Reflection

This blog has been my first publicly open writing outlet and it has been a beneficial and interesting exercise. The opportunity to develop positions and freely respond to prompts has allowed me to better understand the topics of the posts and helped give me perspective on where I want to go in my academic future. The pubic aspect of these posts hasn’t had the impact I had expected but it has been informative to see peers perspective to the same issues. Overall the reflective insight the blogging aspect of this class has given me has changed the way I view keeping a journal. As I continue to pursue my education and take in to control my own education I will continue to use this form of expression to better my understanding.

limmitations of Language

Language is only an invention of the human mind used as an extension of our natural capacity to interact in our environment. The situation in which we live our lives is tremendously diverse and monolithic compared to the rhetorical situation which oral and written language are used. The entirety of experience relies on the complete physical stimulation which evolution has allowed us which includes the capability to touch, smell, hear, taste, and see. Language is limited to what is audible and visual although our perceptions can be manipulated by other sensations. I do not consider language in the traditional sense to be entirely dependent on anything other than sight or hearing. Therefore, to fully experience life one must go beyond the limitation of relying solely on language, go beyond rhetoric and expand consciousness to surpass what is achieved through human communication.

We have adapted to use language in every aspect of our lives so much so that we are dependent on it. The majority of the experiences people have involves language, making it hard to distinguish one experience from the other. Language being indistinguishable from many of our experiences does not make it representative of all experiences. It is a part of a far more complex and diverse cognitive process that gives us our perception of life.

When life is allowed to exist only as a series of abstractions there is a disconnect between what is and what we perceive. If we were to consider language fully representative of all experiences then I think it would be a result of imposed restrictions. Restrictions like taking our strong connection to society and limiting experiences to those involving forms of social interaction. Then further social interaction could be restricted to popular outlets like texting, Facebook , Twitter or even blogs . When the norm becomes a series of restricted practices it is easy to forget or become oblivious to other ways of experiencing. This narrow-minded perception of experience is achieved through subtracting from life more and more things until all that’s left are a handful of practices that define who you are. In this sense language could be fully representative of someone’s total experience. But it doesn’t have to be and I think it would be a travesty if it were.

Closing thought

First I want to say thank you to those who have visited our cohort blog and left comments in this last post. It is your response that makes this blog more interesting.

It has been a wonderful though a bit overwhelming semester for me and I am glad I learned something about the language and rhetoric. I have learned the rhetorical triangle, the dynamic of language, and how that balance among logos, pathos and ethos makes language so engaging and powerful. And in the discussion for each of the three elements within the triangle, I learned what helps and hampers each and how each impacts the overall argument.

My biggest takeaway in this class is that I am more sensitive and willing to pay attention to the language. Before I took this class, I would not focus much on the language itself but mainly on the ideas that it tries to convey when I read something. But now intuitively I am more likely to consider: How does it achieve the goal of conveying these ideas? Can it be expressed in another way? When I sit in a pizza restaurant, I may even stare at slogans the on the wall, deciding whether this is a good advertisement in my mind and this is something I will not do before.

Although the writing assignments in this class are time-consuming, they push me to think deeper and develop a considerable length of paragraph to present my argument and I think it is effective to train my writing skills because it is easier to write a few sentences, but much more difficult to develop an organized and well supported paragraph.
Overall, this course leaves me a lot of thoughts and I do have an enjoyable semester.

Can language capture the enormity of experience?

Can language capture the enormity of experience? The answer of this question depends on the purpose of language and the situations that influences the language.

When language just serves as a tool of communication, such as an academic paper, business reports and presentation, or any situation that requires formal and professional language, logos is the priority in order to capture the enormity and complexity of the authors’ ideas because in these situations, audiences are expecting a clear explanation and illustration from the authors rather than artfully crafted and flowery language. In other words, as long as the organization and structure of the paper or the presentation is clear and logical, the enormity of the authors’ idea should be able to convey.

It is much more demanding when language is beyond communication and needed to be artfully crafted. For example, the language in literature, in movies especially those literary films, and in dramas, is so beautifully crafted and delivered and full of emotions. The ideas in an academic paper or business reports are concrete and can be supported by examples or data, however, in literature and movies, the theme can be very vague and sentimental, which is much more difficult and abstract to describe. Therefore, pathos plays a more dominant role in these situations, where audiences are not expecting a straightforward explanation but emotional appeals and artfully crafted language. In these situations, one of the most common strategy is making emotional appeals which let audiences feel the feelings of the characters. It is often the case that the emotion of the characters is very complicated and contradicted, thus to state it directly may not be a good idea since it is too challenging not to confuse the audiences. Rather, sometimes silence means everything.

