Logic vs. Emotion

["Allen Flanigan." <Allen.Flanigan@USPTO.GOV>]

This issue about wringing the last bit of potential ambiguity and logical
flaws out of good arguments and sound bites and slogans is something I
tussle with Roxie over.  I understand her not wanting to give the "other
side" any ammo to use against us, but I agree with what Lisa is saying (I
think) that it is more important to connect emotionally with a broad
audience, who are much less likely to either spot inconsistencies or condemn
us for making small misstatements if our hearts are in the right place.  And
as we all should realize, the art of rhetoric ranges widely from truthful
and sincere practicioners to bald-faced liars, and both get their licks in
as well as they can.  We do have an advantage in that as parents we are seen
as approaching the issue from a different (and less suspicious) perspective
than the career politicians.  So I think people are generally willing to
give us the benefit of the doubt and forgive a misstatement or two.

Allen F.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: amspaugh@EXCELONLINE.COM [SMTP:amspaugh@EXCELONLINE.COM]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 12:22 PM
> To:   ARN-L@listsrva.cua.edu
> Subject:      Re: reponse to Monty/plans for our national effort
>
> Thanks Monty. I'd like to elaborate, because with all my heart I believe
> this issue is the jugular of why we haven't won the battle yet.
>
>
> We need to remember this is war, and the casualties while we stand around
> trying to come to concensus, are our children. When you're giving a speech
> to a crowd of parents and you ask name one system run by the gov that
> works
> the way it should......the context is not to privatize education-I DO NOT
> favor that-it is to show how stupid it is to let Washington (or the state
> capital) dictate instead of the local. You  are right if you analyze
> specifically what I said, but trust me, that's not the way people have
> been
> taking it. It's funny, not once has a potential link to privatization from
> what I said come up in discussion-until now, and I think both you and
> Deborah saw it that way. What the crowd heard was stop letting the
> politicians run it and give the power back to parents and teachers.
> Although
> it's always been a governement institution, the average american never
> viewed it that way. They always had this pretty little picture that the
> principal who lived down the street was in charge. You even start out with
> "the logic says". I love you Monty and have great respect for what you
> think, but no where in all of this are average people making logical
> connections. If they thought about the logic, this would already be over.
>
>  This is a sales/pr/marketing job. To sell or market you have to walk in
> the
> other guys shoes and be them, think like them, feel how they are going to
> react.You have to set aside how you feel, and become them. I truly believe
> part of the problem is that you guys approach it from what bothers you,
> how
> you feel about it, wanting to discuss and convince all that hear you,
> living
> in a logical world where you look more deeply. You live in exact worlds
> where details count. To do this "marketing" thing right is going to be
> totally out of your comfort zone. I'm just telling you you're going to
> have
> to do it if you want to win. I'd say the proof is in how long you've been
> talking about it without being able to come to concensus or a real plan of
> action. I'd also suggest keeping in mind that the opposition has big
> agenda's, but all they ever say is "end social promotion, and raise the
> bar." Simple messages people buy without making any logical leaps. It's
> like
> trying to make a right brained person live a left brained existance.
> Pretty
> hard to translate. I can't step into your world any easier than you guys
> can
> step into mine, but I'm trying, and even though I don't understand it all,
> I'm learning to trust you on it. I hope you'll trust me.
>
> But you're definately right to say that we need to be careful, I wouldn't
> want to help those that believe it should be private. I have very strong
> feelings on that which are best left to another day, and now that you've
> pointed it out I'll change it a bit so I can't be misunderstood.
>
>  Marketing is a world of generalities, where one of the main rules is
> KISS-
> Keep it Simple Stupid. I'm used to seeing the things that make people
> respond, and what doesn't. It's sad really. You can't do the details,
> people
> won't listen or read that long. If you're an honest car dealer and you put
> the exact price in your ad, using a lease combination most people would
> want, you simply won't sell any cars because all the other guys are
> showing
> stripped down models and ridiculous lease deals, which no one would ever
> agree to buy. The leases are available if you only need a completely
> stripped out car and the ability to drive only 8 or 10,000 miles per year,
> so technically it's still accurate. The guys telling the public what they
> want to hear sell cars because they pull people into the dealership with
> those ads, and the guys trying to get it all right and say everything just
> as it is, literally sell nothing. The other side is pulling all the people
> into their dealership because they're telling them what they want to hear,
> while we're trying to tell the full and whole truth and no one is
> listening.
> Even when they hear it, they don't believe it. High stakes tests are
> harmful
> to children-absolutely true, but many people don't believe it-tests have
> been around for ever, kids need to toughen up and get used to it-they'll
