The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain

My rating:

add to my books

The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain

by George Lakoff

3.73 · rating details · 235 ratings · 68 reviews

In Whats the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank pointed out that a great number of Americans actually vote against their own interests. In The Political Mind, George Lakoff explains why.

As it turns out, human beings are not the rational creatures weve so long imagined ourselves to be. Ideas, morals, and values do not exist somewhere outside the body, ready to be examined...more

Hardcover, 304 pages

Published May 29th 2008 by Viking Adult

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 649)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Mar 31, 2010

David Robins added it

This book is a poisonous screed. I felt sick to my stomach reading it. I had hoped to learn something from what the author had to say about how the brain works, but there was so much propaganda, lies, leaps of illogic, and smug assumption of unsupported and unsupportable statist political theories that I couldn't get through it. It presents the state as the only moral agent and individual rights as worthless except to be subverted. American history is rewritten from whole cloth on every page.
...moreThis book is a poisonous screed. I felt sick to my stomach reading it. I had hoped to learn something from what the author had to say about how the brain works, but there was so much propaganda, lies, leaps of illogic, and smug assumption of unsupported and unsupportable statist political theories that I couldn't get through it. It presents the state as the only moral agent and individual rights as worthless except to be subverted. American history is rewritten from whole cloth on every page.

Some of the few good things are the concepts of framing, some examination of metaphor (e.g., of morality being beauty, fairness, light. etc.), and of psychological decision-making, near the end, however, Dan Ariely's treatment in Predictably Irrational is much better. The fact that people don't act rationally, however, is a powerful indictment against democracy or any sort of system where the choices of the masses legitimize violence controlled by the few.

A massive false dichotomy permeates the book, itself composed of two straw men: "progressive" morality is about empathy and responsibility, conservative morality is about authority. Of course, both are about authority, historically "progressives" have authored the most rigidly and disastrously authoritarian regimes, and it is neither empathic nor responsible to bribe the irresponsible with other people's money. Furthermore, no room at all is left for individual freedom - libertarians, voluntaryists, anarchists, and small �government conservatives. His model excludes it entirely, which is a strong indicator that his model is incorrect (as my software architecture professor says, all models are wrong; some are useful; his is not useful).

From my own observations, and from reading this book, what I'm actually seeing is that the "progressive" brain focuses on the collective, while the libertarian focuses on the individual. The collective brain wants control; it wants its "empathy" (misguided as it may be) to have an outlet, by rearranging the collective (including stopping people from harmless pursuits, or redistributing their wealth and posessions); this is where harm begins. It grows angry at any incomplete submission to the self-declared authority of the collective (if it must submit, so must everyone; for social programs, if it must pay for them - even if it agrees - then everyone else must be forced to as well). The individual is subservient. Individualism is tolerated to a point, but the collective (however defined - possibly democratically, possibly not) is king and god. It sees problems and thinks a knee-jerk reaction is an answer, and carries it out with enthusiasm as great as its ignorance; it has a design for "society", and nobody may stray outside it (or refuse to pay for it).

In opposition is the libertarian (classically liberal) brain, which is about individual choice (rights, including property ownership) and responsibility. It doesn't care what anyone else does as long as it is not harmed. There is no grand master plan for what everyone else should do; order is spontaneous and comes from voluntary interaction (e.g., the market). There may be a great deal of empathy (despite the typical liberal slander), but that just means the individual will give his time and means to help out; he feels no compulsion to make others do the same. Conservatives tend to fall between the two (as presented in the book, his authoritarian conservatives are basically just progressives with different ideas for the collective).

The author should have written two books: one a useful, scientific examination of how mental patterns and models affect political thought, then, as another book included free in case people need fire starting material, his poisonous statist screed. But I suspect the first book would be a pamphlet and the second a tome.(less)

