Frank Luntz is not magic. He just knows something about how people form beliefs and make decisions, and he's used that knowledge to influence people.
You can do the same, and this diary, a follow-on to the diary I wrote a couple of weeks ago, shows you more ways to do it.
I've been slogging my way through a fantastic paper on reasoning by Mercier and Sperber so you don't have to. Here's the nut for today (and there are many, many more nuts in this paper):
People may be aware of having reached a certain conclusion – be aware, that is, of the output of an inferential process – but we claim that they are never aware of the process itself. All inferences carried out by inferential mechanisms are in this sense intuitive. They generate intuitive beliefs; that is, beliefs held without awareness of reasons to hold them.
Mercier and Sperber, Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for An Argumentative Theory
We all have these beliefs: you, I, your annoying brother-in-law, and that jerk in your local newspaper's comments thread that calls you a "lib" and Obama a socialist.
It's a dense paper, the M&S piece, but among the constellation of ideas is this one: when we are presented with input that conflicts with our intuitive beliefs, we need to activate our Type 2 (conscious, intentional) thinking and do some coherence checking. This instinctive cognitive action is the opening for your monkey wrench.
As I mentioned last time, cognitive scientists have modeled a two-part system of thinking: Type 1 is intuitive, happens in the background with no management on our part and is "quick and dirty". Type 2 thinking requires more effort because it must be managed and is a serial, one-at-a-time exercise.
We are naturally "cognitive misers" and do our best to remain in the Type 1 realm, keeping the Type 2 decks clear for when we really need them.
Frank Luntz' advice to Republicans - to latch on to certain words and memes that tap into our Type 1 beliefs - is based on the fact that Type 1 beliefs are strong and cognitively expensive to revise. So he takes a free ride in our consciousness, by attaching his candidates to the thoughts we already have going. They are like parasites, or at least hitchhikers, taking a free ride on what's already there.
My last diary recommended using framing to fight fire with fire. I focussed on "Job Creators", and encouraged you all to reframe the top 1% by coming up with a better frame and injecting that frame into the discourse.
Another strategy is to mash up two competing memes in a way that forces some coherence checking on the part of the listener/reader. "I believe in A, and I believe in B, but A and B conflict." This forces Type 2 thinking to address the incoherence. The more we can knock people into Type 2 thinking, where rational thinking happens, the better.
Again, I believe that this cannot be a head-on assault. We may all need to give up on our Republican brothers-in-law. There is too much water under that bridge; if someone is ever going to convince them, it's not going to be you.
As Mercier and Sperber point out:
The interpretation of communicated information involves activating a context of previously held beliefs and trying to integrate the new with old information. This process may bring to the fore incoherencies…When it uncovers some incoherence, an epistemically vigilant addressee must choose between two alternatives. The simplest is to reject communicated information, thus avoiding any risk of being misled. ... The second, more elaborate, alternative consists in associating coherence checking and trust calibration and allowing for a finer-grained process of belief revision. In particular, if a highly trusted individual tells us something that is incoherent with our previous beliefs, some revision is unavoidable...
ibid.
To prompt belief re-callibration or, I would suggest, belief formation in a person undecided on an issue, one must be a trusted, or at least neutral, source. One must be sincere, respect the person to whom one is speaking, be viewed as not dogmatic and a person genuinely seeking the truth.
If talking politics with you is like drinking from a fire hose, you are not going to be seen as trustworthy, and you are not going to be able to influence the discourse.
I guess it comes down to: do you want catharsis or influence? Catharsis feels good and I've engaged in it myself, but to throw monkey wrenches into the R meme machine you are going to have to be subtle. Sidle up to their Type 1 thinking and pose a meme that mashes-up with one they may hold.
Here's one idea: I believe in law and order for people and corporations. Regulations and oversight are law and order for corporations.
Another: I'd like there to be fewer abortions, and I believe good sex education and available contraception contribute to that.
Another: I believe in liberty and justice for all, regardless of who people are attracted to.
Or: I believe the government should stay out of our business, including our sex lives.
I'm sure in the comments you can do better.
The idea is to increase your influence by understanding how people form and revise beliefs. And as I mentioned last time, the majority of people on the comment threads are not already hardened in their opinions, as are you and I and those really scary people in the comment threads. Most are forming beliefs, and you can absolutely influence them, regardless of how many "thumbs down" you may get from others.
We can form public opinion from the grassroots up, rather than being spoon-fed memes from Luntz. And our method is more honest, because rather than acting as a parasite that feeds off people's most basic beliefs, we are encouraging people to examine the incoherence of their various beliefs, and to come away from knee-jerk Type 1 thinking into a more productive and valuable realm of engaged decision-making.
Again, go forth and multiply.