Nothing but the facts dear Watson; nothing but the facts! It is a conundrum that people continually use a reasonable argument to fix an emotional question and use a emotional argument to respond to a reasonable situation. Both are doomed to failure. An excellent video worthy of a couple more watches. Thanks.
I gave up on this at the 14min mark and went hunting for another version that consistently shows Lakoff's presentation. I will never understand why the individuals who film these presentations think it is more important to focus on the presenter than the presentation.
I have subconsciously or consciously become adept at (I think it was subconsciously first - before I realized what I was doing) thinking of an aardvark when Dr. Lakeoff says "Don't think of an elephant." Interesting that both have trunks!
Rationality and Reason both have multiple definitions. Rationality can mean the act of being reasonable, or it can mean the act of being agreeable, or the state of being rational (being agreeable to reason). Reason can be the process of using logic, but it can also be an explanation for a conclusion. I post this in response to khnopff71's argument (which is to say, I disagree with his conclusion here in the comments.
Lakoff is confusing reason with rationality. Reason is the objective process by which a result is achieved, while rationality is the subjective value judgements an individual applies in order to determine a course of action. Putting water on a fire to make it go out is the result of reason. Putting on a pink sweater when you feel alone, because you associate pink with friendly people, is a rationality. Its the difference between choosing what is true and what feels true, even if its false.
Why must greed and self-interest be linked? Why are unions not considered part of the free market (since unions do what business does and pursue their own interests within the market)? What is an example of science being used in a manner that is against the market? I ask because I don't see the links Mr. Lakoff has presented as given to the "conservative" frames.
The "free market" means "freedom of choice". Unions use the government gun to impose wage & price controls, and to suppress competition. How is that freedom of choice?
UltimateBargains to my knowledge Union have never used the government to impose price controls (governments have done that, but how did unions get involved in that?). And if the only thing " free market " means is choice, then you have lost me on wage control ( I am assuming you mean minimum wage). Business also uses the government, for lower taxes ( there are many business in the U.S. that do not pay taxes due to exemptions) or in getting direct subsides, or even in gaining exclusive no bid " private" contracts ( such as Halliburton).
Richard Blackmore NLRB ring a bell? Licensing ring a bell? Unions are big corporations that get into bed with politicians, just like all other big corporations. The root problem is the government gun. Why give so much power to the government, which only invites corruption on both sides of the aisle? The best results are obtained at the negotiating table when all sides agree to abide by 4 words: Put down the gun.
Except that the camera should be covering the whole powerpoint presentation and held still, instead of moving unreliably and thus pissing people of. I think this video does not do George Lakoff Justice.
Hmmmmm, this was an interesting talk but seemed to me like a politically left perspective rather than the moderate/centrist perspective that was alluded to. Haidt & Joseph's Moral Foundations Theory generates much more insight from a moderate/centrist position on the topic in my opinion.
Corporations change their products according to buyer tendencies. The buyer governs corporations because otherwise, the won't sell as much. The media who pushes so and so as GMO tells the customer what not to want to buy and then the corporations sees its profits decline and change to non GMO certified to sell more. (1:02:06)
Party money buys establishment candidates: mailers, air time, name recognition to the point the Public is unaware of the more progressive candidate's grassroots campaign.
This is an absolutely brilliant piece.
Nothing but the facts dear Watson; nothing but the facts!
It is a conundrum that people continually use a reasonable argument to fix an emotional question and use a emotional argument to respond to a reasonable situation. Both are doomed to failure.
An excellent video worthy of a couple more watches.
Thanks.
That is elementary, my dear Watson!
I gave up on this at the 14min mark and went hunting for another version that consistently shows Lakoff's presentation. I will never understand why the individuals who film these presentations think it is more important to focus on the presenter than the presentation.
Did you find that version? I could really use it.
I have subconsciously or consciously become adept at (I think it was subconsciously first - before I realized what I was doing) thinking of an aardvark when Dr. Lakeoff says "Don't think of an elephant."
Interesting that both have trunks!
Rationality and Reason both have multiple definitions. Rationality can mean the act of being reasonable, or it can mean the act of being agreeable, or the state of being rational (being agreeable to reason). Reason can be the process of using logic, but it can also be an explanation for a conclusion. I post this in response to khnopff71's argument (which is to say, I disagree with his conclusion here in the comments.
Thank you :)
Teacher
Emotions belongs in reasoning! Lean in...
Excellent lecture if you can ignore the child behind the camera fiddling with the frame.
Lakoff is confusing reason with rationality. Reason is the objective process by which a result is achieved, while rationality is the subjective value judgements an individual applies in order to determine a course of action. Putting water on a fire to make it go out is the result of reason. Putting on a pink sweater when you feel alone, because you associate pink with friendly people, is a rationality. Its the difference between choosing what is true and what feels true, even if its false.
Why must greed and self-interest be linked? Why are unions not considered part of the free market (since unions do what business does and pursue their own interests within the market)? What is an example of science being used in a manner that is against the market? I ask because I don't see the links Mr. Lakoff has presented as given to the "conservative" frames.
The "free market" means "freedom of choice".
Unions use the government gun to impose wage & price controls, and to suppress competition.
How is that freedom of choice?
UltimateBargains to my knowledge Union have never used the government to impose price controls (governments have done that, but how did unions get involved in that?). And if the only thing " free market " means is choice, then you have lost me on wage control ( I am assuming you mean minimum wage). Business also uses the government, for lower taxes ( there are many business in the U.S. that do not pay taxes due to exemptions) or in getting direct subsides, or even in gaining exclusive no bid " private" contracts ( such as Halliburton).
Richard Blackmore NLRB ring a bell? Licensing ring a bell? Unions are big corporations that get into bed with politicians, just like all other big corporations. The root problem is the government gun. Why give so much power to the government, which only invites corruption on both sides of the aisle? The best results are obtained at the negotiating table when all sides agree to abide by 4 words: Put down the gun.
If your saying that both corporations and unions distort the "free market" I agree.
Except that the camera should be covering the whole powerpoint presentation and held still, instead of moving unreliably and thus pissing people of.
I think this video does not do George Lakoff Justice.
Hmmmmm, this was an interesting talk but seemed to me like a politically left perspective rather than the moderate/centrist perspective that was alluded to. Haidt & Joseph's Moral Foundations Theory generates much more insight from a moderate/centrist position on the topic in my opinion.
Corporations change their products according to buyer tendencies. The buyer governs corporations because otherwise, the won't sell as much. The media who pushes so and so as GMO tells the customer what not to want to buy and then the corporations sees its profits decline and change to non GMO certified to sell more. (1:02:06)
Party money buys establishment candidates: mailers, air time, name recognition to the point the Public is unaware of the more progressive candidate's grassroots campaign.
What's next? Winter is coming.
Ok,,,,,,,,,,,,oKVM I. Noki