Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Framing 101

frameworksinstitute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: Framing 101

#41

Post by jariel »

Sadly in 2021 my initial reaction is 'this is Orwellian' because frankly, what we need a lot more these days is not 'framing for the purpose of narrative creation' but rather 'contextualizing facts so they are more Truthful'.

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.

Re: Framing 101

#42

Post by jariel »

engineer_22 wrote: post #13
colllectorof wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Framing is a tool - it can be used for bad or good. 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.

I'll make some statements here, and lets see if we agree: 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.

Yes, this is the Machiavellian view.

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.

Re: Framing 101

#44

Post by elicash »

yboris wrote: post #26
qntty wrote: post #23

I took a class in college on cognitive linguistics taught about that last couple of decades of cognitive science research around framing. The field that we studied was relatively small so we became familiar with the major researchers in the field. The major figure was George Lakoff. These people claim to use a proprietary method called Strategic Frame Analysis. I was curious to see if I recognized any names under the…

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

I cannot stand Lakoff, having read Don't Think of an Elephant years ago.

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.

Re: Framing 101

#45

Post by [deleted] »

beefield wrote: post #38
yboris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

> 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. 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,…

[deleted]

Re: Framing 101

#46

Post by azundo »

boatsie wrote: post #37

There’s a fictional story about a girl going off to college and writing a letter to her parents (pre internet days). She laments about getting injured, her dormitory catching fire, and getting pregnant. But at the end of the letter, she reveals that none of those things happened and in reality she is just getting some bad grades. Even though it’s not real, I find this kind of framing to be useful in real life situati…

Another similar framing I sometimes use is to think about how many people in the world would gladly switch places with me and have my problems instead of theirs. Helps to remind myself to keep things in perspective.

Re: Framing 101

#47

Post by [deleted] »

beefield wrote: post #38
yboris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

> 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. 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,…

[deleted]

Re: Framing 101

#48

Post by tenpoundhammer »

beefield wrote: post #38
yboris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

> 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. 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,…

I had the same problem my whole life up until about two years ago. For whatever reason my default mindset was that when I heard something I didn't understand or was curious about, I would explain my understanding and frame that against what I thought was wrong about their understanding. I then expected them to respond in a similar way. To the majority of people this seems confrontational and argumentative, so everyone just thought I was being a know it all jerk.

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.

Re: Framing 101

#49

Post by slibhb »

yboris wrote: post #26
qntty wrote: post #23

I took a class in college on cognitive linguistics taught about that last couple of decades of cognitive science research around framing. The field that we studied was relatively small so we became familiar with the major researchers in the field. The major figure was George Lakoff. These people claim to use a proprietary method called Strategic Frame Analysis. I was curious to see if I recognized any names under the…

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

I've read the book and I find the first half great. It demonstrates the ubiquity of metaphor in language.

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?

Re: Framing 101

#50

Post by yboris »

beefield wrote: post #38
yboris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By is one of my favorite books. It's a great reminder about how powerful words can be at subliminally guiding our thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By 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…

> 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. 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,…

One great technique for understanding others (and often as a bonus also showing them they don't know what they are talking about) is to simply ask for the mechanism they are describing.

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.

Post reply on HN