اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Psychology
George Lakoff's Article 'Cognitive Social Science'
Because thought is neurological in nature, the social sciences must be redefined on the basis of the findings of cognitive science. George Lakoff considers moving beyond purely Enlightenment logic essential for a genuine understanding of social phenomena and reasoning.
George Lakoff
AuthorTranslator's Introduction: In recent decades, cognitive science has gradually established an independent identity through an approach grounded in objective, empirical studies of the brain alongside scientific theorizing on the subject. This field of human knowledge can clearly be seen as the product of interactive engagement among scientists from various disciplines—such as philosophy, linguistics, artificial intelligence, brain studies, neuroscience, psychology, and others—around the problem of cognition in the human mind. The 1950s and 1960s can perhaps be considered the starting point of this convergent approach, when thinkers in different fields realized they could benefit from one another's research findings regarding the functioning of the human mind. Of course, it cannot be denied that in this domain, the reliability and authority of empirical science carry considerable weight, and one might claim that the shared inclination of researchers in this field centers on the role of empirical data about the brain, governing philosophical theorizing that, in a metaphysically-oriented manner, underestimates the fundamental role of the brain. It is for this very reason that, in step with the progress of the empirical sciences, their theories also undergo change and transformation. In a sense, these changes indicate the dominance of empirical data over theorizing detached from the physicalist aspect of the mind.
After several decades, the fruits of this interdisciplinary collaboration have led to the emergence of a new literature in the realm of the sciences, such that we daily witness the application of the suffix "cognitive"—as in cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, cognitive social science, cognitive defense studies, cognitive political science, cognitive economics, cognitive engineering, cognitive psychotherapy, cognitive education, and so on. This generalization can perhaps be extended to all scientific disciplines, for any cognition must first be cognized within the human cognitive system, whose physical status undoubtedly comes through the understanding of the brain and the human nervous system.
In this vein, the present article, penned by George Lakoff, elucidates the cognitive status of the human social mind and the manner of applying the findings of cognitive science within the social sciences. He has been engaged in academic activity in this very field for nearly four decades. This piece has been published in the Handbook of Neurosociology, part of Springer's series of books on sociology and social science studies.
Certainly, in such a brief article, only the broad outlines of this newly constructed vista can be shown, and many specialized aspects will be neglected. It might be said that for a general audience, excessive scrutiny is also tedious and unhelpful; hence, alongside the translation of terms and examples for the reader's greater familiarity, introducing the literature of the subject has been the author's primary motivation.
This is obvious: the most important issue in the social sciences is reasoning. It is so obvious that it is not discussed, because it is presupposed that all social scientists are endowed with the capacity for reasoning. We can presuppose the existence of reasoning and proceed accordingly.
But can this obvious matter truly be presupposed? Over the past three decades, cognitive science and brain studies have extensively influenced our understanding of the nature of reasoning. What has been carried out in empirical studies on "real reasoning"[2] has shown how humans actually think—whether they are the individuals social scientists study, or the social scientists themselves!
Of course, social scientists examine the material causes of social and political matters: poverty, hunger, disease, homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, class conflict...; but the process of how humans think is also something that has social effects: what is the quality of people's understanding of morality, the market, the beneficial role of government, the nature of organizations, and so on?
The quality of social scientists' understanding of what reasoning is influences their theorizing; therefore, it is a vital matter that they reason correctly. Cognitive science and brain studies have shown what real reasoning is—that is, the way we actually reason; these studies concern neural circuits and yield results that are far from self-evident to our minds; thus, the way the brain shapes real reasoning will turn all social sciences into neurocognitive social sciences.
Reasoning is a neural phenomenon[3]
The nature of all our reasoning is neural, because we think with our brains. This is not surprising. What is surprising is the effect this simple fact has on how social science is studied.
The activity of neural systems is physically effective in constructing mental ideas; this activity occurs in a way that produces largely unconscious thought. Factors such as image schemas[4], frames[5], metaphors[6], and narratives[7] are effective in this process, and categories defined by many prototypes[8] are sufficient conditions, not necessary ones. This means that critical social thinking must go beyond the logic and reasoning of the Enlightenment[9] type to arrive at real reasoning; that is, it must draw upon cognitive science and brain studies. Real critical thinking requires an understanding of real reasoning.
In sociology, from Max Weber's[11] ideal types to Erving Goffman's[12] frames, we encounter a long history of studying how individuals' lives are shaped by personal mental ideas, grounded in the belief that the structural composition of the mind shapes everyday understanding.
Weber had come to understand that the Protestant ethic, its system of mental ideas, was intimately connected to the material and social causes of the creation of capitalism and the form of capitalism prevalent in Northern Europe during his time. Goffman also understood that the formation of social institutions, from asylums to casinos, arises from the frames that structure the human mind, and it is these same frames that determine how social institutions are cognitively[13] constructed in different forms: these cognitive forms can be observed both in the roles people play within institutions (from nurse to card dealer, for example) and in their understanding of the norms that, according to the frame, are presupposed to manifest within institutions.
What is a frame? Goffman suggests: look for where the conventional frame "breaks." In the surgical frame, the surgeon operates on the patient, not the patient on the surgeon. The powerful influence the powerless, not the other way around. It is casinos that set the rules of the casino, not the customers. Judges wield gavels, not ping-pong paddles. It is through social frames that social life continues its activity, and very real forms of power are exercised through systems of frames. Since Goffman was keen to repeat the statement that "Social life is no joke!", we too have learned from neuroscience that mental ideas are physical things; that is, they are neural circuits. Unchanging mental ideas are unchanging brain circuits, strengthened by synapses to the point that they resist change. The causal effects of mental ideas are neural effects.
But neurons in themselves lack meaning. So how do hundreds of billions of neural connections cause trillions of neural circuits to become meaningful? Meaningful, moreover, in a way that carries social effects!
How Do Brain Circuits Become Meaningful? [14]
Social scientists are usually trained with Max Weber's favorite metaphors:
- Time is money. (From Benjamin Franklin)
- Spending time on a useful vocation is spending time for God.
- In Calvinism and similar forms of Protestantism: success is a sign of being righteous and a divine confirmation.
We know that metaphors are conceptual, and therefore their nature is neural. Precisely because frames have a neural structure, we are able to understand the structure of the material world and social life; thus, metaphors are the very neural circuits that map frames one-to-one and become the basis for preserving our social values, emotions, inferences, and ultimately our expectations.
What is the quality of this process? The answer is: through the separation and distinction between linking circuits[15] and bodily circuits[16] and the way these are connected to each other. Bodily circuits include motor neurons[17], perceptual neurons[18], emotional-affective neurons[19], thermal neurons[20], pain-related neurons[21], and so on. Linking circuits are a combination resulting from complex neural "cascades"[22][23] that are themselves constructed from simple neural circuits; these simple neural circuits are projected down to bodily neural circuits, that is, circuits that are spread throughout the body. The cascades of linking circuits are linked together and form a network of basic forms of meaningful embodied experiences, such as motor, visual, grasping experiences, and so on.
