Very interesting article in today's Boston Globe, on the subject of "cognitive fluency."
Simply stated, this concept expresses how easy—or hard—it is to think about something. It can be influenced by such things as whether the thing is easy to pronounce (rhymes help a lot: "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!"), if it's written in a clear, easy-to-read font, and whether it's familiar to you through repeated exposure. Perhaps not too surprisingly, our brains tend to give a free pass to things that are easy to think about, and we're less likely to spend time analyzing them to see if they actually make sense.
There are some surprising consequences. One study showed that the stock of companies with easily pronounced names has done better than average. And we're more likely to judge a person, a dog, a car, or a watch as attractive if it's near the "average".
There are some obvious implications for politics…
After 30 years of constant hammering by the right, Reaganism just "feels right" to lots of people. Why bother to examine the facts when it's enshrined in so many pat phrases and memes?
On the other side of the cognitive fluency coin, ideas that are phrased and/or displayed in a confusing, less-familiar way trigger our analytic mode, and we're more likely to actually evaluate them on their merits.
These more challenging ideas tend to seem more innovative and even exciting, but—and it's a big "but"—we are only open to them if we're already feeling safe and comfortable. People who are stressed or unhappy retreat to the familiar.
This suggests that progressives need to present their ideas in ways that improve cognitive fluency, and might have some success puncturing right-wing ideology by talking about it in a way that invites critical analysis.
Have a read: