As most of you know, I have been writing this blog entries for an argumentative writing class, but this semester is almost over, and sadly, this will be the last blog entry I will write (as a requirement for this class at least). I was searching CNN on the web and came across a very interesting article, one that I thought would be a perfect topic for my final blog entry; it is about social networks and that studies have shown that happiness actually is contagious. Usually in my blog entries, I relate something I have read in the news or in other current events to what I have read in class, but I will not be doing that for this blog entry. Of course, I could probably somehow relate the article to what Aristotle wrote about happiness being achieved through virtuous actions, but that would be stretching it. Since this is the final entry, I figured I'd have some fun with it, and share this interesting article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/05/happiness.social.network/index.html
The article states that "new research shows that in a social network, happiness spreads among people up to three degrees removed from one another." 3 degrees? That seems like a lot! Further, the article also goes on to explain a study being conducted about Facebook and it is stated that "The researchers are also looking at the phenomenon on Facebook, which has more than 120 million active users. This study, which has not yet been published, looked at who smiles in their profile pictures who doesn't, and whether their connections also smile or not." This study is apparently looking at whether or not smiling is contagious, which could perhaps be associated with happiness, although not in all cases.
Going back to the first finding, though, that a person up to three degrees removed from you can still make you happy if they themselves are happy, poses an interesting topic of discussion. This is very interesting because of course many of us think, if a friend of ours is happy, of course we have a better chance of being happy ourselves...but a friend of a friend? That seems incredibly distant. Perhaps, close rhetorical distance is not needed to persuade someone to smile and be happy?...
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Rhetorical Distance
I already presented this to my classmates, so hang in there if you are from my class and reading this, but I felt it was an interesting topic and deserved to be mentioned in my blog entry this week. The topic I am speaking of is rhetorical distance, specifically the rhetorical distance present in sports rhetoric. In viewing the following Visa commercial, there is a certain message sent to the public about the leadership in sports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7QbKGgsm8
It is told to us that we do not root for athletes because of where they are from, but because they are human. We too are human, so we are able to relate to these athletes. In stating this, it is clear that there is a very intimate rhetorical distance formed here. The advertisement is persuading us that their product is good (Visa) by pulling us in through this close rhetorical distance. "They are human, and we are human, and when they succeed, we succeed." This statement alone creates clear, close distance between an athlete and the general public. We are able to relate to them because they are similar to us, and we look up to them, and root for them because they are successful, and we too are striving for success.
Another thing I noticed, that I did not pick up on the first time I watched this commercial is the fact that they show many athletes struggling in the commercial: broken ankles, tripping on the track, etc. Clearly this creates a close rhetorical distance as well because most people in society struggle to achieve their success, which is what these athletes have done. In looking at it this way, rhetoric played out through sports creates a message of hard work and success. Further, by creating this close distance, perhaps we are persuaded to use Visa because we feel an intimate relationship with the athletes, who are associated with Visa because they are the ones in the commercials. Looking beyond the advertising ploy, it is clear that there is certainly close rhetorical distance present here, as we can relate to the athletes we look up to on many levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7QbKGgsm8
It is told to us that we do not root for athletes because of where they are from, but because they are human. We too are human, so we are able to relate to these athletes. In stating this, it is clear that there is a very intimate rhetorical distance formed here. The advertisement is persuading us that their product is good (Visa) by pulling us in through this close rhetorical distance. "They are human, and we are human, and when they succeed, we succeed." This statement alone creates clear, close distance between an athlete and the general public. We are able to relate to them because they are similar to us, and we look up to them, and root for them because they are successful, and we too are striving for success.
Another thing I noticed, that I did not pick up on the first time I watched this commercial is the fact that they show many athletes struggling in the commercial: broken ankles, tripping on the track, etc. Clearly this creates a close rhetorical distance as well because most people in society struggle to achieve their success, which is what these athletes have done. In looking at it this way, rhetoric played out through sports creates a message of hard work and success. Further, by creating this close distance, perhaps we are persuaded to use Visa because we feel an intimate relationship with the athletes, who are associated with Visa because they are the ones in the commercials. Looking beyond the advertising ploy, it is clear that there is certainly close rhetorical distance present here, as we can relate to the athletes we look up to on many levels.
The Importance of Expertise in Persuasion
Today I was sitting in one of my psychology classes, and a group was presenting a topic about the issue of No-Kill dog shelters and whether or not they are better than shelters that promote euthanization. But that's besides the point I am trying to make in this blog entry. In my past few entries, I have spoken about the importance, that Crowley mentions as well in my argumentative writing textbook, of citing "experts" on your topic of focus to make your argument more persuasive. To refresh your memory, Crowley stated that we "try to cite an authority whenever we make a point that might be misunderstood or contested by an audience" (Crowley, 274). It helps make our own ethos, and therefore, our own argument stronger.
Rewinding back to when I was sitting in psychology class today listening to a group present, I will now mention that in their presentation I noticed a lot of "experts" on dog shelters being quoted to support their position that no-kill shelters are good. However, I also noticed that they did not present these people as "experts," giving only their name and title (on occasion). I feel that had the expert been properly introduced in the presentation, it would have made him/her seem even more knowledgeable on the subject and therefore, more persuasive.
With that being said, I think it is equally as important to provide a brief introduction about why someone should be considered an expert in their field (their accomplishments, etc.) before stating their quotation, than just stating their quotation right off the bat. Therefore, you are actually persuading two things: your own argument, and the fact that someone is an expert. If you can persuade your audience that someone is an expert, and they agree with your argument, this will make your argument more persuasive...Credit the expert...
Rewinding back to when I was sitting in psychology class today listening to a group present, I will now mention that in their presentation I noticed a lot of "experts" on dog shelters being quoted to support their position that no-kill shelters are good. However, I also noticed that they did not present these people as "experts," giving only their name and title (on occasion). I feel that had the expert been properly introduced in the presentation, it would have made him/her seem even more knowledgeable on the subject and therefore, more persuasive.
With that being said, I think it is equally as important to provide a brief introduction about why someone should be considered an expert in their field (their accomplishments, etc.) before stating their quotation, than just stating their quotation right off the bat. Therefore, you are actually persuading two things: your own argument, and the fact that someone is an expert. If you can persuade your audience that someone is an expert, and they agree with your argument, this will make your argument more persuasive...Credit the expert...