As a result, it can be said: the phenomenon that appears to be objective and material; that is, this very external world in itself[24], is fundamentally not so. It cannot be so at all; because all our understanding of the external world, for frames, metaphors, and narratives, is obtained through embodied neural circuits. We have accepted shared framing as the "objective" because we pay no attention to unconscious neural understanding; we imagine the material world as objective and material, just as it is perceived neurologically in the same way. Even the objective and material sociological study of how the situation of racial discrimination relates to hiring, sex education courses, university admissions, and so on, are frame-based and often metaphor-based. These matters are studied because social scientists are fundamentally moral in nature: they study for the "realization of good things."
At the same time, morality itself can be anything but objective and material. The subjective ideas that constitute the moral[25] are themselves constructed by framing and metaphorization, meaning frame circuits and metaphor circuits are the very circuits that determine what we consider good and what we consider bad. In short, embodied frame circuits and metaphor circuits determine what the very goals of the social sciences are! The social sciences can benefit from the advantages of such an understanding of human comprehension.
Reasoning and the Social Sciences[26]
By neural social sciences, I mean an approach to social science studies that is based on and compatible with the methods and results of brain studies and cognitive sciences (i.e., cognitive linguistics[27], embodied cognition[28], experimental social psychology[29], neural computation[30], neural social sciences[31], and neuroeconomics[32]). The boundary between the social sciences and brain sciences is rapidly disappearing. The most fundamental issue being reconstructed concerns the very concept of "reasoning."
Reasoning: The Errors of the Enlightenment[33]
I believe, in all sincerity, that reason and reasoning are themselves an appalling concept!
In the social sciences, one must be committed to a rational understanding of social life. It seems rationality[34] and science[35] go hand in hand. If we believe in reason and reasoning, we must be committed to science; consequently, to social science! Materialist social sciences also draw upon the physical sciences: objectivity regarding method, precise data and information, classical categorization, logic, statistics, and also a commitment to the moral values of science: building a better world to live in by eliminating superstitious, harmful, and false myths. These are the moral values of the Enlightenment period, and in the context of the 17th and 18th centuries, they led to remarkable progress.
In the social sciences, we think that Enlightenment reasoning is the hallmark of critical thought and the core of democratic and liberal thinking. If we accept the Enlightenment view of rationality, then the application of rationality and science will make the world a better place; and we certainly need a better world to live in.
Unfortunately, in our time, America and most countries of the world are besieged by a destructive form of false "rationality." One must think rationally for the world to be a better place to live. We need to replace Enlightenment rationality with real rationality; in a way that rationality truly works.
Rationality is considered essential for progress and advancement; but cognitive science and brain studies show us that the Enlightenment theory[36] of rationality is far too flawed to help us solve the threatening and destructive problems we face! Cognitive science and brain studies do not merely affect our understanding of the issue of reasoning in a partial and negligible way; rather, the scientific results are so impactful that, to preserve the most valuable things in the world, we are compelled to fundamentally revise our understanding of this issue. Neuroscience is not merely something "nice[37]"; it is absolutely necessary. Where are these intellectual errors concerning Enlightenment-style reasoning applied? In the social science departments of our universities (political science, sociology, law, classical economics, and public policy) and in national policy research institutes, both public and private, governmental and corporate; yes! I am not joking! The best and brightest thinkers, who are considered socially committed, are trained in a system that is intellectually flawed.
Intellectual Errors in Enlightenment Thinking
First Error: Reasoning is Conscious[38]
While the brain utilizes neural circuits that are broadly parallel in the process of metaphorical thought, consciousness can therefore be considered a linear[39] affair. For this reason, most metaphorical thinking cannot be considered conscious, and indeed it is not. Andrea Rock, in her book The Mind at Night[40], mentions a neuroscientist named Michael Gazzaniga[41] who estimated that 98 percent of the reasoning process is unconscious. Given the findings of cognitive scientists and brain studies, this estimate seems correct!
Consider, for example, writing a short piece: for this activity, one must consciously focus on writing the text. In writing this piece, it is not necessary to consciously apply all the grammatical and phonological rules that are part of the background knowledge for writing. One can reasonably estimate that in the act of writing, the ratio of what is written to what is unwritten is 1 to 50. Consciousness is only a small part of the iceberg of reasoning.
Second Error: One Can Think Directly About the World! [42]
We can only understand what our body and brain have perceived[43], structured[44], conceptualized[45], and categorized[46]; because we think with physical brains that are connected to our bodies! One can only reason about our understandings of a world that the embodied neural circuits in our brain allow us to understand. The relationship between reasoning and the world is always mediated by the relationship that exists between the brain and the body.
Third Error: Thought Is Disembodied! [47]
The entire process of thought is physical; thought is something that arises from the activities of neural circuits distributed throughout the body. What makes thought meaningful is the human body and the quality of our body's functioning in the world we live in. The content of concepts is determined by the way our body interacts with the world. Conceptual thought always has a component related to the human body.
Fourth Error: Words Are Defined Directly in Terms of the External World! [48]
All words in all natural languages are defined in terms of embodied conceptual frames, not in terms of the external world! There is no direct and straightforward way in which words correspond to the external world independently of frames. Frames provided by the body and brain.
Fifth Error: Reasoning Is Unemotional! [49]
The opposite of this proposition is true. If you have suffered a stroke or have a brain injury and, for this reason, emotional perception is impossible for you, then it is conceivable that you would not know what you want; because wanting and not wanting would have no meaning for you. You would also lack the ability to know what others' judgments are regarding the things you do. Hence, you cannot set rational goals for yourself; because without emotional perception, you can no longer act rationally. Rationality requires emotions.
Sixth Error: Reasoning Is Carried Out with Words and Logically[50]
Real reasoning utilizes frames, image schemas, mental images, conceptual metaphors, prototype-based and basic-level categories, mental spaces and blends, emotions, and narratives. These are embodied conceptual structures that have their own "logic"; and much of this logic differs from classical mathematical logic. This does not make reasoning "subjective"; because the real world, both the physical and the social world, has an inescapable influence on our experience. This very structure of reasoning also occurs in a two-way interaction; that is, it requires both the human being and the external world.
Seventh Error: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Define Categories[51].
Our mental categories are defined by prototypes of various kinds: social stereotypes such as ideals, norms, and also nightmares are used to explain standard, normal, and disastrous social situations and are salient examples of well-known instances that dramatically increase seemingly probabilistic judgments. This can lead to changes in policy and social behaviors.
