Don't Think of an Elephant!

What Hacker News says

1. chillingeffectJun 2026
   yes some of the provocative imagery is non-productive in public spheres outside private circles.

   As a remedy, I recommend everyone on the left read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's a guide for how to communicate effectively, especially to people who have a vastly different worldview from themselves.

   He's been consulting to organizations for a long time and these books are the distillation of his knowledge in plain language.

   Preview:

   1. He makes an (obv simplified) model of left vs right communication as "nurturing parent" vs. "strict father." There is obvious overlap - it's a model, but you can see how much this explains as he develops it a bit further.

   2. He talks about a "staining" or "triggering" effect when communicating. what does that mean? people have key words that instantly shut down their thought, preventing useful discussion. For example, immediately upon hearing the words "trans," conservatives might picture a man in a dress molesting someone in a bathroom. Similar for leftists when they hear a word like "corporation" or "business." So he teaches how to communicate without stumbling on these.

   Show morethread
2. acconradAug 2023
   Don't Think of an Elephant will completely change how you view politics and what anyone in politics says and how to interpret it.

   Aristotle's Ethics helped me reconcile my desire to constantly strive to do more and what to make of it when it seems never-ending.

   Plato's Republic goes deep into virtue in a way that somehow doesn't (and might need to) get explored more often today.

   Excellent Sheep is the book that got me to read the above books in the first place.

   Show morethread
3. andrei_says_Apr 2023
   Thumbs up for Snyder. His talks are incredible.

   https://framelab.substack.com/ - A newsletter about politics, language and your brain. Written by Dr. George Lakoff and Gil Duran. george Lakoff wrote Don’t Think of an elephant and The Political Mind. Both seminal works on how our brains get hijacked by political ideas and manipulation.

   thread
4. mncolinleeDec 2019
   Perhaps one of the most noticeably hackable tests I've participated in is democratic elections. I ran for office a few times and learned a lot about how the system actually works. I believe this is why politics has such a negative connotation. Ultimately, voters want politicians to do what's right and politicians learn they have to gain the genuine love of one group and appease a large enough cross-section of groups without offending an important one.

   If there's one thing I learned in politics, the biggest hack is in having a great narrative. Ultimately, brands, companies, and politicians are characters in our consciousness that only achieve meaning through the stories they tell.

   Essentially, the story must be believable and ring true to the audience being targeted according to their past experience. For example, evangelicals love a good redemption and hard work story. Each group has their own highest morals. I'd recommend "Don't Think of An Elephant" by George Lakoff, which explains how politicians hack the human mind by crafting an entire language that plays into their hopes and fears.

   I'd love to have every test in life be genuine and unhackable. But when tests are clearly so hackable, it doesn't help to not call out how the hack works. Call it responsible cultural exploit disclosure.

   Show morethread
5. mncolinleeDec 2019
   There is some great theory around moderation which goes far beyond this piece. David Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" is a classic.

   Moderation is rarely a choice. There's an old expression, "The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill." It's not saying that moderates are extinct or undesirable. Rather, left and right political views mostly come from a history of life experiences that drives people either towards empathy for strangers or towards fear of strangers. The combination of these worldviews and the human desire for having a community or clan drives people into parties in opposition to each other.

   For most moderates, their experiences instead drive them to prefer either worldview depending upon which issue is being considered. Their experiences are not totally based on seeking safety or showing empathy. They are not middle of the road on most issues, but have a diverse set of opinions. Their opinions are diverse enough to not feel fully accepted into either party and to adjust their own views into alignment, unless their country has a middle party. This seems to be what Graham calls deliberate moderates.

   There are also moderates who become moderate because nuance is important to smart policy. Fully left or right ideas both tend to overshoot evidence-based decision-making. I believe this is what Graham refers to as accidental moderates. However, the roadkill metaphor still applies because even accidental moderates still have life experiences that lead them to a worldview as well as the human desire to belong to a group. Even those who apply past policy-based evidence to develop a nuanced view will have a human desire to try to fit themselves somewhere into the partisan political landscape of their environment. It's not easy being the odd one who doesn't fit.

   Show morethread
6. _CodemonkeyismMar 2019
   The Brexiteers had won when they successfully framed Brexit as "the will of the 17M". Remainers didn't counter-frame this with "50M didn't vote for Brexit".

   Therefor all the marches, petitions etc. are always/can be ignored in the context of "but the will of the 17M".

   "Don't Think of an Elephant!" is now such an old book, and still a lot of people haven't read it. Brexiteers have read it it seems.

   thread