Non è necessario possedere un dispositivo Kindle. Scarica una delle app Kindle gratuite per iniziare a leggere i libri Kindle sul tuo smartphone, tablet e computer.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Per scaricare una app gratuita, inserisci il numero di cellulare.

Prezzo Kindle: EUR 4,70
include IVA (dove applicabile)
Leggi questo titolo gratuitamente. Maggiori informazioni
Leggi gratis

Queste promozioni verranno applicate al seguente articolo:

Alcune promozioni sono cumulabili; altre non possono essere unite con ulteriori promozioni. Per maggiori dettagli, vai ai Termini & Condizioni delle specifiche promozioni.

Invia a Kindle o a un altro dispositivo

Invia a Kindle o a un altro dispositivo

The Three Languages of Politics (English Edition) di [Kling, Arnold]
Annuncio applicazione Kindle

The Three Languages of Politics (English Edition) Formato Kindle

Visualizza tutti i 2 formati e le edizioni Nascondi altri formati ed edizioni
Prezzo Amazon
Nuovo a partire da Usato da
Formato Kindle
"Ti preghiamo di riprovare"
Formato Kindle, 12 apr 2013
EUR 4,70
EUR 4,70 per l'acquisto

Lunghezza: 54 pagine Word Wise: Abilitato Miglioramenti tipografici: Abilitato
Scorri Pagina: Abilitato Lingua: Inglese

Descrizione prodotto


Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians use different languages to justify their beliefs. This increases polarization. This book enables readers to better understand different points of view.

Dettagli prodotto

  • Formato: Formato Kindle
  • Dimensioni file: 230 KB
  • Lunghezza stampa: 54
  • Utilizzo simultaneo di dispositivi: illimitato
  • Venduto da: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Lingua: Inglese
  • ASIN: B00CCGF81Q
  • Da testo a voce: Abilitato
  • X-Ray:
  • Word Wise: Abilitato
  • Screen Reader: Supportato
  • Miglioramenti tipografici: Abilitato
  • Media recensioni: Recensisci per primo questo articolo
  • Posizione nella classifica Bestseller di Amazon: #460.441 a pagamento nel Kindle Store (Visualizza i Top 100 a pagamento nella categoria Kindle Store)
  • Hai trovato questo prodotto a un prezzo più basso?
    Se sei un venditore per questo prodotto, desideri suggerire aggiornamenti tramite il supporto venditore?

Recensioni clienti

Non ci sono ancora recensioni di clienti su
5 stelle
4 stelle
3 stelle
2 stelle
1 stella

Le recensioni clienti più utili su (beta) 4.4 su 5 stelle 81 recensioni
2 di 2 persone hanno trovato utile la seguente recensione
5.0 su 5 stelle Arnold Kling, "Three Languages of Politics" 12 agosto 2016
Di Art Carden - Pubblicato su
Formato: Formato Kindle Acquisto verificato
It looks like most political commentators are just talking past one another. Why? Arnold Kling hazards a guess, arguing that people don't understand one another because they have fundamentally different visions of how the world works. According to Kling, conservatives see the world as a conflict between civilization and barbarism, liberals see it as a conflict between oppressors and the oppressed, and libertarians see it as a conflict between liberty and power.

Kling is clear that he is offering a hypothesis rather than an exhaustive empirical study. It is a short and easy read, and it is one that (I expect) will help us make sense of political history and the political present.The Three Languages of Politics
2 di 2 persone hanno trovato utile la seguente recensione
4.0 su 5 stelle Engaging in motivated reasoning is like arguing a case at law 1 dicembre 2014
Di Backwoods Technologist - Pubblicato su
Formato: Formato Kindle Acquisto verificato
Arnold Kling is a Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar, a Mercatus Center affiliate, and regularly posts to his askblog site. His book: The Three Languages of Politics is a short essay and analysis of political speech in the United States.

Kling identifies three ideological groups and their dominant dichotomies. Progressives divide issues along an oppressor–oppressed axis. Conservatives use a civilized–barbarous axis. And libertarians, Kling’s camp, use a freedom–coercive axis.

He goes on to say that individuals in each camp use political language divided along these axes to show loyalty, elevate status, and create hostility towards others in opposing camps.

Political debate using these preferred axes is frustrating and endless as each camp talks past the other without communicating.

A debater might either aim to: open minds of those in opposition, open minds of those in their camp, or close the minds of those in their camp. The majority opt for the third option.

Uncharitable discussion focuses on finding an opponent’s weakest argument and denouncing it.

Few participants attempt to be charitable and end up narrowing and reducing their audience’s understanding of the issues at hand.

In the course of argumentation, Kling observes, we suggest we are reasonable and our opponent is not. The only people we are qualified to call unreasonable [or other derogatory terms] are ourselves. Our opponents may be wrong, however, and it is our burden to prove it [which is often hard or impossible].

Kling suggests we treat these ideologies as languages to be understood and not heresies to be stamped out.

Learning the language of other camps enables us to understand how others think about political issues without demonizing their positions or them.

Constructive reasoning weighs the merits of facts and theories to take a stand on an issue. Motivated reasoning filters the facts and theories to legitimate preconceived opinions.

Engaging in motivated reasoning is like arguing a case at law. We present evidence to justify or reinforce already accepted ideas. Openness only extends to those facts and theories that support our views.