· see review

Mar 20, 2011

Christine Theberge Rafal rated it

Shelves: politics, linguistics

This important book furthers the ideas from _Don't Think of An Elephant_ but has a little more to say about what to do about it. In brief, the idea that much of the way we think is based in metaphors that are activated by things that typically co-occur in our lives, especially our early lives (p. 256 finally gives a more satisfying discussion of this than either Elephant or _Metaphors we Live By_ had). He claims the American nation-as-family metaphor yields distinctly different thought systems: ...moreThis important book furthers the ideas from _Don't Think of An Elephant_ but has a little more to say about what to do about it. In brief, the idea that much of the way we think is based in metaphors that are activated by things that typically co-occur in our lives, especially our early lives (p. 256 finally gives a more satisfying discussion of this than either Elephant or _Metaphors we Live By_ had). He claims the American nation-as-family metaphor yields distinctly different thought systems: conservative for folks who have a strict-father family concept and progressive for folks who have a nurturing-parent family concept. Further, he says that the fundamental values of American government are deeply progressive: government existing to protect and empower the people (the roles of nurturing). However, conservatives have spent at least 30 years developing ways to talk about their ideas and most importantly frame their agendas that progressives have not. And until we talk about the frames and change the frames, we are stuck in them. Activating the frame has more impact than whatever you say about it apparently, so progressives need to resist using conservative frames and get better at using progressive frames.

One of the frames to resist is the whole idea of a continuum from left-right wing. He gives the example of mandatory health insurance being an attempt of the "left" to compromise with the "right" but really to use the insurance frame means to take the "right" wing point of view. Health insurance is a business, Lakoff points out, that makes its money by charging healthy people and then finding reasons to deny services to sick people. Health care would take a view that everyone at some point may need medical care. [I would add that with a single payer Care system, doctors and hospitals would have an incentive to actually try to cure diseases rather than let people experience chronic states, let's remember they're a business, too]. Warning: I actually felt in kind of a bad mood for the 4 days it took me to read this book when thinking about how the strict-father, obedience to authority, maximum-profit-shows-discipline, model has allowed scandals like Blackwater and Enron and how it continues to allow privateers to bilk the middle class taxpayer.

But luckily he says many people are "biconceptual," using conservative concepts in some thought areas and progressive concepts in other areas. These would be nonoverlapping thought domains so a conflict is not noticed. However the more a progressive can connect with someone around those areas in which they may use progressive concepts, the more progressive frames get activated. I love this paragraph from the chapter called "What if it works?" "The vital importance of childrearing would be recognized. The public would understand that a child's brain is largely shaped during the first three to five years by the large-scale death of neurons. The ones that go unused die off. Early childhood education would be recognized as vital. Studies showing that nurturant upbringing is far better for children-and for society-would be well-known. Nurturant forms of childrearing and teaching would be instituted nationwide. Child-beating and other child abuse would be outlawed. Advocates of strict father upbringing--like James Dobson and Dr. Laura--would be recognized as harmful to children." (p. 269)

Environmental concerns are also woven throughout the book; they are the ultimate example perhaps of how we are all in this together and changing our metaphors about survival and about our relationship to natural resources to more protective, nurturing metaphors could make a world of difference for us all.

(less)

· see review

Sep 11, 2009

Steven Peterson rated it

This is one of those books that sets off conflicting emotions and thoughts. The application of knowledge of the brain sciences to political debate is absolutely fascinating, and much good information is presented. Another part of the thesis--that "progressives" or liberals use an "Enlightenment" model of discourse (emphasizing the use of logic and reason to advance their points) whereas conservatives use a more powerful approach, wedding emotion to thought. Hence, conservativ...more

· see review

Jul 28, 2009

Blayne rated it

Shelves: read-at-library

Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, looks at 30 years of scientific research on the human brain, and asks some political questions. What he finds is the political divide is “not just in geography, religion or even power”, it in our heads (no pun intended).

Our country was born from the age of Enlightenment when reason was king, and emotion was irrelevant. Emotions were seen as just cluttering the issue at hand. The idea an educated, well informed, rational society will make rational,...moreLakoff, a cognitive scientist, looks at 30 years of scientific research on the human brain, and asks some political questions. What he finds is the political divide is “not just in geography, religion or even power”, it in our heads (no pun intended).

Our country was born from the age of Enlightenment when reason was king, and emotion was irrelevant. Emotions were seen as just cluttering the issue at hand. The idea an educated, well informed, rational society will make rational, logical, fact based decisions and be able to adequately self govern. Rational being making rational decisions is an underlying foundation of our society, from the judicial system to the nightly news. Lakoff shows us that we do not act rationally, and asks why.

