Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Jim Cote — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:08:46 -0000

I'm a little skeptical of some of the ingroup claims about liberals and libertarians. Good college educated liberals can be very accepting of a bonobo like culture but may blanche at a purity father-daughter dance held by religious conservatives. I'm curious how well Haidt's work takes into account the liberal problem of tolerating everyone except the intolerant. It's hard not to see the "ingroup" (perhaps "outgroup" is a better word) processing in Will's gleeful description of liberal democracy destroying the radical islam. (I'm gleeful too).

Great couple of podcasts, and I hope that you can keep mining the last questions regarding liberal culture.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Steve Roth — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:03:46 -0000

>Democrats should face up to the likely possibility that voters are rejecting the content of their message, not just the style.

Uh, it looks like exactly the opposite is true:

http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconserv...

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

TGGP — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:35:23 -0000

Here's Pinker vs Lakoff

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

ashok — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:51:20 -0000

That was really thoughtful and informative - thank you for writing.

I'm not a libertarian, so I'm curious how the "slides" would work for one who held up anarcho-capitalism as an ideal. The following remarks are just guesses: Would someone of that type be more accepting of "harm" as something that would create incentives for others, or toughens one up? (I don't mean this in a bad way - I'm thinking of the logic of the "Death Wish" movies).

"Ingroup" seems like something that would not register (i.e. "Starship Troopers"). Reciprocity as a sentiment might mean an enormous amount - one would have the right to be ungrateful, but the bonds needed for enterprise generally could mean that people need to recognize what is fair and unfair in their most essential dealings.

"Hierarchy" and "purity" are where I really get tripped up. I'm not clear how "hierarchy" is a sentiment distinct from "ingroup," and positing an anarchist society seems to throw "ingroup" and "hierarchy" away at the same time for me, and thus a flag is raised. Then again, I'm just guessing at how these foundations work. Also, can't "purity" be defined as a species of harm?

In any case, I guess I have two questions going: how do the sliders work for a libertarian, and if some of the foundations can be seen not-quite-so distinct from the other foundations, can a reasonable electoral strategy be to recast one's ideas in terms of the relevant passions?

You seem to hint at this latter idea very strongly when you mention the "moral primacy of harm, autonomy and rights" - the repugnance at gay marriage is nowhere near as great as the repugnance of crime against gays for most conservatives. That can be played upon to give left-leaning and libertarian parties an advantage (of course, exaggerating a threat can also work to one's detriment). Harm and reciprocity could be said to be at work in a greater vision of purity, where moral conservatives see themselves as classic liberals first, and therefore concede rights rather than see others be hurt by a climate of prejudice needlessly.

I realize this comment is all over the place, but any thoughts you have would be welcome, I'm still trying to sort out everything you said.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

GilM — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:24:40 -0000

JWill,

I agree that it looks bad.

But, on the other hand, if most people are built so that they're shielded from arguments by their emotional armor, then it seems like a legitimate tactic to appeal to their emotions so that we can get past the blockade, and get a fair hearing of our arguments.

That doesn't seem like manipulation to me.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

JWill — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:02:03 -0000

"If a thoroughly liberal society is worth having, liberals will have to spot the points of conflict between the liberal and illiberal dimensions of the moral sense, drive in the wedge, and pull out all the rhetorical stops—including playing on feelings of quasi-religious elevation and indignant moral disgust—to make Americans feel the moral primacy of harm, autonomy, and rights."

Is it just me, or does this sound like Will's advising more Michael Moore-like behavior?

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

GilM — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:25:47 -0000

Anthony,

We won't win major elections for a long time, anyway.

But, it'll be longer if we don't encourage as many people to adopt a metaphor for government closer to "night watchman" than "mommy" or "daddy".

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Anthony — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:51:14 -0000

Art D0dger at #19 - I understand the sentiment. Unfortunately, Lakoff appears to believe it, too, even though Moral Politics started off being descriptive. I'm fairly certain that descriptively, he's right - most people really do conceptualize the relationship between government and citizen using some family metaphor or another, or several, inconsistently. You and I and Will can argue until we're blue in the face that it's an imappropriate metaphor, but we won't win elections that way.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:52:54 -0000

--"An America less fueled by religious feeling—one that tuned down the purity dimension to Danish levels—might be a more just America. But you don’t start with the voters you’d like to have."

