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...
Monday, November 24, 2008
My Yahoo Survey
As I was writing my previous blog entry, a thought-provoking idea jumped into my head... I noticed that the response that was "voted" number one to the yahoo question someone had posted about whether or not they should debark their dog was submitted by someone who was sourced as a "Rescuer, vet tech, groomer, and show exhibitor of Shetland sheepdogs for 20 years" (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV). Clearly, this person has knowledge surrounding the topic of dogs and he argument can be trusted more than someone who responds to the question with little to no background. At least that is the way it appears since her response was voted as the "best answer" by other voters.
This goes back to what Crowley discusses in my argumentative writing textbook, and what I have talked about in previous blog entries: establishing credentials for yourself as a writer (improving your ethos), or using evidence from someone who is considered an expert on a particular subject will greatly strengthen an argument.
So I was curious if this was true, and decided to do a very small survey in which I looked at different questions posted on yahoo to determine if the answer that was chosen as the "best answer" was in most cases submitted by an "expert" on the particular subject.
Here is what I found:
The first question that came up was a boy asking if his sister might have an eating disorder (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhZZzlYfm6PmC7CiqPsUpaEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20061105201248AAEjrpf). The "best answer" was chosen because "Whoever wrote this seems to know a lot about this subject." Although he is not sourced as a doctor, the writer appears to be an expert on the subject, or at least sounds as though he has a wealth of knowledge about eating disorders.
Although the trend seems apparent, I will give one more example, which was a question posted asking how to stop global warming (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap5sGvWyir39YTPHPg0dAnYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080913172021AAKjgR6). The answer that was chosen as the best was one that was not sourced as an environmentalist or scientist, however, but in this person's "sources," he provided a link that takes us to a news web page, explaining ways to slow down global warming.
Although these are only a few examples, I think it is clear that Crowley is right in mentioning the importance of having credible sources in an argument. The argument is clearly more persuasive that way.
This goes back to what Crowley discusses in my argumentative writing textbook, and what I have talked about in previous blog entries: establishing credentials for yourself as a writer (improving your ethos), or using evidence from someone who is considered an expert on a particular subject will greatly strengthen an argument.
So I was curious if this was true, and decided to do a very small survey in which I looked at different questions posted on yahoo to determine if the answer that was chosen as the "best answer" was in most cases submitted by an "expert" on the particular subject.
Here is what I found:
The first question that came up was a boy asking if his sister might have an eating disorder (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhZZzlYfm6PmC7CiqPsUpaEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20061105201248AAEjrpf). The "best answer" was chosen because "Whoever wrote this seems to know a lot about this subject." Although he is not sourced as a doctor, the writer appears to be an expert on the subject, or at least sounds as though he has a wealth of knowledge about eating disorders.
Although the trend seems apparent, I will give one more example, which was a question posted asking how to stop global warming (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap5sGvWyir39YTPHPg0dAnYjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080913172021AAKjgR6). The answer that was chosen as the best was one that was not sourced as an environmentalist or scientist, however, but in this person's "sources," he provided a link that takes us to a news web page, explaining ways to slow down global warming.
Although these are only a few examples, I think it is clear that Crowley is right in mentioning the importance of having credible sources in an argument. The argument is clearly more persuasive that way.
The Arrangement of an Argument
In continuing my discussion about the importance of arranging an argument in order to make that argument more clear and persuasive, I was thinking of an instance recently where I have seen a good example of this. I couldn't think of any off the top of my head, but it came to me pretty quickly after I started doing research for another psychology class of mine.
For another class, I was assigned to research the pros and cons associated with cosmetic surgery on dogs as sort of a fun end of the semester debate project. While I was searching for information, a story appeared in my search that was posted by a man on yahoo telling of his dog barks excessively and asking whether or not he should have his dog "debarked," which is a surgery removing part of the vocal cords to soften but not completely eliminate the dog's ability to bark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debarking). Of course, many people responded to the post with varying opinions, but as I read the responses, I noticed that a few of the arguments people made were better than others.
The yahoo posting and the responses can be found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV.
The argument that I found to be the most persuasive was posted by a person who, ironically, organized their argument in such a way that it was easy and clear to follow. (hmm...this is exactly what Crowley mentions in my argumentative writing textbook as being important to think about when organizing an argument). This person actually numbered the main points within their argument, separating three different subcategories that all help prove his argument that a bark collar should be used before debarking a dog. Each of his categories is also expanded upon, not only by giving his own opinion, but by backing up his own thoughts with stories of failures of debarking surgeries, for example. At the end of his argument, he summarizes his points and even gives a link that we can visit to learn more about the debarking debate.
Although this response was short, and it would be far more difficult to organize and arrange an entire paper, this person's argument was clearly well thought out and easy to read. His points were also good, making it more persuasive than most of the arguments posted as responses to this man's story of his barking dog. The only thing missing from this person's argument was an introduction, which I do not think was even needed because the subject matter was clear as well as relevant to all who were reading the responses of what to do with a barking dog.
