Simplicity In Framing

I'm using "argument" here not in the sense of "dispute," but rather in the context of framing discussions or stories.

I'm looking for an extremely simple term (or phrase) that

used in conjunction with sufficiently compelling evidence -- basically ends the discussion. That is, ends it for all excepting the, hopefully, the relatively few who engage in truly magical thinking.

The simple term would be roughly equivalent in impact to "Occam's Razor":
_________________________
OCCAM'S RAZOR, from entry in <www.Wikepedi.com>, 27 December 2006
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
________________________

In other words, if:

A) this one simple, easy-to-understand thing is true, and it,

B) fatally undermines or disproves a story, then,

C) all of the other evidence can be effectively labeled irrelevant.

By "effectively, I mean that no matter what supposedly countervaling factor an opponent tries to bring to bear, one simply deflects consideration of all other issues and requires that the issue posed by (A) be answered by the opponent first.

To my eyes, there are more such opportunities extant than one might suppose. Here are just two from a quite wonderful article in the November/December 2006 issue of "Foreign Affairs." Reference to this article on the outer cover is, "While Congress Sleeps"; inside (pp. 67-82) it is designated "When Congress Checks Out" by Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar [interestingly] at the American Enterprise Institute, and Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution:

(Think about these two small related cases in the context of the weeks leading up to this year's November election, taking into account the public's already astonishingly low opinion of Congress and the remarkable amount of unarguable corruption that was emerging concerning both political parties, but mostly concerning one. (I'll use direct quotes.):

Case 1.

"As he was leaving Congress in the fall of 2005, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, of Texas, said that when the president and the congressional leaders are of the same party, 'You don't need the [oversight] hearings.'" [Page 80. The preceding interpolation in square brackets is in the sentence quoted.]

Yes, there certainly are people who would have agreed with Mr. DeLay's statement--even in November of 2006. But, how many? If DeLay's assertion were used in discussion as a crystallization of the actual operation of the Republican party throughout the years of their recent unitary reign in Congress, how many would find themselves sympathetic?

Framing DeLays statement as such a crystallization would be seriously easy, in light of the numerous factual comparisons between earlier and more recent congressional episodes of "oversight." Here's one small example:

Related Case 2.

"In the mid 1990s, the Republican Congress took 140 hours of testimony on whether President Clinton had used his Christmas mailing list to find potential campaign donors; in 2004-5, House Republicans took 12 hours of testimony on Abu Ghraib." (Page 71.)

Again, will you find people who will foam at the mouth with any mention of Bill Clinton, and those (probably, often the same people) who feel that no public (or private) mention should ever have been made of Abu Ghraib. Absolutely! But, again, HOW MANY? Particularly, by this past October?

I fully understand that "facts" may not set one free. But, I think that assertion is much more applicable to more complex facts that admit of actual argument.

Are there people who would deny that Tom DeLay ever made such a statement even shown films from a hundred different cameras documenting his doing so. Absolutely!

But, as people increasingly notice more and more stores closing on Main Street and not reopening, or viscerally experience that the annual rate of inflation for them is a minimum of 8%, or that their jobs that paid a living wage are no longer threatened but have actually been offshored, I suspect their numbers are diminishing.

For whatever it's worth, there are much more startling cases than the ones posed above that might be worth proposing. Perhaps at another time. But, in the meantime,

KISS . . .

Definitely . . . keep it simple! Think what the impact might have been on all the completely hollow and unsupported assertions we have heard in recent years from White House and proximal congressional and pentagonal domains if blabbering politicians were met everywhere by large numbers of people wearing buttons that said "SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!"

(BLABBER, another simple term: the highly meaningful sound of flapping made when hot air is expelled past the lips. Know any politicians who blabber? As Lauren Bacall so memorably put it in "Casablanca," it's easy, "just put your lips together and b l o w!"

