John Mahaffie

9 things that “lock us in” in our thinking

February 18, 2025January 26, 2011 by John B. Mahaffie

There are lots of things that can take up residence in our minds and shape how we think. Just knowing that is empowering and can make a difference in getting us out of what can be a mental straightjacket. Here are some of those things:

Language – There is still controversy in the social sciences about how, and how much language shapes thought, but it’s clear that the language we use reflects how we think about things. Sometimes, we need to take a close look at our language—our names for things. It may be holding back thought. See also, Culture wires the brain
Culture – Culture obviously shapes much of what we think and do, and how we learn. You cannot escape your culture, nor the way it shapes your thinking altogether, but again, knowing how it may be affecting your thought and approach to things is itself powerful. See also, Culture wires the brain
Built/sunk investment – We don’t want to let go of things we have invested in, either in money, effort, time or reputation. You may need to ask: is my investment in this blinding me to what I need to recognize?
Framing – George Lakoff has written well and convincingly about how mental frames we carry around in our heads influence. Frames are conceptual structures we use in thinking, and they take up a spot in our minds and assert themselves over what we think until, if ever, they are replaced by other frames. My thoughts and more on Lakoff’s perspective are here and here.
Not invented here – Similarly to sunk investment when that investment is through effort and emotional connections, we may often reject an idea that we and/or our colleagues didn’t think of ourselves.
Invented here – When we, our colleagues, our classmates, our heroes, etc. are behind an idea, it takes up a hard-to-dislodge place in our thinking, and we may be reluctant or even unable to scrutinize and evaluate it for truth, usefulness, and so on. In essence, we can be too loyal in our thinking, and not open enough to ideas from elsewhere.
Greed – Many of us are too easily swayed by looking at things from the point of view of how they could help us make money or reduce our chances to make money.
Ignorance, misunderstanding – Simple lack of knowledge, or incomplete knowledge can lead to wrong thoughts and conclusions.
Fear – Fear of change, perhaps foremost, but fear of the unknown, strangers, different cultures and customs, and so on, can make us shut out information and ideas as “foreign” or “strange"

And there are plenty more, of course.

What can you do about these things? The most important thing is to recognize the biases and mis-direction they can cause in your thinking, and talk about that. Try to offset the biases inherent in all this with time and effort spent considering other points of view. Open your mind, and work to keep it open. Involve your colleagues in this too, and try to build a general habit of confronting biases like these.

Image: shannonpatrick17, via Flickr, cc attribution license

Framing and reframing, part 2: emotional connections

February 18, 2025March 19, 2009 by John B. Mahaffie

My Leading Futurists LLC partner Jennifer Jarratt and I believe one of the most critical things we do for our clients is reframing. Over 22+ years working to be more effective as futurists, we’ve learned that truly helping people understand the future means not just reconceptualizing things (nearly any good business consultant does that) but connecting in meaningful ways to their worldview. Reconceptualizing can make an intellectual connection, but reframing can make a stronger, emotional connection.

That means helping people think about change from a personal, human, emotional perspective. Offering a compelling look at the future is not about explaining “how would that work?” It’s about answering “how would that affect me?”

The work of George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist at Berkley, has helped us surface and examine how we do that, why it matters, and how we can do it better. Lakoff’s book, The Political Mind, is particularly valuable in understanding the importance of frames and how people react to them.

Lakoff defines a frame as “a conceptual structure used in thinking.” [Link] He explains that it is the emotional content of a framing that connects most strongly to people.

In The Political Mind, Lakoff explains the centrality of framing in politics. While perhaps the stakes are higher in political battles than in exploring the future, we believe the ability of people to break through to new insights on the future is essential to having a successful future.

Let me share an example of reframing of the kind Lakoff explains so well. I mentioned this situation in a related reframing context in a previous post, but the case also distinctly highlights a central part of reframing: the power of an emotional hook in how something is framed.

The Janney Elementary/Tenleytown Branch library public private partnership (PPP) was an intense issue in my community in Washington DC over the past few years. It was a proposal to combine a commercial real estate development on Wisconsin Avenue, NW in Washington, DC with a redevelopment of the public branch library and adjacent public elementary school. The land to be used for the commercial development would have included the city’s land where the now-demolished library is intended to be rebuilt, and part of the adjacent elementary school property. The sites would have been joined and reworked, with a new library, retail space, apartments, and garage parking for the elementary school staff. The developer was to contribute to renovating and adding on to the 1925 elementary school building.