For another class, I was assigned to research the pros and cons associated with cosmetic surgery on dogs as sort of a fun end of the semester debate project. While I was searching for information, a story appeared in my search that was posted by a man on yahoo telling of his dog barks excessively and asking whether or not he should have his dog "debarked," which is a surgery removing part of the vocal cords to soften but not completely eliminate the dog's ability to bark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debarking). Of course, many people responded to the post with varying opinions, but as I read the responses, I noticed that a few of the arguments people made were better than others.
The yahoo posting and the responses can be found at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718192951AAJ21lV.
The argument that I found to be the most persuasive was posted by a person who, ironically, organized their argument in such a way that it was easy and clear to follow. (hmm...this is exactly what Crowley mentions in my argumentative writing textbook as being important to think about when organizing an argument). This person actually numbered the main points within their argument, separating three different subcategories that all help prove his argument that a bark collar should be used before debarking a dog. Each of his categories is also expanded upon, not only by giving his own opinion, but by backing up his own thoughts with stories of failures of debarking surgeries, for example. At the end of his argument, he summarizes his points and even gives a link that we can visit to learn more about the debarking debate.
Although this response was short, and it would be far more difficult to organize and arrange an entire paper, this person's argument was clearly well thought out and easy to read. His points were also good, making it more persuasive than most of the arguments posted as responses to this man's story of his barking dog. The only thing missing from this person's argument was an introduction, which I do not think was even needed because the subject matter was clear as well as relevant to all who were reading the responses of what to do with a barking dog.
Grabbing the audience's attention
I was reading my argumentative writing textbook again this week and the chapter I was reading was about the arrangement of rhetorical writing; the way you organize and put your arguments together. I think this is should be a very important focus of argumentative papers because a variety of things can affect how well a paper comes together or how persuasive it actually is. One of the most important things, in my mind, is the introduction of a paper.
As my textbook states, “It is necessary to explain to an audience why they should pay attention to a discourse if the issue taken up in the discourse is ambiguous, mean, or obscure” (Crowley, 300). In many of the papers I have written for assignments in school, the topics of the papers have often seemed unimportant, or having very little meaning, at least pertaining to anyone outside of my classroom. Inside of the classroom, the topics of these papers makes sense to only the audience within the class, but as I have learned this year in my argumentative writing class, it is important to keep in mind a broader audience, defining all terms and explaining any discourses taken within the paper. In this case, it is important to have something in your introduction that grabs the attention of a wider audience, one larger than the audience confined only to the classroom.
To do this, one option would be to prevent kairos. As I have mentioned in a previous blog entry, kairos provides relevance or reason for discussing something or raising an argument. This is what I often try to do in my own writing. I think it is very effective to provide kairos in an introduction of an argumentative writing paper because it makes an audience attentive to the subject that will be discussed throughout the paper. To do this, I usually provide my audience with a story that is relevant to the argument I will be making. Stories, or anecdotes provide excellent kairos for discussing topics because I feel that the audience can relate to stories and if they are presented right of the bat in an introduction of a paper, the audience will be more attentive and take a deeper interest in the paper.
As my textbook states, “It is necessary to explain to an audience why they should pay attention to a discourse if the issue taken up in the discourse is ambiguous, mean, or obscure” (Crowley, 300). In many of the papers I have written for assignments in school, the topics of the papers have often seemed unimportant, or having very little meaning, at least pertaining to anyone outside of my classroom. Inside of the classroom, the topics of these papers makes sense to only the audience within the class, but as I have learned this year in my argumentative writing class, it is important to keep in mind a broader audience, defining all terms and explaining any discourses taken within the paper. In this case, it is important to have something in your introduction that grabs the attention of a wider audience, one larger than the audience confined only to the classroom.
To do this, one option would be to prevent kairos. As I have mentioned in a previous blog entry, kairos provides relevance or reason for discussing something or raising an argument. This is what I often try to do in my own writing. I think it is very effective to provide kairos in an introduction of an argumentative writing paper because it makes an audience attentive to the subject that will be discussed throughout the paper. To do this, I usually provide my audience with a story that is relevant to the argument I will be making. Stories, or anecdotes provide excellent kairos for discussing topics because I feel that the audience can relate to stories and if they are presented right of the bat in an introduction of a paper, the audience will be more attentive and take a deeper interest in the paper.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Leadership in sports
As I mentioned in one of my very first blog entries, I am posting on this blog for my argumentative writing class. For our final paper in the semester, we have been asked to write about what defines a leader in the 21st Century. If you're thinking, "wow, that would be difficult to define in just one paper," you are definitely right. Defining what makes a good leader is an extremely difficult task, but I have decided to narrow my focus down and define what it means to be a good leader in sports.
I am on the Women's swim team at the University of Michigan, and I have a strong interest in sports, specifically swimming of course. I think it is important to look into the leadership within sports because many people play, watch, or take some sort of interest in sports. But the importance of leadership in sports? Think about it, without leadership within, sports teams would have a difficult time succeeding. But what makes a good leader? This is what I am trying to uncover in my final paper for class, but for this blog entry, I thought it would be a good idea to give an example of someone who I believe displays good leadership by naming the characteristics she possesses. (Of course this will only be a brief summary of what it means to be a good leader in sports in the 21st Century, but I think it's enough to get the ball rolling and get you thinking about how truly important a leader's role is).