  



         

Lauren Bacall was not in Casablanca. That was Ingrid Bergman. And Ingrid never said anything about "putting lips together". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/

The line you are talking about came from To Have and Have Not http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037382/quotes and the quote was "You know you don't have to act with me, Steve. You don't have to say anything, and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and... blow." http://bogart-tribute.net/sounds/whistle.wav

To coin a phrase, "your definition of blabber doesn't just blow, it sucks, too."

Unless you mean "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" aka QED (which nowadays might get you a blank stare followed by "huh?"), I don't think there's a single swiss-army knife of discussion-ending other than those which also end the lives of those who would debate with you. For instance, "a bullet through the brain" has been repeatedly shown throughout history to be a sure-fire argument-stopper. Perhaps a subtle reference to this might serve: try holding up a bullet for inspection, then tapping it against your forehead a few times. Carrying automatic weapons in an "up and ready posture" can have a similar saluatory affect.

Other than that, I'd say that thinking has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Thinking is intrinsically complex, so a "KISS" solution for thinking--other than asking the all-mighty, all-knowing Internet Oracle ( http://cgi.cs.indiana.edu/~oracle/index.cgi )--is just too hairy for Lord Ockham to shave.

You're right, it was "To Have and To Have Not." Of course it was Lauren Bacall; don't think I ever thought it was Ingrid Bergman, but I see why it seemed so, since I got the name of the movie wrong.

If you've got a better definition of blabber, I'd be interested to hear it. I mean that!

The onomatopoetic sound of lips flapping when you blow air past them

in this case, a lot of hot air -- is about as good a description of the meaning of most political pronouncements one hears these days as I can muster. (That goes particularly for those emanating from the executive branch.)

I had thought of QED but, unfortunately, I don't find that much more accessible to most people than Occam's Razor. What I'm looking for is an easily understandable word or phrase that will:

1) very simply identify the element in a story that absolutely must hold up for the story to perceived as reasonable, and

2) that can be perceived as requiring eplanation or proof by most sane people before any of the other elements in the story can be considered.

Here's an egregious example: Someone tells a very complex story with lots of different elements in it, about many of which there might be dispute. However there is one part of the story on which the possibility of the story's being valid depends. That part has to do with a man's standing holding an ordinary apple and doing nothing more than releasing it at which point the apple falls UPWARD and smacks into the celing instead of proceeding downward to the floor.

If the story truly depended on that happening, how many people do you think would find it unreasonable for you to require that that element be explained first before proceding to discuss the complexities of any of the others?

(Of course we all know of people who've seen apples fall upward -- in some cases, perhaps quite often. But how many of them are there?)

In other words, there are stories that contain elements that, by almost any normal person, are rapidly perceived as so ridiculous or obscene that they will be quite happy to sit still while focus is constrained solely to that item before they are willing to entertain anything else.

In such cases a bullet to the brain may not at all be required to stop further discussion. And there are more such cases than one might think -- in politics and elsewhere. Here's a direct quote from the cover story article entitled "Gluttons at the Gate" concerning private-equity deals in the October 30, 2006 "Business Week" (page 62):
 
"At satellite operator Intelsat Global Services, a pack of private-equity owners--Apax Partners, Apollo Management, MDP Global Investors, and Permira Advisers--accumulated $576 million in dividends and fees in multiple installments within a year of buying it for $513 million in 2005. This, despite the company's posting a $325 million loss last year. [The point I'm trying to make could actually end here. But, let's continue with the direct quote.] Intelsat has $360 million in cash, while its debt has doubled to $4.79 billion. The new load led to multiple cuts in the company's credit rating. In February, Intelsat said in filings with the SEC that it reduced its workforce by 20%, laying off 194 people, to optimize margins and free cash flow."

Provided they understood the above, how many normal wage-earning working people would be interested in, or less nauseated because of the windy explanation from a company spokesman that follows?

Here's a much simpler one. I remember a few years back it was revealed that, for that year, the personal compensation of the head of one of the large HMO's was roughly $450 million dollars. (Don't hold me to the exact amount; the range is all that's important in this case.)