Eighth Error: Reasoning Is Primarily in the Service of Self-Interest[52].
Although this claim is partly accepted, we know from research on mirror neurons[53] that empathy is also physical; that is, this capacity and ability to walk in another's shoes also arises from this very human body and brain. This capacity lies at the heart of social life. It is this very capacity for genuine reasoning that, to a large extent, enables relationships between individuals and the formation of social connections.
Ninth Error: Conceptual systems are unified[54].
For humans, having an inconsistent value system within a single brain is normal. Recall, for example, Saturday night values versus Sunday morning values. The moral values governing a Saturday night party differ from the moral values of Sunday morning in church. Yet most people live by these two different moral systems, switching between them with ease and with minimal effort to recall the matter.
The reason is that each value system is understood through its own neural circuitry, and each of these two contradictory sets of circuits is, in practice, temporarily deactivated when the other is functioning. This activation and deactivation occurs entirely automatically.
Many Americans follow conservative values[55] on some issues and progressive ideas[56] on others, and even consider different values valid in different contexts without noticing they are shifting positions; unless this contradiction enters the realm of their awareness and simultaneously proves problematic! This state is called "cognitive dissonance[57]." This dissonance does occur; but rarely; and it rarely leads to significant change on its own. Pointing out this dissonance to individuals whose political positions suffer from it also rarely leads to a change in their political positions.
Tenth Error: Words have fixed meanings and concepts have fixed logic[58].
We now know that most important concepts are essentially contested. Concepts can have a range within which they are agreed upon. This range consists of the core cases that immediately come to mind upon encountering the concepts; however, these are relatively unimportant. The important cases of contested concepts are where the main value differences among people, or even within the same brains, reside; therefore, what appears to be a single concept, denoted by a single word, can vary widely in its meaning according to different value systems. The effect of a word used to express a simple, uncontested idea can be deadly in contested cases; that is, when the divergent meanings of a single word are spoken by multiple individuals thinking within different value systems.
On this subject, my book titled "Whose Freedom?[59]" is one of the most detailed and comprehensive studies of the concept of freedom. In this book, I addressed the extensive disagreement surrounding the concept of freedom within the value systems of American conservatives and progressives. The crucial point is knowing the meaning of freedom and how this meaning has, in a certain way, led to a life-and-death struggle, not only in America but in many parts of the world.
Eleventh Error: The truth will set us free; if people know enough truth about social issues, then they can change their approaches and their approach to social interests[60]!
In fact, worldviews are physically perceived in the brain in the form of frames and metaphors, and this process is so powerful that when facts do not fit the frames, the frames remain intact while the facts are neglected, distorted, or simply ignored.
These errors are among the most important features of Enlightenment thinking about reasoning. Of course, the number of such errors is greater than these cases, and they can be discussed further.
The conclusion is very clear and obvious: the Enlightenment theory's account of reasoning is insufficient for application in the social sciences. The social sciences need to draw upon the findings of cognitive and brain sciences regarding the nature of reasoning. "Reasoning" in itself, and as it has been traditionally accepted, is the most important issue in the social sciences, or should be considered as such. These findings have implications for rethinking the basic tools that the old mode of reasoning had defined for us: the model of the rational actor, cost-benefit analysis, the measurement of public opinion, as well as research based on previous views about language and rationality, and so on.
One must recognize the existence of these weaknesses and lay the foundations for an alternative theory of rationality and reasoning. This task is part of the activity of a competent "neurosocial science" scholar.
Some Basic Principles and Preliminaries about the Brain[61]
Color[62]
There is no color in the world; no green in the grass, no red in the blood, and no blue in the sky. Color is determined by these factors:
- The wavelength of light reflected from the surface of objects; but these wavelengths are not color!
- The lighting conditions surrounding the object
- The cone cells, light receptors in the retina
- The brain's neural circuits connected to the light receptor cells in the retina
The first two conditions are realized in the external world, and the latter two in our bodies. Without a body, there would be no experience of color, no concepts about color, and no words to convey the concept of color. Colors and color concepts are embodied; they do not exist in the external world but exist through the relationship between the body and the external world!
Perception and Action[63]
Perception and action are not distinct from the brain's perspective. The brain's mirror neuron systems determine perception and action. The premotor cortex[64] regulates and coordinates complex actions, such as grasping a cup of beverage, and in turn designs a mixture of simple motor actions like gripping the cup, lifting it, extending the elbow, etc.; this area is connected to the motor cortex[65]. These simple movements require the design of a "similar" complex movement; for example, grasping a cup of beverage: about 30 percent of neural firings in the premotor cortex occur when you see another person holding a beverage. The remaining 70 percent accomplishes the interesting combinatorial connection between perception and action. The mirror neuron system allows us to connect empathetically with others; in this way, we walk in their shoes[66]. "Super mirror neurons"[67] in the frontal part of the brain[68] are responsible for distinguishing between our actions and the actions of others[69].
This Is Why Basic Concepts Exist! [70]
Basic concepts such as chair and car come with motor programs[71] (like the motion of a car), mental images[72] (those images that a chair resembles), and gestalt perception[73] (the ability to perceive a chair or a car as a whole). The existence of elementary concepts is a consequence of the activity of mirror neuron circuits, which are involved in both perception and action.
This is why the roots of verbs for expressing first-person and third-person experiences are shared!
Action is a first-person experience (I write). Sensory perception is a third-person experience (I saw that he writes). In every language, the expression of these experiences occurs through verbs with a shared root; because the neural bases of these experiences are shared. Sometimes the suffixes of these verbs vary: (for example, in English, the third-person singular verb ends in (S)). Sometimes a vowel changes while the consonants are preserved in the word structure (in English, one can point to the verbs (run) and (ran)); just as in Semitic languages we encounter the topic of lexical derivation from a single root; and sometimes there is a historical explanation for the difference in the roots of cognate words (such as (are) and (be) in English)
Agency and imagination utilize the same brain circuitry!
When we actually[74] see an object in the world, our brain circuits become active. These brain circuits are the same ones that were active when we had previously imagined[75] that same object. This sameness of brain circuit activity holds true because, in fact, we move our body and imagine that we are now moving our body; for example, when we kick a ball with our foot and, at the very same moment, imagine ourselves kicking the ball. This claim is also true because we remember something and simultaneously do it; in a dream, we see an event and at the same time perform it; and while speaking, we also utter our words while imagining what we are saying.
A single set of brain circuits is dedicated to executing specific actions, imagining, remembering, dreaming, and also talking about these actions. This is why there is an overlap between gestalt sensory perception[76] and mental imagery; because the same brain circuits design both.