Science tells us that 98% of our thought is unconscious. We are only aware of 2% of our thoughts. Lakoff demonstrates that this heavily impacts our society through word choice, metaphors, and the framing of issues.. A good example is when the Republicans discussed the Democrats plan of a timeline to exit Iraq. Republicans used the term “cut and run.” A person can’t hear “cut and run” without the feeling of cowardness or surrendering . Another good example is using the term “surge” in the Iraq war, as opposed to using the word “escalation.”

Lakoff offers some constructive criticism for the “liberal” thought process. Liberals argue by listing of facts like an encyclopedia and expecting people to digest them like a machine and arrive at logical, rational conclusions. Sound familiar? It did to me. “Conservative” thought prefer to use emotions over lists of facts. Now you’ll have to read the book, because the liberal thought process is not just used by liberals, and vice versa, with the conservative thought process. Lakoff argues against the metaphor of politics being described as right and left.

Lakoff tempers the science of the brain with bits with pop culture, which keeps the reader interested and makes them aware of the ingrained nature of what Lakoff is discussing. He brings in the Anna Nicole saga, Reagan’s fictional “Welfare Queen”, the latest in neural science, and a analysis of framing and metaphors, to provide insight as to why reason alone is ineffective, that we need emotion, and new enlightenment.

Hands down this was the best book I read all year. It taught me to listen to what people are saying during a politcal conversation, instead of thinking of what I will say next to refute what I think they are saying. We all have more in common than we are lead to believe; that commonality should be the starting point for change, not the places where we differ. This book will help you be a better communicator, listener, and thinker. (less)

· see review

Jan 23, 2011

David rated it

Shelves: society-politics, science

This is a very important book for progressives to read. Cognitive sciences are showing how our brains organize concepts results in consequences for politics. Most people's brains have developed in ways that can respond to terminology in a way that can activate emotional responses either consistent with conservative attitudes or progressive attitudes. The more times one version is activated by terminology, the more the strength of the structures supporting that view become. Therefore, the termino...moreThis is a very important book for progressives to read. Cognitive sciences are showing how our brains organize concepts results in consequences for politics. Most people's brains have developed in ways that can respond to terminology in a way that can activate emotional responses either consistent with conservative attitudes or progressive attitudes. The more times one version is activated by terminology, the more the strength of the structures supporting that view become. Therefore, the terminology progressives choose and implement affects whether listeners actually have their conservative or progressive structures activated and strengthened.

Lakoff explains how progressives tend to work under the assumption that political discourse is only a matter of facts, figures and unemotional logic. But that's not how the brain works. Terminology has associations with brain organization built up during our childhood and otherwise as an individual's brain attempts to make sense of personal experiences. Brain mechanisms relevant to politics are associated with feelings of right and wrong, fair and unfair, desirable and undesirable. Those are linked to emotions and emotion-related chemicals. Unemotional facts and figures just aren't as effective by themselves as the emotional terminology and approaches used by conservatives. Terminology that results in emotional activity in the brain is not necessarily blatantly emotional. But taking care to use wording that elicits empathy and other forms consistent with progressive thought will activate and strengthen brain structures that support progressive attitudes in your listeners.

This book is not presented as merely being a science popularization on cognitive theory affecting political thought. It's intended to educate people on incorporating scientific findings into practical political expression. Lakoff uses more scientific jargon in the practical political parts of the book than would be ideal. However, that shouldn't prevent you from getting the essential ideas.

Cognitive Policy Works makes available a free PDF download of Thinking Points. This is supposed to be more oriented to practical political applications, but I haven't read it yet.
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/word...
(less)

· see review

Sep 18, 2011

Johanna rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, audio-books

(audio book) First off, I can't recommend this book as an audio book. Its densely academic writing style requires way too much brain power to process, especially while driving. But if I hadn't been listening to the audio book, I probably wouldn't have finished the book. What the book has in academic writing style, it seems to lack in academic proof. Perhaps the print copy has citations, but mostly what I heard was a complex narrative based on unproven axioms.

Here's what I did get out ...more(audio book) First off, I can't recommend this book as an audio book. Its densely academic writing style requires way too much brain power to process, especially while driving. But if I hadn't been listening to the audio book, I probably wouldn't have finished the book. What the book has in academic writing style, it seems to lack in academic proof. Perhaps the print copy has citations, but mostly what I heard was a complex narrative based on unproven axioms.

