George Lakoff: Moral Politics

May I recommend this talk on the neuroscience of language and thought by George Lakoff? [link] And also this one on political language, morals and metaphors? It will change how you listen to political speech, and especially political speech targeting people with different political orientation -- which can often sound nonsensical, but is actually carefully constructed to activate their metaphors. [this video] Basically, the ideas of enlightenment (we are rational beings) are not true. A couple of slides from the first lecture: Myth: Reason is conscious, you know what you think. Science: Reason is mostly unconscious, estimates are about 98% unconscious. Conscious thinking is linear. Brain circuitry is massively parallel. Myth: Ideas are made meaningful via their direct connections to the external world. Meaning is a matter of truth conditions. Science: Ideas are made meaningful via the brain's connections to the body and our embodied experience. Myth: Emotion gets in the way of rationality. Science: Emotion is necessary for rationality.

The right[2] looks at intent because that's what matters in a hierarchical view of society. This division is from a fundamental difference in what societies are. This can be observed din how they use language; from one of the most enlightening articles[1] I've ever read: > One of the biggest problems of the entire Culture Wars is that people like us [the left[2]] use language impart information. We usually are not aware that a nice big chunk of population does not use language in that way at all. Their use of language is that of Phatic Language [...] In a hierarchical society [the right[2]], language is [often] not used for exchange of information [...] It is used to establish social hierarchy. For a good explanation of how this works, George Lakoff's lecture[3] "Moral Politics". [1] [link] [2] The "left"/"right" labels are being use in a general psychological sense, which doesn't always match the political groups with the same names. [3] [this video]

I tend to lean toward agreeing with you, by the way, but the other side of this argument is: We already know that giving money and food to poor people doesn't resolve poverty, when the aid / social welfare stops the poverty returns because aid / welfare prevents people from innovating your way out of poverty. Of course, which side of the argument a person lands on probably depends on their moral politics, see[1] - basically I'm referring to the progressive vs. conservative divide. Fortunately for me I live in Australia where we have social welfare to the tune of $527.60 a fortnight for a single adult[2], and $952.80 for a couple. But of course we still have bunches of poverty, but I've never been to the US so I can't really say how it compares. Also, I think the example of the Nordic countries is a poor comparison. The 'Nordic Countries* as a whole have a population of 26.6 million, comparable to Australia. Sweden has a population of about 10 million, the others are close to half that or much less. In a country that has a population the size of Melbourne (4.5 million) or Sydney (4.9 million) I would imagine it would be a lot easier to want to care for other people. I think that matters a lot. 1. [this video] 2. [link]

TL;DR - skip straight to [1] > I'm not sure it is possible to convince someone It is possible, but first you have to open a real dialog. That isn't going to happen without first learning to speak their language , because this is "More than just Resistance to Science"[1]. > Only new facts will do the trick Arguments based on facts are useful when trying to persuade people fluent in the language of science and logic. Unfortunately I suspect only a minority of the population has sufficient understanding of data-focused language. Most people instead see language as phatic expression [2][3] first. A good example of this from the other side of the language divide that still retains mutual intelligibility are Trump's repeated - and often self-contradictory - promises that he would "build the wall". People that primarily use language to convey facts often claims his rhetoric sounds ignorant, useless, or xenophobic. Trump's intended audience, on the other hand, hears the language of emotion that promises protection. Trump isn't trying to convey facts , so self-contradiction and other ignorant claims are not important. To reach people on the other side of this divide, it is probably necessary to first learn their language of social hierarchy, emotion, etc. Skipping that step and continuing to throw facts at them is about as useful as sending them a textbook written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] While I'm discussing this as a language problem, some people ma