously and were monitoring how were doing are we okay? approved of? accepted? on the' right track'?....were social animals approval seeking animals and we can easily be manipulated by our peers and by the consensual frames created by media.
The monist position is self-contradictory: we must possess rational minds in order to show the brain determines the mind. Has the brain "determined" it's own self-discovery? That is an absurdity.
In light of his emphasis on progressive worldviews, "nurturing parent" views of morality and Christianity, and the views Niebuhr inherited but failed to instate in American culture, there's a succinct academic essay here on Social Gospel theology in an anthropological-philosophical context. It's not stuffy but gives a quick tour through some downplayed intellectual perspectives...
(illegaltender.me/uploads/1/1/0/7/11076394/illegal_tender.pdf)
fucking brilliant
He then went on to speak about the founder's applied concept of "self governing". However, self governing is in accordance with a reduced, "small government", or one with "limited powers" which he criticized as being Conservative politics. Furthermore, being a Democrat, he claimed that the Colonists founded a "Democratic" form of government. But in fact, they founded a "Republican" system, governed by the rule of law ("Strict Dad") (not a majority mob's transcending fickleness) & with a
@ialwaysbluff
You sure it's him? Very weird coincidences... Today I get an email saying someone's replied to my comment about Matthew Fox/Jack Shepard minutes after I watch the final episode of LOST.
I also got an email giving me my college candidate number minutes before I saw an episode called 'The Candidate'.
Maybe I am The Chosen One. Maybe I get over-excited about coincidence.
This is not a well thought out reply. But, it's a free Internetz.
@goPistons06 It helps Lakoff didn't kill 6 people and doesn't look like Skinhead Curly.
Moral arithmetic
This moral obligation to have your own house in order before assisting others seems to underpin a lot of Jordan Peterson's new book but I concede I haven't read it.
At 52:30 the problem with in the Democratic party and their sponsors is that they themselves agree with a lot of the economic and public policy of the Republicans and conservatives. It is possible that from their donors they were forbidden to say anything that was proposed here to be said. Democrats seldom discuss civics in the 1950 sense of the word. Even something business like it benefit the economy if we address issues like Katrina quickly was not said. All the kids at the Ivy League schools are taught some form of neoliberal ideology so that you essentially have Republicans neoliberals and Democratic neoliberals, in fact you have white neoliberals and black neoliberals, straight neoliberals and gay neoliberals, feminist neoliberals and anti-feminist neoliberals, etc. Is this a great country or what?
Linguistics can study the rhetoric of a politician, but not his policies.
Making me think all hard about this and shit
The only problem with Conservative ideology is attaching it to anything Jesus taught. If conservatives used Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" as a hand book it would fit their argument. If Jesus was for anything, he was for the welfare of his brothers, where as Conservative ideology is for self interest. The obvious reasoning for this is that using Jesus as a symbol for their self interest is more effective for enrollment. Enrollment always equals more dollars and clout for self interest policy promotion which is not egalitarian as was Jesus. Millions of folks across the country calling them selves Christians practice Darwinism, but dismiss or demonize the theory behind it, while claiming to be Christ like which is anything but self centered. If there is a right and wrong its not the ideology you choose, it is labeling it with an opposite terminology . Another words when you by a container of OJ, and you pour from it into a glass, you expect OJ to fill your glass and not Milk !
The problem is this.God = The strickt fatherJesus = Advocate for the strickt father or the strickt father. You still have to deserve to be in the grace of God and he's the ultimate authority.Darwins teachings actually gives us the reason why we as humans are sucessful. Cooperation, intelligence and caring for our and others children gives us the edge. We are truly a fragile species on a personal level, but an extreme force when working together...We even went to the moon.
@55:00 Lakoff himself is guilty of false framing. Regarding "big government" and taxation, etc., he fails to realize all US dollars come from the government or via credit from the chartered agents of the State (licenced private banks --- they are part of government) the US$ does not come from anywhere else (it'd be counterfeit). So tax return is a "return back to the issuer", from the French, revenir. It is not a funding operation for the government, it is a redemption (the US$ is an I.O.U,. of the State: "I owe you redemption for one unit of imposed tax liability.").
So "my tax dollars" are not funding anything. They came from government from inception. The government issued that currency by spending (or a bank issued credit in circulation, but that is not net US$ creation, since there is a debt on the other side of the ledger). All the dollars spent by the government not yet used to pay taxes are the non-government sector's net financial wealth in US$. The false frame is to call that "our debt". It is in fact our $ wealth. The debt on the other side of the ledger is that the USGov promises to accept back Its currency when you pay taxes. If it refuses to redeem your tax liabilities it is in default and has not honored Its debt. The US Gov is at least acting "morally" because it never seems to refuse to redeem, it always accepts your tax payment.
