Even though it’s not real, I find this kind of framing to be useful in real life situations. When something bad happens, it can easily feel like that was the worst possible thing that could have happened. And your reaction might match that feeling. But the reality is if you’re still alive, it probably wasn’t such a big deal and you think about it in the context of what would actually be the worst thing that could have happened.
These people claim to use a proprietary method called Strategic Frame Analysis. I was curious to see if I recognized any names under the "People" section. I don't. As far as I can tell, they seem to be disconnected from the research project that I studied in college. I'm curious to know more about the political dynamic behind this. Is this a parallel research project? Do they have their own theoretical framework that was developed in parallel to Lakoff and others?
Looking at their history section, it looked like this was started by someone named Susan Nall Bales, who developed a method of "applying framing research", but it doesn't appear like she has any training in a discipline involved in "framing research". What research is being applied exactly?
Since the predominant implicit metaphor behind "argument" is battle/war/conflict, we intuit that there must be a "winner" and that we must "defeat" the "opponent" and other nasty implications. Because of this I often make explicit when I converse that I'm engaging in a "collaborative exploration" and not an fight about who is right.
But its reach seriously exceeds its grasp. The book makes all kinds of bizarre claims. For example:
> the predominant implicit metaphor behind "argument" is battle/war/conflict, we intuit that there must be a "winner" and that we must "defeat" the "opponent" and other nasty implications
The reason we use war as a metaphor for argument is because wars and arguments are similar in an important way. They are methods of producing a decision when there is disagreement. That is: "war is the continuation of politics by other means". In the book, Lakoff makes the bizarre argument (I'm paraphrasing) "why can't we think of arguments like a dance?" Well, George, because a dance doesn't decide anything whereas arguments and wars do.
You can wax poetic about "collaborative exploration" all you like but the real question is, given a fork in the road, do we go right or left?
I took away from the book the (I think) important point that if you have different goals (than fight) but use the word "argument", many people can buy into the (wrong) metaphor and you are now cross purposes.
Have you found that successful?
One of my big struggles in my social life is that I am quite curious how things are and more often than not my discussion/arguments are interpreted somehow so that I supposedly want to show my "opponent" is wrong. And really, most of the time, who is right and who is wrong is one of the last things crossing my mind.
So when someone is in favor of policy X, ask them how X accomplishes the goal they are in favor of -- what is the cause-effect chain.
This (at least according to psychologists' research) usually makes people more cognizant of the gaps in their understanding, and also more receptive to alternative solutions or explanations.
I changed to only asking questions and/or mirroring back what they said. The change in strategy answers my curiosities and helps people to feel like you are listening to them and care about what they have to say. Hope it helps.
No, the reason Americans felt September 11th so deeply isn't because the Twin Towers were "phallic" imagery, nor was it because planes "penetrated" the "vaginal image" of the Pentagon in a "plume of heat."
He seems important to folks who study in the field, so maybe I shouldn't judge him on one book, but I don't get the hype.
Changed how I listen - to anyone - forever.
His framelab podcast is also excellent.
"Celebrating 20 years of social science for social change."
You can't make this stuff up. And I bet 90% of people here don't even understand why this slogan is fucked up. The notion that the purpose of science is to produce social change is straight out of Neil Postman's Technopoly (chapter titled Scientism).
Propaganda is a tool - it can be used for bad or good. The problem is that "bad" and "good" are subjective value judgements. Simultaneously, the mindset of manipulation is going to have certain predictable effects on communication and society, no matter what the manipulation is used for.
If you haven't caught on, the website uses the techniques it promotes.
1) We live in a social world.
2) Your effectiveness is measured by other people.
3) Your ability to communicate can affect your perceived effectiveness.
4) Highly effective people are rewarded.
5) To be rewarded is 'good'.
Let me know where we disagree, and then we'll have a better understanding of each other.
Alternatively, we might want to look at objectivity and truthiness as being, you know, important.
We can do both, but one of those things is more important.
Trying to change someone's perspective isn't always propaganda, and of course you can change your own prospective through reframing and introspection.