Simulation and Neurological Computation[77]:
In 2005, together with Vittorio Gallese[78] of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Parma, Italy, I wrote the book Mental Concepts[79]. In this book, we examined the initial data on mirror neurons that researchers at the University of Parma had collected. The relevant data, cell by cell, were obtained from research on the neural nodes[80] of the macaque monkey[81]. These monkeys had been individually trained to perform tasks such as picking up and declaring, pressing buttons, peeling bananas, eating peanuts, and so on. Performing each of these tasks forced the monkeys to utilize tens and hundreds of neural "nodes"[82] and "clusters"[83]. Each neuron at its "node" location has 1,000 to 10,000 connections with other neurons present in that neural pathway. From the perspective of neurocomputational theory, each neural node is considered a neural agent that is singular, large, and complex, with numerous neural inputs and outputs. Despite the fact that at any given moment, each individual neuron may or may not fire, each neural node can also contain cells that may or may not fire at that moment; therefore, it can be concluded that firing occurs or does not occur up to a certain level; that is, the probability[84] of firing for each neural node is calculable by the number of firings carried out by the cells of that node. Mathematically, in neurocomputational theory, the sum of Bayesian probabilities[85] is used to calculate events in the neural circuit. Given the issue of summing probabilities in Bayesian theory[86], changes in activity within neural circuits (which are calculated by the laws of Bayesian probability) lead to other activities and inactivities in the neural circuit. This causes Bayesian networks to model the "best fit" for fundamental changes relative to other changes; and consequently, to model neural learning. Modeling[87] is a theoretical concept and therefore does not indicate which quality is the best fit for neural learning but merely describes that process.
The Pivotal Role of Metaphor in Social Life[88]
Reasoning in classical Enlightenment thought[89] considered meaning[90] valid only to the extent that abstract logical reasoning could directly correspond that meaning to the external world. The field of social policy studies[91] has largely been established on this same invalid basis. The reality is that a great volume of reasoning, especially concerning social concerns, is metaphorical. Social policies are based on metaphor and cannot be invalid for this reason; provided, of course, that the metaphor is correctly adopted; meaning that its entailments correspond to the social situation.
One must always bear in mind that metaphor is a way and manner of thinking. Linguistic expressions[92] that are expressed metaphorically are the surface level of metaphorical reasoning displayed through speech and constitute the greater part of our social life. This doctrine is the research foundation of "metaphor-rich social cognition[93]," which a number of researchers[94] led by Mark J. Landau announced in the Psychological Bulletin[95]. Landau and his colleagues provided empirical results indicating the centrality of metaphor's role in human social life; as an example, one can refer to the article (Evidence for the interaction effect of "metaphorical frames and self-consistent motivations" and "social and political attitudes")[96].[97]
Neural Metaphor
We are now confronted with a theory concerning the nature of the origin and function of the metaphorical character of thought, one that is also often empirically corroborated by sociologists and social psychologists. Recall the metaphorical system of “Moral Accounting[98],” in which fairness[99] and justice[100] are metaphorically understood in terms of Well-being[101] as Wealth[102]. In this metaphorical system, if someone is shown a kindness or favor, they understand it as metaphorical money. For example, it is said: “I am indebted to you; how can I ever repay you? I am in your debt.” Returning a favor[103] is seen as repaying a loan[104]; this is also the result of an audit[105] of the moral books.
In contrast, consider harm and injury[106] as the opposite of well-being: here, too, justice can mean repayment[107], that is, compensation for a loss; or punishment[108], that is, harm for harm. Revenge is also formed on the basis of a metaphor of the “moral ledger[109]”: bringing up a debt[110] precisely means discrediting[111]; thus, devaluing something is also considered a form of harm and injury. These forms of moral calculation play a central role in our social life.
Just as eating only good, wholesome food leads to satisfaction[112] and eating bad, rotten food leads to disgust[113], in exactly the same way, through the application of the metaphor Living Morally is Living Wholesomely, immoral behavior will also be considered disgusting. These metaphors determine our emotional reactions to moral and immoral behaviors in the social sphere. And then human language continues along this path: we refer to an immoral act as something disgusting or rotten and to a moral act as satisfying and wholesome.
We metaphorically speak of achieving success with the expression reaching a destination, and we also call a goal or destination a motive that drives us forward. Problems are also things that exist along this path, for example: encountering checkpoints, getting bogged down in the mud, moving backward, and being grounded. In many cultures, including our own American culture, people are expected to have a goal in life, and life is to be like a journey in which one moves forward along a path. In our culture, we even have specific documents that record our progress on this journey: (curriculum vitae), meaning the course of life! To get a good job, one must have an impressive (CV) to show how much more successful one has been in reaching life's goals compared to others. Spouses, too, must have shared and compatible life goals.
These are just a few of the ways in which embodied conceptual metaphors demonstrate their central role in our social life.
The Neural Theory of Metaphor from the Perspective of Narayanan, Johnson, and Grady[114]
This theory is one of the most profound results in the theoretical literature on neural cognition. Its foundations were first laid in the mid-1990s by these three scholars, who presented related dissertations on a single topic at the University of California, Berkeley. The basic idea was outlined here.
Hundreds of primary metaphors constitute our conceptual systems; the mapping and creation of these conceptual domains from one to another is learned from childhood through the functioning of the brain in everyday interaction with the world. Although we ourselves learn these metaphors, we are usually unaware of their existence.
How Do Neural Circuits Learn?
They learn through recruitment!
From birth, the human brain is organized to move the body through neural circuits. The human body has over one hundred billion nerve cells and trillions of neural connections between these cells (between one thousand and ten thousand connections per nerve cell). At birth, most of these connections are not yet organized into neural circuits that can perform their specific function and action. When synapses gain sufficient strength correctly, then functional circuits find their specific form. This occurs when neurons begin firing during the acquisition of experience. As Donald Hebb[115] noted: it is the firing of neurons that leads to their connection. According to his doctrine, bidirectional connection occurs slowly and gradually forms over time through sustained neural firings. Synapses that are not used gradually disappear. From birth to age five, nearly half of the neural connections we are born with disappear due to lack of use. This is why education in early childhood is of great importance. If a child does not listen to music by age five, they will not become a musician. Many of the ideas that humans utilize in life are the result of the process of "recruitment" of nerve cells trained in early life experiences. Sometimes most of these experiences are common across the farthest reaches of the world and occur for almost everyone; and sometimes these experiences are specific to a particular society where, for example, wealth, whether metaphorically or non-metaphorically, is considered a sign of divine approval!
The Functional Circuit Hypothesis: Feldman[116]
Jerome Feldman founded the International Computer Science Institute at the University of Berkeley in 1986. I joined this institute with him to carry out a project on the neurocognitive theory of language. I brought along a number of research colleagues and the results of cognitive linguistics: the specifications and details of these embodied conceptual structures as image schemas, frames, and conceptual metaphors; plus language as the linguistic form of sounds, signs, gestures, writings, and images that accompany embodied structures. Feldman had also prepared detailed and precise theories on functional circuits that both described the quality of cognitive structures and provided a reading explaining how they function with scientific theories. Feldman and I subsequently invited an exceptional and extraordinary group of interdisciplinary researchers[117] to collaborate.
