I am a huge fan of George Lakoff and I just finished his latest book "Don't Think of an Elephant" which is about "frames" and about how people think within their value frames and how the the USA, for example, the right wing has been so successful in framing the discussion of political issues.  Lakoff is also with the Rockridge Institute and is in big demand by candidates in how to shape their message.  He also speaks a lot in the Bay Area.

Basically, Lakoff says that your pre-existing beliefs frame the way you hear and "experience" things, and that if somebody stays within the frame they will continue to act in ways that might objectively seem to be detrimental to their own interests.  (See, also, "What's the Matter with Kansas" by Thomas Frank, which I think was the best book of 2004).

Anyhow, in the political realm Lakoff writes a lot about how conservatives rely on the frame of the "strong father-type family" and liberals come from the frame of the "nuturing family" frame.  It's really fascinating to see how he brilliantly takes pretty much all sisues and shows how these pre-established frames changes perception almost entirely, so that two people will see the same event, policy, or position, in very different ways.

Basically, they discount, or ignore, information that contradicts the frame.

I think he makes a lot of sense, but I completely disagree with what he recommends to address the issue, at least from the progressive side.