In this episode, we present another model of the game of framingand reframing.It is the 3P model:policy, principles, personality.In general, a politician can explain a standpoint fromthree perspectives.This is the first one:`We want to increase small business tax deductions by 5 percent.'And this is number two:`We want to increase small business tax deductions by 5 percent,because entrepreneurs generate new economic activity and introduce innovations,create jobs for dozens sometimes hundredsof people.They work very hard and they often take personal risks.'Perspective number three:`We want to increase small business tax deductions by 5 percent,because we need to support the entrepreneur.I come from a family of entrepreneurs.And I know how hard my parents used to work.I saw how difficult it was for them when things didn't go so well for a couple of years.And I can still remember how proud they were when things picked up again and they wereable to expand the business.'In the first scene, the politician outlines her policy thefirst P.In the second scene, she says something about her own principles(or values) the second P.In the third scene, she adopts a more personal approach thethird P.A politician who only talks about policy is simply providing information.Information is often cold and cool and analytical.In addition, most politicians submit dozens of new policyproposals every year, creating an information overload that we simplycannot process.However, although they submit dozens of policy proposals,most politicians' views are based on just a few values,a few principles.When the politician in the video talks about her values,things begin to warm up, at least for people who are interested inentrepreneurship.Once we know what her values are, we are better able to understand her standpoint.It makes sense that entrepreneurs should pay less tax,because they drive economic progress and innovation.The same goes for the third P, personality.Telling people that you come from a family of entrepreneurs adds a personal dimensionto the policy.People who value entrepreneurship will identify with the politician.When you personalize a policy proposal, it goes from being a cool issue to awarm issue.In summary, when someone communicates about a policy,they are simply conveying information.But when someone refers to principles or values or something personal,they are entering into a relationship with the audience.The first lesson of this episode is therefore to make sure that you are always able to linkyour policies to your principles and your personal experience.This model can also be used in the game of framing and reframing.The rules of this game are very simple.When an opponent puts forward a frame based on one of the three Ps,you can reframe the debate by using one of the other Ps.Here is an example of the 3P model in action.Suppose a government wants to cut funding for university studies like history,philosophy and the social sciences.This is what a philosophy professor might say:`The government wants to cut funding for university studies in the fields of history,philosophy and the social sciences.This shows that it has a very limited understanding of the role of universities in society.Apparently, all that matters is technology and economics.That is to say, knowledge that can be put to use immediately.Knowledge that cannot be put to use immediately is regarded as an unnecessary luxury.However, historians and social scientists teach usabout the context in which technology and economics function.Philosophers teach us critical thinking.We need to educate our students to become engaged citizens who ask critical questionsabout technology and the economy.That is the classic academic ideal.That is why we need universities.'This is a warm message, the professor refers to the values of criticalthinking, of reflection,of engagement, academic values.Many people will agree with this.Actually, it is almost impossible not to agree withhis view.There is indeed more than economics and technology.How can you reframe it?Well, you can use a frame based on one of the otherPs.Have a look at this.`Look, in this country,history students still outnumber physics students four to one.There are more people studying philosophy than mathematics.For each chemistry student, we have ten historians and two philosophers.And for each person studying mathematics, we have four people studying communications.So don't come to me with those kind of complaints.'In this example a frame based on principles and values has been reframed from a policyperspective.What effect does this have?Firstly, by not stepping into your opponent's valueframe, you avoid getting stuck in a debate aboutthe merits of history, philosophy and the social sciences.Secondly and more importantly, our philosophy professor does not know whatthe facts are.He has a strong moral condemnation of the policy of the minister,without knowing the facts.Suddenly, his original value frame becomes cheap rhetoric,starts to sound a bit hypocritical.We can also play the game of framing and reframing using the third P personality.Here are a couple of examples.To start with, you can make policy personal.A famous example of this involves Bill Clinton.In 1992, Clinton was confronted by an activist whocriticized his administration's AIDS policy.Instead of explaining the policy, Clinton responded by saying:I feel your pain. He turned a question about policy into a personal issue,he made it relational.In a similar way, you can turn a question about principles intoa personal issue.For instance, many people champion admirable principles,but their personal lifestyle may not reflect, or may even contradict,those principles.It is also possible to reframe a policy frame using principles or values.Here is a policy frame:`We are in favour of reducing unemployment benefits.If we cut them by 5 percent, we create a strong financial incentive.At present, these incentives are too weak.'If you step into this policy frame, you will get stuck in a technical discussionabout financial incentives.This might be a more effective way of reframing the debate.`What sort of view do you have of human nature?Do you really believe that people prefer to sit at home without work because the incentivesaren't good enough?You should go and talk to these people.Listen to what they have to say.These people, they are frustrated to be without work.They want to work.They don't like to sit at home, unemployed.They want to work, it is their life.It gives them dignity.And they want to be among people again.They want to work, it has nothing to do with your financial incentives.' What effect does this have?The first politician is clearly in her comfort zone as long as the discussion is about factsand figures.However, the question of the second politician is aboutprinciples and personal commitment to the unemployed.Because of this, the first politician's view of human natureappears to be that people are mainly motivated by financial incentives.Anyone can sense that this is not a very positive attitude to have towards other people.That she is no longer in her comfort zone.The second lesson of this episode is therefore to make sure you know how to play the 3P game.Ensure that your own messages for each of the Ps are in orderthat you can explain not only what your policies are,but also what your underlying principles are and what your personal commitment is.If these three are in order, it will not be easy for your opponent to surpriseyou.