Platinum thoughts…

Chapter ten titled, “Who is the patriot.” When I first read the title, my personal schema of the word “patriot” would be: A citizen, but not just any citizen—an American citizen, whom loves their country, forever respects and honors the US Constitution, specifically the right to carry, really enjoy the, what’s it called, “American pastime sports” such as football, baseball, and basketball, they enthusiastically wear red, white, and blue—and maybe sometimes camouflage. That is my genera perception of who and what is a patriot.

The chapter starts with an opening quote from Timothy Snyder, “A patriot has universal values, standards by which he judges his nation, always wishing it well, and wishing it would do better.” I thought to myself, okay, so Tim’s answer to who is a patriot is essentially, has universal values, what kind— not completely sure, has certain beliefs or values by which he evaluates his country, and wishes for it, better. To me it sounds a little passive, like oh, a patriot is someone that shares the same principles, same behavior, maybe share the same ethics as, who? Its government or its people? A patriot uses their common universal standards to simply pass judgment about their nation, and then just wish the best for it, not participate or activate, not have a voice— just hope for the better. Hmm, now what does this quote have to do with this chapter?

The author then expresses feelings of such… scorn and disapproval by declaring that since 9/11 when the Twin Towers fell, and for about 20 years after that event, there as been nonstop business exploitation in the American sports industry. The repetitive acknowledgment of military troops, the various commercials of wounded soldiers, the endless advertising of military-themed sports memorabilia such as camouflage jerseys, hats, and mugs, followed by homage rituals before and after games—everything is just overdone to the point it doesn’t feel natural, and why hasn’t anyone else noticed this? Basically, after 9/11, certain corporations have used the emotional and tragic event to remind their citizens to honor and respect their troops, and at the same time, make money off that “support”—distracting the nation from true reality. American sport associations and military forces are in it together: implicitly convincing their sports fans that being a US patriot not only means to support and love your country, but ultimately, support the military, and ultimately, join. Being an American patriot means they love their country, and should want to serve it. Patriots also honor those that have served and died tragically doing so because, remember 9/11? And what more can one do to demonstrate that honor? Purchase your favorite football player’s military themed, camo jersey and wear it at their games. Oh, and maybe if you feel like it, join the military too to demonstrate your die hard patriotism. 

Then, there are those who are labeled as “dissenters” or in other words, freethinkers, nonconformists—or to them (the corporations making money), “traitors”, recognized that sports teams were using this generic perception of the military as propaganda. This propaganda in hand with the enjoyable event of watching one’s favorite sports motivates this forced patriotism and is in fact, a big phony.

Then, detailed 150 page report titled, Tackling Paid Patriotism, released by 2 Republican senators of Arizona, John McCain and Jeff Flake, uncovered that the Pentagon were spending millions of taxpayer dollars (approximately $6.8 million) on sports teams to stage military events such as those heartfelt homecoming ceremonies and military homage rituals. The advocacy for US military troops weren’t authentic, nor real, nor in honor of those who lost their lives to 9/11, and its true purpose is to make money off of the nation’s emotional trauma. Such a strange and corrupt way not to just make money, but to get the country to enlist, wouldn’t you think?

After McCain and Flake’s published article, one would know that their criticism is in fact legitimate and shocking because the disapproval didn’t come from a communist nor extreme liberal perspective, it came from “true supporters of the US military” aka the Republicans themselves—calling out the fact that the nation’s patriotism is fake, staged, and paid for. From the heart felt half-time homecoming ceremonies, the first pitch of a baseball game by a soldier, the firing homage rituals— all a gimmick and taken care of by American taxpayers. Emphasis on being paid for by taxpayers, because there are schools and roads that are in need of funding, but instead it gets spent on a fabricated American culture slash tradition.

The Army, National Guard, Air Force, and Navy were all in on it with gigantic reputable sport companies such as NASCAR, MLB (major league baseball), NBA (national basketball association), NFL (national football league), NHL (national hockey league), MLS (major league soccer), and NCAA (national collegiate athletic association). 

America’s need for reconstruction of roads and need to invest into the nation’s education can wait, but lets spend $280,000 for the Army National Guard to sponsor the Boston Bruins Military Appreciation night, $80k to provide and advertise military perks and discounts, $49k to sing “God Bless America”—like really? $10,000 for recognition of our US soldiers and their families, oh, and those crowd shots in the audience of our troops attending games to represent their city—staged. That’s not even the end of the bill.

There was this occurrence called the “March on 245”. In 2009, Jimmie Solomon and other major players planned some afternoon lunch or something to discuss their views about the numbers of decreasing black athletes in baseball, but instead word got out about their off the record meeting. It turned into a disaster and resulted getting scolded by MLB commissioner Selig. Though the meeting was suppose to be small and intimate, they basically rolled super deep and it was said to be a fascinating site seeing all the African American MLB players consolidating on Park Avenue in their fancy tailored suits. But the general gist is that you can be the country’s most paid athlete and proudly represent your minority but you are robbed of your First Amendment right and apparently the right for their minority to gather and speak about the sport they all play. Why not? The meeting seemed like it was along the lines of simply acknowledging, discussing and honoring how far African Americans have came in the white man’s world of sports. Seems rather benign, since Adam Jones had explicitly quoted that they (the athletes) would never participate in any fashion of protesting because it’s a white man sport. That it so irking that any minority has to feel that way about their own love for a sport they share with the white man, but the fact that they have the respect in regards to it is very admirable on their part. It’s just sad, because I would think part of being a major league athlete means being a leader, they have fans, little kids that want to be just like them, they have people all of over the nation buying and wearing their last name to represent them. But in today’s day and age, for the sake of the huge sporting companies’ revenue and reputation, our admirable sports players are essentially silent pawns. 

Reading this very lengthy and detailed article was quite an eye opener for me in regards to how the military recruit their numbers, or at least have tried to. I was also under the impression that our nation’s love for baseball, football, or basketball were purely America’s culture, or the name of this article’s file, heritage. But the fact that it is simply capitalism at its finest, is also not a surprise… It just doesn’t make any sense to continue spending the People’s (yknow like people of the United States of America) money on basically “military advertising” when our enlistments rates are yet still at their absolute lowest. I guess desperate times calls for desperate measures, but their advertising tactics have not shown any improvement in their numbers. Also, the fact that major athletes of practically any sport don’t have freedom of speech is disheartening but at the same time not a surprise in this day an age. It’s like yes, you get to play your favorite sport, represent your minority, get paid very nicely, have your own video game character, but you’re forever branded by the team that you play for and you cannot discuss nor participate in any politics, per the athletic contract. But anyways, the general conclusion of this article revealed to me personally is the respect for US military, the nation’s love for sports, our major athletes’ passion for being an American major league player, the American principles of having the right of speech and mental independence, is fake, artificial, and no longer honored.

