Some mind-bending metacognitive ideas buried in way too much polemic, academic fluff. It's difficult to wade through, even for one who accepts his basic argument.

Excellent book to learn how our brains think, and how activating various frames (the containers our brains organize information in) affects how we handle information and politics. I *know* the democratic party has had to have read his work, but why do they use almost none of the science that would actually help them? UGH. >.>

I've read two other Lakoff titles and really enjoyed them, especially Moral Politics. This felt like a rehash of stuff that I've already read, and somehow less compelling than the other two. Still, I think Lakoff's work is important in helping us to understand how American political discourse is polarizing, and what we can do to mend fences.

This book really exposed me to some interesting and new ideas, which is precisely what I was looking for. The idea that we're processing the world one- or many-steps removed from "reality", that we take shortcuts to derive what we consider to be "true"... of course, we've all read about how our thinking tends to be reflexive (un/subconscious) rather than reflective (rational), but George's explanation about how we essentially see things from either a strict parent or a nurturing parent worldview is so interesting! And thinking about the world in terms of metaphors is one thing, but having metaphors SHAPE how we think about the world is a whole 'nother level. I am not completely convinced that everything he described is truly how the world actually works, but it opens another possible perspective on how to think of things. I was especially interested in a throwaway statement at the very end, asking why we accept the notion that corporations ought to act like people with a rational self-interest goal. Why shouldn't they be expected to act like governments, such that they ought to have moral goals of benefiting the people/community/country? What is it about corporations that we simply take for granted they should solely be focused on profit? I think it will be extremely hard to put his ideas into practice... but I intend to try! Read this book if you're interested in thinking about thinking, why we think what we think, why other people think what they think, and how to frame our thoughts in more productive ways.

So the 18th century thinkers assumed, and structured a government around the idea that people were rational and would vote in their own interests. Modern neuroscience, and any cursory political ad watching would seem to suggest otherwise. Laskoff spends 200 pages explaining rudimentary framing and argumentation, which used to be come standard on an elitist education. This may explain why I've been wandering around muttering Cicero's Philippicae all day.

This could have been a really interesting look at the cognitive behaviour behind how and why individuals understand politics in certain ways, but in the end it was underwhelming and focused more on the narrative of the Old Enlightenment (how progressives currently think) vs. the New Enlightenment (how they should be moving forward in order to influence politics). I'd personally have liked to read more of the research behind his theory.

It is no shocker that fear mongering has become an all too acceptable part of our American Political system. Yet, as Lakoff explains in A Political Mind, the rousing emotions that scare tactics shoot for and have been so successful for conservatives in recent years can also be applied to progressive arguments, albeit without the element of fear.

By explaining how our brain perceives arguments, especially those which we process unconsciously, Lakoff demonstrates that our political mind is part of our hard wired neurological system. Thus, in order to help realign American politics with the progressive policies envisioned by our Founding Fathers, it is suggested that more attention needs to be paid to the psychology, not mere rationality, of arguments.

Most notably, Lakoff tackles the idea of framing and how something as simple as word choice can have a long last effect on the public's brains. While the idea is based on reversing the trend of old Enlightenment arguments within American politics, the notion of positive framing can be employed in almost any realm where one needs to get a point across in the face of adversity. An extremely useful point for those who often find themselves in contentious positions!

An interesting and inspiring read that will have you questioning the political world unfolding in front of you. If given enough credit, the information in this book can yield not only critical thinking but critical doing as Lakoff outlines the roles that progressives need to start adopting in order to come down off the pedestal of Enlightenment and begin recognizing the reality of 21st century politics.

It would be hard to find another book written during the Bush years that's more relevant now than it probably was then. The fundamental thesis of this book is that Progressives misunderstand how we think and make bad choices because of that. Liberals don't understand that Conservatives think and communicate fundamentally differently. The only problem with this is Lakoff doesn't help us to learn how to communicate our ideas more effectively. He gets part of the way there by pointing to the general frames used in Liberal and Conservative thought but when he goes off to exposit his research near the end of the book he stops applying his material. I think this book is good if you're interested in cognitive science but is less useful for a general audience.