The most touching and impressive emotional appeals I have seen is in the Academy award film, “The Reader”, where the technique of letting the audiences fill in the “blank” left by the character is employed. At the end of the film, Michael Berg visited the Jewish woman whose family were killed in Auschwitz by Hanna Schmitz and confessed his relationship with Hanna, “we had an affair when I was in youth, but…”. After these words, Michael sat there deep in thought. He didn’t continue his words, such as saying “but I can not forget her.’’ He controlled his emotion and did not say what the audiences are expecting him to say, however his words capture much more than he says out. That moment in the movie is the most emotion-arousing moment for me just because he didn’t say and I had to fill in the blank, which can have so many possibilities. It may be a mixed feeling of regretted, mercy, painful, and remorse for Hanna and it brings the audiences into a deeper level of emotion, deeper than the feeling of missing a former relationship. Often in the movies, which only have limited time for a convoluted story, this technique of having the audiences to imagine the “silence” works surprisingly well.

Language can convey much more than it says because of the amazing fact that people can understand not only the explicit words but the implicit meaning in language. Besides movies, this technique can also apply to other situations where the language is manipulated and crafted to be a deviation from usual way. For example, tropes and pathetic figure are the rhetorical tools that plays with language. In both cases, there are implicit meanings behind, the prototype that is represented by them. I think that provides a possibility for language to capture the enormity of experiences and emotion. That’s why language is a form of art when it serves more than communication.

Closing Statement

I would like to use this last entry to thank anyone who took the time to read or who took an interest in any of my blog posts. Blogging was a new experience for me. I was unsure of it at first, but I have enjoyed posting my thoughts on our blog throughout the semester. I think blogging has also allowed me to expand my writing skills. Overall, I have really enjoyed ILS 200. Logos, pathos, and ethos were new concepts to me, but I can see the value that they have for crafting an effective argument. I have also learned to see the available means of persuasion in each case. So once again, thank you and now I say goodbye!

Language cannot capture the enormity of experience

I have yet to come across any writer that has been able to successfully capture the enormity of experience. That is because it is impossible. Even the most brilliant writers are unable to fully describe and depict the enormity of an experience. There is nothing, not even the most sophisticated language, that can take the place of actually experiencing something. Countless times I have told a story about an experience only to see a blank expression on my listener’s face. “I guess you had to be there…” I would then say. I know for a fact that this doesn’t only happen to me, and is a result of the shortcomings of language.

If language could capture the enormity of experience, why would anyone go out and experience anything for themselves? We could just read about something and know what it is like to experience it. This is obviously not true. I have read stories about what it is like to experience sky diving and still I can’t quite grasp the emotions or the feelings involved. Also, I have had feelings and emotions that I could not quite express through language many times. There is simply not a way to fully express certain feelings without compromising some of the experience.

Wrap Up

Overall I enjoyed ILS 200. At first I was very skeptical of the weekly blog posts because I had never blogged before. However, the inner quibbler in me came out, and I enjoyed writing my weekly rambles on this site. I have never had a class before on ethos, logos, pathos, and rhetoric before, and I think by studying these elements of language I have grown as a writer. I learned pathetic, ethical, and logical tropes and schemes that I can now utilize in my own writing and language, and I became aware of the use of fallacies in my and other people’s writings/arguments. I think that the blogs served as a great way to comfortably talk about issues, and I really feel that through my posts and the design of the blog my personality was captured. From discussion about the famous Wall Street quote, “Greed is Good” to ranting about the problems of America, my personality definitely came out in these posts. All that being said I am happy to take a break from the stress and work load of college life and I am ready for a vacation. Perhaps to be continued on another blog but for now I’M OUT……….PEACE!

Can Language Capture the Enormity of Experience?

“I guess you had to be there,” how many times has someone said this too you after telling you a story? When they told the story they were full of excitement and emotion, but for some reason it failed to capture and excite you as much as the storyteller. This is because language cannot capture the enormity of experience. Don’t get me wrong, there are many great storytellers that possess the ability to describe their experience to the reader exceptionally well. However, it never reaches the full meaning as it does to the writer. Language fails to capture in its entirety the complexity that is a personal experience. With a personal experience comes a complex firsthand belief and memory of what occurred. The firsthand experience is entirely unparallel to a person describing his or her experience. This is because each experience has a different meaning to someone else.