Today I, for the lack of a better introduction, will be analyzing and responding to Carrie Freeman and Debra Merkin’s article, “Having It His Way”. They basically identify quite a few things from what seems like an ecofeminist and environmentalist’s perspective. They explain how American fast food industry companies heavily advertise to their targeted male audience to consume meat; but in a way that is destructive to the social justice of women and animals, and negatively stereotypes men as essentially, irresponsible dogs. 

The authors first lay some background information: the historical relationship of man and meat and women and vegetables, ecofeminist perspectives, the lack of ethics in fast-food meat eating industries, how fast food commercials present the masculinity of eating meat and the lack thereof when eating vegetables, the examination of 6 US fast food companies’ commercials, and lastly followed by “codes” which are identified in common fast food commercials that reinforce how they condition meat with masculinity to their US audience.

Human Anthropological Connections with Eating Meat

First, they (Freeman and Merskin) introduce the Anthropological historical connection between man and meat. Mason (whoever that is and what credibility does this person have) author of “An Unnatural Order”, explains how it’s our human instincts to eat meat. Since the beginning of our human evolution, humans have always been natural hunters, and therefore, have always eaten meat. Women, who have always been the cultivators, the givers of life, stayed at home while the men hunted. It was “likely” that women invented and supported the agricultural way of life, and therefore is the reason why they are associated with eating plants, loving plants, and loving the environment. 

But, “new evidence”—not stated from where or whom, claims that the ritual of hunting only began 20,000 so years ago out of several million years of human evolution, which therefore implies that humans were largely vegetarian. Then, the authors move on to how 11,000 years later, humans have decided to domesticate animals such as cattle (maybe not the animals they used to hunt, um like bears, buffalo, deer), which then transitioned to a more sedentary way of life. Because of this, “American cowboy culture” promoted hunting into herding. The more large and strong animals a man herded, the higher status he then had. While more agricultural and feminine societies protected and respected animals, humans, ahem, actually males, treated animals as commodity, means of wealth, and or pests. 

Then a random concept of religion got thrown into this information as well, which supposedly supports the “newfound domination” of man and nature. Maybe because majority of popular religion have a male, masculine god figure? Furthermore, according to ancient Egyptian religion or culture, the king would eat a bull that he worshipped every year to embody its strength, virility, and masculinity. Quite manly don’t you think?

Ecofeminist Perspectives on Meat and Patriarchy

Freeman and Merskin then provide the perceptions from those who support ecofeminism-vegetarian theory. Though the term “ecofeminism-vegetarian theory” seems pretty self explanatory, a definition of the concept would make the claims more efficient towards the general conclusion. Plus the presentation of such perceptions provide an obvious bias towards what/who they’re against, which would be fast food companies.

In a patriarchal world, which I’m assuming they’re referring to today’s US fast food businesses and their consumers, Adams, argues that women and animals continue to suffer objectification and consumption. Then, Sanday, another random person brought into the text without any introduction nor establishment of credibility, “found” that men don’t like egalitarian (agricultural based) economies because they basically tend to be ran by women. Now because of this and man’s historical instinct to consume meat, men in today’s more sedentary modern society feel the need to eat meat because eating vegetables is apparently feminine. In addition, a nutritionist found that this division of men and meat and women and vegetables, is present in modern day marriages. This division is just common because the anthropological history of men as hunters and women as gatherers. Therefore, in today’s world, men still have to eat animals to maintain their manhood, and women are still considered secondary because who wants to eat vegetables right?

Issues with the Meat and Fast-Food Industries

Continuing on, there are several problems with the US fast food industry. At first, one would think this section is about the lack of moral and ethics these industries have, which is presented. However, the end of the section concludes with a physician, Emily Senay, whom contends that no matter the health risks that come with consuming red meat, men will still eat steak every night if they wanted to. Though valid points are presented throughout the section, there’s quite a lack of evidence to support it.

Fast food companies condone low pay and labor exploitation, which means that they take advantage of those in need of a job, but pay the employees basically pennies for their work. Also, these companies apparently now market unhealthy and unsafe food, but to children. They also support mass animal cruelty and death, are the main cause of global warming, oh, and this is why the ADA (American Dietetic Association) suggest that in order to prevent disease (what specific disease? I don’t know), one should have a plant based diet.

There are quite some unsettling claims made under this specific topic. But the claims lack connection with the main conclusion (American fast food industry companies heavily advertise to their targeted male audience to consume meat; but in a way that is destructive to the social justice of women and animals, and negatively stereotypes men as essentially, dogs). Besides that, along side the claimed facts (labor exploitation, being the leading cause of global destruction, their menu items contribute to disease and obesity) there is no legitimate evidence to back it up. Like where are these facts even coming from and from who? But wait there’s more, “While census data on meat consumption are not segmented by gender, at least one study proves the common belief that men tend to eat more meat than women.”, and only 2.5% of Americans claim to be vegetarian. How is this statement even accurate if some random census data didn’t separate their evidence by gender, but calculated that men do actually eat more meat than women?

Constructions of Masculinity in Advertising

Let us continue with our analysis. “Script theory”, whatever that is, helps identify masculine character in fast food commercials. There are “three behavioral dispositions” US advertisements have to display: “entitlement to callous sex (hard sex? Unsympathetic sex? Careless sex?), propensity (susceptibility) toward violence and danger as exciting.” In further regards to advertising,  a research that was conducted in 1970 that still “has yet to be rebuked” states that men are autonomous, employed, and are used more often as authority, as opposed to women. Yet in today’s modern society, because of “new gender distinctions”, advertisers use violence, power, and control to establish a clear contrast between masculine and feminine. For example, beer advertising successfully demonstrates these masculine behaviors mentioned above by showing beer as a reward and token of camaraderie, initiation, and acceptance.

These statements really contrast each other. First of all, using beer as a symbol of male acceptance among other men, is not a quality of autonomy. Secondly, the scene does not display violence, entitlement to sex, control, nor danger. Then, a research that still has yet to be “rebuked” from several decades ago, is not reliable to describe today’s modern society. And besides vegetables, what is the opposite of masculinity? 

Codes of Masculinity

Finally, Freeman and Merkin identify these “codes”  and themes that are used quite often by fast food advertising to signify masculinity to their targeted consumers, whom are straight men. The themes further indicate how meat represents male freedom and “loyalty to the heterosexual male group identity”— which essentially is, pack mentality. Common themes are:

Voice overs and lead actors are always men, and when women are featured in commercials, they are silent roles and are presented as sexual objects to look at. Color schemes apparently signify masculinity— bright primary colors, greys and neutrals are used as opposed to soft pastels used in female advertising. When music is played, it is used to emphasize female sexuality—such as a guitar riff, and the lead singer of the music is always male. The commercials are also commonly set in “public spheres”, rarely in settings such as work or home— indicating freedom from nagging wives, girlfriends, mothers, health consequences, and essentially, responsibility. Violence is also implied in fast food advertisements, both either explicitly or implicitly, because men are always on the hunt to eat sandwiches and their hunting grounds are the fast food restaurants.

