January 15, 2004

Framing effects

Posted by Daniel

A wonderful example of framing effects in action. I hear that the USA is going spend $1.5bn on promotion of marriage.

First thought: A billion and a half! That’s a HUGE amount of money! How the hell are you gonna spend that kind of money on marriage counselling?

Second thought: Fifteen bucks per household isn’t going to buy you a lot of marriage counselling.

Posted on January 15, 2004 02:11 PM UTC
Comments

You too seem taken in! under the guise of saving marriage (who can badmouth that?), Bush is handing out money to faith based groups—tax money to churches…like mass marriage of Moonies!

Posted by freddie poo · January 15, 2004 03:01 PM

Third thought: how is the promotion of marriage a function of the federal government?

Posted by praktike · January 15, 2004 04:03 PM

I think Matt Y. had it right when he proposed that this be used to establish a cabinet-level Secretary of Dating, administering a national dating service for single people.

Posted by Andrew Edwards · January 15, 2004 04:15 PM

OK, so Jeffrey Frankel was wrong:

“the thesis of Jeffrey Frankel that the parties have switched places, with Democrats becoming the party of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets, and minimal government, while the Republicans have become the party of trade restriction, big government, and interventionist economics.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html
and http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.jfrankel.academic.ksg/Republicans%20and%20Democrats%20Have%20Switched.PDF

Obviously, Frankel should have included Federal support for Marriage Counselling on the Republican agenda as well. Anyone can make a simple error of omission like that. The issue now is whether Federal programmes for more Marriage Counselling goes far enough to deal with the present crisis:

“Market forces are also threatening psychoanalysis. Of the roughly 15 million people in therapy in the US, few have the time or money for a treatment that typically lasts years and calls for as many as five one-hour, $100 sessions a week. Many patients - and all health insurers - favor short-term psychotherapies that target specific problems rather than delving deeply into a patient’s past. Two popular approaches are cognitive-behavioral therapy, which seeks to alter unwanted habits of thought and behavior, and interpersonal therapy, which focuses on patients’ current relationships with others.” - from: http://www.nichols.edu/faculty/davis/py151/Freud.htm

Posted by Bob · January 15, 2004 04:22 PM

That’s really hilariously funny. Married people tend to be Republicans, so encourage more people to marry, and there will be more Republicans. Hmm.

But it’s not about marriage counselling, it’s about marriage promotion. A different thing. And no doubt more cost-effective. $1.5 billion would indeed not buy much individual counselling, but PR blather is aimed at a mass audience rather than one couple at a time. This thing seems to be about PR blather along with resisting the dreaded gay marriage and defending the ‘sanctity’ of the other kind.

Posted by Ophelia Benson · January 15, 2004 04:39 PM

For some reason, it’s these little things that really drive me batty about Bush & co. The Iraq war, for example, is a much worse idea, but I knew it was coming, I knew why, etc. This just makes me want to scream.

Of course, we now have exhibit #4,658 why actual principled libertarians really ought to be supporting Democrats these days rather than Republicans, at least at the national level.

Posted by DJW · January 15, 2004 05:19 PM

Don’t conservatives believe that marriage is a cornerstone of society, and that (big)government is almost like a parasite on society’s back.

How on earth can they then believe that government would save marriage?

Posted by Mats · January 15, 2004 05:21 PM

I think the issue here is that marriage promotion (if done intelligently) could end up saving the federal government a lot of money in social spending. Not just welfare, but also stuff like adoption and secondary effects like crime and so on. I could definitely see it saving money overall.

Posted by godlesscapitalist · January 15, 2004 06:05 PM

Given how abstinence promotion doesn’t work so well in sex education, I wouldn’t be too keen about what the Bush administration will come up with to promote marriage.

On the other hand, they could hire Matt Groening to promote marriage, which would at least be funny:

The Nine Types of Relationships
From Matt Groening’s very funny “Love Is Hell” - 1985 Pantheon Books.

Woman + Wimpy
She: “How many times have I told you not to cringe?”
He: “312?”
Advantages: Symbiotic; plus maybe she’ll get laryngitis and shut up.
Drawbacks: Permanent laryngitis unlikely.

Brute + Jumpy
He: “Me and her get along just fine.”
She: “I think I’ll have a little drink now.”
Advantages: Won’t last.
Drawbacks: Next relationship will be just the same.

Look-Gooders
He: “Ciao, darlin.”
She: (kiss noise)
Advantages: These young professionals look great together.
Drawbacks: They couldn’t care less about each other.

Sourballs vs. The World
He: “Can you believe this garbage on TV?”
She: “Goddamned re-runs.”
Advantages: Smug cheerlessness.
Drawbacks: Cheerless smugness.