For example I am going to give you a short description about my grandfather’s life.

From the sound of the start gun in 1922 to his sprint through the finishing chute on September 23, 1998, Edward Leske lived a benevolent life. His continuous sacrifice, unparalleled hard work, and unselfish outlook in life spoiled his large family of ten until the day he died. As a tenderhearted man with a reserved personality, Edward led through example rather than his voice. I remember him taking care of my brothers and me one summer when my parents went to San Francisco. Edward enjoyed taking us to our baseball games and watching us play sports he never had time to play himself or watch his own children play due to long work hours. He would tell me before every baseball game I played, “Go hit a homer for me.” I never did hit him that homer, but it always made me feel as if I had played a great game anyway. I remember visiting his house and fighting over couch cushions with my brothers and cousins that filled the T.V. den. Grandpa just sat next to the couch in his special rocking chair, smoking his Swisher Sweet cigar. He kept the peace between me and my brothers occasionally taking a puff of his cigar and then returning to the packer game on the television. I can still picture my grandpa sitting in his special rocking chair with a faint smile on his face watching the packers and smoking a swisher sweet cigar.

Through this tangent I attempted to capture who my grandpa was and what he meant to me to you the reader. Although I am sure I failed to fully express my love for him, after reading this passage I am willing to bet that you can picture this man watching the football game in the T.V. den. However I doubt that you share the enormity that this experience means to me personally. So I guess I could say the words I guess you had to be there, but in reality you had to be in my shoes to capture the full experience of the situation.

In conclusion, language fails to capture the enormity of the experience. However, language serves as a vehicle through which people can share personal experiences, and although the enormity might not be fully conveyed to the reader, the reader gains a sense of the experience that hopefully he/she can remember in their own way.

Pathos

How our society has evolved to define fair, accurate and principled rhetoric has made it more than acceptable to employ extensive emotional appeals. Despite whether we agree or disagree to the extent our society is addicted to emotions, as a collective we continue to accept our current rhetorical climate. To answer whether we are pushing the boundary I would have to respond that I know less what would constitute unacceptable pathos than do I know there exist limitations.

Drama is the fuel life runs on, filling us with stimulation and entertainment. We are overwhelmed by intense emotional messages because regardless of our intentions we respond to it. The important question to ask is not “are we exceeding some limit?” but “is it in our best interests to be easily influenced by emotion?” I think there are two really important truths to keep in mind when answering this question. The first is not forgetting that emotions are woven into our DNA. We have evolved to be emotionally responsive creatures most likely because it has been to our advantage throughout thousands of years of evolution. The other is the implicit nature of emotion. Unlike logos or ethos, pathos doesn’t require metacognitive thought processing.

Every day it seems I am surprised by some sort of emotional ploy whether it be on television in the media, or from peers because it makes us think, feel and act irrespective to logic or ethics. In addition to not being a balanced rhetorical situation our excessive reliance on pathos further subtracts from our ethical and logical capacity. I would agree that we are currently in a period of heightened emotion and I believe this can be to our advantage. If it requires an unprecedented emotional climate to make people be less dependent and responsive to pathos then so be it. I also believe it’s this kind of rhetorical climate that could be used to usher in one of the most progressive times of our society’s history. With heightened emotion comes increased interest, outraged debate, and motivation which are all necessary to make change. It is also the key to shifting the rhetorical balance should it be considered in our best interests.

Pathetic Discourse In Media

An argument should be fair, accurate, and principled in order to keep the balance between logos, pathos, and ethos. This is especially important when it comes to public discourse. However, in our current form of public discourse, pathos is being used unfairly and excessively. It seems that pathos currently outweighs logos and ethos in all form of the media. From the Tiger Woods scandal to health care reform, pathetic appeals are being overused to grab the audience’s attention.

