Stef called tonight. It’s Sunday night, but there was schoolwork to be done. We spent a little time discussing an assignment from one of her courses.
The professor mentioned George Lakoff and the concept of reframing an argument.
It’s actually a pretty effective tactic. Can’t win an argument? Reframe it by making the overlying concept something no one could disagree with.
No sooner did I hang up the phone than I read an example.
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.
If I’m reading this correctly, Kerr says get used to having anything you say or do connected directly to you.
Right now, where you are, or what you say and do, is your business alone. This blog is out in the open, but if I send you email, it is private. At least it is now.
I’m not sure how this privacy will disappear, but I’m guessing it’s a combination of eavesdropping, spying, snooping and database aggregation.
Who would go for that? Not too many, especially if you use words like eavesdropping and spying. Kerr didn’t, though he works in intelligence, also known as spying.
Kerr reframed the argument. Here’s the operative phrase:
Of course, safeguard! Who could be opposed to that?
You seldom get to put an abstract concept from a university course into practical terms so quickly. I’m afraid that’s not a good thing this time.