As I said before, I am a member of the Women's Swim Team at U of M, and I frequently visit our "MGoBlue" website page that presents articles, gives stats, and displays the roster and pictures. A few weeks ago, something was written about Margaret Kelly, another swimmer on my team. The article can be found at: http://www.mgoblue.com/swimming-diving-w/article.aspx?id=153548 and states:
Junior Margaret Kelly (Ann Arbor, Mich./Pioneer) has continued to improve on last season's breakout campaign. So far, Kelly has finished in the top two in six of the eight races that she has competed in this season. Kelly has picked up a team-leading four individual wins this season in the pool and has never finished lower than fourth. The Ann Arbor native holds the top time in six different individual events for the Wolverines this season.
The article's heading reads, "Kelly Leading the Way." Although it is true, Margaret is indeed scoring numerous points for our team, I believe she is leading the way in more ways than that. Margaret displays excellent team leadership. There is no write-up about this, so you will have to trust me, when I explain through personal experience, the qualities Margaret possesses. The main reason I think Margaret is a good leader is through the characteristics she demonstrates within the way that she leads by example. Although she is not that vocal of a leader, she conducts herself in a way that allows others on the team to look up to her. She is an extremely hard-worker; giving her all every second she is in the pool (yes, the whole 2 hour morning practice and 2 hour evening practice). She also controls her emotions well, allowing others only to see her positive attitude, which does not bring anyone down, but rather lifts up those around her.
These are just a few characteristics Margaret displays in her leadership in swimming, and I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is important to contribute leadership to the team, not only points. By contributing leadership, you inspire those around you, not only yourself, and the team has a better chance of success. In relating this to the readings I have done for my argumentative writing class, it is clear that Margaret does not demonstrate the type of leadership Machiavelli, a diplomat in the 16th Century, described. He believed a leader should have complete power (Machiavelli, 46). Margaret clearly does not have complete power over others, as she strives only to set a good example while completing her goals and the team's goals. In fact, she takes more of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th Century approach to leadership. He believed no man should have authority over others (Rousseau, 60). Margaret has no authority, no power over her teammates, but specifically leads in ways that do not involve manipulation or ways that make her seem overbearing.
I am on the Women's swim team at the University of Michigan, and I have a strong interest in sports, specifically swimming of course. I think it is important to look into the leadership within sports because many people play, watch, or take some sort of interest in sports. But the importance of leadership in sports? Think about it, without leadership within, sports teams would have a difficult time succeeding. But what makes a good leader? This is what I am trying to uncover in my final paper for class, but for this blog entry, I thought it would be a good idea to give an example of someone who I believe displays good leadership by naming the characteristics she possesses. (Of course this will only be a brief summary of what it means to be a good leader in sports in the 21st Century, but I think it's enough to get the ball rolling and get you thinking about how truly important a leader's role is).
As I said before, I am a member of the Women's Swim Team at U of M, and I frequently visit our "MGoBlue" website page that presents articles, gives stats, and displays the roster and pictures. A few weeks ago, something was written about Margaret Kelly, another swimmer on my team. The article can be found at: http://www.mgoblue.com/swimming-diving-w/article.aspx?id=153548 and states:
Junior Margaret Kelly (Ann Arbor, Mich./Pioneer) has continued to improve on last season's breakout campaign. So far, Kelly has finished in the top two in six of the eight races that she has competed in this season. Kelly has picked up a team-leading four individual wins this season in the pool and has never finished lower than fourth. The Ann Arbor native holds the top time in six different individual events for the Wolverines this season.
The article's heading reads, "Kelly Leading the Way." Although it is true, Margaret is indeed scoring numerous points for our team, I believe she is leading the way in more ways than that. Margaret displays excellent team leadership. There is no write-up about this, so you will have to trust me, when I explain through personal experience, the qualities Margaret possesses. The main reason I think Margaret is a good leader is through the characteristics she demonstrates within the way that she leads by example. Although she is not that vocal of a leader, she conducts herself in a way that allows others on the team to look up to her. She is an extremely hard-worker; giving her all every second she is in the pool (yes, the whole 2 hour morning practice and 2 hour evening practice). She also controls her emotions well, allowing others only to see her positive attitude, which does not bring anyone down, but rather lifts up those around her.
These are just a few characteristics Margaret displays in her leadership in swimming, and I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is important to contribute leadership to the team, not only points. By contributing leadership, you inspire those around you, not only yourself, and the team has a better chance of success. In relating this to the readings I have done for my argumentative writing class, it is clear that Margaret does not demonstrate the type of leadership Machiavelli, a diplomat in the 16th Century, described. He believed a leader should have complete power (Machiavelli, 46). Margaret clearly does not have complete power over others, as she strives only to set a good example while completing her goals and the team's goals. In fact, she takes more of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th Century approach to leadership. He believed no man should have authority over others (Rousseau, 60). Margaret has no authority, no power over her teammates, but specifically leads in ways that do not involve manipulation or ways that make her seem overbearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)