Though the themes do make some sense, some of the connections are quite outlandish. Especially when the authors claim that violence is always implied, the idea of fast food restaurants as hunting grounds is quite dramatic– so dramatic I had to laugh at the comparison. Also in regard to color themes, primary colors, greys, and neutrals don’t necessarily shout “masculinity”, who said females ONLY like pink…?

Conclusion

This long read was quite entertaining and eye opening. Through out the article the authors made interesting—yet several claims without presenting sufficient evidence. Then, whenever someone else’s input was used to reinforce their argument, I found myself asking, “Wait, who is this person? And what credibility do they have to contribute to this argument?”– which made additional presentation of evidence and statements not so effective. Additionally, because the authors made clear of their ecofeminist, pro vegetarian, environmentalist perceptions, the way they made their evidence and claims randomly connect with one another just made sense–in terms of coming from females. Throughout the reading I couldn’t help but think, “Well I can see why and where they are coming from because they did say that they were ecofeminist environmentalists.” But anyways, while many valid and interesting points are made, I wouldn’t say their entire article is completely inaccurate, but few points are still arguable.

Chapter 4

In continuation of Graff and Birkenstein’s, “They say I say”, chapter four discusses different ways to respond to a text. The previous chapters address giving the background of what someone else is saying, also known as the “they say” portion of a text. Doing this, presents an argument that now the author may respond to, bringing us to the “I say” part. The most common ways to respond to an argument or idea will be to either agree, disagree, or both. The goal to establishing the general response is to let the reader know where the author stands.

Disagreeing with a text

Disagreeing seems to be the simpler technique right? Not entirely. Disagreeing uses a large sense of critical thinking, of course. The author has to do more than just disagree with an argument, view, or idea. They must also provide a persuasive explanation to why disagreeing is valid or correct. For example, referenced directly from Graff and Birkenstein, the counter statement, “Women’s rights are not improving.” Such a “dull explanatory response” fails to add anything interesting nor new, rendering it useless to even read. Readers don’t want no boring sh*t! The author need to bring relevant factors (that are based on inaccurate, insufficient evidence) to attention. Factors such as questionable assumptions, proof that a statement uses flawed logic, counter evidence, essentially, make it juicy. To move a conversation or argument forward, the author must bring something to contribute. In general, if you’re going to start an intellectual argument, make it interesting, please.

One move that Graff and Birkenstein introduce is the “duh” move. The “Duh, you JUST figured that out right now?” Type of vibe. This is one technique to disagree by first agreeing with evidence, but then adding a twist of logic in a way that it supports the author’s contrary position. This gives me the “Um, you just contradicted yourself. Allow me to explain it to you.” Using Graff and Birkenstein’s example, “X argues for stricter gun laws because of the rise in crime….”, here’s the twist, “That’s precisely why we need guns to protect ourselves from the criminals.”. First, the author agrees that yes, there is a rise in crime, then argues that because of that increase, it is in fact valid to oppose the need for stricter gun regulations so that the community may protect themselves.

Of course writers may be afraid to disagree to a text, because who wants to be vulnerable to being proved wrong, or be disagreed with? I would agree to this because there are authors out there that will tear my words to shred. However, in the realm of writing and intellectual conversations, there is a given respect that writers have for one another, or so I would hope, according to Graff and Birkenstein. How can your questions be answered if one doesn’t ask them? The point of mentioning disagreements or bringing questions to light is to have them answered, spread awareness, promote casual, civil debates over text. I mean, that’s the point of writing right? To share the fascinating cognition and perceptions of human beings amongst one another. However, don’t allow arguments take form of “personal putdowns”, according to Graff and Birkenstein. In my own words, when assessing what another author expresses why they disagree with you, take what you need, leave out the rest.

Agreeing with a text

As mentioned before, agreeing seems easy too, however the author needs to do more than “mirror” that they agree with a statement, idea, or argument. When agreeing with a text, this is where another writer may point out evidence or logic that further supports the author’s claim that they failed to mention. I like to think of it like having another pair of eyes to support you. Agreeing may also provide further understanding that could help other readers. Graff and Birkenstein also make clear that there is no reason to fear being unoriginal when agreeing, it’s good that others can agree and provide credibility to another’s writing, but don’t be a mere “copycat” or “bandwagon”. Lastly, keep in mind when agreeing with one’s text, you are also disagreeing with someone else.

Graff and Birkenstein’s “favorite way of responding” is to agree and disagree, simultaneously. This is when the author agrees or disagrees, but up to a certain point. Then the writer can lean more towards one or the other, making the argument complex and interesting in its own way. 

Another way to agree and disagree at the same time is the, “I am of two minds”, or “having mixed feelings”, type of move. This technique can become especially useful when responding to new or challenging information. Instead of decisively choosing for or against an argument, this provides a “speculative investigation” of weighing out pros and cons. Whichever more the writer is leaning towards, I guess a basic rule of thumb is to simply be clear as possible.

Now, there is the case when writers are undecided about a text. Graff and Birkenstein express that it is common that writers become reluctant when expressing ambivalence because it makes them come off as unsure of themselves, wishy washy, or that it is frustrating to readers. Not to fret though, because declaring mixed feelings “can be impressive” in the world of academic writing. I guess in a way it makes reinforces one’s position as their own sophisticated person because not they cannot be persuaded to one’s side or another after assessing particular contradicting positions.

Chapter 5

The previous chapters have discussed how to present an argument and respond to one. Now, the next step, is ensure that readers are able to distinguish who is saying what. Graff and Birkenstein introduce “voice markers” or “voice-identifying devices” to smoothly move from “they say”, to “I say”. In other words, when the audience can clearly identify when the writer is expressing the writer’s view and when they are stating or quoting someone else’s view, it avoids confusion.

Other than using really obvious voice markers, another way to present a “they say”, is to embed the quote into the author’s statement. This technique is a “smooth” way to present someone else’s quote smoothly, and without having to write unnecessary, tedious sentences. Using their example:

Earlier in this chapter, we coined the term “voice markers”. We would argue that such markers are extremely important for reading comprehension.

We would argue that “voice markers” as we identified them earlier, are extremely important for reading comprehension.

The next concept presented in this chapter is to use “I”. It is common advice to never use first person in academic writing, for it promotes a subjective opinion rather than an objective argument. Just use it. Just use “I”. “Well supported arguments are grounded on persuasive reasons and evidence”, no matter what person (first person, third person, etc.) the author chooses to write in. Feel free to use “I”, but avoid being monotonous throughout the argument.

Chapter 6

“Planting a Naysayer in Your text”, now what does that mean exactly? 

Another concept to incorporate in writing, is to use what you can to your advantage, and that implies, anticipated criticism. Giving voice to possible naysayers make one’s writing more interesting and better yet, stronger. Graff and Birkenstein urge writers to bring possible objections and or opposing arguments to enhance their credibility. The more open one is to possible objections, and the more voice and presence the writer presents from the naysayers, it gives the writer the opportunity to disarm them in convincing ways. Doing so, entertains the counter arguments, respectfully, of course. I mean that’s what writing is basically about, right? Creatively and openly conversing about diverse perceptions about anything. Plus, it helps writers hit or even exceed page minimums.