--"disgust is uniquely inarticulate, implying no real reason beyond itself, and so is unfit as a basis for persuasion and policy in an open, pluralistic society."

Hmm. If only we had these silly ideas about transcendence removed from our decision-making, then we'd really have something. Why would anyone want to be disgusted at something like unfair taxation or slavery based on morals from some made-up god? We didn't really need emotion to inspire people to fight in the Revolution or the Civil War. An open, pluralistic society would have seen by virtue of "pure" reason that these ills do not an efficient society make.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Trashcanjack — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:47:33 -0000

Will, I think you badly misunderstand most pro-lifer's motivations. There might be some people out there who are thinking in terms of disgust, but the much more dominant note is harm. The Silent Scream is a movie about harm. The fight over partial birth abortion is a move to focus the debate on harm.

You seem to feel disgust at the impurity of pro-lifers (if your sneering references "embryos having the spark of divinity") is any indication. But that isn't what motivates us.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

alphie — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:51:37 -0000

Does this mean President Hillary will be able to command all the wingnuts to submit to her authority?

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

ArtD0dger — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:42:28 -0000

I'm not religious, but I must have some of that disgust/elevation emotion myself. Because whenever I hear Lakoff arguing that ANY parent -- be it a "nurturing mother" OR a "strict father" -- is a good metaphor for government, I want to puke.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

KJ — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:35:58 -0000

"Their best long-term hopes rest in moving the fight to a battlefield with more favorable terrain."

You unwittingly restated Lakoff's thesis in his real book on the subject, "Moral Politics". Having read Moral Politics and having sat in on a Lakoff seminar on the subject, I am continually amazed how the critiques of Lakoff continue to have little understanding of what the man was actually saying. I imagine they are relying on "Don't Think ..." which was poorly written and way too dumbed down and thus easily misunderstood.

So back to the quote above. That was Lakoff's main point. Framing was mainly about making people think of Democratic values when they hear values. Make them think in moral and emotional terms when deciding to pull the lever for democrats, which is pretty much what Haidt seems to be saying. I'll have to check him out. In the meantime, I suggest Will check out Moral Politics and then revisit this interesting post.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

jenny — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:22:00 -0000

If you’re a sharia devotee ready to stone adulterers and slaughter infidels, you have purity and ingroup pushed up to eleven

Do you, or does Haidt, have any non-immoral examples of moral thinking along dimensions that aren't harm and reciprocity?

jenny

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Tim — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:19:32 -0000

Thank you, very thoughtful read. It produced both resignation and hope for me in this continuing struggle to understand this polarization we have going in this country. I consider myself moderate but have to go back to the EQ to check my settings...

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

LarryM — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:04:28 -0000

Gil,

Well ... I think that much of the objection to cost benefit analysis is a combination of fear that the process will end up being corrupted (e.g., non-economic but real costs ignored) and/or that a lot of the most catastrophic risks are hard to quantify properly. By maybe I'm projecting.

As for the rest, I suppose that to the extent that you are correct, that may be one of the reasons why I'm moving in a libertarian (albeit left libertarian) direction. But my own experience with liberal friends and acquaintances is somewhat different than yours. And my current biggest exposure to liberal is in the blogging world; the liberal I read are disproportionately the ones whose world view I find most congenial, and hence the ones that fit Haidt's results.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Mike — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:01:27 -0000

Agreeing with 12, Haidt's methodology relies on individuals self-reporting their moral logic, so its largely an indication of who has been socialized to believe what. Liberals may have simply been socialized to talk only about the harm and reciprocity scales, while conservatives are socialized on all the scales.

Lakoff's point seems to be actually reinforced by Haidt. It could be that individuals are drawn to whatever political party best matches their moral configuration, irrespective of what the actual positions are. "Disgust" voters want to hear about unnatural acts -- gay sex or genetically modified food. "In-group" voters want to hear about group solidarity -- unions or anti-flag burning amendments. It's not so much that they care about those issues as they are convinced that the world would be better off if everyone was forced to adopt their private arrangement of moral logics, and the issue itself is not a problem outside of the fact that it has been made into an exemplar of the violation of a particular moral principle.

Finally, you can't paying very close attention to accuse Lakoff of promoting "false consciousness". I think he explicitly rejects that in "Thinking Points".