Although as a whole there is an unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse I do not always find this wrong, it depends upon the situation. Sometimes it is necessary to make strong emotional appeals in order to capture your audience. In society today people are constantly surrounded by media and persuasive arguments. One main problem for a writer is how to break through the “noise” that surrounds everyone and grab people’s attention. I find that it is acceptable to rely upon strong emotional appeals in order to get your point across when it comes to television shows and news broadcasts because they have to find a way to differentiate themselves from other forms of media. For instance, during the Olympics there always seems to be an athlete that overcomes great odds such as a rough childhood, a death of a family member, a spouse or child with cancer, and he or she goes on to win the gold or come close. This person would otherwise just be another athlete competing for the gold but the broadcasting company decides to focus on their story and tell it to America in order to appeal to our common attitudes and emotions. I find myself rooting for this person because I can identify with them. If it wasn’t for the strong emotional appeals of the network I would simply look at this athlete as just another athlete in another Olympic competition. In addition, I would be more likely to change the channel because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of the event. However, this is not the case by drawing me in with a strong emotional appeal.

At some point though, strong emotional appeals that are unbalanced with logos and ethos can cross the line. One area in which I believe it is especially important to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos is politics. Politicians often exploit people by making emotional appeals to their audience with a lack of logos and ethos. When politicians over rely one pathetic appeals the audience misses out on important information that is necessary in understanding the facts of the issue. For instance during the debate about health care, Rush Limbaugh stated that he’s moving to Costa Rica if we get health care passed. This is an irrational argument that makes a strong emotional appeal to his audience. It makes the idea of health care reform sound so disturbing to him that it would destroy America and its values, so he would rather move and live in Costa Rica. During this statement, he makes no logical facts for what he finds wrong with health care reform and relies entirely on emotional appeal. Politicians often commit this when they uses bumper stickers saying, “A vote for Joe is a vote for children.” This fallacy relies entirely on emotion and suggest that if you don’t vote for Joe then you are hurting or against children.

In conclusion, sometimes it is necessary to break the balance between ethos, pathos, and logos in order to capture your audience’s attention. However, this practice should never be used for matters that greatly affect the general public such as politics. A strong emotional appeal to an audience to get them to watch a television show doesn’t really hurt anyone. On the contrary, when politicians make overly pathetic arguments they confuse the public and possibly harm future and current public policy.

Pathetic Discourse

The key to any argument being fair, accurate, and principled is to keep the balance of logos, pathos, and ethos. I think most people would agree that we would want an argument presented to us to be all of these things. However, pathetic language is everywhere in today’s society, sometimes seeming like it outweighs logos and ethos. But is it used too much? Does it overstep and cross the line? In certain aspects, such as politics, I think definitely. In others however, such as TV shows, I think it is just fine.

Most politicians for example, exploit pathos to grab their audience. Instead of presenting their information with a balance of logic, ethics, and emotion, they focus heavily on the anticipating the emotional reactions of their audience. For example, they may show pictures of a baby girl and tell you a personal story and then ask you, “How could you kill her?” to advance their views on abortion. This goes straight to the emotions of the audience and completely forgets about logos and ethos. People may jump on board with the politician, without giving it much additional thought. To me, this seems like a cheap way out for the politician if they are getting the response they want. They are using pathos too outweigh ethos completely. There are no ethics behind an argument like this.

In other aspects of the media, such as television shows, I think that the over use of pathos is fine. For me, I am more likely to watch a show that gets me emotionally invested. Even if a show is about a topic I am not particularly interested in, I may watch it because the pathetic appeals grab me. For example, one show, “Extreme Makeover- Home Edition” definitely plays on emotional appeals. The show is about helping a family in need by building them a brand new house. The show really plays up the emotional story behind the family and gets the viewers invested. I think this is necessary. If the show just focused on building a house, it would lose many viewers who are not interested in how to build a house. However, when the emotional stories are played up, you can find yourself invested in them and want to watch the show. I think that there is no harm in this, but it is just using pathos effectively to get a larger audience, without crossing the line.

Overall, I think there is a slight unbalance between logos, ethos, and pathos in public discourse. However, the unbalance in politics is far greater and often crosses the line because it forgets about logos and ethos completely. On the other hand, in most television shows, the balance is slight and it is okay in my opinion.

Public disclosure

It seems that pathetic appeals are everywhere: commercial advertisement, political campaigns, sports, TV shows, movies, etc. I hardly see any advertisement that delivers a purely rational statement without relying on any pathetic elements, any politicians who have never shown their concerns towards the children or the poor, or any TV shows without emotional plots. Considering the prevalence of the applications of pathetic appeals in many aspects of our society, I think the public disclosure is a bit too dependent on emotional appeals to delivery its argument and ideas. While the pathetic appeals in public disclosure have some advantages, such as satisfying the psychological needs of people and more effective delivery, overflowing of them can put them into an embarrassing situation.

