“We now face the exact predicament we expected. We must either allow interest rates to rise on student loans, or stick taxpayers with another multibillion-dollar bill.”
--Jennifer Allen, Republican spokeswoman, Minnesota Legislature
“On behalf of my generation, I should apologize to all of you. We tell you your education is important, which it is, that you should get as much of it as possible, which you should. That it will benefit you and society and the world, but we’re not going to help you pay for it. It’s a profound breakdown of the inter-generational compact.”
--Mark Dayton, Democratic Governor of Minnesota
It’s rare that I permit a newspaper article to strongly impact my emotions. I normally either ignore reports or add the data to my mental filing system and think through any needed system changes. When it’s a serious case of conflicting values like this morning, then the conflict can be challenging. So the front page of this morning’s Minneapolis Star Tribune really, really pissed-me off. The article reported on a conversation that UMN’s President Kaler, Governor Dayton and Senator Franken had with a number of students about loan indebtedness. (Lest there be any doubt, education is one of my highest values.)
The student loan debt of Minnesota students is fourth highest in the nation. The state’s college students who graduated in 2010 and borrowed had an average of $29,058 in student loan debt.
And there are plenty of students who are walking out of college with loan debt between $27 and $40,000.
Framing the issue
Democrats (Dayton) framed the issue as an intergenerational failure and Republicans (Allen) framed the issue as a tax-and-spend issue.
So the Democrats want us to think about the issue as an intergenerational failure. That’ll be a tough sell to the older generation who do much of the voting.
And Republicans want us to think about the issue as a demand on our pocket books, another tax issue. That’ll be an easy sell to the older generation.
FYI: Studies show that most of our decisions are made on an emotional basis. That’s not a completely negative way of deciding. Sometimes our emotions are smart. They’re useful for survival. Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that our tribal membership (Republican or Democrat) deeply impacts our decisioning. We have deeply held values and commitments, often lacking serious rationale. But they still impact our decision making. However, if the issue is personally or organizationally important, rational decision-making is the best route to success.
What you get is how you frame the issue
Most of us intuitively know something about frames. We allude to them when we talk about “thinking outside the box” or “not being on the same page.” A frame is simply a mental structure that simplifies and guides our understanding of complex issues. Our world is too complex for our brains to ever hope to fully process what’s coming at us. Even prior to the information age. If we didn’t use frames, we’d be quickly consumed with trying to make sense of all the data flowing at us.
Most of us pay no attention whatsoever to this automatic mental process. But we can pay a very high price for this much-needed simplicity. It can limit what we see and what we understand. The analogy of a window frame shows us the difficulties. Architects designing a new house choose where to place windows to give us a desired view. But no single window can show us the entire panorama. When we first moved from Colorado and Arizona to Minnesota nearly 40 years ago, my wife and I went nuts about the windows in Minnesota homes. They were very small. We didn’t like what we got from a small window: little light and no perspective. There’s an important lesson in that. Both Governor Dayton and Jennifer Allen are using frames that are far too small for their subject. But few people will recognize that.
Frames and policies
The fact of the matter is few see their frames for thinking unless they’ve had the training to do so. Frames are like stereotypes or mental models. They’re very powerful. With Dayton and Allen, the frame difference is the major cause of the policy difficulties. As long as the legislators are working with those two frames, the public will never hear or even understand the issues. And as I said, that’s good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats. That’s because the rhetorical world of the older voter is filled with tax issues and largely lacking in any sense of the broader good. So how the hell do you talk about the “broader good?” The Democrats better figure that one out. The Democrats are winning a lot of battles, but losing the one about the broader good. And it’s all about framing.
Frame distortion
Frames guide our thinking in a chaotic world. They can play tricks on our minds. Here, from Russo and Schoemaker, are some of the built-in dangers of frames:
- Frames distort what we see.
- Frames themselves are often hard to see
- Frames appear complete. We don’t even notice that something’s missing.
- Frames are exclusive. It’s hard to look out more than one window at a time.
- Frames are “sticky” and hard to change. We’ve been locked into the same frames for years—with a lot of reinforcement—so it’ll take conscious effort to change them.
Making frame change
About ten years ago my frugal wife decided she needed a new car. Her old Pontiac was dying. She turned the planning and research over to me, so I checked out her frame. Her conclusion was that she wanted a very “secure, safe” car (she taught in the inner city), preferably a four wheel drive, heated front seat and it should be small to move around in traffic and park. Using her frame, my research found that there was only one car that fit the bill: the Audi A4. “But that’s a very expensive car,” she responded. I pointed out that she hadn’t factored cost into her frame and that there was only one car that could give her what she wanted. She agreed that I’d framed the problem correctly, but still . . . . I finally sold it to her on the basis that it was a “Kraut car,” German made. Since she’s half German, with all the analytical precision thereto appertaining, she rolled. She got the Audi—and I was the proud, status-oriented husband of a wife who drove an Audi. She’d framed the issue correctly and as a result she got exactly what she wanted--and needed! (She agreed that as empty-nesters and the kids out of college, money wasn’t an issue. So we took that out of the framing.) I assume you realize that my case for the Audi was both rational and emotional decision making.