Here's what I did get out of the book, and it's a reminder of what I learned from a linguistics course in college: our thinking is shaped by our language and we don't realize it most of the time.

Taking to heart Lakoff's points about metaphors and the unconscious connotations they bring into our thought-process is a mental diet for me. It helped me be more aware of the use of underlying metaphors in political sound bites and helped me hear them with more detachment. It's also helped me take political rhetoric less personally, which is a godsend right now.

I can't recommend the book because the noise-to-insight factor was just too high for me. So to help out, I'll include the list of 7 biases that we as humans should be aware of in our thinking, according to Lakoff. You can look up the background research on your own if you're inspired.

1. Optimism bias - We don't like to plan on worse-case scenarios
2. Control bias - That we have more control over the situation than we do.
3. Reactive devaluation - If our opponent presents an idea, we automatically think it's bad
4. Fundamental attribution error - Other people's bad behavior or opinions are because they are bad people; our bad behavior or opinions are based on our circumstances
5. Loss aversion bias - We will do more to avoid loss than chase gains. We'll avoid certain loss for uncertain gain
6. A specific example is taken as the average example - If you only hear one example, you don't assume it's the best or the worse, but rather, the most common
7. We always think rationally and are aware of anything influencing our thoughts(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 13, 2009

Bob rated it

The psychology of the mind and how we operate is always a fascinating subject, but I suppose I was expecting more. Lakoff is clearly a "progressive," and it shows. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think the book would have benefited from being more balanced and accessible from a wider variety of political perspectives. But maybe that's what he wanted - this should only be a tool to be used by progressives for furthering their agenda, since he believes that conservatives have alrea...more

· see review

Nov 18, 2011

Mike Edwards rated it

Shelves: pop-social-science, current-events, usa

Lakoff argues that the brain is hardwired to favor emotional and moral appeals over intellectual or rational ones. He applies this to modern politics to assert that the GOP has done a much better job of framing issues in emotional or moral ways, and that this explains how they have been dramatically more successful than their Democratic counterparts over the last twenty years or so. The book does an excellent job of explaining why humans have difficulty in changing their minds in response to i...more

· see review

May 17, 2011

Julie rated it

You know, I think I lost this book. I was about 7/8 of the way through it, and I think I left it somewhere. It's either on an airplane or in my childhood bedroom in MN where I spent a night in April.

Oh well, I hope someone else reads it because it was great! It was helpful for understanding how and why people vote the way they do(often against their own economic interests).

I studied metaphor in professional writing for part of my thesis, and this book helped me understand how...more

like 1 like

· see review

Sep 23, 2011

Terry Heller rated it

Political books tend to age very quickly and very poorly. Through no real fault of its own, this book, which was published prior to the 2008 presidential election, acutely discusses the parties' mindsets in very broad terms, but, in late 2011, the reader is left wondering how the rise of the Tea Party, and particularly the split between the Tea Baggers and the mainstream Republican party, relates to their different view of the world.

Other than that, the book is fine. If I have one sub...more

· see review

Jul 06, 2011

Todd Martin rated it

Shelves: environment-science, culture-politics

If you’ve read other books by George Lakoff, you’ll be familiar with much of the material found in The Political Mind. Lakoff first describes philosophical theories of rational thought developed during the enlightenment and describes why facts and figures often fail to sway public opinion (I would add that this seems particularly true with those whose critical thinking skills are undeveloped … i.e. most people). He then revisits the concept of framing and how proper use of frames can trigger ass...more

· see review

Dec 24, 2010

Marty rated it

Shelves: non-fiction

Here is a sampling of the provocative ideas in this mostly readable, occasionally inscrutable, book: words matter in politics; repeated exposure to political metaphors actually changes the brain chemistry; humans are hard-wired for empathy and cooperation; there are two uber-metaphors that distinguish conservatives (father as authoritarian) from progressives (family as protective and nurturing); conservative thinkers in particular have waged successful "cognitive campaigns" that preda...more