The primary reason for the prevalence of pathetic appeals is that it is more effective than rational and logical argument to convey message. People tend to count on short cut to process information; therefore people are very likely to accept the information intuitively if the information fits into their expectation or attitude. For example, politicians often use this trick: they argue their assertion, not by logically, but by make emotional appeals such as how the poor or the children are in miserable conditions, and being against their policies is equal to being against children. When talking about children and poor people, which are very emotional images, people will naturally show their sympathy without efforts. Politicians catch these psychological laws and often use these emotional figures in their speech to let people accept their argument without “thinking much”. Probably their argument or assertion is problematic, but most people would not care much about the logic of the argument, which requires some effort to think about.
Although it may be immoral to take advantage of others’ sympathy, sometimes people do need some kind of pathetic appeals. Days ago, I saw a sentence on a T-Shirt: Miracle is not what we accomplish, but the courage to start. At the first sight, these words are really touching and there are certainly pathetic appeals within. For a person who is feeling hopeless and desperate, these works would probably give him hope again because these words provide comfort and encouragement, which are exactly what he needs at this moment. However, after the impulse, when I reflect on these words, I feel that it is a little inaccurate. Certainly in some occasions it is not correct. A jobseeker may send out thousands of resumes and you may say he starts a thousand times, but he has not found a job yet. In this case, probably you shouldn’t say miracle happened a thousand times. But in some other occasions, a start does take great courage and it is something can be called real miracle, such as the first moon landing in human history, the first one who proposes the idea of “human right”. But the key thing is, for the hopeless person at the moment, he does need these words to warm him and he would rather believe in these words rather than questioning the accuracy of these words. In some cases when people are in a desperate need of psychological comfort, the logic of the pathetic appeals is not so important.
Pathetic appeals work for the appropriate occasion and the frequency to use and overemphasis on them can lead to the publics’ “immunization” to them and the doubt towards the trustfulness of these pathetic appeals, which puts Increasing number of criticism for commercial advertisement shows that people no longer buy their pathetic appeals schemes. Instead, consumers want the concrete description of product rather than the flowery language and the emotional images. Also, previously hugging children promotes the favorable impression of politicians, but when people are too frequently exposed to these scenes, they may be tried of seeing this again and even doubt whether the politician is just doing show trial and thus hugging children can not earn a positive image for the politician. In these cases when people are “immunized” to the pathetic appeals, pathetic appeals are put into an embarrassing situation: no one can totally trust them as they did before.

Pathetic Appeals

Emotions have the mysterious capacity to create meaning from the meaningless. Pet peeves are a prime example of strong emotional feelings transforming and manifesting our opinions into critical observations. In Geogg Nunberg's article on linguistic pet peeves he discusses personal pathetic appeals to specific vexations. We all have things other people say or do that make us annoyed; some more than most, but it's our idiosyncrasies and pet peeves that make us who we are.

From reading the article I get a sense that pet peeves stem largely from a personal identification with a theory or ideology that you nurture in your bosom and make your own. When submersed in an environment which relentlessly bombards you with information it becomes increasingly difficult to have unique pet peeves. In class we've talked about the rhetorical climate of politics and how it's currently in a rut of pathetic appeals. The current political climate is the result of monoculture in ideology which results in mimicked pet peeves, rhetorical appeals, and any other ubiquitous characteristics of our society. In the article the esoteric code of grammar was brought up as an ideology people have created - a kind of monoculture where they have rooted countless pet peeves against outsiders.

We are living in the age of globalization which means the esoteric circles are getting broader and less defined. Suddenly it's possible for my emotions regarding a subject to be the same as someone elses halfway across the world and not just those within a monoculture around us. Pet peeves can be taken lightly but when an entire community is irritated and annoyed by the same things you get something like our political climate. Emotions make us unique but they also are the only thing that brings us closer together to create an empathetic world and a changing world. For these reasons I disagree pet peeves are personal in the sense that they are unique, but instead are characteristics identifiable of anyone who chooses to adopt them.

Many times pet peeves assert an ethical standard or moral correctness to life. The degree to which those conventions are accepted by others is a way to distinguish the petty from the meaningful. It is also a way to criticize those conventions and possibly create a movement to change them. Politics is a good example of this; a lot of people think that after Obama was elected he neglected to take his opportune moment to get health care and other reforms passed. In other words he didn't take advantage of peoples' heightened emotional state to get things done in Washington. I think it's our responsibility to use our emotions more wisely to find meaning in things bigger than the correct use of the word gingerly.

