Why Those Rockridge People Sometimes Get On My Tits

[robinturner]

How does the argument frame compare with the rationalist approach critiqued in Chapter 3? Do we consciously deliberate about the facts to demonstrate which ones correspond most accurately to the real world? Hopefully, by now we can all agree that this is not the way arguments work in politics. What do you think? How has your burgeoning understanding of cognitive science changed how you think about political argumentation?

My burgeoning understanding of cognitive science tells me that addressing the reader as though they were a seven-year-old who has learnt the word "burgeoning" is not the best way to win converts to your cause.

Comments

[solri.livejournal.com]

The aim of the site is to apply findings from cognitive linguistics to political debate. The Rockridge Institute was founded by George Lakoff, who has written or co-written a number of books on metaphor (Metaphors We Live By, Moral Politics, Philosophy in the Flesh etc.). A frame, as far as I can understand Lakoff's use of the term, is a set of concepts, usually metaphorical, which come together and are employed to understand complex issues. Lakoff, in Moral Politics, argued that American political debate has been dominated by conservative frames (e.g. the metaphor of government as a "strict father", as opposed to the liberal, nurturing metaphor of government). What progressives therefore need to do is "reframe" issues. Rockridge is what came out of all that. I like some of what they're doing, but I think they have a tendency to fall into sophistry.