· see review

Dec 25, 2009

Asher rated it

· review of another edition

I really enjoy this book so far. I think it gives some very good incite into cognitive science as well as the nature of American politics.
Through the book the author George Lakoff repeats the point that the old enlightenment way of seeing rationality as mathematical and objective is wrong, and that all acts of rationality and logic have an essence of subjectivity. Being that every mind sees the world in a different frame.
What he means by mean a frame is the narrative we pu...more I really enjoy this book so far. I think it gives some very good incite into cognitive science as well as the nature of American politics.
Through the book the author George Lakoff repeats the point that the old enlightenment way of seeing rationality as mathematical and objective is wrong, and that all acts of rationality and logic have an essence of subjectivity. Being that every mind sees the world in a different frame.
What he means by mean a frame is the narrative we put our world into. He writes that 98% of what is considered rational thought is actually reflexive, or unconscious thought. Thus when we are in an argument, a conversation, or just thinking about a subject we will usually reiterate the same points and ideas that we believe, not developing any new ideas. Through holding a set of ideas we create a frame of thought, or a basis for our ideas to progress.
He views this as fundamental to all human brains. And as he is a neuroscientist he does prove this by citing experiments and his knowledge is fairly valid through his ethos as a UC Berkley Prof.
His book focuses on the idea that all political arguments are placed in a frame. He uses the example of the "War on Terror." Directly after the attacks on 9/11 the Bush administration labeled these attacks not as international crimes, but as an act of war. Even though this attack was not from a nation-state, but an organization.
Lakoff, who is a progressive, said that the Democratic Party, liberals, and progressives made the mistake of using this phrase. Being that to oppose an act of war from a nation would be unpatriotic and act of defeat. Thus there was little opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
Lakoff says that the bigger mistake yet was to continue to label the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as part of the "War on Terror." Using this frame made it difficult to oppose the war without looking like you were against the defense of the United States. While, as we know now, there was no valid and solid evidence for WMD's in Iraq and no connection to Al Queda or the Taliban.
Lakoffs point is that we must understand the frame to understand what politics.
(less)

· see review

Mar 17, 2010

Adam rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Young politicians, Progressive thinkers, Constitutionalists, Debaters

Shelves: non-fiction, psychology, science, politics

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 min...more

· see review

Nov 08, 2008

Russell rated it

This book changes everything. It's about language and politics and how the brain's structure shapes and structures morality. It gives tools to rethink everything. And it explains how politics is not based on rational arguments and positions, but on comprehensive, unconscious and differing visions of society as a family, which is the brain's basic frame of reference for authority. Bush acted as a strong paterfamilias that knows best and acts without consulting his "children," who we...more

· see review

Jun 20, 2011

Todd rated it

I really enjoyed the neurolinguistic elements of this book and the political bits were insightful, though often unsubstantiated and sometimes unfounded. Nonetheless, I'll probably re-read this at least once to learn the language and concepts of neurolinguistics more deeply. I agree that framing concepts and reinforcing key associated ideas is a powerfully persuasive technique – maybe something we can use to change the world for the better.

· see review

Jul 23, 2011

Margaret Sankey added it

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.

· see review

Jan 23, 2010

Billie Mulcahy rated it

Shelves: politics

Lakoff does a great job of explaining why liberal ideas don't do so well presented in a rational, dispassionate (enlightenment) fashion. He uses information on how we process political ideas, using insights from neurobiological research, explaining how ideas activate frames subconsciously. Political decisions, he maintains, are made largely through emotions and later rationalized by the most convenient set of facts.

· see review

Jun 28, 2010

Natasha rated it

Shelves: non-fiction

Lakoff does a fine job outlining the framing used by the political right that gives them an edge in media over the left - and how progressives tend to undermine their own arguments by using the right's frames.

Using a foundation of cognitive neuropsychology, Lakoff explains what happens at the level of neurons when we hear phrases like "war on terror" repeatedly, and how other neural pathways (like perceiving 9/11 as a crime necessitating police action, as it was originally ...more

· see review

Jul 27, 2010

Elizabeth rated it

The book was overall good. It demonstrated the importance of frames, metaphors and language in modern political thought along with the need for "New Enlightenment" thinking. The book was, however, repetitive. Lakoff presses the need for a new way of thinking and how it applies to a progressive America which, while important, makes parts of the book seem like a PSA for liberalism. When his ideas become more complex the repetitiveness of Lakoff's message makes it easier to understand so ...more

· see review

Sep 02, 2009

Lynn rated it

I don't give many books 1's, but this was well deserved. I thought it was rambling, illogical, specularive, and purely emotional. I'm not sure why I even finished it, but the 4 star rating on Amazon made me think I would miss something if I didn't. It's outlandish claims by progressives like Lakoff that makes Feynman's claim about Social Science resonate.