Chapter 7

Now the end goal of writing a text is essentially, convince the audience why they should care. To efficiently do so, writers must directly ask, “Who cares? Why does my argument matter?”, then address both questions as a whole, and identify such reasons, explicitly. You don’t want to lose the audience, and you don’t want them meandering around the text wondering, “so what’s the point, why does this even matter?” Furthermore, as a writer you should know your audience, and should predict what may already appeal to them. Doing so will make it easier to establish why, the claims of the writer, matters.

What did I learn? Questions?

As I noticed the closer to the end of this assignment I got, the shorter my responses had gotten. However, I did learn quite a lot these few chapters. One is to never hesitate to reference an opposing text or statements, for incorporating them establishes further credibility to the writer and opportunity to convince the audience otherwise. Another was that when choosing a response to a text, disagreeing and or agreeing both seem easy, but each have their own complexity. Do I have any questions? No.

The chapter Evidence, in Kathryn Schultz’s book “Being Wrong”, thoroughly describes how evidence is central to human cognition (way of thinking). Evidence takes huge part—if not, is the utmost, defining aspect of forming personal perceptions, beliefs, and or theories about the world. Shultz introduces a series of situations and defined concepts to illustrate, that in order for one’s theories to be the most accurate and fair, they must have a fair and consistent relationship with evidence. Through using this model of cognitive thinking, defined as “Inductive Reasoning” although brilliant at times, it has quite some weaknesses that we should be aware of, and therefore can use this model better.

Before we begin, let us define a few terms.

What are …?

Beliefs- One’s acceptance that a statement or concept is true and or exists.

Theory- A collection of ideas which describe and or justify an action or subject.

Evidence- A body of facts, confirmation, or “proof” that something is true and valid.

Counter evidence- Evidence which contradicts evidence, a hypothesis or claim.

To bring us to Shultz’s first concept, evidence is central to human way of thinking, and consequently, creates beliefs. This means that from womb to tomb, humans gather such evidence accordingly to form who they are as a person. Such gathered evidence can be defined as human experiences, such as feelings, senses, and learning from an environment.

Evidence is also central to institutional entities: public entities such as politics, science, journalism, and medicine. Each institution has their own specific way to gather and evaluate evidence— to bring them to a final conclusion.

Now how exactly do we arrive to a conclusion? Neuroscientist Rebecca Saxe, emphasizes that humans share this standard that beliefs are formed after a logical, objective assessment of facts. However, by “rough consensus”, even though this is how we should form our beliefs, we don’t actually do so— assess enough evidence objectively. In addition to this, French philosopher, Descartes, defined such as, “error”, not believing something that is not true, but to believe something based on insufficient evidence.

The model of thinking we do follow however, is defined as “inductive reasoning”, and operates quite poorly. Unlike Descartes, humans are not interested in whether or not we possess qualitative nor quantitative evidence, but rather if the presented evidence supports one conclusion (our own) better than the other. This presents the weakness of this human cognitive operating system—a series of biases, and therefore, presents us to the fact that drawing conclusions through induction is untrustworthy and prone to error.

To first and foremost demonstrate a weakness of I.R. (inductive reasoning) and how one does not necessarily gather enough evidence, take the aspect of learning the English language. The theory that one adds the suffix “-ed” to create a past-tense verb is brilliant, one would think—at first. Then they infer through inductive reasoning that the past tense of “drink” is “drinked”, “run” is “runned”, “think” is “thinked”, so on and so forth. Believing a theory based on insufficient evidence clearly illustrates Descartes’s definition of “error”. This specific example is assumed that one learned the basis of English within their household. This situation is considered quite trivial and insignificant, but this system of predictable bias, also known as, “choosing the best guess” has its shortcomings.

The brings Schultz to another representation of “predictable bias” and more specifically, how it can cause complete embarrassment of to our self-image as reasonable “ideal thinkers”. Lawyer Don Leka hosted a volunteer event to help a PTA fundraiser. Don commenced a legal advice booth, charging 25 cents (I’m assuming per piece of advice or per inquirer?). He then became “alarmed” when a guest had advised him that they received medical legal advice about a healthcare issue, from “Jim’s wife” (where did Jim come from and who is he, I have no idea). Having staffed his council accordingly with only his colleagues, Don was concerned with the fact that “people’s wives were just going around giving advice”- despite the lighthearted-ness of the fundraiser event. As soon as he could, he located Jim and filled him in about what his wife was doing, to then be informed (I’d assume rather defensively), that Jim’s wife was general counsel of the largest HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) in the city. How embarrassing huh? Don’s conclusion was unfortunate and inaccurate, all thanks to inductive reasoning and the lack of sufficient evidence. This clearly demonstrates the method’s untrustworthiness. Now what led him to execute such a conclusion? Don’s prior experience and evidence— or lack there of. He went to Harvard Law with 525 classmates, and out of the 525 students, only 5%—approximately 26 of them were female. In continuation of Don’s predictable bias, inductive reasoning produces stereotypes, and pertaining to his experience, he made a sexist one.

This brings Schultz to the next concept of “confirmation bias”. “Although small amounts of evidence are sufficient to make us draw conclusions, they are seldom sufficient to make us revise them.” Elizabeth O’Donovan got into an argument with her friend about whether or not Orion was a winter constellation. Elizabeth insisted that it was a summer constellation; since “everyone knows that every 52 years Orion appears for 18 months (1 year and a half) straight. The “embarrassing part” she stated, was that during the conversation— or let us say argument—she pointed out Orion in the sky, and during this time it was December. “Hm that’s weird, Orion is a summer constellation”. One would believe Elizabeth would have “revised” her claim, but she did not. She instead insisted that, “..it was some sort of crazy astronomical phenomenon.” 

Then, there are instances when one is confronted with counter evidence, we see it and acknowledge it just fine, however we decide (either consciously or unconsciously) that is absolutely holds no weight or ability to change our beliefs. A case which reinforces this was The Copernican Revolution. During this revolution, astronomers began to observe and record the heavens, or the skies. They noticed new stars appearing and disappearing, these discoveries shocked the Church community, they “went reeling”. Copernicus’s model of “the heavens” greatly contrasted Christianity’s belief that it is eternal and unchanging. This is a similar case to Elizabeth’s. Sometimes when we encounter counter evidence, we refuse to see it, or we simply disregard it.

Another example confirmation bias is the Iraq War. Directly quoted from Shultz’s chapter, “…when conditions on the ground were plainly deteriorating,” President George W Bush argued otherwise, by stating that the increased violence in Iraq was somehow the nation’s frustration with America’s success.

