Thanks for all the cites. I am in the middle of Lakoff's Elephant Book. As I recall, he actually holds that growing up in a strict daddy as opposed to nurturing family alters brain circuitry so that it affects things WAY beyond the view of the family, even unconsciously. Thus, particularly for those of us old enough to have brought up in the "spanking" era, it can trigger a deep sense of "truth" to what Daddy does, even if we have ourselves long moved on from that ethos as we raised our own kids. (I don't know if neuroscience supports him, but neuroscience is uncovering all sorts of things about how the brain works that contradicts "common sense." Witness the "predictive brain" concept. )
Lakoff sees this predilection as on a spectrum. So you can believe the strict daddy frame about one thing but not about another. It seems to me that explains a whole lot of hypocrisy.
It is thus extremely and horrendously clever to make it a mantra. It is way easier weave it into a leadership narrative than the "nurturing family" model and frame. A leader may have to be "tough" sometimes, though nurturing as a general frame. That makes for a bumpy narrative.
On how to deal with the news. As a retired attorney I am finding it actually SOOTHING to research the various statutes the trump is either violating or relying on, though my legal practice was far from any of the issues now being raised--as in actually READING them. This obviously isn't for everyone, but for many statutes it isn't that hard to understand what they SAY and as the litigation heats up everywhere, it might be useful to have come to your own initial conclusions and questions. For example, trump's attempt to widen the "expedited deportation" statute has a glitch in that the statute itself says in its first sentence that it applies to immigrants who are not "admitted" to the US. This raises the immediate question of why immigrants Biden allowed to stay on a temporary basis were not somehow "admitted." Just that bit may help orient you to all the analyses you see, which may well conflict. In other words, it may give you a "frame" for evaluation that you KNOW involves which words are those at issue.
Thanks for all the cites. I am in the middle of Lakoff's Elephant Book. As I recall, he actually holds that growing up in a strict daddy as opposed to nurturing family alters brain circuitry so that it affects things WAY beyond the view of the family, even unconsciously. Thus, particularly for those of us old enough to have brought up in the "spanking" era, it can trigger a deep sense of "truth" to what Daddy does, even if we have ourselves long moved on from that ethos as we raised our own kids. (I don't know if neuroscience supports him, but neuroscience is uncovering all sorts of things about how the brain works that contradicts "common sense." Witness the "predictive brain" concept. )
Lakoff sees this predilection as on a spectrum. So you can believe the strict daddy frame about one thing but not about another. It seems to me that explains a whole lot of hypocrisy.
It is thus extremely and horrendously clever to make it a mantra. It is way easier weave it into a leadership narrative than the "nurturing family" model and frame. A leader may have to be "tough" sometimes, though nurturing as a general frame. That makes for a bumpy narrative.
On how to deal with the news. As a retired attorney I am finding it actually SOOTHING to research the various statutes the trump is either violating or relying on, though my legal practice was far from any of the issues now being raised--as in actually READING them. This obviously isn't for everyone, but for many statutes it isn't that hard to understand what they SAY and as the litigation heats up everywhere, it might be useful to have come to your own initial conclusions and questions. For example, trump's attempt to widen the "expedited deportation" statute has a glitch in that the statute itself says in its first sentence that it applies to immigrants who are not "admitted" to the US. This raises the immediate question of why immigrants Biden allowed to stay on a temporary basis were not somehow "admitted." Just that bit may help orient you to all the analyses you see, which may well conflict. In other words, it may give you a "frame" for evaluation that you KNOW involves which words are those at issue.
Such a great recap of so much we benefit from understanding. Thank you for doing this translation work for us.