Reviews for The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain

The average rating for The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-10-05 00:00:00 John Smith I was drawn to this book mostly because I knew of the author's reputation as a cognitive scientist and as someone who was known for spelling out how cognitive science overlaps with, and largely explains, many of the phenomena that we recognize as falling along the left-right spectrum of political ideologies. And Lakoff certainly does offer some insights into how thinking occurs, and what in particular is unique about the way we think about political issues. Lakoff's main idea, which should be apparent to anyone who watches endless hours of cable hours in rapture as I do, is that whoever controls the narrative frames of a debate controls the issue itself, and therefore always wins. How is this the case? Lakoff says that our view of rationality is largely, and erroneously, informed by the Enlightenment, which assumed it was conscious, universal, disembodied, logical, unemotional, value-neutral, interest-based, and literal. He shows several reasons why almost none of these are actually true. For example, we make decisions, to help others perhaps, that don't actually maximize our own self-interest, and that are tied up with value and emotional content. He claims that Democrats - very often with a grating, whiny tone - remain stuck in this view of rationality. Because of this, they are still in the habit of trying to lasso the facts, build charts and models, and explain why Republicans are simply wrong on many of the issues. Lakoff claims that this just isn't enough. Evidence, reason, facts, and figures won't win debates, he claims. But Republicans have learned how human reason really works - that it is in fact couched in tropes, metaphors, emotional phrases and associations - and they use them to their advantage in shaping political issues and talking points. Republicans just couch the issue in the terms that will helps them (their "narrative frames"), and then repeat that frame over and over again until it sticks in the minds of the public. Once stuck, it's difficult, but not impossible, to dislodge. But doing so would just be a matter of finding the right frame that speaks to your political basis, and saying it repeatedly. For example, conservatives have controlled the ideological frame regarding the "war on terror" for the last decade, and therefore they control many of the issues that we associate with "homeland security" (another phrase unused unquestioningly, according to Lakoff, that plays into Republican and neoconservative hands). Instead of accepting the frames of questions like "Do you think we should continue to fight the war on terror, or pull out?" or "Should middle class tax cuts be extended, or should they get a tax hike?" the issues need to be reformulated to emphasis what Lakoff thinks are the values of liberals and progressives: fairness, equality, and government accountability. In other words, re-frame the issues in such a way that benefits your own positions. And then repeat that framing. Over and over and over and over again - because, according to him, that's the only way you're going to win the debate. There are a lot of problems with this book, though. With an objective-sounding title like "The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics," I didn't really want any of Lakoff's partisan comments. I knew before opening the book that he's a committed liberal (many of my own sympathies, too, are very much left of center), but he spends too much time demonizing one political perspective, glorifying another, and too little time providing details and supporting evidence for the claims that he's making. I feel that this saps the book of almost all of its credibility. In order to have a book be a powerful explanatory tool, instead of a passing as a fat pamphlet for the Obama campaign, it should stick to the facts of the matter accompanied, perhaps, with some reasonable inductions, predictions, and details of methodological practice. Calling President Bush a "traitor" (which he actually does) accomplishes nothing. Furthermore, it made me realize more and more as I read it that this book is simply an example of what he was talking about: a successful example of framing issues in an advantageous way. Of course, he would be the last person to actually bring that to the reader's attention. I think the book may have suffered from being written for too popular an audience, too. It seems that the political potshots were filler for an audience who was more eager to see their opponent trashed than to actually read something about how cognitive science can help us better understand how we think metaphorically about political issues. I came really close to giving this two stars, which I almost never do, but thought there were a couple of insights that salvaged it from being a total loss, so I opted for three stars instead. For someone interested in this topic, I suggest looking elsewhere.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-07-28 00:00:00 Vasia Fokin Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, looks at 30 years of scientific research on the human brain, and asks some political questions. What he finds is the political divide is "not just in geography, religion or even power", it in our heads (no pun intended). Our country was born from the age of Enlightenment when reason was king, and emotion was irrelevant. Emotions were seen as just cluttering the issue at hand. The idea an educated, well informed, rational society will make rational, logical, fact based decisions and be able to adequately self govern. Rational being making rational decisions is an underlying foundation of our society, from the judicial system to the nightly news. Lakoff shows us that we do not act rationally, and asks why. Science tells us that 98% of our thought is unconscious. We are only aware of 2% of our thoughts. Lakoff demonstrates that this heavily impacts our society through word choice, metaphors, and the framing of issues.. A good example is when the Republicans discussed the Democrats plan of a timeline to exit Iraq. Republicans used the term "cut and run." A person can't hear "cut and run" without the feeling of cowardness or surrendering . Another good example is using the term "surge" in the Iraq war, as opposed to using the word "escalation." Lakoff offers some constructive criticism for the "liberal" thought process. Liberals argue by listing of facts like an encyclopedia and expecting people to digest them like a machine and arrive at logical, rational conclusions. Sound familiar? It did to me. "Conservative" thought prefer to use emotions over lists of facts. Now you'll have to read the book, because the liberal thought process is not just used by liberals, and vice versa, with the conservative thought process. Lakoff argues against the metaphor of politics being described as right and left. Lakoff tempers the science of the brain with bits with pop culture, which keeps the reader interested and makes them aware of the ingrained nature of what Lakoff is discussing. He brings in the Anna Nicole saga, Reagan's fictional "Welfare Queen", the latest in neural science, and a analysis of framing and metaphors, to provide insight as to why reason alone is ineffective, that we need emotion, and new enlightenment. Hands down this was the best book I read all year. It taught me to listen to what people are saying during a politcal conversation, instead of thinking of what I will say next to refute what I think they are saying. We all have more in common than we are lead to believe; that commonality should be the starting point for change, not the places where we differ. This book will help you be a better communicator, listener, and thinker.