A final example, the killing of seven onboard astronauts of the space shuttle, Columbia. They insisted (I’m assuming NASA) that the damage on the space shuttle was proof of the aircraft’s ability to withstand the damage it did, rather than the damage being a design flaw. As we see here, this is what we do when contrasting evidence is presented to one’s theory— we then use the counter evidence to reinforce the preferable existing belief; furthermore, President Bush, NASA, and Elizabeth considered the counter evidence as “The exception proves the rule” or “Despite this counter evidence, it still proves my theory.”

The first thinker to grasp both the significance and limitations of “Inductive Reasoning” was famous philosopher, David Hume. While inductive reasoning of course having strengths, it has weaknesses—which is what one should focus and improve on. In turn, this will save us from committing error, embarrassing ourselves and our ideal of a reasonable thinker,  and avoid cognitive stubbornness from rejection of contrasting evidence.

“Don’t watch too much TV, it’s bad for you!”, my mother would always protest as I was doe eyed, lost in a gaze, completely consumed into whatever TV show or commercial airing at the moment. Until recently, I had never taken into account why exactly she has always told me this. In chapter four of Perception and Language Issues in the Mass Media, the author demonstrates how mass media, such as the radio, newspaper, music, the internet, advertisement, and of course television, use factors of perception and various mental processing models to cater to their specific audiences. On account of this, society (the potential audience), is greatly influenced in many ways, but certainly may become dissonant and negatively manipulated by the mass media. 

First and foremost, the formation and development of one’s perception is remarkably unique and extremely manipulative. Dependent on various psychological factors such as one’s assumptions, culture and family upbringing, previous experiences, personal mood and motives; perception is strictly exclusive and unique to each individual. 

Psychologist and visual physiologist Adelbert Ames Jr.,  demonstrates that one concept of perception is based on prior assumptions and experiences, with the monocular distorted room. In reference to the illusion, because the observer assumes that the room appears to be an ordinary room, one person in one corner appears to be very large, while the other person in the next corner is very small. The assumption is made because of prior experience with other rooms. As the two people switch corners, one will appear to grow larger as the other shrinks, right before the observer’s eyes.

Cultural background is also a very preeminent influence on one’s perspective. A study conducted with Mexican and American subjects, reported evidence that when shown pictures of common spectator scenes, the subjects seemed to only recognize and distinguish scenes from their own culture rather than an unfamiliar one. The two scenes presented were a baseball game and a bullfighting setting. The images were presented with a binocular-like device, an image seen by one eye, and the other image seen by another, forming a mixture of both scenes.

Another concept that affects perception is personal motive and mood. American psychologists McClelland and Atinkson developed theories that, we humans, have natural motivations (needs and wants) to attain personal purpose in life. Those three motivations are the need to achieve, have affiliations, and last but not least, power. Perception is influenced greatly on these paramount qualities because not only will the individual understand presented ideas in accordance with their needs and motives, but they will change their perception and take action in order to achieve their needs and personal motives. A specific personal motive McClelland and Atinkson investigated was hunger. In their experiment the subject groups were deprived of food– one group for 16 hours, another for 4 hours, and the last, 1 hour. The subjects were exposed to image slides, but only faintly visible– if not at all. The concept of the test was to examine the subject’s ability to respond to visual stimulations with different lengths of food deprivation. Results showed that food related responses increased along with the hours of food deprivation. Because of this, a physical motive, such as hunger, influences one’s perception of ideas. Another experiment, subjects were put in different moods before describing a picture. As their mood changed, the picture presented was the same from before, however, the descriptions for the pictures were extraordinarily different according to the mood they were intentionally put in. This further proves that mood also has a vast importance in one’s perception. 

Mass communicators combine these various factors of perceptions and mental processing greatly to sustain their audiences. Now the question is, how do they execute these principles with what they broadcast? Quite subliminally and more manipulative  than one would think. In Dr. Rimal’s articulately written article, Media Campaigns and Perceptions of Reality, the concept of the false consensus effect is demonstrated. This concept essentially declares that society tends to conform rather easily– more so reluctantly– about a certain idea because they think others will as well. This specifically goes hand in hand with one principle of McClelland’s Motivation Theory– that human beings have the natural motivation to be affiliated, socially accepted, and will go along with what the others (specifically a larger group) wants to do. Because humans are so easy to conform and have the desire to be affiliated and accepted with one another, mass media take the principles in consideration to for example, advertise companies to shop from and air ideas, such as lifestyle norms, they want society to accept and become familiar to.

Now of course with various developments and forms of perception, mass media also has the capability to cause their audience (society) to divide– just as easily. Individuals have the tendency to expose themselves to certain communications in mass media only according to what agrees with their existing perception (their culture, experiences, mood, personal motives, etc.). This principle is referred to as selective exposure. This not only causes the audience to become dissonant, but because they choose to only observe ideas according to their preexisting beliefs and way of thinking, this causes a divide in society. Then comes the following principles of selective attention and selective retention. Selective attention is the concept that an individual only pays attention to content that already supports their perception and beliefs. Selective retention is when an individual will only recall information according to their existing perception. Because individuals tend to close their mental horizon (intentionally or not intentionally), this then causes a divide in the society.

In conclusion, I now have a better understanding of why I was told that “watching too much TV is bad” for me. It’s not the act of watching television, but more so the messages and misunderstood messages that mass media broadcasts. With such a diverse and multicultural society, mass media have little to no control over intended perceptions of what they air, whether it be products, ideas,  various company advertisements and commercials, and lastly, entertainment, such as shows and movies. Mass media may have control over how explicit and aired content can be, but definitely not general takeaway the audience may have. Along with various mental selective processes that our minds have, society executes these messages they are exposed to (or choose to be exposed to) according to their own needs and wants, and that is how society becomes dissonant and may divide amongst itself.

Disclaimer: This piece is not by any means to offend any of my readers. The term mentioned throughout this text is still acknowledged to be controversial concerning who can and cannot use it, and whether or not the word should be used at all. I, as the writer, am not entitling myself to be an individual allowed to use this term. The purpose is simply to share the ideas, research, and history I have found, and to further ask questions concerning its use.

Everyone has at least heard this quote at least once in their life, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. A widely known quote which reinforces the idea that physical matters may hurt us, however, words will not. Although many will agree with this idea, others will argue that words are in fact, very powerful in which the language, context, and tone one chooses to use– and therefore, can absolutely hurt. In our constantly evolving world of communication, language has either united us with one another, or it has completely destroyed and divided us. In regards to such opposing principles, who is solely to decide who can and cannot use certain language? Furthermore, is it exclusively a person’s capacity to decide whether or not language, or more specifically, a word, can insult them?

After meticulous and diligent research, there are a great number of interesting, opposing perceptions about the term “nigga” –a progressively used slang term which seems to be casually used in today’s American Millenial language. Exposure of this term is incredibly predominant in today’s hip hop and rap, and even more so in the infinite world of social media. While newer generations are seemingly conditioned to perceive “nigga” more as a term of casual slang and endearment, others view such as a derogatory racial slur.

In regards to the historical origin of the word “nigga”, it is a newly spelled, “desensitized” version of its derivative, “nigger”. As mentioned in chapter 15 of Jabari Asim’s The N Word, who can say the word, who shouldn’t and why, there are many warring ideals behind the new spelling. By taking a word that had once oppressed, degraded, and held many negative connotations towards African Americans; and turning the insult into affection gives the colored community immense empowerment. Advocated by Mos Def, a well known American rapper and activist, such logic behind the new spelling turns the word “nigga” into a term of endearment and comederie. Another significant contributor to this epochal shift is hip hop’s introduction of “gangsta rap”. Rap legends N.W.A. and Tupac Shakur gave the term a new and positive connotation. The word was acronymed into “Never Ignorant, Getting Goals Accomplished”, giving it a positive spin. By the same token, is the word “nigga” analoguos to the term queer or gay? If we can use the word many times that it becomes normal and are frequently exposed to it (via social media and songs on broadcast radio), may others– by others I mean non-blacks– use its empowerment as well without any consequences?  

In fact, even in hip hop’s community, not all artists even see a distinction between its origin and new spelling (nigger vs nigga). Davey D, a respected hip hop artist and historian, enforces “The use of the word with either spelling is disparaging.” Other socially conscious rappers such as Common and Lauryn Hill, use the hip hop and rap platform to address and further educate touchy issues of black inferiority such as city poverty and racial discrimination, as opposed to N.W.A.’s odes of urban dysfunction: gang culture, extreme violence, drug trafficking, sexual activity, pimping (sex trafficking), prison references, and police oppression. This shows that even beloved Tupac’s –a very well respected African American artist–  clever acronym in attempt to remove the negative connotation, triggers equal amounts of attraction but still yet, repulsion in the black community.

Apart from mentioned above, who gets the responsibility to decide whether or not this term shall be used or not, and furthermore, by who? A sketch featured on Dave Chapelle’s show demonstrates the difference between the word “nigga” and numerous other racial epithets that have transitioned into today’s modern launguage. As exaggerated the performance was, he essentially asserts that any other racial term such as “honkey” or “cracker”, (in reference to Chapelle’s sketch) has “No tradition of racial folklore grounded on centuries on instinct, habit, and thought”. Therefore, anyone at all using the newly found slang– without the awareness and or consideration of African American history– are being flat out disrespectful, and absolutely have no right to use it. Other writers such as Paul Beatty further affirms Chapelle’s perception; he reiterates the word is, “A symbol of this nation’s failure to make unsatisfactory amends for its long tradition of racial injustice”. Another African American figure, David Sylvester, strongly contends that he blames himself and other African Americans for using and allowing the word in everyday, casual conversation, “We are wrong, there is no justification for an infraction of this magnitude. The word and sentiment are flat out wrong. We have denigrated and degraded ourselves to the point that our backwards mindset has spread out like a cancer and infected our source, our brothers, our sisters, our Motherland.” “A sensible rule is that blacks can use the word and white people can’t.”, John McWhorter declares from his article from The Atlantic.

Now, how can we as a nation make it up to our fellow African American population? Additionally, what may be the solution when there are opposing views of their own people of descent saying it? One would think that perhaps complete elimination of the word will alleviate tensions as well as rid the slur confusion amongst our nation. We should wipe the entire words existence along with its history right? Poof, it all goes away? One would think it is realistic to initiate such activism, however, this would require complete unanimity across the entire minority. With what was mentioned during previous paragraphs, is this possible with such diverse black reaction towards this word’s usage? Furthermore, would this mean that Tupac, Stevie Wonder, and N.W.A., and other artists’ work will be entirely dismissed– all of who have skillfully delivered the epithet in positive connotation in the history of rap and hip hop?

While our younger generation of society– including those who are black– proceed along heedlessly with the word “nigga”, others advocate to forbid such inappropriate and foul use; for that it threatens the black legacy that brought them to existence. This is quite paradoxical, wouldn’t one think? Attempting to transform a term– (not even the exact word) into a term of endearment and or camaraderie– that once greatly demeaned their entire existence, however not having the willingness to to evolve beyond its history of racial injustice. How can we live in like-mindedness while America’s once distorted image of the African American man, forever lives in the heart of the black man– or even more frightening, remaining in  the heart of the white man as well? 

Consolidating all viewpoints and research above brings me to my final question, why haven’t such amends been made? Why must we all be shackled and unbudgeable to corrupt white delusion? This term sparked my interest because of its unique use. Yes, those may consider it a racial slur, but what’s different is that African people today refer to it as a lingo of endearment and sentiment. In contrast, those of Asian descent, specifically myself, we don’t use the term “chink”, “gook”, “flip”– the list goes on, as applicable to any ethnicity– when addressing our own people. It’s just unique, different, and just a small example that language is powerfully complex, yet very fragile to its audience, and not universal. 

In conclusion, the connection with language today and opposing views of use is that human beings as a society do deeply long for understanding, clear communication,  and reconciliation– but what can we do to address this issue that our forebears have left unresolved? We, as the United States pride ourselves so strongly as being a “melting pot”– land of the most diverse and most importantly, the Free. Very strongly conditioned to love, respect, and pride in who we are, however we are so segregated by this illusion of racial hierarchy and exclusivity of language use.

English and Composition used to be my most favorite subject. Then later it became my worst, most despised. Now here I am again, falling in love with the art all over again.

The very first memories I have of reading brings me to the flashbacks of my mother and I reading printed flashcards of introductory words such as ‘the, then, when, why’, and so forth. This was an intimate nightly ritual she and I shared every night before bed. I am pretty sure the very first words I was able to comprehend outside of home were Farm Fresh, Burger King, and Chesapeake General Hospital; all of which are within walking distance of our home. Then of course the all time classic books her and my father would read to me–Dr. Suess’s colorful, delightful, and playful rhyming books. Remember, “Green Eggs and Ham”, “One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish”, or perhaps “The Cat in the Hat”? My love for reading was flourishing every day. Watching educational shows like ‘Reading Rainbow’ on PBS for hours and playing Reader Rabbit on the computer also quickly became my childhood growing up.

Before I could learn to actually write, I would doodle cursive-like scribbles all over papers and notebooks I could find. I enjoyed pretending that I was writing scholarly letters. My “office” was a blue Fisher Price or Little Tike desk with a yellow plastic chair for me to sit on and brainstorm. My desk was surrounded by my parents’ nursing books and college material. My dad had a collection of maroon and gold paged encyclopedias upon his bookshelf, this was of course, before the time of internet dialup and Wikipedia, which I would carry around the house along with a notebook, pretending that I had homework to get done.

I then attended B.M. William Primary School in Chesapeake, Virginia. There was a schoolwide competitive reading comprehension program amongst all students which consisted of reading books from their database, followed by a test on each book completed, and depending on how well you tested on that particular book, it then resulted each student with their own accumulation of points. Up until 2nd grade was when my reading skills had truly flourished. Naturally being competitive, along with the desire to please and have my parent’s approval, I achieved the highest amount of books read, tested, and points accumulated, schoolwide! Each milestone was presented with an award; I received ribbons starting from 20 points, 50 points, 100, and ended with my high score of over 500. Hearing my name announced on the intercom was one of the most rewarding feelings as a child. I fell in love especially reading Junie B. Jones, The Berenstain Bears, and Frog and Toad. 

