One of the most common reasons that politicians do not answer questions directly is to avoid stepping into an opponent's frame.[1] It is almost always the case that when one steps into an opponent's frame, one loses the engagement or debate. This is a fundamental truth about how the human mind works. Framing issues leads the mind to see and think about a question within the frame. It is almost always harder to explain one's position within a frame that favors the opponent's argument. The general rule is simple: The more one has to explain themself, the weaker their arguments are seen to beIn framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade people to agree with them. In essence, a frame is the words, images and the mental and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reasoning, right and wrong.
Effective frames: Effective frames are ones that are persuasive to the most number of people that can be reached and influenced. Some people aren't persuaded by anything and this tactic fails. Good political frames are characterized by simplicity, stickiness (memorability), appeal to emotion and ideology or values, implicit or explicit identification of the good guys (the framer and his argument), the bad guys (the opposition and their policy) and the victim (people abused by the bad guys and their policies).
Practical and psychological impacts of frames: Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed
Examples of stepping into an opponent's frame include:
1. Trying to rebut the ‘illegal immigrant’ frame by including the phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ in the rebuttal. That just keeps reinforcing the concept ‘illegal’. Instead, the smart politician never steps into that frame and instead always refers to ‘undocumented workers’ or ‘undocumented children’.2. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy by arguing that that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert experts, (ii) they are constantly getting updated training, (iii) the situation is complicated and we are analyzing means for corrective action, (iv) our track record has been excellent in the past. The framer then demolishes the whole in-frame rebuttal by simply asserting: Right, your experts are constantly getting updated training because they don't have the necessary expertise. Those four defenses provided the framer with four opportunities to blow his opponent out of the water.
Lesson: Never step into your opponent's frame. If you do, you usually lose the persuasion war.
This 10 minute video cited by AlextheKay focuses on the power of properly framing issues and debate tactics that America's authoritarian radical right employs. These authoritarian debate tactics avoid the fatal weaknesses that shoots through essentially all of their pro-tyranny and pro-kleptocracy rhetoric and reasoning. The radicals know that they cannot step into their opponent's frame or they will lose the debate. But the pro-democracy forces usually can't resist stepping into the radical's flawed frames, thereby usually significantly reducing their persuasiveness to open minds. Nothing is persuasive to closed minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment