Andy on Twitter

  • Looking forward to the next edition worth subscribing to print and online newsletter,
  • Good tips for fundraising. But, first step is to understand how ready you are by getting everything investors need… ,
  • Great tips from a deal maker and good observations on use of machines learning and AI to build better services… ,
  • Great read - love that is smashes the rampant ageism and myth of youth ... Alan Patricof: An Ageless VC Makes a Spl… ,
  • Some of the best music you'll ever listen too... stacked-up and ready to stream ,
  • Warm up for the Sydney to Hobart. ,
  • The power of brand influencers - interesting read. Interested in views on their methodology - might work for US mar… ,
  • Very clever... A Microsoft Excel Artist ,
  • While the problem underlying M&A integration is big, Material Information Platforms implemented pre-transaction wil… ,
  • Wow... t/sheets acquired by Intuit ,
  • Way to start the morning. Beautiful Balmoral.. Balmoral Sailing Club ,
  • Bank inquiry puts global investment at risk: Westpac's David Lindberg.. spot on ,
  • Why are taxi apps so appalling. Slow, lousy interface, freeze... hopeless attempt to satisfy customers and so easily fixed,
  • should give us the option of only accepting drivers who aren’t on a job. Stop “forcing” drivers to take a job while on a job. ,
  • National looks more desperate every day. NZ is lucky to have a leader with this much experience. ,
  • Connect

I should be getting a fee…

For my unending promotion of Lakoff’s book “Don’t Think Of An Elephant“. Holly Yeager at the FT (the site with the annoying log-on and pop-ups) penned a short piece on it today.

And here’s another from The Chronicle on how the Democrats are looking at Lakoff’s advise.

“It’s all about words and craftsmanship,” said Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, of Lakoff’s advice. “He shows us that we ought to take the Republicans’ words and show why they don’t work, why they just aren’t so.”

Taranto at the Wall Street Journal writes some of the first criticism of Lakoff’s thinking – or at least the implementation of it.

You see the problem: It’s not as if the Dems don’t already do what Lakoff is recommending. Indeed, the supposedly groundbreaking insight this professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences is offering is nothing more than a commonplace of political rhetoric: Generally, it is good to describe things you’re for in favorable-sounding terms and things you’re against in unfavorable-sounding ones.

The Dems seem to think Lakoff invented euphemism and dysphemism. Judging by the examples in the Chronicle piece, we’d say he isn’t even very good at employing them. “Public protection attorneys” as a euphemism for trial lawyers is simply laughable. (Actually, “trial lawyers” is a neutral term; it has negative connotations because trial lawyers have a bad reputation.) Calling same-sex marriage “the right to marry” seems unlikely to persuade anyone that the definition of marriage should change.

Fair point. Bottom-line is that while Lakoff’s recommended words might not be ideal, the process and thinking he has developed remains as powerful as ever. And as an observer of the latest election, did the Democrats need a message that more clearly resonated or what?

Comments are closed for this post.

Connections

  • Connect
How did you connect?   [?]
Indulgences-Coffee