Writing was an absolute forte and sense of comfort at the time as well. My first artifact of early writing was a diary. If only I could recall what movie or show started my “Dear Diary…” phase. I loved writing stories and elaborating about my feelings and days. I loved making self reminding notes of tasks and activities I wished to complete. My second grade teacher I remember in particular, Mrs. Dodson, would praise how much I was able to produce pages of ideas according to whatever subject she had assigned the class to creatively write about. I honestly can’t recall what about though. The fire was so real as far as I could say. I excelled in spelling tests and grammar, and had been one of the first and only students in my class who had enjoyed writing in cursive as well.

Now when I moved to Las Vegas, I feel like that was when my love for education had truly gone downhill. I also became the eldest of two younger sisters, which then meant my parents’ attention and praise was no longer on me. From the first years of middleschool up until my last highschool years was when my love for education, and specifically skills in reading and writing, had its downward spiral, which then ended with a crash. Now don’t you mistake this for some tragic story, there’s light at the end of this tunnel, I promise! Allow me to continue…

Now during my years of middle school, my drive for learning just went down into a spiral, especially reading and writing. I then dreaded essays, reading assigned novels throughout the semester, and what was once creative ‘Dear Diary’ entries quickly became resentful “I hate my parents” monologues. My parents were then working quite a lot, which led to me being secluded most of the time and unable to emotionally rely on them. Lack of social interaction as well caused my creativity to diminish. I no longer had the excitement of expressing my ideas and feelings. I was eventually no longer emotionally present in my entries either, the relationship between my parents and I had been victim to the classic adolescent “rebellious” phase. My privacy was also violated as well, as a vividly recall overhearing my mother reveal to my father what I had written about my first experiences with boys. Excuse me while I cringe. *Shiver*

Now that I’m a little bit older I have overcome such issues of the past. As I have carefully thought out my relationship with writing, I now have a different mindset and goal concerning my educational future and capability in composition. I believe now my strengths are in formal, objective, informative writing. I seem to have comfortability explaining things in a chronological order. My goal now is to be able to creatively respond to scholarly articles with such eloquence, creativity, and unique voice. I desire to become more verbally capable and conversational, capable of comprehending college level readings and or beyond. As far as writing technology goes, before, my go to writing utensil used to be the pencil, I hated using pens and ink. Now, the tables have turned and I always prefer the pen over pencil! I religiously use my agenda to carefully organize and visualize my plans throughout the month, I write daily affirmations and “I am grateful for” monologues, and lastly I have my new Macbook Air to help me efficiently express my thoughts, along with the use of the handy thesaurus and dictionary. Writing has once again become my therapy and sense of comfort. I still owe it to my mother for first teaching me how to read and master my penmanship, and in regards to the future, I hope to evolve my way of thinking and writing style to take me beyond my skills and comprehension.

We, as human beings, have a natural desire to be loved, adored, and socially accepted. According to Dr. Rajiv N Rimal, his well written article, Media Campaigns and Perceptions of Reality, he observes that we as a society, like to think and act accordingly to how others expect us to– but how accurate are we actually? Furthermore, yes, we are a society based on acceptance, but where do we base our ideal, acceptable presentations of ourselves off of? The most prominent and ever evolving– social media campaign and advertisements. Rimal thoroughly presents five patterns of common misperceptions– pluralistic ignorance, the false consensus effect, the third-person effect, influence of presumed influence, and lastly, optimistic bias. These principles correlate directly with how we, as a society, view and execute the “ideal” social norm that we desire so badly to follow. But what is everyone thinking? How do we accurately perceive how other people want us to be and act like?

First and foremost, I had to define the differences between perception and reality. Here are Googled dictionary terms of the two.

Perception – a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something. A mental impression

Reality – the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Now this is to say that perception literally varies from person to person. One’s own beliefs, upbringing, experiences, prior knowledge, and self-interests factor into their perception. Each individual has their own one of a kind lens they view anything and everything through. Reality is the absolute state that it exists, not easily influenced, if not at all. Now because of this, perception is not reality, but more so can become one’s reality. One occurs within the mind, the other occurs outside. But what is even real anyway? *Shrugs shoulders*

What do these two terms have to do with how us human beings choose how we want to be around one another? In Dr. Rimal’s view, people are actually not as accurate as they think when it comes to knowing how others want them to act. This introduces us to his first principle, pluralistic ignorance. As first articulated by Allport (1942), it is “the tendency of people to underestimate the public support for the norms deemed to be socially desirable”. This essentially means that people tend to conform easily– more so reluctantly, about a certain idea because they think it is what others want as well, but in reality, not really. This immediately made me think of peer pressure– I’ll just do it because everyone else is doing it, but do I really want to– no. Another mechanism that boosts pluralistic ignorance is the frequency a person is exposed to a certain idea via social media. Let’s take e-cigarettes for instance, smoking, as well as the inhalation or basically consumption of nicotine is detrimental to our respiratory health, however we see endless commercials and advertisements of the newest e-cigarette pen on the market. Because we see several commercials throughout our day of how others seemingly enjoy using it, now it is socially acceptable for you to have one too. 

The second principle Rimal asserts is the false consensus effect. Very similar to pluralistic ignorance, however they are different in that the false consensus effect is the tendency to believe that others are in support or share the same values, attitude, morals, and or behavior. It is also thought to be a special form of social projection– when one’s way of thinking or behaviors are validated by expecting others to accept or follow. Why do people tend to do this? Because of our human nature to want to be accepted and appealing to others. An example that I could think of in relative terms of social media is when a group of male friends are together at the gym to workout. They are all three in a happy committed relationship. One out of the group points out a very attractive girl he notices working out nearby and comments, “Check this hot chick out, I’m going to ask for her Instagram”. As his two other friends demonstrate complete disinterest to join his sightseeing, he then retorts, “It’s okay to just look, it doesn’t mean anything,”. This is an example of the false consensus effect because one of the group believes that it is completely normal to demonstrate such behavior when in reality, the rest of the group were not for it.

The third principle that is presented is the third person effect. This occurs when a person believes that he or she is less susceptible to social media influence. As referenced directly from Dr. Rimal, the concern of censoring explicit content, such as pornography, because of the detrimental effects it may have on children because of their lack of mental capability to remain unharmed by such content. As opposed to a teenager? Anyways, the third person effect arises because one person believes that they will not experience that particular negative effect in comparison with others. This ties in hand with social media because if you really think about it, how many times do you hear and or see the same commercial on Youtube or Pandora? “Like a good neighbor Statefarm is there”, or “ARBY’S we have the meats”. How frequently are you exposed to their commercials? It’s like, you would never think you’d cave in to Statefarm’s silly little saying, then poof! Oh hey guys you should totally buy insurance from Statefarm because, “Like a good neighbor, Statefarm is actually there!”