> be
> tested their whole lives. Then try this instead. Judgeing total knowledge
> using one test instead of looking at work from all year is just a stupid
> idea. It's not a good idea to let slimy politicians with their own agendas
> control education. Neither of the last two get to all the hearts of the
> problem, but they're things that will pull people into the fight-now.
>
> Before someone misquotes me I'm not saying that we shouldn't be truthful,
> or
> that we should be deceptive like the car dealers. What I'm saying is that
> we
> have to wake up and realize how the world works regardless of how we wish
> it
> worked. This has to be fought in the public eye not with specifics, but
> broad brush strokes. If it's going to work, we need to use it, regardless
> of
> if it is exactly what we wish we could convey if we could make them all
> digest 1000 words-which we can't. MOst politicians are slimy, based on all
> the ones I've met here. I wish it weren't so, I work to change that, but
> it's what most people believe. I will use that to save children even if I
> wish there were higher more intellectual ground on which to fight.
>
> You may be right that the government angle is simply not one we want to go
> after. My gut and my experience here has shown it to be very effective,
> but
> perhaps some others should try it out and see what happens.
>
>
> For the record, the last column I wrote in my newspaper was on the
> responsibility to vote in the primaries, just the latest in what has been
> over the years many columns on our responsibilities and expectations when
> it
> comes to government. You'll find it hard to believe I get responses saying
> I'm naive, because I still believe and post the reasons we have the
> greatest
> government in the world, despite the slim and corruption and things that
> need changed. I believe and actively encourage people to understand that
> we
> have the power to change it all, to demand it work the way it should, with
> liberty and justice for all. There are more of us than there are of them.
> We
> just have never decided to sing with one voice and demand the changes.
> That's what we must do here. We must cry out with one voice, and we have
> to
> leave the academics by the wayside and walk in the shoes of average Joe to
> formulate our messages. Quite frankly, the fact that you can't come to
> concensus on exactly what the problems are, means nothing. What you think
> they are isn't as important as what Joe thinks they are. You all will
> never
> ever, in a million  billion years come to concensus. In the mean time our
> children will suffer while you debate. I suggest we come to consensus on
> this. High stakes tests are bad for children and education and need to be
> stopped. Let's stick with this and fight from here. It's as complicated a
> message as Joe is ever going to listen to.
>
> There is nothing unethical or immoral about us using simple messages that
> "average" people can relate too, even if it doesn't tell the whole story.
> The whole story is a novel, and you only have time for a 30 second sound
> byte.
>
> Lisa
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List
> [mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU]On Behalf Of Monty Neill
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:10 PM
> To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
> Subject: Re: reponse to Deborah/plans for our national effort
>
>
> Lisa, I think your comments are excellent and right on target. We do need
> the
> slogans, key phrases, terms, etc. Lots of things have been proposed, but
> it
> has been hard to find agreement among ourselves. We need to keep trying.
>
> I have one major concern, however:
>
> > Name just one system run by the government that really works as it
> should.
>
> The logic that says, end public schools. It implies that private
> corporations
> can do education better -- like they provide good housing for all, good
> medical care for all, etc. In fact, the privatized does a worse job than
> the
> public (did you see the recent study that ranked US health care well below
> similar nations in the combination of quality and accessibility).
>
> > Are you in favor of Government controlled education, or local control?
>
> What is the "local" but another aspect of government. The issue would seem
> to
> be the long arm of a distant power versus a more local power. I prefer the
> local for most things, but also think it is appropriate for state-level or
> federal government to insist on non-discrimination and to prevent
> exclusion
> on those grounds -- that is, to protect civil rights.
>
> The government is a peculiar thing, being simultaneously an essential tool
> of
> the ruling class to perpetuate its rule and a site of contestation among
> classes and other social forces in which things can be won -- e.g., social
> security, right to unionize, public education, civil rights. The form in
> which they are won are often distorted to be more acceptable to those with
> more power who have to "give it up," which I think is at the root of the
> problems with US public education in general, and why politicians fail in
> general to actually serve the people instead of the rich and corporations.
> The solution is not to privatize education, but to find a means to make
> the
> public responsive to and serve the needs of the public.
>
> In other words, exposing and criticizing the politicians is one thing, but
> how we do it is another -- complicated by the fact that among "us" there
> are
> many views as to the nature of the problems we face and how to address
> them.
>
> Monty Neill
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.