A woman approaches you. She is suffering from tuberculosis.
Her husband has syphilis. They have had four children. The first is blind, the second died, the third
is deaf and dumb, and the fourth has tuberculosis. Now the woman is pregnant
with her fifth child. She and her husband are willing to have an abortion. There
is no way you can examine the foetus and find out if it is all right.
L Agnew of the department of Medical History, University of
California, set this scene at the start of a class and asked his students: “What advice would you give the couple?”
Before you read on and find out what the students said, ask
yourself what advice you would give the couple. Unless driven by a strong belief that all abortions are sinful, you are likely to advise
the couple to go in for an abortion. Why go through the fifth pregnancy when
there is a very high chance approaching certainty that the outcome will be tragic?
Is it worth taking such a big risk?
Most of the students readily advised the woman to go in for an
abortion as the most reasonable course of action. “Congratulations,” said Agnew, “You have just
murdered Beethoven.”
“Oh no,” you say. We thought this was just another
uneducated couple who didn’t know what was good for them and messed up their
lives. This new piece of information changes the picture completely. What Agnew
told us initially led us as well as the students to recommend abortion. We didn’t
know if the woman and her husband came from illustrious families that had
produced great composers or scientists. If they did and if we were given that
information along with the list of all the problems they were suffering from,
many more of us might have suggested that they should perhaps take a chance
rather than abort the foetus.
We do know that Ludwig van Beethoven turned deaf in his 20s
and died when he was fifty-seven. Of course he was so brilliant that he composed
masterpieces and conducted orchestras even after he became totally deaf. We
can’t be blamed for recommending abortion based on the information Agnew gave
us.
This is what a frame does. It limits our vision and shapes our
thinking without our noticing it. This is what all smart persuaders do. They
give us a frame to see things through. Based on what we see through that frame
we happily arrive at conclusions that the persuaders want us to. Often the
frame appears so attractive that we don’t ask whether we need to look at things
beyond what is in the frame. So with apologies to Marshall McLuhan, we can say
the frame is the message.
Have you had any interesting experience of being influenced by smart framing by others?
Photo credit: istockphoto.com
No comments:
Post a Comment