Kling concludes that constructive reasoning applies an equal standard to evidence that supports or contradicts our preconceptions. We become open to changing our minds.
50 di 54 persone hanno trovato utile la seguente recensione
5.0 su 5 stelle How to better think and communicate, in less than an hour 21 aprile 2013
Di Duane McMullen - Pubblicato su
Formato: Formato Kindle Acquisto verificato
With this extended essay, economist and blogger Arnold Kling grapples with the problem of intelligent, well-meaning and decent people talking past each other on the critical issues of the day. How can this be? What is the solution?

Arnold Kling has a hypothesis, which he calls the 'Three-axis Model'. In his model, we each have a way we tend to think and communicate about issues. These ways have polarized along three different axes (I'll get to them in a moment). Just as right handed people use their right hand without thinking, we tend to think and communicate at our comfortable point in the spectrum of each axis. This serves to quickly validate our existing views, allow us to discard discordant information and reinforces us within our tribe of similar believers. Unfortunately, just as using the wrong hand is awkward and obviously wrong, these ways are so different from how people polarized on other axes think that it marks us for dismissal by their tribes, even as it reinforces them in their own.

The challenge then is, how do we step back from these dominant ways to thinking to see the world through the eyes of others and communicate with them on terms they would understand and recognize, rather than dismiss? How do you have a discussion that informs, rather than one that simply reinforces the existing polarization? Arnold Kling here outlines the beginnings of an answer.

To get to his answer, he starts by hypothesizing three polarized axes of thought:

oppressor/oppressed [naturally preferred by progressives]

civilization/barbarism [naturally preferred by conservatives]

freedom/coercion [naturally preferred by libertarians]

Few of us are so one dimensional as to be entirely along one axis, but generally there is an axis we tend to automatically turn to without thinking. If we actually think, it can be different, but as Daniel Kahneman persuasively argues in Thinking, Fast and Slow, we do this far less often than we realize.

Even when presented with an issue about which we would all agree, the three different axes still produce discord. The holocaust, for example. Seen along the oppressor/oppressed axis it becomes a prime example of the evils of allowing anti-semitism. That is, the deliberate creation of an oppressed group. Along the civilization/barbarism axis, it is a prime example of moral values collapsing when a nation's institutions are subverted. For freedom/coercion, it becomes an example of what goes wrong with unchecked state power. Despite agreeing on the evil, each solution is at cross purposes to the other and marks you for dismissal by those operating instinctively along a different axis.

Arnold Kling does not ask anyone to change their views, but he does challenge his readers to develop the capacity to think along the other axes, not in the caricatured ways permitted of the other axes by your own, but in ways that would be recognized as valid by those operating on that axis (Bryan Caplan's 'Ideological Turing Test'). If nothing else, it will improve our ability to understand those coming from a different perspective, to communicate effectively with them and gain some skepticism for views that would otherwise reassuringly resonate with your own. Well practiced, this would momentarily trump instinctive thinking and briefly allow deliberate thought processes to be engaged.

We may not change any minds, including our own, but we will weaken the disconcerting tribal barriers emerging in the modern political debate, reduce the level of polarization across the axes of thought and more easily recognize when the opposites in our discussion are being well meaning and reasonable, albeit with a different perspective.

If, like me, you fear that our institutions will be gravely challenged in the coming years, are concerned about the erosion of our freedoms and worry about the impact this will have on the weakest among us (see how I tried to use language from all three axes!), then you owe it to yourself to practice the capacity to engage in a way that speaks to all of the participants in the debate.

All this for less than an hour of my time and cheaper than a gourmet cup of coffee.
11 di 12 persone hanno trovato utile la seguente recensione
4.0 su 5 stelle An insightful model for understanding ideological differences. 15 maggio 2013
Di Douglas - Pubblicato su
Formato: Formato Kindle Acquisto verificato
Kling has been laying out his "three axes" model on his blog for several months now. This short kindle book explains the basic idea and then expands upon it. For the most part, I think Kling's model is accurate and effective as a means of understanding ideological positions and the language used to support them. The shortness of the book is a blessing, because the power of Kling's system is that it's so simple; it doesn't need a 300-page treatment.

That said, I do wish that Kling had spent a little more time discussing applications of the three axes to specific political issues -- including ones that don't seem to fit the mold (though I think most do). Also, some of the examples he does use aren't as "clean" as they could be, and as a result they may undersell his model. For instance, Kling uses the mortgage finance crisis as a leading example. But because Kling is an expert on the subject, he goes into greater depth and complexity on the issue than needed, when the power of his three-axes model is really in explaining the broad outlines of ideological positions rather than the nuances. The resulting analysis is somewhat messy.

Nevertheless, Kling's model is useful and (usually) accurate, and it could prove the basis for a whole research program in political science. On those grounds alone, it gets a thumbs-up.
1 di 1 persone hanno trovato utile la seguente recensione
5.0 su 5 stelle A great questioning book for your political opinions 29 giugno 2013
Di David Hart - Pubblicato su
Formato: Formato Kindle Acquisto verificato
Most books try to sway you to the authors political opinion. Mr. Kling wants to understand why no matter how we patiently we try to explain our opinions, We just can't seem to sway the other side. This conclusion is that political opinions expressed are really more for signaling other people who agree with us (the political tribe we most identify with) than to sway others. He goes through to explain the type of language used in many political columns which falls on deaf ears to others. Don't read this to figure out how to persuade that pesky conservative (or liberal or libertarian) to see the light but do read it to understand how they think.
click to open popover