Often people using these manipulative techniques don't even realize they are manipulating - they just think they are "charismatic" or "persuasive".
An example of poor framing: "do you feel you have the right to tell private company whay to do"
Reframing the same question can expose serious logical flaws and assumptions, and every critical thinker worth his salt should be aware of it and able to examine an issue from different viewpoints
The FrameWorks Institute is just a non-profit that's modernizing the study of rhetoric for modern political and social discourse
Convincing someone that the earth is flat is changing their perspective, but so is convincing them that flat earth is bullshit. People aren't rational by default, they need convincing.
> The FrameWorks Institute is a nonprofit think tank that advances the mission-driven sector’s capacity to frame the public discourse about social and scientific issues. The organization’s signature approach, Strategic Frame Analysis®, offers empirical guidance on what to say, how to say it, and what to leave unsaid. FrameWorks designs, conducts, and publishes multi-method, multi-disciplinary framing research to prepare experts and advocates to expand their constituencies, to build public will, and to further public understanding. To make sure this research drives social change, FrameWorks supports partners in reframing, through strategic consultation, campaign design, FrameChecks®, toolkits, online courses, and in-depth learning engagements known as FrameLabs. In 2015, FrameWorks was named one of nine organizations worldwide to receive the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions.
But that aside, the techniques that they discuss look like they could be useful for persuasive communication, including technical and product focused communication, so it is interesting from that perspective.
Dont forget that some people are excellent manipulators without having to read about it in a book, its like natural talent for them
Thats why we protect minors - they are so inexperienced, so an adult could easilly manipulate them into sex, crime, anything.
> Perhaps the most fundamental goal of applying the verbal patterns of Sleight of Mouth is to help people to shift their perspective 1) from a problem frame to an outcome frame, 2) from a failure frame to a feedback frame, and 3) from an impossibility frame to an ‘as if’ frame.
(An "as if" frame is where you imagine if the impossible outcome was possible and what that would be like.)
One of the main takeaways from this book was learning about Disney's creative process (although this wasn't discussed explicitly). There's three roles, all being important: the dreamer, the realist, and the critic.
The critic tends to operate from the "problem frame." Basically, they can be more effective by shifting to the "outcome frame." Instead of focusing on what you don't want, figure out what you do want instead. "Avoiding stress" changes to "becoming more relaxed and comfortable."
After identifying the positive intention behind the criticism, the book recommends changing it from a statement into a "how" question. "How can we...?"
> Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in California, United States, in the 1970s.
Because 20 years ago I was all aboard with most popular social movements, now, I'm supportive of most motivations, but very skeptical of groups, research, narratives and hardly believe anything I read even in trusted outlets. My 'there is more to this story Spidey Sense' generally does not fail me too often.
I wonder if we need the 'un-framing' institute, focused on trying to sus out the materiality of the truth in a digestible, reasonable way so that competing narratives can dissolve and people can have actual conversations instead of yelling about talking points.
The biggest example in my personal life was with finding the right medication. At first I was demoralized, but I challenged myself to take it as a long war campaign. That the lessons I learned along the way would one day help others.
Fast forward half a dozen years, half a dozen doctors, and I finally found the right balance of meds. The lessons I learned along the way have and will continue to help people.
As for where I learned about framing, I believe it was from some Pickup Artist material from the early 2000s. I would suggest you learn more from better sources like the book “Influence” by Robert Cialdini
There is a cool video by Jocko called Mind Control.
I found it helpful and related:
- art/photo -> viewer perspective
- patsy -> false perspective
- data -> message start of protocol
- stack -> base address in memory
- mental -> selected dimensions/axes
- inertial -> selected origin point
It's much better to submit the most interesting article from a site, the one that goes into the most unexpected specifics. I looked at a bunch of the articles on this site and they all seem pretty lightweight, unfortunately.
For example, here's their in-depth framing memo on STEM education: https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/...
It's available a couple links in from the corresponding "Toolkits" page: https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/toolkit/wiring-up/