Lakoff’s article isn’t saying we actually live in one of his two “models of idealized family structure,” only that most of us have internalized one or both of those models as a metaphor for the large, complex group. The models become a filter or paradigm for understanding because the real world is too complex for each of us to develop a private and complete understanding.

The Michelle Conlin piece from BusinessWeek is similar to a report I heard on NPR the other day, the traditional family in the U.S. is becoming much less popular as a lifestyle. The odd thing is that, while most of us are choosing other models for our own lives, we are still subconsiously fixated on the old ones, as Lakoff has discovered.

The fascenating thing, to me, about the B.A. Robinson piece for the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is that a large number of people polled seem to be lying. They respond based on their idealized notion of what their religious behavior should be rather than report what they actually do. This tendancy to report an idealized but fictional religious behavior seems very similar to Lakoff’s analysis of the way people vote. They may not vote their actual self-interest or their true preference based on platforms and positions, rather they (we) often vote based on an idealized but fictional projection of the candidates informed by their (our) own model of idealized family structure.

Arnold Schwarzenegger won without mentioning any issues or platforms because he represented Lakoff’s strict father model to voters whose idealized (though fictional) model was in that mode at the time they voted.

      - Mark