Let us continue. Influence of presumed influence is the concept that those that are in fact influenced by the media, modify their behavior towards those they think have been influenced as well. If I could put this in the most simple terms, to me it sounds like monkey see, monkey do. Fashion is the simplest example that I can personally think of. If I see on my social media my friend follows a Fashion Nova brand ambassador, I am going to believe she shops from them, and intuitively I am going to wear Fashion Nova clothes too. It’s just a never ending circle of systematic trends that could rise at any time. Remember when planking was a thing?

Lastly, optimistic bias. As further explained by Dr. Rimal, this is the principle that a person has a tendency to view themselves less vulnerable to negative experiences or illnesses unless it is deemed entirely uncontrollable. This seems to be most prevalent in health domains. It’s like um no, I’m just as susceptible to AIDS just as much as anyone else. One person may not get it sexually, but perhaps they came across the wrong person and got stabbed by an object that happened to contain dirty fluids. Who knows. 

Now putting all of these previously mentioned principles together, how does social media, perception, reality, and how society behaves have anything to do with each other? In this day and age, literally EVERYTHING. We easily conform to the ‘social norms’ because of what we’re exposed to on a day by day basis. Instagram, Facebook, Youtube ads, television series on Netflix and Hulu, Disney movies we have known since kids, the list just goes on. Besides trends, it goes even deeper in society. How we eat, how we live, how we relationship, where to shop, how to treat one another, how we should live our lives basically! The point of social media is to capture a specific audience and their dynamic to brainwash them in believing in a perspective of that entity’s choosing. Because society is so dynamically different, perceptions are extremely sensitive to this constant exposure. Not to mention technology is continually evolving to become more and more invasive in our human lives. In entirety, social media groups easily distort our perceptions of reality to any reality of their choosing, which then results in the five principles Dr. Rimal has presented. Social media companies inhumanely thrive financially off our human nature to want to be socially accepted and validated, which brings me to my title, Global brainwashing.

Chapter 1: “They say”

Entering the Conversation

In the introduction of “They say, I say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein introduce core components to help one become a stronger writer. Many inexperienced writers have trouble eloquently expressing their thoughts and ideas simply because they are unsure how to, and due to the traditional setup of writing essays–with only a thesis statement followed by logical facts and evidence. The key point that Graff and Birkenstein reiterate are presented as user friendly templates; establishing technique to help the less experienced writer effectively communicate their ideas across to their audience by responding to what “they say”.  While some instructors and students argue these templates are formula like and take away originality and creativity from writing, Graff and Birkenstein advocate that simply when their concepts are put into practice, they can become familiar to the writer. Once comfortable, their technique will be further utilized and creatively improvised naturally.

One of the first and foremost principles Graff and Birkenstein introduce is to identify and summarize what “they are saying”. Traditionally, students are under the impression that academic writing simply consists of regurgitating a thesis statement followed by monotonous supporting evidence. This misconception causes the audience to lose interest in the topic and then ask, “Why is the speaker telling me this?” or “Okay.. so? And?”. The answer is that if the writer doesn’t clearly establish what the larger conversation he or she is responding to, there is no point to why the following statements are being presented. In other words, a quote, argument, statement, or debate must be summarized and introduced first, then the reader must present their own view about that particular subject promptly after. Then the writer can summarize in detail why he or she supports or opposes the argument. This will avoid losing the reader’s interest, and doing so will allow your audience to understand and follow the details and upcoming elaboration throughout the text.

Another principle mentioned is to remind your reader with “return sentences” strategically throughout the paper to reinforce the point that you are making. Without doing so, the longer and more complicated the text is, the reader may get lost in the details and summarizing of such, and in result, forgetting the main motivations that were mentioned in the beginning, no matter how clear or transparent they are. Keeping what “they say” in view, the reader will be reminded of the main message or point the writer is trying to get across.

What I learned: This book has so far been an interesting read for me, considering the fact that English and writing has never been my favorite or strongest subject. However, I did learn quite a lot reading the preface, introduction, and first chapter. I learned that argumentative academic writing is in fact conversational, and that is how creativity is produced. It is in human nature to respond to ideas, and it’s easy for me to say as a woman since we are naturally so word and opinion driven. I also learned the different ways of starting your writing. The different templates helped and gave me a clearer insight on how easy it is to improvise on your own after practice of using Graff and Birkenstein’s technique. Good stuff.

Chapter 2: “Her point is” 

The Art of Summarizing

In chapter 2 of “They say, I say” Graff and Birkenstein further educate that in order to argue persuasively, the conversation being responded to must first be summarized and paraphrased. To avoid bias and compromising the writer’s credibility, the audience should not being able to tell the writer’s position. Simply said, to write a very good summary, you must see the argument from their perspective first–without summarizing the topic too much that they lose their own voice during the process. According to writing professor Karen Lunsford, a concise one or two sentence summary should suffice. However, if there are several points and supporting claims in the initial summary, the writer must do so in an organized list format manner.  After telling the readers enough about the argument, it is incredibly important to then finally focus all the points mentioned around the overall main concern and or claim being exerted by the writer. 

Another way to present the initial conversation the writer is responding to is by ‘summarizing satirically’. This is an exception to what was previously mentioned; one can utilize satire as an effective form of critique because the summarized argument will denounce itself without having the writer to overly restate what “they say”.

Lastly, Graff and Birkenstein suggest the use of signal verbs are fairly significant in argumentative and persuasive academic writing. Replacing “he or she believes” or “says” with signal verbs like “protests”, “challenges”, “questions”, or “demand” retains the passion behind the argument. Doing so will keep the text more fascinating and intriguing, and much less bland.

What I learned: I learned two writing techniques to begin an argumentative or persuasive text. I also learned that it is important to essentially keep the vocabulary ‘spicy’ when writing such essays.

Chapter 3: “As he himself puts it” 

The Art of Quoting

In chapter 3 of Graff and Birkenstein’s “They say, I say”, another essential premise to presenting an effective argument is to quote the exact words of what ‘they say’. By doing this, it establishes immense credibility to the audience, as well as provide proof of evidence towards a claim. However, writers tend to make the mistake of either quoting too little or too much. In regards to that, writers must choose their quotes wisely and integrate them cleverly to further support their text. Most importantly, the quote must be connected to the main point being made.

When integrating quotations into text, writers must also frame every quote with clear relevance. Using a “quotation sandwich”, first comes the statement introducing the quote, who is saying it, then following the explanation of the writer’s take. It is very important to restate the quote in your words to make certain that you and your audience are on the same page. Make use of signal verbs as well to describe the quotes more vividly. Concluding this chapter, Graff and Birkenstein advise that it is better to be overly explicit with how the writer interprets the quote in junction with their main argument, rather than leaving your readers uncertain.

What I learned: In chapter 3 I learned how to effectively present a quote into an argument using the “quotation sandwich” tool.