Emotion and language

As is discussed in class, rhetoric makes language more than a tool of communication through the balance of logos, ethos and pathos. What connects audiences and the author is pathos, the emotion conveyed through the language and felt by the audiences. The pathos, however, is not irrational sentiment that can be separated from the logic of the language. Instead, it is produced by the logos of the text, appropriate judgment of situation and the satisfaction of the audiences’ expectation. Conversely, if the language cannot meet the audiences’ expectation, misjudge the situation and is full of confusing logic, the “pet peeves” may occur and lead to the antipathy of the audiences.

First, the pathos that the author tries to convey depends on the logical and well-reasoning language. It is the logic of the language that makes senses to the audiences and connects them with the author. Intuitively, I really cannot imagine how confusing and massy language will attract readers and convey emotion. A lot of “pet peeves” are caused by the confusing logic. For example, in Geoff Nunberg’s article, he said that the word, “equation”, annoys him when it does not have anything equated and “oversimplistic” is also his pet peeves because the correct expression should be “simplistic”. Nunberg mentioned that writers may be more perverse to the accuracy of language than others, but it is a fact that everyone has some pet peeves, of which those words and sentences with obviously incorrect grammar and messy logic are the most common. Therefore, if the language is logical and well organized, the author has already avoided most the pet peeves of the audiences.

Second, the author must consider the rhetorical situation of the language. The rhetorical situation, including the opportune moments, constrains and the audiences, plays a key role in determining whether the language is accepted by audiences. For example, when writing an academic paper, the opportune moment for the author is to address an issue in his field and explain it clearly. Considering the constraints and the audiences, the author should try to make his ideas easier for audiences to understand, so choosing a non academic word to explain an academic term may be a good idea. Also, since it is academic paper, a professional and serious tone of language instead of humorous and playful style should be employed. If not, the audiences may feel that the author does not take it seriously and may dislike it.

Third, the satisfaction of audiences’ expectation determines the influence of the language. Whenever audiences are exposed to the language, there is a certain kind of expectation with them and they want the language to fulfill their expectation. The reason why Martin Luther King’s speech is so powerful and touching is that he inspires all audiences by delivering a dream with deep humanism, which not only satisfies but exceeds the expectation of audiences who suffered in racism and were eager to gain strength and hope in the speech and therefore King’s speech is loved by all. As for the political campaign, the key factor of determining success is whether the candidate satisfies the voters. President Obama is a success because he understands the expectation of voters, who calls for changes in this country, and he delivers many speeches about transformations in the financial system and health care system. Therefore he builds a connection between him and voters and wins their hearts.

Overall, in order to build a connection between audiences and the author, the logos must be addressed to avoid the pet peeves of audiences; the situation must be emphasized or it would arouse the antipathy of audiences; the expectation of audiences should be fulfilled so that audiences can accept the language.

Cognitive Fluency

Chris Upton “Easy and True”
Drake Bennet’s Article, “Easy = True” states that cognitive fluency is "simply a measure of how easy it is to think about something, and it turns out that people prefer things that are easy to think about to those that are hard." Upon reading the first paragraph of this article I was immediately questioning its logic. The article suggests that when analyzing company’s financial statements one should ignore price to earnings ratios, debt levels, cash flows, etc., and instead suggests to, “invest in companies with names that are easy to pronounce.” As an accounting major, I was shocked at this statement and this idea simply lacks all logic. This logic cannot be applied to investing in companies because then we should all invest in companies that are easy to say regardless of the fact that they may be losing billions of dollars a year. This argument seems to suffer from the classic psychologist problem that comes with experimentation when all variables are not controlled compared with the independent variable. Correlation does not necessarily result in causation if all dependent variables are not controlled!

After denouncing this first argument of the article, I found their logic and other arguments much more sound. In the case of font and beauty I agreed with them completely. Upon reading about how people prefer clear, simple, and legible font because they trust it more holds true to me. When you see a commercial for a new drug promising to do X, Y, and Z for you, but then at the bottom of the screen they have tiny font that is a disclaimer for their product do you trust the product? I do not because of the small font. The small font causes me to question the product and the truthfulness of its advertisement.