Think about working people often living paycheck to paycheck and many (perhaps most?) of whom experience recurrent or unending problems with HMO's. (This exempts, of course, the 45 or 46 million who now have no private health insurance whatsoever.) Do you think it would require a bullet to the brain to stop further discussion -- at least in their minds -- as to whether something inappropriate was going on?

My personal suspicion is that equivalent instances are not entirely uncommon in the political arena.

Apologies for not thinking to include this in my just-completed reply.

This is a point I think worth making but I'm not exactly sure where to make it on the Rockridge site:

I think that something like "Simplicity in Framing" should be among the tags that one can assign to stories, commentaries, etc.

Since this is a site devoted to the issues of framing, I'd think that a number of tags might appropriately apply in differing cases.

What about something like "coherence in framing"

meaning similarities or paralellisms in the framing concept despite different wordings.

_______________________

A final question prompted by reading Frank Luntz's "A reflection on the 2006 election . . . " the URL of which was thoughtfully provided in another "story" on this site. Here's a quote from his paper that raises a question:

Recommendation #5: “Principles” are the most effective means to articulate
a vision – but that is not enough. You need “a comprehensive long-term
agenda.” On every issue, from taxation to regulation to litigation to
immigration, every American should know exactly where we stand and
where we want to lead.

The question concerns "litigation." While I felt "Don't think of an Elephant" and "Thinking Points" very effectively delineated the conservative framing concepts and language, I didn't think they were quite as effective in delineating the "progressive" (though I considered the work a very good start).

One of the progressive framing ideas that I did find particularly compelling, however, was the use of "citizen protection lawyers" (can't remember if that was the exact term and don't have "Thinking Points" available) as a counter-frame or re-frame of the conservative terminology and horror stories about evil/venal trial litigators.

This seems so obvious, and there are so many current horror stories about corporate misdeeds and damage to the public. How come none of the Democratic politicians or comentators have picked up on this? (At least I haven't heard of any!)

Another progressive frame I thought was extremely telling was the one in which corporations are perceived as profiting unendingly and disproportionately from the public infrastructure provided by tax payments -- and hence, in fairness, not needing "tax relief" but, instead, owing a contribution via tax payments to the common weal.

It really seems kind of pathetic. A couple of good solutions right there for the taking . . . and, so far at least, it looks like "nobody's home"!

The way I normally use "blabber" is to refer to the person who blabs rather than the noise made thereby. This would lead to:

blabber, n.
    One whose ability to speak exceeds his ability for independent thought; a person for whom secrets are fleas, factoids are fleet, and tongues are like feet. E.g., George (W.) Bush

If you insist on describing blab as "the meaning of most political pronouncements one hears these days", I would first defer to that most ingenious of lexicographers, Ambrose Bierce, when he defined...

POLITICS, n.
    A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

POLITICIAN, n.
    An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

...coming up with a better denotation of "blabber" would lead me to say

blabber, n.
    The noise made by eels in the fundamental mud which the superstructure of organized society is reared when they slither for private advantage while clothed in well-adorned principles. SYN: lie, gibbering, fart

=====================================================================================

"Ding-ding-ding!" or "Stop right there!" are two candidates for universal "the point has been established" ejaculations. "You had me at ____" (e.g., "You had me at $450 million salary") could work, especially if delivered by someone like Angelina Jolie.

I tend to be less of a generalist and to engage myself in listening and responding with a person's own words, so generalist ejaculations and sultry innuendo are generally not my style. Call me wacky, but I think that listening intently will provide you with key foibles in the weaknesses in the other side's argument, and politely referencing outrageous contradictions with clarity and precision is more likely to cause biased listeners to pay attention and unbiased listeners from changing channels/walking away.

If you had your own TV show, you could establish anything you wanted to use as a general "THAT'S IT!" eureka hallelujah simply by repeating it often enough. Unfortunately, once you do that sort of thing in real life, people stop listening to you.

