In George Lakoff's 2004 classic Don't Think of an Elephant, he tells us that one of the most prevailing, and persistent, myths we, as progressives, have inherited from the Enlightenment is the idea that "[t]the truth will set us free." That is, "[i]f we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they'll all reach the right conclusions" (p. 17).
Lakoff, a professor of cognitive scientist and linguistics, goes on to educate us on how people actually draw conclusons. According to him, "[p]eople think in frames," which are "instantiated in the synapses of our brains...We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is aready in the synapses of the brain" (p. 17).
In other words, in order to process a fact, people need a way - a frame, a concept, a mindset - for thinking about them. "Otherwise," Lakoff tells us, "facts go in and then they go right back out" (p. 17).
But what motivates us to adopt a certain frame? Lakoff doesn't give a direct answer, though he leans towards repetition - that is, that repeating a frame often enough helps establish it in the synapses of the brain. It's a variation of the idea that if you repeat a lie long enough, you start to believe it.
While I don't disagree with this assessment, based on my experience and understanding of human psychology, people tend to adopt a specific mindset or frame of thinking, and subsequently form certain biases or opinions, based primarily on one thing: uncertainty. The adoption of a frame is a way to deal with uncertainty and the unpleasant emotions associated with it: fear, worry, insecurity, concern.
The classic example, often used in trainings on bias, is how our early ancestors developed a bias against "rustling in the bushes," since they associated it with the potential for a predator (a lion or tiger or bear), lying in wait, to attack us. In that example, our ancestors' frame (predators tend to lie in wait to kill and eat us) guides them to interpret the fact (rustling of leaves) as a potential signal of an impending attack, leading us to draw the conclusion that we should run away.
But we don't need to think back to our ancestors to think of examples. Imagine, for example, you were bit hard by a dog when you were very young. From that experience, you would likely develop a concept of dogs as dangerous animals, and thus their presence is enough to make you afraid or worried.
In other words, people adopt frames to orient their thoughts and actions against a specific uncertainty. It is not simply that a person who was bit by a dog once when they were young believes that the next dog they see will definitely bite them. Rather, the frame that the dog is a dangerous animal helps to protect them from the danger - the potential threat - of being bitten again. That is to say, the frame gives them a feeling of certainty and control.
In politics, the same motivation - to develop a feeling of certainty and control - applies. People do not adopt a certain mindset because of rational assessment of the facts. Nor do they adopt it because that's how they were taught. Rather, they adopt a frame as a way of orienting their thinking and their actions against potential concerns they encounter or hear/read about.
So how can we, as progressives, use this understanding to better defend our political philosophy? In a previous post, I talked about the six political mindsets that cover the range of people's political "frames" in the United States. One of the ways progressives can dominate political discussion is by addressing the underlying uncertainty by which others have adopted a frame, including their (progressives') own frame. What underlying concerns, fears, insecurities do proponents of each mindset have?
Let us go through each mindset here. For progressives, the primary concern or fear is tyranny - that is, the potential of a person or group of people to show complete disregard for other people's lives, freedoms, or happiness. This is why many progressives today are so highly focused on the rise of fascism, authoritarianism, and dictatorships, and are quick to make comparisons to Nazi Germany and Hitler.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are less concerned about tyranny - after all, if a tyrant is "morally-strong," then he or she might actually be a good ruler. Rather, conservatives are much more concerned about disorder - that is, the lack of a stable structure and set of rules that clearly define people's roles and responsibilities. For conservatives, social disorder leads to social decay.
For liberals, the main concern or fear is abandonment - the potential of being neglected, ignored, unheard, unvalued, unloved. That is why liberals focus on helping and uplifting the most vulnerable and marginalized people in society - the poor, the working class, people of color, LGBTQ+, the disabled, immigrants, etc. - people whom they feel have been abandoned, neglected, and excluded by the system.
For libertarians, the primary fear or concern is conformity - that is, blind compliance to a standard way of acting, taking, or thinking. Conformity, libertarians believe, lead to a lack of personal expression and freedom - a lack of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking.
For Democratic Socialists, the main concern is centered on abuse. A system that prioritizes profits over people is a system that leads a certain group of people to exploit, and thus control, another group of people so that the exploiters can win. This is an abusive system.
Lastly, for those who hold the mutual benefits mindset, the main concern is disappointment. People who hold the idea that politicians are inherently in it for political gain want to avoid the disappointment of being let down when the person they support lets them down.
Here is a chart of the concerns:
| Political Mindset | Primary Concern |
|---|---|
| Progressive | Tyranny |
| Conservative | Disorder |
| Liberal | Abandonment |
| Libertarian | Conformity |
| Democratic Socialist | Abuse |
| Mutual Benefits | Disappointment |
In presenting these six concerns, it is important to realize that all of us share each of these concerns, though at varying levels and degrees. Most Americans do not want to be ruled by a tyrant; to live in times of social decadence and disorder; to be abandoned by their government; to be forced to conform to certain conventions or rules, especially ones opposed to their values and beliefs; to be continually abused by the very people on whose existence their livelihood depends; or to be disappointed by the failure of elected officials to follow through on their promises. However, it is the primary concern that drives a person's adoption of a political mindset.
This leads us to another point: a person will not be motivated to change their political opinion unless we address their underlying concerns. Thus, as progressives, our role should not be to "educate people on the facts." People cannot respond to facts until you address their underlying concerns. Thus, as a progressive who trying to promote a specific political philosophy or thought, your communication strategy should be built around understanding what are your audience's underlying concerns and how does what you have to say address these concerns.
I will go over how to do this in later posts. For now, just keep this in mind: stop focusing on the facts! Stop arguing with people on the basis of facts. Stop trying to appeal to facts in order to make your case.
Instead, focus your conversation on their underlying concerns. You'll get much further along that way.