For over two decades, computational models of functional circuits have utilized well-known computational techniques related to Parallel Distributed Processing connectionism[118], localist connectionism[119], Petri nets[120], Bayesian networks[121], various readings of neural binding[122], models of rule-based cores[123], and so on.
What was ultimately achieved was a computational-theoretical reading of neuroscience regarding thought and language, and based on the idea of functional circuits, it achieved integration with cognitive linguistics. These ideas were described and published in Feldman's research book "From Molecules to Metaphors[124]." The gist of the matter is that brain functions are defined according to simple computational structures on functional brain circuits, and thus the quality of the activity of all thought and language is determined!
This idea led to the proposal of a neurocognitive theory of social science; that is, how meaningful social ideas have emerged from different cultures and in what manner, a theory concerning significant cross-cultural differences and similarities can be constructed.
Primary Metaphors
Primary metaphors are learned through the synaptic strengthening of synapses in active circuits. Consider this conceptual metaphor: More Is Up[125]!
When a child sees a liquid being poured into a container, or is watching quantities of objects being stacked on top of each other, their brain “pays attention.”[126] Two brain regions become active: the first region registers the increase quantitatively, and the second region registers the increase on the vertical axis (i.e., directionally).
Each time these two regions begin to activate simultaneously, the neural synapses in both regions are strengthened; because neural groups are connected from one cell to another, and each to thousands of cells, this neural activity spreads along existing neural pathways, and each time, more neural groups are strengthened in these two regions, the quantitative and the directional.
The spread of these increasingly reinforcing activities continues until the emergence of a common neural pathway[127] is established and the activities persist. After these synapses along this pathway are doubly strengthened in both regions, the neural circuits find their stable form. This neural circuit is the neural realization of the metaphor “More Is Up.”
Narayanan's Idea on the Plasticity of Short-Term, Time-Based Neural Activity [128]
An informed reading of Hebb's idea plays a central role in understanding Narayanan's idea; but it is not sufficient on its own. Hebbian learning is bidirectional[129]; whereas conceptual metaphor is unidirectional[130]. We understand affection and warmth through heat, whereas we do not understand heat through affection and warmth. Moreover, the subject that becomes the topic of a metaphorical idea, for instance, living morally, can ground the activation of a range of metaphorical conceptual domains: morality can be conceived as Purity[131], Uprightness[132], Light[133], Obedience[134], Self-Cultivation[135], Moral Bookkeeping[136], and so on.
Furthermore, all primary metaphors, that is, those that cannot be reduced to another group, are embodied: they connect two regions of the brain through bodily biological links. How can we make sense of this? Why should this be considered true? Why are primary metaphors the most likely candidates to be found in all cultures? Why do children learn these metaphors in the earliest stages of development? And finally, how is it that in many cases, these metaphors are learned even before language acquisition?!
Our direct and evident doctrine emerges here!
Because our brain always computes directionally and vertically rather than quantitatively; the synapses that have developed in the brain for directional computation are stronger than the synapses created for quantitative computation. Since propagation in both directions forms the neural circuit, this situation holds at every point along this pathway, that is, wherever the axon of type (A) forms synapses of type (B) and vice versa.
This situation leads to the emergence of a phenomenon we call “time-based short-term neural firing plasticity”[137]. Neurons fire[138] in a series of short bursts of neural activity. Initially, the neuron with the stronger input fires; as a result, synaptic strengthening occurs in that direction and synaptic weakening in the opposite direction. This process gives rise to directionality[139] in metaphor. The stronger activity leads to the emergence of the source or base domain[140], and the weaker activity leads to the emergence of the target or dependent domain[141]. This is why metaphors have an asymmetric structure[142]. The existence of this process correctly predicts the directionality of primary metaphors. For example, in the metaphor (More Is Up), the vertical axis is the source domain; because the brain always computes vertically, even when we are asleep; but it does not always compute in terms of quantity. In the metaphor “Affection Is Warmth,” temperature is the source domain; because the brain is always computing temperature, but it is not always computing affection. Thus, there is a neurological explanation for the system of primary metaphors; that is, the very scaffolding upon which social concepts are built.
Neural Modulators and “Rewards” [143]
The nature of neural modulators, such as dopamine[144], norepinephrine[145], acetylcholine[146], and so on, is chemical; they can powerfully strengthen synaptic potency in both positive and negative directions over a short period. This structure is called the “reward system”[147]. These neural modulators play a critical role in goal-setting, shifting attention and focus, and generating emotional satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Therefore, their influence on the decision-making process is fundamental. Decision-making in the brain is based on the activity of many of these same neural circuits, the discussion of which was covered in the context of frames, metaphors, and so on.
Integrating Multiple Neural Systems [148]
Recent research on real reasoning takes all of these matters, and even more, into account. Everything that human understanding comprehends utilizes frames, metaphors, and narratives, which are determined by neural circuits; these, in turn, are made meaningful through embodiment. As we usually understand it, neural circuits have “gates[149]” that give the circuit the ability to be activated (turned on[150]) or deactivated (turned off[151]). The brain also possesses circuits for regulating binding and functional synchronization[152]; when these circuits are activated in a context, they can define a concept in one circuit just as it is “similarly[153]” defined in another circuit. For example, the frame-circuit for a restaurant is composed of other frame-circuits: business, eating, and hosting. The same individual who is a customer in the business frame-circuit is neurologically linked to the individual who is eating in the eating frame-circuit and is considered a guest in the hosting frame-circuit. When the circuit for regulating binding and synchronization is turned off, each of these three frame-circuits can function independently. The activity of gates, along with the circuits for regulating binding and functional synchronization, allows the brain to use this capability to have highly diverse combinations of frame-circuits. And it is this very capability that enables the brain to imagine imaginary and fantastical creatures; for example, when the frame-circuits for wings are neurally combined with the frame-circuits for a pig’s body, the brain can then conceive of flying pigs.
The embodied mind, by virtue of these very embodied neural systems, is what enables our connection with the world around us and with other people. Mirror neuron systems connect us to one another. It is these conventional and common neural systems that link most normal human actions to his perception of the world. Affective systems also specify our goals as well as prohibitions. Speaking, listening, reading, and gestures are what give meaning to our communicative interaction. Thermoregulatory systems are for regulating our body temperature. The brain's association cortex[154] also links all of these matters together through billions of diverse ways.