I believe that it is fortunate that there is no general "stop right there" word or phrase which placed the presumption of guilt on the speaker. If there were, you could be sure that it would be misused more often than it was used correctly because those who are apt to rudely interrupt are apt to do so at the moment of their best advantage, while those who were patient and courteous would prove mere targets.

LOVE the Bierce defs!

"Stop right there" is definitely on track for meaning. I understand and, for most circumstances, would agree with your opinion about not seeking a word/phrase that stops the conversation and transmits contempt, an onus, or a requirement for immediate proof.

HOWEVER, that principle would definitely not apply to "conversations" with those who are clearly demonstrating

or, as often the case, have demonstrated repeatedly -- that absolutely nothing (ZERO) ever comes out of their mouths but spin. (Think of a national tinpot "king" out of whose mouth not one genuine word appears to have been uttered for years. Or, about that person's press representatives. Or about many of his closest colleagues. Or, in some cases, about their wives.Think of Frank Luntz.)

In such cases, the word/phrase would not be intended to stop their dyscourse; rather it would be intended to bring to full stop the thought process of any listeners actually capable of rational thought. So that, no matter what blabber inevitably followed from the other side, the listener would, to some extent, remain stuck waiting for an answer that, just as inevitably, never arrived.

Something a bit tangent -- but related -- to what I'm still looking for is currently widely conveyed by the word "HELLO!" (Not as in "hiya," but with quite a different tone.)

In the end, I'm pretty sure you're right; one would probably have to make up a new word -- or give new meaning to an old one. For the circumstances where rigidly focusing thought on the need for an answer that was not being provided might be particularly important (e.g., public forums, press conferences) the tone would have, at least not overtly, to be insulting.

Sorry, my last line should have read:

" . . . would have to not be, at least not overtly, insulting.

Great neoligism! Too bad it would only work in print.

"Framing" is not the same as "Lying". It is not the same as "avoiding the subject, then blaming something else"--that's a "red herring". It's not the same as declaring a victory that you haven't earned.

"Tax cuts" for the wealthy did not raise taxes on the middle class. It cannot even be said to have direct, measurable correlation with inflation. It was irresponsible government, and it went away from a policy of "taxing people in proportion to the amount of benefit they derive from society," but Democrats conceding truth should not astound you. Well, maybe it should, but I'm not a Democrat and from where I sit, both parties look pretty outrageous.

By saying that all social issues should be framed by our values and the Constitution, you are betraying a basic lack of comprehension of what the word means. Framing is always done based on social values. Period.

We do not support voluntary prayer as a part of government activity. We are against it. Republicans sometimes try to create prayer groups on school campuses, and these groups could hardly be said to "impose" prayer. Again, there is a significant difference between "framing" and "lying".

You said, "On national defense, we must label them as weak. When discussing Iraq, I frequently mention how I support killing Osama bin Laden but I oppose Bush cutting and running on capturing Bin Laden, Bush protecting the Saudi terrorists who financed 9/11, and Bush using our troops as cheap labor so his corporate buddies can profit. Notice how the frame has changed." This sounds like mindless frothing and, however true it may be, it doesn't sound true and it sounds like it would require a lot of evidence that someone listening to what sounds like mindless frothing probably would think that the evidence, if there was any, would come out sounding like mindless frothing, too.

When someone takes a machine gun into a nursery and starts spraying bullets in every direction, it is difficult to describe them as "weak" with a straight face. Crazy, evil, wrong-minded, etc., would be easy. You could even say, "Spraying bullets on babies is bad, spraying bullets on Bush is good" and have some misguided souls think that assassination was a good idea, but I think they would be in a minority. (Each passing day makes that less likely, but you get the idea.)

"Framing" does not mean "Act like a slimy Republican." If you criticize Bush for being two-faced on Osama, that would probably be more effective than saying that he "cut and run" on Osama.