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Cannoneo — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:53:28 -0000

Something is unclear: is the disgust/elevation response especially tied to the purity mode? As you and other commenters have suggested, the disgust response seems to appear in whatever foundation is intensely held. Personally, I feel physical revulsion at scenes of great suffering and/or cruelty, as I'm sure many do. And I've known authoritarians to have irrational, uncontrolled, disgust-like responses to rebellious behavior or even nonconformist haircuts.

Second, many liberal religous people will claim that their religious emotions are activated primarily along the harm and reciprocity axes. I think in general, people will understand their religious emotions as extensions of their moral emotions. I'm not sure I want to concede "religion" to conservatives just because they have different moral emotions.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

GilM — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:22:23 -0000

It's possible.

And, it's possible that the liberals I read and speak to are not representative. But my impression is that the intensities in the purity, ingroup, and hierarchy emotional dimensions are very high; just (as I said) not focused on traditional targets.

Is it your impression that most environmentalists are generally open to cost-benefit analysis (just trying to minimize harm)? Do they react well to Bjorn Lomborg's arguments?

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

LarryM — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:39:07 -0000

Great post. This is the stuff I come here for.

Gil,

Will (or Haidt) may paint with somewhat too broad a brush, but, while liberals as currently defined certainly have plenty in the way of moral sentiments, they just tend to be, more often than not, along different dimensions that conservatives. I would say, for example, that most environmentalists are motivated by the harm dimension, not purity.

I would agree that Haidt's description applies MORE to libertarians than liberals, but then Will said as much.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

GilM — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:16:38 -0000

Ok, so now it looks like we're just creating definitions that don't seem to map to the things the words normally refer to. It seems to me that we should be using "liberal" to refer to the group of people who currently self-identify as "liberal".

I think that modern liberals tend to have many of the same types of moral sentiments as the religious, but they apply them in non-traditional areas. They look for purity in environmentalism, different boundaries for thier ingroup, different conceptions of justice/reciprocity, different authorities, etc. But the intensities of these sentiments are just as strong for them.

It seems to me that most of Haidt's description of liberals really applies more to classical liberals (libertarians) than to modern liberals (leftists).

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Anthony — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:07:17 -0000

Lakoff's original analysis in "Moral Politics" is still sound, though I can't speak for "Don't think".

Liberals - the old-fashioned kind - correspond to the "nurturing parent" family model, while conservatives correspond to the "strict father" family model. What's happened since 1972 is that the Democrats have become more like the caricature of the "Nurturing parent" - the "indulgent-permissive parent", and the Republicans have capitalised on that. It's not just a matter of framing - Democrat policies and the policies successfully pursued by elements of the liberal coalition (NAACP, ACLU, etc) really have made liberal *policy* match the indulget-permissive model. Meanwhile, Democrats have tried to tar Republicans with following "authoritarian-abusive" model, but while there are authoritarian-abusive Republicans in power, here and there, Republican *policy*, and the policy successes of elements of the conservative coalition, are not seen by the public as authoritarian or abusive.

Meanwhile, liberals have cried (authoritarian) wolf so often, that even when some Republicans in power do seem to follow that pattern more than the "strict father" model, people mostly ignore them.

Strict fathers are, however, supposed to be competent, and Bush's failing in Iraq (even supporters of the war question his competence in carrying it out) made the Republicans look like they'd failed at being "strict fathers" - and so people who could be swayed to the Democrats were in 2006.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

TGGP — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:52:18 -0000

Your post seems wrapped as advice to Democrats, yet provides only an explanation rather than a strategy. Of course libertarians like you and I think socialized health-care isn't worth it, but what do progressives think?

I'm glad you started talking about Haidt after I mentioned him here on your blog. I've got a post on my own blog about Haidt's Edge piece. On a somewhat related note, my latest is about how breaking down the ties that bind communities, including shared values, can be a good thing.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:42:35 -0000

8, Yeah, on average they do. I think one of the important lessons of Haidt's work is that we should expect all these dimensions to be doing SOME work in all people's worldviews. I think your very good point about environmentalist types is more a point about where to place people on a map of political views. I'd prefer simply to define "liberal" in terms of its distinctive moral sentiments. To the extent that environmentalists are purity obsessed, or labor unionists are all about ingroup solidarity, then to that extent they aren't liberal.

Re: What’s the Frequency Lakoff?

MDM — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:28:11 -0000

8 has a point. Haidt's work reminded me of how things like veganism can powerfully tap into the purity dimension. Also, think of how identity politics can tap into the ingroup dimension. Hardcore lefties are broad-band too, I guess.