Evidence and Indications of Embodiment in Social Psychology[155]
Over the past two decades, experimental social psychologists have not only provided considerable evidence for the existence of fixed and specific metaphorical brain circuits; they have also furnished abundant indications in favor of their effects on the creation and understanding of social behaviors.
Here, I will mention a few examples:
A recent study in the field of biological psychology[156] shows that when individuals lean forward, the body posture is activated for the purpose of expressing need. The metaphor activated here is this: Achieving a Purpose[157] is Reaching a Destination[158]. Leaning forward[159] is moving toward a destination, which is the source domain of the metaphor, and in turn causes the activation of the target domain for need, which is the purpose.[160]
At Yale University, researchers concluded that individuals holding a warm coffee were already more inclined to perceive themselves as warm and cordial people in establishing communication than those who had ordered a cold coffee. This is predictable in this way: in the statement "That lady gave me a warm greeting[161]"; the metaphor "Affection is Warmth[162]" is evident.[163]
At the University of Toronto, individuals were asked to recall memories of when they were socially accepted and when they were ignored. Those who recalled warm memories estimated the room temperature to be, on average, 5 degrees higher than the other group. Another effect of the metaphor "Affection is Warmth"! [164]
In an experiment, individuals were asked to think about their own sexual moral transgression, such as having a sexual relationship with someone committed to another relationship or seduction for the purpose of having a sexual relationship; the number of those who requested a moist towelette for cleaning after the experiment was significantly higher than the other group who were asked to think about good things. The metaphor "Morality is Purity[165]" predicts this behavior.[166]
In a study, students expressed that they guessed a particular important book must be heavier than another book. The conceptual metaphor here is "Important is Heavy[167]". In a parallel experiment with the same study, two groups of students were given two types of clipboards, light and heavy; the group using the heavier clipboard was more inclined to evaluate their work as more valuable and to consider the idea and their group supervisor as more important in the eyes of others.[168]
Why does such a thing occur? Because conceptual metaphors are stable physical circuits in the brain. In each of these cases, the context of experience causes the activation, or lighting up, of the metaphorical circuit, and the activity of these circuits, in turn, leads to the occurrence of that action which is more likely to happen. In short, we truly live by metaphor.
For example, let us think about our own problems with long-term romantic life. If we think with the metaphor “love is a journey,” then it is normal to also conceive of the goals of romantic life in terms of the roughness of the road of love, to move in multiple directions on this amorous journey, or for obstacles to lie in our path, and so on.
Love as a journey is a specific instance of the journey metaphor; with long-term goals that are regarded as the destination of this journey, which one might say, for example, stems from a divine plan intended for you. Love can also be conceptualized through these examples in terms of various metaphors: love is a source of heat and light (Juliet is the sun)[169], love is sacrifice (the love between Abraham and Isaac considering divine love, or a soldier’s sacrifice considering love of country), and so on.
Metaphors are not merely statements in the realm of language; rather, they are considered to represent different modes of thought, acquired naturally through everyday life in this world via systems of primary metaphors and various framing systems.
Real Political and Social Life[170]
Those scientific studies that support neurocognitive social science are sufficiently understood to be taken very, very seriously. These studies allow us to benefit from insights that were previously unavailable in political and social life.[171]
The specific issues related to individual members of society are intensely real: attacks on unions, public employment, women’s rights, immigration, the environment, public health and safety, the right to vote, food security, retirement, prenatal maternal health, scientific studies, public media, and so forth.
The budget deficit is a ruse! As we witnessed in the state of Wisconsin, when the governor turned a budget surplus into a deficit by announcing tax exemptions for large corporations, and then used this matter—that is, the budget deficit—as a trick to destroy the unions. This was an event that not only occurred in that state; it was the first domino of the conservatives’ move, which showed its effect across all of the United States.
The budget deficit can be resolved by raising government revenues, eliminating weaknesses in tax collection, creating jobs for people, and developing the long-term economy; that is, the very matters the president discussed at the time. But it must be noted that the budget deficit was not really the issue of concern for the conservatives!
The conservatives truly wanted to change the very basis of American life so that, in all areas, Americans would view life from their moral perspective.
In the 2008 election campaign, Obama correctly described the foundation of American democracy:
Empathy, meaning citizens’ sense of social and individual responsibility toward one another, is founded upon compassionate action and elevated morality. Therefore, both our freedoms and our way of life pursue this: empowering and protecting everyone equally and fairly! Protection includes security, health and safety, the environment, retirement, and empowerment begins with education and fundamental infrastructure. No one has freedom without these things, and citizens will not be citizens without a commitment to compassion and acting upon it.
The conservative worldview fundamentally rejects these statements.
Conservatives believe solely in individual responsibility, not social responsibility. They do not entertain the idea that the government should help its citizens, which means they do not even believe in the necessity of solidarity among citizens. The part of government activity that conservatives seek to dismantle is not military affairs—since America has 174 military bases around the world—nor does it include government subsidies to corporations, nor the part that does not align with their views; rather, they seek to dismantle government aid to the people. Why? Because it is these very people who, in their view, do not uphold individual responsibility.
But how is this issue—the lack of belief in individual responsibilities—understood?
The conservative moral system is comprehensible through the lens of the “strict father” family model. It is the father who is the “decision-maker[172],” that is, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His duty is to protect the family, support the family (i.e., winning in the competition of shopping), and teach children right from wrong through physical punishment when they make a mistake. The use of force and coercion is necessary and essential. This is the only way to internalize the teaching and transform children into moral beings. And it is only through this teaching that they will be capable of achieving success. Which individuals are not successful in life? Those who have not undergone this teaching, and without this teaching, they have not become moral; therefore, they deserve deprivation. Thus, good people are successful people. Helping others is, in fact, distancing them from their specific teachings and results in them being neither moral nor achieving success.
They view the market itself in the same way. Consider this slogan: “Let the market itself decide[173].” Here, it is presupposed that the market itself is the decision-maker. The market is considered here as both natural and moral: it is natural because individuals naturally pursue their self-interest, and it is moral because if everyone pursues their own interest, the interest of all will be increased by an invisible hand[174]. Just as in the field of economics, it is presupposed that the ultimate moral authority must not be above the market itself so that it could assert superiority over the moral values governing the market. Therefore, the government should spend to protect the market and promote market values, but it should not have sovereignty over it in these areas:
- Legislation
- Taxation
- Unions and workers' rights
- Laws related to environmental protection and food safety
- Tort cases[175]
In addition to this, the government should not provide public services[176]. The market itself has designated service industries for this purpose. Consequently, it is wrong for the government to provide public health, education, public media, public recreational facilities, and so on. These matters are contrary to the strict father idea understood from the conservative moral system. No one should bear costs for other individuals. Individual responsibility is evident in all these areas. From this perspective, paying taxes is taking money from individuals who have earned it through effort and giving it to individuals who do not deserve to receive it. Paying taxes to provide the necessities of life is not creating a civil society, nor will it be for successful commerce.