· see review

Nov 22, 2010

Vicki rated it

The concept is logical. But Lakoff is preaching to the choir. Do I think all those voters who dont vote in their own self interests will read this book? Almost none will. The only hope for the premise of this book is that some of the politicians will read it and perhaps alter their thinking and campaigning.

· see review

Sep 14, 2010

Gwen rated it

This book begins at the neuro level of the brain and then works its way out to political discourse. Written by a linguist who studies the inner-workings of the brain, The Political Mind provides insight as to how framing a conversation can really change the course of history.

· see review

May 24, 2011

Nelson Chung rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: political-science, language

Rantings of a flaming liberal. I didn't expect this to be an agenda-driven book. I've finished two chapters, and I guess since he's addressing a liberal readership he doesn't feel much of a need to defend his beliefs. Plus he doesn't believe in the universality of logic (outdated, First Enlightenment assumption) he thus doesn't use logic to make his case, he just structures the debate in his own favor.

So he is practicing what he is preaching. He cherry-picks Adam Smith (he is the rev...more

· see review

Oct 14, 2011

Kostina rated it

· review of another edition

liked reading it - discusses an interesting idea,and Lakoff is an established cognitive linguists, but sometimes I felt he goes too far with cognitive framing when he applies it to politics and language. But everall - a very enjoyable reading.

· see review

Feb 09, 2009

Apex Communications rated it

Lakoff's book sets out the difference between Progressive and Conservative ways of political thinking and how this effects both Government and election campaigns. A must read for people interested in political communication.

· see review

Feb 26, 2011

William rated it

This book blew my mind. For the first time in forty years that I finally understand why the American people have been so bamboozled.
This is a must READ for every progressive thinking person in the USA; probably England too.

· see review

Jul 29, 2009

Kevin rated it

Shelves: cognitive-science, politics

Another great book by Lakoff, refreshing and reworking his take on the manner in which our unconsciously coded metaphors affect the manner in which we think about (and, for that matter, experience) politics. A great primer on how progressives can take back the political discourses from conservatives that have altered the very meanings of freedom, equality and democracy to such an extend that the Founders would likely be amazed, were they to see things now.

· see review

Mar 01, 2010

Heather Denkmire rated it

· review of another edition

Wow, I wish everyone in the country could read this book. Or, at least about 3/4 of it. Some of it I'll admit got a little Charlie Brown adult voice on me (game theory, and Chomsky's linguistics). But truly, I think this is the key to saving our Democracy. Reframing and not hiding from the progressive values of empathy and empowerment. Amazing stuff. It also helped me understand some people I know who think in the strict father model (as I'm about 100% nurturing parent model). I loved learning a...more

· see review

Sep 28, 2009

Llew rated it

Shelves: couldn-t-finish

Another book that starts off tremendous and eye-opening ideas about emotion driving all decisions and then gets buried in vague neuroscience. When did social sciences give up and just try to explain everything in firing neurons and nerve binding?

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 21 22 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (10)

More editions...

Genres

Politics

30 users

Non Fiction

19 users

Science

9 users

Psychology

7 users

Politics > Political Science

3 users

Culture

2 users

Humanities > Language

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

About George Lakoff

George Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is author of The New York Times bestseller Don't Think of an Elephant!Moral Politics, Whose Freedom?, and many books and articles on cognitive science and linguistics. "

More about George Lakoff...

Books by George Lakoff

Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition

More…

Trivia About The Political Min...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain
avg rating	preview: The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Bra Goodreads rating: 3.73 (235 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2482199.The_Political_Mind?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266860539m/2482199.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2482199.The_Political_Mind?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain by George Lakoff[/url]

The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combine Other Editions (10)

Genres

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

About George Lakoff

Books by George Lakoff

Trivia About The Political Min...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (10)