In our neighborhood debate, a group that opposed the PPP framed the core of the issue as a “land grab” with the city surrendering land to a private developer, irrevocably. There are detailed technical arguments that can be, and have been made on each side of the issue. It’s quite possible for pro-PPP people to explain the potential deal not as a land grab, but as a multi-million dollar benefit to an aging, over-crowded elementary school. But the “land grab” notion was a stronger framing than any that had come up from proponents of the PPP. It connects in people’s minds to stealing—in this case, a corporate entity, the real estate developer, in cahoots with the city government, stealing from our children.

What happens so often in political debates is that one side comes up with framing that resonates with people’s emotions well, and the other side tries to counter that framing with a technical discussion of facts and truths. This is what has happened in my neighborhood.

Emotion usually wins out over the facts. A few days ago (March 16, 2009) the city relented and killed further discussions of a PPP on the site. So, perhaps the opponents who framed this as a “land grab” won the argument with their well-framed opposition.

In exploring the future, we need not see framing a simply a crass appeal to emotions. We can see it as a way of more effectively breaking through to people’s consciousness with ideas about a changed world. In our thinking, then, we specifically put the emphasis on reframing—recasting the situation with a new way of looking at it that can alter how people think about the possible and desirable future. Sometimes that means showing a new side to an issue, balancing people’s fears with ideas that suggest how a big change could be a good thing.

Effective work in foresight then, means not only depending on technical explanations and a wholly logical appeal to people. That’s why I’ve written so extensively here about the importance of stories, the value of images, the power of other voices, among many others.

As Jennifer and I work further on our concepts around reframing, we’ll publish ideas here and at www.leadingfuturists.biz. We’d of course be delighted to hear your ideas about this and we’re ready to help you in your exploration of the future any time.

Here is my take on some people who are really good at reconceptualizing and reframing.

Previous post on reframing: Framing and reframing, part 1: our mental frames shape how we see things

Framing and reframing, part 1: our mental frames shape how we see things

February 18, 2025February 26, 2009 by John B. Mahaffie

Tenleytown DC, library lot and elementary school For nearly any problem, question, topic, or issue you face, you need to ask yourself: "What point of view do I bring to this question?" Then ask: "Has that blinded me in any way?"

Our mental framing on any given question can be hard to loosen. When I first visited Tucson, Arizona, where I planned to go to graduate school, I flew to the Tuscon airport, and, having come from the north, got it in my head that the airport was on the north side of the city. I lived in Tucson for two years, and despite all the evidence to the contrarary, including each day’s sunrise and sunset, I could never seem to shake my initial mis-impression. The sun always seemed to be rising on the wrong side of town.

That shows how powerful a mental framing or first impression can be, and often the stakes are much higher than a grad student being momentarily unable to find his way around. (A couple of years ago, after 23 years’ absence, I again visited Tucson, and the same mis-apprehension reasserted itself–the sun insisted on rising on the wrong side of town).

In a more serious example, in my neighborhood, an issue has evolved over the past few years about the city’s plans for rebuilding a branch library and whether to do that as part of a public private partnership (PPP) involving the adjacent elementary school property (see picture) as well. A developer wants to build apartments on the site, while also accomodating the branch library, and parking for teachers and library patrons. In exchange for that, the developer would pay for some of the school’s modernization and expansion. This issue has been contentious–yesterday morning, in fact, a crowd gathered at the site (an empty lot) and demanded the public library be built now, without the PPP.

Neighborhood activists have framed this issue as a question of whether or not to allow a real estate developer to get involved with the library and school renovations. But the overall debate includes the premise that the school needs to be modernized and expanded, and that its student population will go up.

The lens through which both sides see the question is how best to serve the community and the students at the school, with a large and growing student population. Discussing the situation that way has held off or submerged any discussions of the possibility that we could leave the student population size as it is, or lower it. Intense debate about a part of the situation that was particularly emotional blinded nearly everyone to other questions about the plans.

Often when you face a futures question you have to step back and say, "hey, maybe we’re not asking the right question."

That’s often a the role of a futures-minded person in the group. The tendency is to respond to an issue or question as it was posed. But often it’s important to reframe that question. There are nearly always old arguments, philosophical differences, and vested interests that shape the way the question gets discussed. But are we even asking the right question?

In future posts, I will expand on the concepts of framing and reframing in foresight–this is an area where my Leading Futurists LLC partner Jennifer Jarratt and I are working intensively.

Image: John B. Mahaffie