In the ideal model of family life from the conservative viewpoint, the strict father's rules are as follows: Fathers and husbands must have control over procreation; therefore, laws related to parenting and husbandry, and opposition to abortion, are in effect. In conservative religion, God is the strict father whose reward and punishment are commensurate with the individual responsibility outlined in His holy book.
Above all, and most especially, conservative authority must remain intact. The country must be governed by conservative values, and progressive values must be regarded as evil and immoral. Scientific studies must not govern the marketplace; therefore, studies on global warming and the theory of evolution must be denied. Facts incompatible with conservative authority must be ignored, denied, or discarded entirely. But to protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil himself can be used as a tool to confront the immoral enemies of conservatives; lies, intimidation, torture, or even murder can be employed.
Freedom means that you are your own strict father; meaning you have individual, not social, responsibility, and there is no government authority to grant you permission to do or not do something. In order to defend such individual freedom, of course, you need guns.
This is the America that conservatives truly seek. The budget deficit is a convenient ruse to destroy American democracy and replace it with conservative rules in all areas of life.
The assistance and cooperation of Democrats with conservatives is the worst aspect of this affair. When conservatives use enlightened reasoning, Democrats also rush to their aid; that is, at the moment when they understand words and concepts neutrally and neglect the fact that there is a certainty about frames, metaphors, emotions, and narratives. This causes Democrats to express their statements in the language of conservatives, and consequently, within their accepted frames and values.
By accepting the budget deficit frame and arguing about what the government should cut back on, Democrats help conservatives. Even arguing against cutting back the government on certain matters is expressed within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives are truly seeking. Pointing out that there is enormous capital in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. This is the most important issue. Inequality in financial assets is contrary to the American spirit[177]. The top 1 percent has a greater disparity than the bottom 95 percent. Middle-class wages have remained at a flat rate for 30 years; precisely at a time when wealth has been growing upward. This situation is in accordance with the desirable conservative way of life; but it is not desirable for the American way of life.
Democrats have not loudly and repeatedly cried out that conservative values are the cause of the global economic collapse, and in doing so, they have helped them: the lack of market regulation and oversight, along with the ethic of “Greed is good! [178]”
Democrats have also helped conservatives by suffering from what might charitably be called “Democratic Communication Disorder[179].” Republican conservatives have built a vast and effective communication system: think tanks[180], framing experts[181], training institutes[182], a system of trained speakers[183], a major stake in the mass media[184], and employment agencies[185]. Eighty percent of television spokespeople are conservatives. Spokespeople are important; because language heard over and over again will affect the brain. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many of them are relatively ignorant about how to shape and frame their deep values and complex truths. Democrats help conservatives through lax policy advocacy[186]; that is, when they talk about their policies, they make no reference to the moral values supporting those policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to point out that pensions are deferred payments for work performed[187]. These are job benefits paid for doing work, not handouts. Pensions and job benefits are specified in the employment contract. If there is not enough money to pay them, it is because conservative officials have taken that money and given it to corporations and wealthy individuals instead of paying it to the people who are owed it.
Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative vocabulary like “entitlements[188]” instead of “earnings[189]”; when they speak of government as providing “services[190]” instead of providing “necessities[191]”; and when they fail to state how government is broadly involved in creating the common national good and why progressive taxation is justified.
The Conservative Advantage[192]
Radical Republicans have their own distinct advantages.
- In their literature and language, they have a general conservative moral framework that covers all the issues they care about, and they repeat it constantly.
- They have a communication system that is deployed every day, full-time, in every city.
- Regardless of the issues being discussed, when the common conservative moral framework is heard daily, it activates those frames in the minds of the audience and strengthens them. Constant, unremitting repetition strengthens the conservative moral system in the minds of biconceptual[193] (or so-called independent[194]) voters and weakens their progressive moral system. Even poor conservatives adopt and cling to this framework; because for them it is an identity-forming element, as it promises individuals that they can play the role of the strict father in their own domain—no matter how poor they are! That is the promise of conservative freedom.
The result is that in every contested area, conservatives have an advantage because they can pressure their officeholders and candidates; the same linguistic pressure[195]!
What Can Democrats and Progressives Do? [196]
First, it must be said: Be rational: use genuine reasoning. Merely stating facts and offering logical arguments about policies is not sufficient. Democrats and progressives share a common moral worldview:
Democracy is oriented toward empathy (the compassion of citizens for one another); both in the realm of individual responsibility and in the realm of social responsibility (acting on the basis of compassion). The government has a moral duty to equally pursue both the protection of its citizens and their empowerment.
This doctrine can be applied to any issue. A common, universal language for these doctrines can be constructed. This doctrine must be expressed repeatedly in a positive manner. Progressives must also build a communication network that includes educational institutions and many volunteers who are willing to speak on any subject.
This is why social scientists tend to be progressive and Democratic; because the Democratic picture of the good society defined in the social sciences is precisely the moral worldview that Democrats and progressives discuss.
As important as being positive is, it is also important to remind extreme conservatives that this extremism in politics and greed in moral philosophy manifests itself in power in the political sphere, money in the business sphere, and domination in the realm of religious and social life.
And let us remember to point out that it is not only ministries that constitute the government; in addition, there are corporations that rule over us not for our benefit but for their own. It is these corporations that provide our health and hygiene, create the daily news, produce the energy we consume, determine the value of the food we eat, and play a significant role in many other vital areas. Shrinking the government does not mean eliminating it but rather turns the government into a private agency that enables corporations to govern us; for the private benefit of those corporations and not the benefit of the people.
Systems Thinking[197]
Democrats and progressives also need another supplement: systems thinking. In the realms of politics, the environment, and economics, this system is paramount. Causality is not confined to a single category. Causality is also systemic and does not operate as a single factor.
A well-functioning system is self-sustaining and constantly self-correcting.
Systems have both negative and positive feedback. These feedbacks can be controllable or, like the issue of global warming or the global economic crisis, uncontrollable and catastrophic.
Causes involved in a system do not operate in a one-dimensional way: a small cause can have a huge effect.
Causes involved in a system do not only have an impact at their point of occurrence but can also have effects at much greater distances.
Causality related to a system is also not confined to its own specific category; for example, one can point to the issue of the budget deficit, which has effects in various domains.
Conservatism tends to explain the state of affairs one-dimensionally and by recalling only a single cause, and does not utilize systemic causes; for this reason, people must listen to the single cause of problems every day and all day long!
Note:
Cognitive social science is not merely another approach among the various approaches to the social sciences; rather, it both addresses the focus of social scientists—namely, the values defined in the social sciences—and permits the defense of these values.