I’m With Stupid X 2
He: “Where’s the beef?”
She: “Tee Hee Hee”
Advantages: They know oodles of jokes.
Drawbacks: They will tell them.

Mr. And Mrs. Boredom
He: “Honeybuns, do you ever wonder if maybe there’s more to life than
the two of us just sitting here night after night?”
She: “Nope.”
Advantages: Warm, comfy, snoozy.
Drawbacks: Insipid nicknames.

Jolly Jugular Jabbers
He: “I love that little idiot, ha ha. Heh heh.”
She: “He’s not as stupid as he looks, ho ho. Hee hee.”
Advantages: Smiles galore.
Drawbacks: Cruel nicknames.

Cobra + Mongoose
He: “Grrrr”
She: “Grrrr”
Advantages: The thrill of victory.
Drawbacks: The agony of a toaster hurled at your face.

Love Bunnies
He: “I wuv you”
She: “I wuv you too”
Advantages: Bliss, intimacy, joy, satisfaction, fulfillment.
Drawbacks: Sickening, isn’t it?

Posted by David W. · January 15, 2004 06:18 PM

“I’m With Stupid X 2
He: “Where’s the beef?”
She: “Tee Hee Hee”
Advantages: They know oodles of jokes.
Drawbacks: They will tell them.”

Ooh, I know them! All too well! (They both like to forward ‘jokes’ to me in email. Oy.)

Posted by Ophelia Benson · January 15, 2004 06:23 PM

I like being the Mrs. in Mr. and Mrs. Boredom…

Posted by Ab_Normal · January 15, 2004 06:47 PM
Third thought: how is the promotion of marriage a function of the federal government?

It isn’t but then neither is spending federal tax dollars on “violence prevention programs,” after-school programs, AIDS awareness campaigns, Americorps, population control, smoking cessation programs, the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, the Office of the Surgeon General, or numerous other “promotional” and “awareness” programs which are often sold to us as either being “preventative” of some social ill.

I assume of course that the same people snickering at a proposal to promote marriage in order to reduce welfare dependency would also favor the wholesale elimination of taxpayer support for these other programs as well.

Posted by Thorley Winston · January 15, 2004 06:56 PM
(Another) Godlesscapitalist wrote:
I think the issue here is that marriage promotion (if done intelligently) could end up saving the federal government a lot of money in social spending. Not just welfare, but also stuff like adoption and secondary effects like crime and so on. I could definitely see it saving money overall.
That is my understanding of the legislation as well. If you educate younger people about marriage so that they make more intelligent decisions about when to get married, how to make a marriage work, and other such resources then they are less likely to become impoverished, have children out of wedlock, and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
I don’t support the program even though the theory seems to have merit, because I don’t think it is either proper nor constitutional function of the federal government, but neither is three-fourths of what it does now and it is certainly less expensive and destructive than many of the programs advocated by many of the same leftists who are snickering at this one.
Posted by Thorley Winston · January 15, 2004 07:05 PM

“I like being the Mrs. in Mr. and Mrs. Boredom…”

Well of course you do. Mr and Mrs B always do.

Posted by Ophelia Benson · January 15, 2004 07:12 PM

I think that the beneficial effects of marriage will disappear or at least be reduced if marriage becomes a government program. Generally married people are happier and healthier, mostly because happy-healthy people are more likely to get married. If more people with problems start getting married, marriage won’t help them.

I really suspect that a lot of that 1.5 bil will go to faithbased programs (=Republican voters).

Posted by zizka · January 16, 2004 04:12 AM

Ach come on people, it’s only $1.5bn. And most of it will go to the advertising industry and therefore be spent on cocaine.

Posted by dsquared · January 16, 2004 07:23 AM

A $1.5 billion covert operation to sabotage the nation’s condom supply would do wonders for the marriage rate.

Posted by andrew · January 17, 2004 01:21 AM

Oops I did it again! - Brittney Spears TGP thumbnail gallery we live together welivetogether little trouble maker joey jenna big naturals in the vip latina hardcore movies solo video girl

Posted by Pastrami Sandwich · February 10, 2004 01:59 PM
Followups

→ Good background article on TNC.
Excerpt: Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions Some of the more radical greens sneer at TNC for being too corporate and this article explains why that view has foundation. It also buttresses my conjecture -- (in that TNC is very much aRead more at City Comforts Blog
→ Good background article on TNC.
Excerpt: Nonprofit Land Bank Amasses Billions Some of the more radical greens sneer at TNC for being too corporate and this article explains why that view has foundation. It also buttresses my conjecture -- (in that TNC is very much aRead more at City Comforts Blog

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.