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.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)