Let us remember that neurocognitive social science emerged from the real sciences—namely, cognitive science and brain studies—and it is a path that science has laid before us so that, by making effective use of it, we may free ourselves from the grip of the prevailing conservative crisis. Despite the current perception and the educational arrangement of academic institutions, social scientists must take it seriously.
Solving the Puzzle of the Social Sciences[198]
In 2009, when President Barack Obama chose his policy vision for the public health plan, public opinion polls showed that most of the plan's provisions (for example, items in the plan that were accepted without preconditions) enjoyed the support of 60 to 80 percent of Americans. But when the entire plan was put to a poll, it received less than 50 percent approval. Why? Why does the acceptability of all the items individually differ from the acceptability of the plan as a whole? Is it not true that the whole is composed of its parts?
From the perspective of real reasoning, the answer is straightforward and simple. When he put forward his policy vision on public health in early 2009, conservatives set out to attack him not on the basis of policy but on the basis of morality: freedom (a government takeover[199]) and life (death panels[200]). They declared over and over again that Obamacare[201] (this naming itself is significant) was a government takeover, a threat to individual freedom, and that death panels were inherently a threat to life.
Remember, the policy vision concerns the details of everyday matters dealing with health maintenance organizations. But they were speaking within the framework of the details of individual health and care in the practical realm. The conservative attack took place in the moral realm and activated frames related to freedom and morality in people's minds. Conservatives understood that politics is a moral matter; political leaders claim the rightness of their actions!
The policy details and the moral attack reside in different frames and are processed in different parts of the brain. From the perspective of real reasoning, in the mind of an individual with conservative frames, the entirety of the public health plan's programs is not equal to the sum of that plan's clauses. For conservatives and independents (individuals who truly have a bi-conceptual mind[202] that thinks in conservative ways on some aspects and progressive ways on others), when the conservative moral attack occurs, the conservative moral frame is activated in their minds. This causes them to think about the entirety of that plan, independent of its individual component parts. For progressives, both morality and practical details align with each other; but for conservatives and bi-conceptual (or so-called independent) minds[203], these matters are considered independent of one another.
When we think in terms of frame-based and brain studies, such an explanation is natural. But when you think according to the rationalist logic of the Enlightenment era, a whole is, by logical necessity, considered the same as its individual parts.
.
.
Footnotes
[1] George Lakoff , Neural Social Science, Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, Springer, 2013.
[14] How Brain Circuits Become Meaningful
[23] DeHaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York: Penguin Viking.
[26] Reason and Social Science
[29] experimental social psychology
[33] Reason Itself: Enlightenment Fallacies
[40] Andrea Rock, The Mind at Night (New York: Basic Books 2005).
[42] One Can Reason Directly About the World
[48] Words Are Defined Directly in Terms of Features of the External World
[50] Reason Is Literal and Logical
[51] Categories Are Defined by Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
[52] Reason Exists Primarily to Serve Self-interest
[54] Conceptual Systems Are Monolithic
[58] Words Have Fixed Meanings and Concepts Have Fixed Logics
[59] 2006. Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-15828-6.
[60] The Truth Will Set You Free; If Enough People Know the Truth About Social Issues, They Will Change Their Attitudes, to Society’s Benefit
[66] A metaphor for showing empathy (M)
[70] That’s Why There Are Basic-Level Concepts
[77] Neural Computation and Simulation
[88] The Centrality of Metaphor in Social Life
[89] The old Enlightenment Reason
[93] “A metaphor-enriched social cognition”
[94] Landau, Mark J.; Meier, Brian P.; Keefer, Lucas A.
[95] Psychological Bulletin , Vol 136(6), Nov 2010, 1045–1067
[96] “Evidence That Self-Relevant Motives and Metaphoric Framing Interact to Influence Political and Social Attitudes”
[97] Psychological Science 1, November 2009:1421–1427.
[114] The Narayanan-Johnson-Grady Neural Theory of Metaphor
[116] The Feldman Functional Circuitry Hypothesis
[117] Charles Fillmore (and his whole FrameNet group), Eve Sweetser, Terry Regier, David Bailey, Lokendra Shastri, Srini Narayanan, Dan Jurafsky, Adele Goldberg, Benjamin Bergen, Vittorio Gallese, Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, Nancy Chang, Christopher Johnson, Joseph Grady, Carter Wendelken, Ellen Dodge,Steve Sinha, Joe Makin, Leon Barrett, Mett Gedigan, Behrang Mohit, John Bryant, Jenny Lederer,and others.
[120] Petri net) a place/transition net or P/T net(
[124] From Molecules to Metaphors
[128] Spike-Time-Dependent Plasticity
[137] “spike-time-dependent plasticity”
[143] Neuromodulators and “Rewards”
[148] Integrating Multiple Neural Systems
[155] Embodiment Evidence in Social Psychology
[160] Eddie Harmon-Jones, Philip A. Gable, Tom F. Price. “Leaning embodies desire: Evidence that
leaning forward increases relative left frontal cortical activation to appetitive stimuli.” Biological
Psychology 87 (2011) 311–313.
[161] She gave me a warm greeting
[163] Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. “Experiencing physical warmth influences interpersonal warmth . ”
Science, 322, 2008, 606–607 .
[164] Zhong, C. B., & Leonardelli, G. J . “ Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion feel literally cold?”
Psychological Science , 19, 2008, 838–842.
[166] Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical
cleansing. Science, 313, 1451–1452.
[168] Nils B. Jostmann, Daniel Lakens, and Thomas W. Schubert. “Weight as an Embodiment of
Importance ,” Psychological Science, September 1, 2009: 1169–1174.
[170] Real Social and Political Life
[179] Democratic Communication Disorder
[183] a system of trained speakers
[192] The Conservative Advantage
[196] What Can Progressives and Democrats Do?
[198] Solving a Social Science Puzzle
.
.
George Lakoff's Article 'Cognitive Social Science'
Author: George Lakoff
Translator: Vafa Mehraein
.
.
Discussion2 comments
(تمام روند تفکر امری فیزیکی است؛ تفکر امری برآمده از فعالیتهای مدارهای عصبی است که در بدن گستردهاند).بیان عاری از دلیل صرفا یک ادعاست. (آنچه مایه معنادار شدن تفکر میشود، بدن آدمی و نیز کیفیت کارکرد بدن ما در جهانی است که در آن زندگی میکنیم. محتوای مفاهیم را شیوه تعامل بدن ما با جهان تعین میبخشند. تفکر مفهومی همواره دارای مؤلفهای مرتبط با بدن آدمی است.) بدین جهت است که میگویند مغز زمینه ساز آگاهی است.
سلام، ممنون از زحمتتون، موضوع این مقاله به صورت کتاب هم هست؟ استدلال ورزی، استعاره عصبی و ارتباطش با سیاست؟