Changing Minds (new book by Howard Gardner)

[carolinayellowdog]

Hey,

Gardner, best known for his work on multiple intelligences, has just published this book subtitled The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People's Minds. Because mind-changing is the task facing John Kerry and his supporters between now and November, I'll summarize some of his main points. The author identifies 7 "levers" that are factors in all cases of changes of mind: reason, research, resonance, representational redescriptions, resources and rewards, real world events, and resistances (identifying and overcoming them that is.)

We know that the facts and evidence are on our side; the research and reason presented in a dozen recent books would be fatal to the * campaign IF that were all that counts. The financial resources of the Kerry campaign are approaching those of the incumbent, although the invaluable resource of media bias still favors Bush despite some cracks in the facade. Real world events also appear to be on our side, with nonstop bad news for Bush for the last couple of months and no signs of respite ahead.

It seems to me that the key factors Democrats need to work on are identifying and overcoming resistances to the realization that this administration is a disaster; expressing Kerry's message in some kind of narrative that reframes the choice facing voters (the redescription part); and doing so in a way that resonates with what voters already know. Hope someone in the campaign reads this book and applies its insights.

CYD

[checks-n-balances]

1. Thanks for the info - I love stuff like this! Like you, I hope

somebody in the campaign with influence will make use of it.

Somehow we should have an extra FAQ list with all the right wing memes & myths we can think of with a rebuttal as the answer.

I've learned from experience that rational discussion is only one part of persuasion, especially with something so emotionally-laden as politics. It has to convince them personally and emotionally (and probably experientially) before it starts to make a difference.

That said, I also think that some of these myths/beliefs are so ingrained within people that they aren't going to change until they are transformed into something new they can believe in. Sounds like a farfetched example, but a theory I have about spousal abuse is that the abuser believes, consciously or subconsciously, that he (or she) is entitled to abuse others because the other person is somehow less than they are. White supremacists actually believe they're better than people of color, who don't "deserve" equal privileges & lifestyle. Many wealthy people believe they're better because they work hard like God wants them to so they're reaping the rewards. Conversely, they really believe the poor don't deserve God's blessings because they haven't work as hard or they're lazy. These wealthy are so prideful about themselves and are scornful of the lower classes, either with their social attitudes or in the policies they support. They are relieved of the guilt feelings because they think their scorn toward the poor is justified. It's almost like, "I'll be damned if I'm gonna let my tax money reward lazy people. What have they done to deserve it?"

There are some pretty decent people out there who haven't examined the underlying beliefs & false myths that they have picked up from somewhere. They'd probably be appalled, because many consider themselves to be Christians, yet have never been taught the "liberal" aspects of their faith (i.e., the teachings of Jesus). Most or all the rightwing memes & falsehoods are totally contradictory to those teachings. (Sorry, it's a pet subject that I launch into often.)

If you can think of how we can work on that, let's keep posting about it.

Thanks!

[carolinayellowdog]

2. Framing the choice

Hey,

As individuals, we can challenge the rightwing memes at every opportunity that seems worthwhile. For example, I wrote to NPR yesterday concerning the "job growth is booming so why don't voters credit Bush for good economic numbers" meme propagated on Weekend Edition Sunday. Suggested reframing the question as "why are voters unimpressed with an incumbent under whom there has been a net job loss of 2 million, when the previous administration increased jobs by 22 million in 8 years?" The truth is ALWAYS on our side. I don't see a point in confronting dyed-in-the-wool R voters, but ANYONE who seems persuadable is worth a moment of our time for some deprogramming. And when the news media show blatant bias, we need to confront that relentlessly because the stakes are huge.

But ultimately it is Dem elected officials and our candidate who must adopt the Clinton 1992 strategy of immediately confronting Bush lies. Lieberman was a disastrous appeaser, Gore's advisers weren't much better, our party's strategy in the midterms was cowardice, and I pray that Kerry learns from all these mistakes. The example to follow is very obvious and will soon be atop the bestseller list.

CYD

[doni_georgia]

3. Thanks for the post

Intelligent people change their opinions and beliefs about things as they learn and evolve. The static mind is a sign of lack of learning. I will have to get this book. I use a lot of Gardner's research in my lesson planning already.