The moral obligation is more serious though: by imposing taxes in currency no one initial has, the government creates unemployment (people seeking to earn the tax credit). The government must then spend sufficient to permit the "economy" to pay all the imposed tax, plus meet savings desires, otherwise it made a terrible policy blunder and caused residual employment, a simple policy mistake, not a market force.
If there are net savers around (they need not be billionaires, anyone who nets saves is forcing someone else to net spend) then the government should be running a deficit (spending more than tax return) otherwise the government is by local accounting identity placing some people somewhere in needless debt to a private bank.
Interestingly, some conservatives understood this. In a very twisted way. The folks working for Reagan and Bush knew government deficits were necessary, since by accounting identity the government deficit is the private sector surplus --- while simultaneously "blaming" Democrats for the government deficits! Orwellian in the extreme! --- they just wanted most of the surplus to go to the Top One Percent, not the poor via hiring all the unemployed the tax liabilities created.
Reagan was right (though still racist) to not want "welfare Queens", but he was disingenuous, he could have made them all go away by hiring them all for public service in decent meaningful jobs. There is no end to work needing done, we wake up every day to severe labour shortages, but the private sector will not hire the unemployed, they do not want them, they want people already working, so a demand stimulus will usually just cause a wage demand spiral, leaving people still unemployed and wasted. Only the monopoly currency issuer can hire all the unemployed without causing inflation, since the private sector bid for the unemployed labour is zero. (Not that moderate inflation is bad mind you, it is a good thing if the real wage is rising. A bit of inflation erodes the purchasing power of hoarded tax credits.)
Since you sink or swim by yourself. What happens if you need an operation - Or in an accident and need help?? Do you fix that problem by yourself like the rest of the things you believe in? (Was it because you were bad? No. The book of Job proved that good people can have bad things happen to them. ) Conservative thinking is warped at best.
You may be happy to know it's up to 72K right now.
Repeated use of the word "progressive" is just as bad as the "tax relief" example he gave. "If you disagree with me, you're against progress!"
@dwefoster1
good eye! awesome
Regarding same-sex marriage, he claims "same-sex marriage" is a biased term, while "freedom to marry" is unbiased, even though "freedom to marry" could easily be applied to polygamous marriage rather than SSM. He claims liberals want less intrusive government but supports higher taxation and opposes private primary & secondary schools receiving the same taxpayer subsidation private universities receive.
He has some interesting points but should be more upfront about his lack of objectivity.
The playbook from Louis Powell also reminds me of Buchanan and the Atlas Network. One of the think tanks in Canada is the Fraser Institute. Libertarians, religious fundamentalists and others get along.
56:00 they didn't use it because they are conservatives too
I believe the theoretical foundation is intriguing and prompts further cognitive poetics / science investigation; however, his moral scope wants more reading from at least Kant where secular philosophers are concerned. Morevoer, from an empirical standpoint, it would be more compelling to accept frame theory if he discoursed larger discourse, through a corpus of utterances / literature. I believe from a commonsense perspective, Lakoff must admit that WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICAN MALE is as defined a binary he makes its (binary with respect to LIBERAL). For example, which Christians? Orthodox? Baptist? From a demographic perseptive, Protestants represent a larger population and therefore more significant, than ay, WHITE CATHOLIC MALE.
@MixedUpCody Actually, the family metaphors mainly come from the right wing.
And they don't really mean family, but fear of strangers - ie not trusting strangers with money (taxes) and protecting your property (guns). That's what I got out of it at least.
Reality tends to have a liberal bias.....
Can someone please tell me how Lakoff quantified and tested the claim that 98% of our thinking is unconscious?
my Goodness, how partial is this guy! Its interesting but he is so partial its a pain to watch.
keeping everything up to code would be a worse disaster..don't be naive to the
Lakoff should be president.
@alc99 His research seems wholly unbiased.
I have to disagree with Lakoff on one point: conservatives really are irrational. He himself uses many examples of conservatives having demonstrably false opinions.
They're rational in terms of their reasoning process, but the problem is they're operating from insane premises.
What false opinions do conservatives have other than on climate change?
Nope.
Other than climate change? Expansionary austerity, potential insolvency of currency issuer, curing homosexuality, religious fundamentalism, wealth as a signifier of virtue, trickle down prosperity, ok to privatize monopolies, US health system with cellar dweller effectiveness at twice the price essential because "free enterprise yada yada", ... Come on, it's endless!
Mikhail Yakubovich that poor people were destined to be poor by God
How many genders are there again ? 80?
the dude in the white shirt at 34:34 looks really uncomfortable. should have just watched the youtube from the comfort of his la-z-boy like i did.
He teaches the same subject Chomsky does. It is interesting how liberal professors often teach nonpolitical subjects yet still believe they know more about politics than the next man. If they taught something like sociology, then I would understand their commentating on politics; it is not the same subject, but it is in the same ballpark. Linguistics and PoliSci, on the other hand; it is not the same ballpark. It is not the same team. It is not the same league. It is not even the same sport.