When it comes to font color I thought this was especially interesting because of the role it culturally plays in our society and around the world. For instance the color red is often perceived by Americans as a warning of danger or to abstain from a practice/ activity. This is due to the fact that the color red is commonly used in our societal signs that tell us things such as stop, do not enter, smoking prohibited, etc. However, in different cultures such as China the color red has a completely different meaning. In China, red is associated with power and luck so the normal cognitive beliefs between cultures are not the same. The differences that exist among cultures provide for a very interesting analysis of cognitive psychology. It is important to understanding that what is true in America may not be true everywhere else.

I find Bennet’s argument that short and simple language helps us remember an item to be sound. We can see proof of this in the marketing of products in our society. We identify products by short sayings and jingles. “Got a Hunger? Satisfy it with Snickers,” “Pepsi the choice of a new generation,” “Red bull gives you wings.” Regardless of the fact that more kids may currently like Coke more than Pepsi, we associate these products and remember them because of these short sayings. For instance the other day I was hungry and went to the vending machine. After looking at my options I saw a snickers and immediately thought of its promise to satisfy my hunger….not surprisingly I chose this for my snack.

Bennet also talks about how people identify beauty with what is already familiar to them. I agree with this completely, and find that it is very true when it comes to the “beautiful celebrities “that are portrayed in our society. We think they are beautiful because we recognize them as being beautiful due to constant exposure in our media. When we see a new face we are likely to judge it based on old prior learned beliefs of what we regard as normal and beautiful.

Overall, I enjoyed the article. However, after reading the first paragraph I still question the validity of its argument. Perhaps it is the fact that I am an accounting major, or perhaps because it is the first thing I cognitively associate/remember about the article, but throughout the rest of the article, Bennet makes some very true arguments that can be commonly seen in my everyday interactions.

Cognitive Fluency

After reading the article, “Easy = True” by Drake Bennett, I found that most of the points he brings up make a lot of sense. The article introduces, “cognitive fluency”. It describes it as “a measure of how easy it is to think about something and that people prefer things that are easy to think about to those that are hard.” Also, items that are familiar to us are going to be easy to think about and therefore, we prefer familiarity. Specifically, I was intrigued by the topics of font and beauty.

According to the article, a font that is clearer, simpler, and more legible makes the reader believe that it is more truthful. For me, this holds true. A good example of this is when I am reading articles online. If the text is clear and legible without bright distracting colors, I am more likely to believe what it is saying. In contrast, when I come across an article in which the text is in cursive or in different colors, I am more critical of it and believe that it is not as truthful.

Thinking about this, it begins to make a lot of sense. It is no wonder that politicians and advertisers use simple, legible fonts when trying to get their audience to trust them and believe in their product.

Bennett also brings up the topic of beauty. According to the article, “…people assign all sorts of specific characteristics to things that feel familiar, like beauty.” This also makes a lot of sense to me. When I think about what our society defines as "beautiful", certain famous actors and actresses come to mind. I think this can be explained by the article. Because I see their faces all the time in the media, I am very familiar with their faces. Therefore, because I have already “learned these facial features, I like them.”

This idea that beauty is linked with familiarity is very interesting. The faces you see on TV and in other aspects of the media are in fact, prototypes of beauty. The article explains that prototypical faces are easiest to process, which is why we prefer them. I do realize however that this is not the only factor that needs to be taken into account when when considering what is “beautiful”.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and find most of the points Bennett talks about to be true.

Synaptic Transmission

BOOM, too fast to be perceived by the human senses, an electrical explosion overwhelms consciousness, potential energies of sodium, chloride, and potassium ions send neural impulses from axons to dendrites forming synaptic linkages upon which every thought, idea, invention, creation of man has passed through; it’s here within the interneuron transmissions the epiphany resides, yet I do not perceive it at the speed of light, instead it’s like the gentle and welcome warmth of a radiant fire momentarily bathing me in pure energy, awakening my mind and opening the gates to which all life pours abidingly, raw and unregulated, then as soon as it came it’s gone and all you’re left with are consolidated neural paths that form its memory.

