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.

Oscar Wilde's saying

"It is not uncommon to commiserate with a stranger's misfortune, but it takes a really fine nature to appreciate a friend's succes"— Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde’s saying, “It is not uncommon to commiserate with a stranger's misfortune, but it takes a really fine nature to appreciate a friend's success” impresses me because it concisely reveals the truth of sophisticated human nature in a simple but powerful sentence. The power of Wilde’s saying stems from the structure, the tone and the diction.

The literal interpretation for this aphorism is that people tend to be compassionate with the unfortunate person, even if it is stranger, but may not be truly happy with their friends’ success. In this saying, Wilde is trying to convey the truth that human nature is intrinsically imperfect, which can be proved by the fact that jealousy of others is the weakness of most people.
The structure of the sentence involves both opposition and balance. First Wilde concedes that for most people, either good nature of bad nature, show mercy to the unfortunate. Then the latter part of the saying transits into arguing that only people with food nature can truly appreciate friends’ success. The conceding and transition express opposite attitude towards human nature. The conceding part seems to praise the kindness of people but the transition raises the doubt towards that kindness. Can we treat our friends as good as to an unfortunate stranger? The contrasting attitude makes the whole argument balanced because the argument avoids going to any extreme, neither admitting only the positive sides of human nature nor denying all positive sides of human nature, and thus the saying becomes very persuasive by involving the audiences to reflect on themselves when they think about the doubt raised by Wilde after accepting the conceding part at the beginning. Besides the contrasting attitude, the balance of the structure is also reflected in the corresponding words in the conceding and transition parts. For example, the counterpart for the word “commiserate” is “appreciate”; “misfortune” is corresponding with “success”; “stranger” is versus “friends”. The power of the saying also derives from such balanced structure, the symmetry of language, which impresses audiences with the beauty and stability of the sentence.

Unlike some other saying which may directly and sarcastically criticize human nature, Wilde’s saying is relatively mild in both the conceding part and the transition part. In conceding, Wilde prepares for his following argument in transition by arousing the audiences’ interest to keep on reading rather than saying something that is not easy for the audiences to accept at the beginning. For the transition part, rather than saying most people can not appreciate a friend’s success, Wilde adopts a more euphemistic way to express, stating that only people with fine nature can truly appreciate friends’ success. In this way, although raising doubts towards human nature, Wilde also leaves some hope for people because he does not utterly deny that people can appreciate friends. It is a mild tone, but it is more powerful than a harsh tone. Harsh tone will expel the audiences without enabling them to think about the argument carefully, while a mild tone can keep the audience and let them move on while thinking about the deep meaning of the argument. It is natural that people are more inclined to accept an argument that has been examined by themselves than to accept a direct and harsh argument. It is also the power of a mild argument.

The idea of Wilde’s saying is not new, but the diction makes the saying much persuasive and impressive than a cliché. Some words used by Wilde, uncommon, commiserate, appreciate, are high diction level words and some other words, like stranger, friend, fine nature are conversational level words. High level words give a sense of authority while the conversational level words are easy to understand. The combination of diction level, together with the balanced structure, makes the saying very convincing and objective because the sentence would be neither too serious nor too causal with different diction levels.

Chris Upton Blog 1 Post: "Greed Is Good"

“Greed is good.” – Gordon Gecko, Wall Street

In a captivating scene, the antagonist of the film Wall Street explains his motto and justifies his actions in accruing mass sums of wealth at the expense whoever stands in his way. Gecko states, “The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed,
in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation call the USA.”” Since the release of the film, Gecko’s famous “Greed is good” speech” has inspired entrepreneurs and Wall Street traders, become a mantra for free market ideologues, and infuriated various religious groups and altruistic organizations. Why does Gecko’s speech from the film written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone become so renowned in our society and register such an emotional response with the viewer? Where did the ideas of the speech come from and what effect does this origin have in resonating with the audience of the film?

Gecko’s statement argues that personal greed drives all progress and advancement in society. The statement’s basic alliteration and colloquial simplicity make it a catchy slogan for those who believe in its worth. The simplicity of the statement not only seems easy to understand but also justifies a particular outlook and way of life.

While the words seem incredibly fresh when delivered by Gecko in the film, the mantra has been argued throughout the 20th century by various economic philosophers. Perhaps the speech resonates profoundly in society because it has become one of the classic debates of the 20th century: Is greed really good for society? By centering on this particular question, Stone’s film examines the merits to which such a philosophy holds. The film utilized Gecko’s speech as a tool to characterize the economic policies and beliefs of the Reagan era. The economics of the Reagan era issued in unprecedented deregulation of markets and reduction of government intervention in the private sector and citizen’s lives. Reagan believed the profits and gains acquired by those at the top in such a system would trickle down throughout all classes and improve society as a whole. Ever since the days of Reagan, conservatives have further embraced the “Greed is good” mantra.

Although Stone’s film popularized the slogan and the Reagan administration implemented the idea in governance like never before, the ideas within the simple phrase “Greed is good” have been ingrained within society for a long time. Since the 18th century when economist Adam Smith outlined his theory of “The Invisible Hand” in writing The Wealth of Nations, the idea that individual self interest benefits all of society has been a major influence in American philosophy and economics. Widely considered “The Father of Capitalism,” Smith has profoundly influenced society and economic thought. Many disciples of the Smith view Gecko’s speech as just rewording and simplifying Smith’s “Invisible Hand” for the modern era.

During the time between Smith and Reagan, many writers and economic thinkers echoed the “Greed is good” mentality throughout the 20th century. In writings and major novels throughout her career, famous author Ayn Rand reissued Smith’s call for individual self interest above all else. Rand wrote, “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself.” Rand outlined her approach in a philosophy called Objectivism. In mentoring thinkers like Alan Greenspan, Rand’s economic outlook elevating self-interest permeates the framework of many corporations and the hearts of many citizens within the United States today.

While Stone’s “Greed is good” speech captures the moral dilemma at the heart of the film Wall Street, it also expresses the controversial economic and personal philosophy more simply than ever before. Furthermore, the film exposes on the grand stage of cinema the extent to which the mantra has become entrenched within society. The outrage and praise of Gecko’s words continues today as companies never stop trying to find new ways to grow and citizens express outrage over the bonuses of executives. The “Greed is good” mantra will now always represent a portion of the beliefs of our democratic capitalist society and in return evoke feelings of outrage by those who disagree with it and its role in our American system.