People in power get to construct reality

[coberst]

People in power get to construct reality

President Carter declared that the energy crisis is the “moral equivalent of war” in 1977. This declaration immediately imposed a network of entailments (to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result). These entailments were such things as “enemy”, “threat to national security”, requiring “setting targets”, “reorganizing priorities”, organizing “strategies”, accepting “sacrifice”, “obeying the Commander in Chief”, etc.

New metaphors, like old tried and true metaphors, can have the power to define reality; thus the conclusion that power can determine reality.

Metaphors create reality through a network of entailments that are coherent and commanding. Metaphors high light some things and push others under the rug. Our acceptance of a metaphor forces us to focus attention only on the aspects of our experience that it illuminates thereby by causing us to view its entailments as being true.

Concerns of truth do arise regarding new metaphors but of most importance are our perceptions and inferences following the metaphor and the actions sanctioned by it.

“In all aspects of life…we define our reality in terms of metaphors and then proceed to act on the basis of the metaphor. We draw inference, set goals, make commitments, and execute plans, all on the basis of how we in part structure our experience, consciously and unconsciously, by means of metaphor.”

Can you give examples of how metaphors have directed action in your life?

Quotes from “Metaphors We Live By” by Lakoff and Johnson

[schola]

There is a theory in linguistics that proposes that language actually affects how we think: Sapir–Whorf hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hypothesis postulates that a particular language's nature influences the habitual thought of its speakers: that different language patterns yield different patterns of thought. This idea challenges the possibility of perfectly representing the world with language, because it implies that the mechanisms of any language condition the thoughts of its speaker community.

The mind basically interacts with reality using metaphors. Your post reminds me of something Eckhart Tolle says. The ego-mind is the root of insanity. Perhaps getting past these metaphors and interacting with reality directly should be our ultimate goal.

[coberst]

People in power have the ability to construct reality because they can frame the issue. Those who accept a frame of the issue create reality in conformity with that frame.

The Republicans show their efficiency at framing the issue when they changed the frame from estate taxes to death tax. As soon as a person accepts that frame all of the concepts relating to estate tax are replaced with death and a tax on death.

We comprehend a statement as being true in a given situation when our comprehension of the statement fits our comprehension of the situation closely enough for our purposes.

[schola]

Yes.

And words can be dangerous coming out of anyone's mouth, not just the man in power. That's how marketing works man. That is what copywriting is. It's all about how you phrase it. Ever heard of neuro-linguistic programming?

A commercial can have a powerful effect on someone's reality. One minute you have never even heard of a product, the next minute you truly believe you need this thing.

Here are some other fun political spin words.

estate tax vs death tax
pro abortion vs pro choice
creationism vs intelligent design
unprovoked war vs war on terror
debt vs credit
killing civilians vs collateral damage



So here is my question Coberst. How do we avoid letting others hijack our reality?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by schola

Yes.


So here is my question Coberst. How do we avoid letting others hijack our reality?

The first step toward solving our problems is to learn CT (Critical Thinking).

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

Critical Thinking and Its Relation to Science and Humanism

cache:mkodBBrpMg0J:www.criticalthinking.org/TGS_files/SAM-CT_competencies_2005.pdf critical thinking multi-logical - Google Search

Critical Thinking: Expanding the Paradigm

Glossary - The Critical Thinking Community

http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/pas...g03&sID=eslava

[Stu]

There is a branch of psychology called social constructionism that studies this exact topic.

"A major focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans. Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it." - Wikipedia

I just heard about this a few days ago actually and I haven't delved in to it yet but from what I've gathered there's a fairly accessable book on this topic by Ian hacking called 'The Social Construction of What?'

It's an interesting topic to think about but it also has a lot of interesting applications. Once you see the world and the rules of society as constructed you begin to see them as inconvenient barriers rather than rules, and barriers deserve to be knocked down

[schola]

Good posts by stu and coberst.

There is another theory in psychology by a guy named Kohlberg about the stages of moral development.

He basically outlined 3 stages of moral development, each with 2 sub stages:

Pre-Conventional

People in this stage basically make moral decisions based on self interest or fear. As children, we all begin in this stage. "If I do this, Dad is gonna whoop me." or "If I get good grades, Mom and Dad will give me 100 bucks."

Conventional

People in this stage base their moral behavior on some kind of external image they have of themselves; such as "the good citizen," "the patriot," "the good boy/girl,"

Or they base it on conformity with society and law and order.

Post-Conventional

First half is grounded in democratic thinking, i.e. "what is best for the greatest number of people. The second and last half is grounded in critical thinking and internalized principles.


Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Brutha]

Isn't it pretty much a given that those people who can construct reality are in power?

[Stu]

I think a caviat to that Brutha would be that defining a new reality for society is a means of taking power (a revolution).

I think it's important to recognize as well that there are different scales of reality. There is a global reality and a global culture that is defined by those in power definitely but when you get down to smaller scales, say a city for example, it is much easier to excercise control over the construction of reality. (by running for city council for instance, or challenging the status quo through culture jamming)

And if you take it down to the scale of the individual you are ultimately the one with all the power to construct whatever reality you like for yourself.