Sentence

There is a sense of heroism which can be defined as a consistent pursuit for a commitment against all odds in Okonkwo, who, all his life, is struggling between his ideal and reality the way a tragic hero sticks to his faith but cannot override his doomed destiny, : his ideal of being extremely masculine is opposed to his inability to oppress his love for his adopted son, who is killed by Okonkwo himself to show his abeyance to the tribe; his vision of being the tribe leader to fight the invasion of western religion is in contrast to the reality that his tribe is tolerant and is willing to concede. ( inspired by " Things Fall Apart" )

Sentence

Jeremy is happy to live in Wisconsin, despite his extreme hatred for the cold and snowy winters, because he can enjoy the 'best of the best' squeaky cheese curds, he is able to cheer for a professional basketball, football, and baseball team year round, he can find a great lake to go 'drown a worm' on hot summer days, and most of all, because he was able to witness the greatest quarterback to ever play the game of football become a legend on the Frozen Tundra.

Chris Upton: Problems in America

In today’s divided political atmosphere the United States of America faces many problems, intensifying global warming and climate change, ballooning federal deficit plaguing our economy, depleting supplies of world-wide oil reserves, growing number of citizens lacking health insurance, rising cost of health care, diminishing social security reserves, spiraling public education costs, disintegrating infrastructure of cities, soaring unemployment rates, widening gap between the rich and the poor, ongoing military expansion overseas and deteriorating inner city public schools.

E = MC^2 + Ethical Conundrums

The quote “I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones,” by Albert Einstein gives a short and direct synopsis of human behavior and shows the vulnerability of our existence due to that behavior. The use of implicit deductive referencing and explicit inductive facts form a multi-layered foundation for a thought provoking conclusion. The more layers you unfold the more depth and irony become evident in this short but sourly sweet quote.

The deductive characteristics of the quote can be seen in the reference to WW III and later in WW IV. The first deductive layer is he doesn’t know because World War III has yet to occur. The reason it’s implicit is because using “will be” the aphorism refers to the future and by asserting the truth that the future is undecided you get an indirect logically valid statement. The WW IV reference is deductive because of an idiom not found in the text’s literal meaning. In inferring your understanding of human behavior you can read much more than what the words alone can say. For example the behavior of creating progressively smarter, more accurate and deadlier technologies because we think it makes those who wield them safer. The implications of inferring valid understandings of human behavior and evaluating them in the context of this quote are limitless examples of implicitly deductive conclusions. The conclusions you draw are mostly direct criticisms of human nature.

The inductive parts of the quote are the same as the deductive except without making inferences to complete the quote’s logic. The first is “I don’t know with what weapons World War III will be fought, the other is “World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” When not looked at as an idiom the words lose their magic and ability to spark creative philosophical thought. On the other hand completely ignoring the literal understanding would destroy the pathos of the quote. It would be analogous to trying to read a book by only reading the words found on one side of each page. The humor and connection to the audience lies in the comedic format of the quote. Where the leading half separated by the comma is like a set-up and the latter half the punch line. For me a lot of the actual humor comes from the irony in combination with the comedic structure made evident in the inductive parts of the quote.

The most difficult part about analyzing this quote is correctly teasing out the irony I’m fairly confident exists, from the juxtapositions. One juxtaposition is the future is undecided yet WW IV will be fought using sticks and stones. Both parts of the juxtaposition can be viewed as examples of logos but by placing them one right after another you get a contrasting comparison and in some ways even a contradiction. There is also irony, specifically in the conclusions I draw like improving humanity is advantageous; technology can be used to improve humanity; we use technology to destroy our ability to create it. This is an example of irony because as societies try to improve the human condition through violent conflict resolution they actually succeed in doing exactly the opposite. Another example of irony is Einstein’s both a contributing inventor of a WMD and is being critical of it devastating effects on humanity.

The quote’s diction is surprisingly simple considering the author, but this does not at all make the ideas and rhetoric simple. Some examples of simplicity are no words exceed 2 syllables, it’s very common language, 7 of the 23 words repeat and 6 of those words are in the exact same order. The very end of the quote even ends in the cliché saying “sticks and stones.” The diction of the quote is a sign that its creator is being cognizant of his audience and their needs.

This quote’s audience is everyone because it’s trying to make people understand a kind of ethics that can improve all our lives. It shows us that our future is at this point and time in a state of unprecedented vulnerability. It’s vulnerable not because of the destructive capacity and degradation of humanity technology provides us but because our ethical ideologies are corrupt. What we understand to be advantageous increasingly becomes hindering, what is good becomes self gratifying and ethics embody possessions we barter and later discard as old fads. Sadly this quote will likely be an accurate prediction of our future. On the other hand if we allow our ingenuitive capacity to plateau maybe our scars will remind us never to pick up the sticks and stones in the same manner as before.