What I thought was interesting in “Social Media Hijacked Our Brains and Democracy” was that Golumbia used System thinking as a large part of his evidence. I had never heard of the two systems of thinking and it was interesting how only one of the thinking systems is being used when on the internet.

Roger McNamee uses ethos to develop his argument. McNamee  about how he is an investor in Facebook and “was an early adviser to Facebook’s team.”  This strategy works by getting the audience to put trust in the author and it is effective because it not benefit him by saying his views and it shows he understands what he is talking about when it come to the internet. It is effective because the audience knows he shouldn’t be stating harmful details about the companies he has investments in. McNamee uses ethos to allow the audience to trust him on what he is saying by being a unbiased, reputable source.

A claim Zeynep Tufekci talks about in “YouTube, the Great Radicalizer” is that YouTube uses our natural curiosity to lead us to unfactual and radical videos and websites. Tufekci uses logos in her argument by using analogies and creating a strong parallel between the two situations. She says that, “YouTube has created a restaurant that serves us increasingly sugary, fatty foods, loading up our plates as soon as we are finished with the last meal.” essentially comparing YouTube with an unhealthy buffet and logically people know they shouldn’t participate in it. She compares the two because they seem to be similar and convey that YouTube is our natural curiosity against us. It supports Tufekci argument and convince the audience she is right by making YouTube seem unethical and bad.

A claim discussed in McNamee’s “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me” was that Google and Facebook uses techniques to maintain attention to they websites that creates addictive behavior. McNamee uses pathos within this argument to persuade the audience that Google and Facebook is addictive. He compares Google and Facebook, “Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin,” and even goes on to state that Google and Facebook, “produce short-term happiness with serious negative consequences in the long term.” This is perceived as pathos because he uses highly addictive substances and compares it to the internet which we don’t consider in the same category. He uses these substances with negative connotation to shock the audience in having an emotional response when comparing them to the internet.

Nicholas Carr is an author that writes about the harmful influences of technology and he wrote in his book The Shallows that, “We [people who go on the internet] become mindless consumers of data.” Nicholas Carr has similar beliefs about the internet to what most people believe.  In Clive Thompson’s “Public Thinking”, Thompson declares the opposite. Thompson argues the increase in public writing made possible by the internet has important beneficial effects on thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics. Clive Thompson is a writer for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Wired, and he typically writes about technology and its impact on our society and culture. Knowing about the effects of the internet is important because it is being introduced to all aspects of our lives: from our social life to our school or work. In this paper, I will talk about Thompson’s claims, the evidence he uses, a rebuttal, and the strengths and weaknesses of Thompson’s argument. The three claims I will be addressing are: that the increase of writing from the internet is having beneficial effects, writing for an audience improves your writing, and people with similar interests connecting through the internet will produce more discoveries.  

Thompson insists that the increase of writing from the internet has many benefits including memory improvement. In order to justify this, he introduces the concept of the “generation effect”. The “generation effect” was formulated by a study from 1978 that compared whether writing and reading improved memory and it indicated that writing, “requires more cognitive effort than reading.”(page 57) This suggests that writing improves memory because writing something you generate yourself makes your brain works harder. Thompson uses an underlying assumption that people want to improve their writing. Which leads to his target audience having some college education to being highly educated. These people are most likely be writing more than people who just have a high school diploma and need to memorize more things or are concerned with memory loss. Thompson also gives an example of college students using this for their benefit. To show that people use the effect frequently and it works for real people. He uses logos to apply to your logical side about needing to improve your memory and writing. Thompson uses experiments and people’s experiences to show that writing has improved people’s memory.

Thompson goes on to support his main claim by  illustrating how writing for an audience improves your writing. It clarifies thoughts and allows you to get in the mind frame to write more interesting pieces. Thompson argues that no matter how big your audience is the effect still works the same so it applies to every person that posts to the internet.  The author claims that by forcing yourself to write something down you are forced to defend your position and fully understand your topic before you start to write on it. “Hand waving” is when talking to a person face-to-face and they don’t really know what they are talking about or can’t remember something, so they wave their hands as a substitute for their shortcomings. He uses the concept of “hand waving” to prove that, if you were to write a controversial blog post with the concept of hand waving people wouldn’t be persuaded or care what you wrote. By not being able to “hand wave” in writing, you have to know what you are talking about so you must clarify your thinking. Thompson uses an example of these students at MIT who have to demonstrate their projects and when they have to explain how their devices worked they end up being nervous and hand waving most of their explanation. The author uses this explanation because his audience can relate to these students and probably have experienced something similar in their lives.  Another way audience improves writing is by trying to please your audience. Thompson writes, “one of the unspoken cardinal rules of online expression is be more interesting-the sort of social pressure toward wit and engagement”(page 54). This mean when we write for an audience we want them to enjoy what we write. People feel pressured to write better and more creative stuff when they start to think about what they want as an audience. The order in which Thompson puts his evidence provides a well build foundation with lots of logos to persuade the audience. Thompson uses people’s experiences to prove how an audience changes how people write.

Thompson claims people with similar interests connecting through the internet will produce more discoveries. Thompson uses the assumption that the internet has changed how people communicate and network new ideas. With the internet, groups with similar interests can meet no matter where they are at in the world.  Thompson uses previous scientific breakthroughs that happened more than once around the same time to show that the internet will connect people and advance society. The true discoverer of penicillin was a young french scientist, unfortunately no one took his findings seriously and “It would take another thirty-two years for Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming to rediscover penicillin, independently and with no idea Duchesne had already done it.” The author used a tragic story of how penicillin was discovered to demonstrate that if the internet was around when penicillin was first discovered, so many people wouldn’t have died from various disease. If Duchesne would have been able to publish his thesis online, people could have conducted peer review studies and Duchesne could receive credit for his discovery. Thompson believes if you eliminate the, “needless duplicates,”(page 60) then its possible to move forward and trade ideas instead of taking the time to discover things that have already been found. Since the internet, people don’t waste their time discovering things again and can bounce ideas off other people who are interested and are informed. Even if you aren’t a genius, Thompson believes you still benefit from the amazing connections the internet can make. The author states that, “For everyday people: the Internet, which encourages public thinking and resolves multiples on a much larger scale,”(page 61) . Thompson shows that everyone has benefited by the internet because of the increase of public thinking. With the increase of connections provides a platform to talk about similar interests which promote public thinking.  With the internet, like-minded individuals share idea more easily to produce more discoveries.

Thompson further builds his argument by using ethos and logos to address a rebuttal stance: that college students are worse at writing now compared to people in the past. Thompson used a study from a Stanford English professor, Andrea Lunsford, as supporting evidence that people now write more than ever before. She has compiled a century’s worth of freshman composition essays and had a five-year study on all writing students do, which includes what they do outside the classroom. The findings were that the error rate stayed mostly consistent throughout the years, but what was interesting was that essays had gotten six times longer. Not only is grammar not getting worse, but current students are actually better than previous students. The Professor also stated that the type of writing throughout the years had changed from narratives to more academic papers with evidence to back them up. This also shows that students now are smarter and more hardworking than previous students. Thompson uses ethos by using a reputable university with a study that had been researches for an extensive amount of time. He uses logos in the fact that this rebuttal has such strong evidence and it seems foolproof. The internet is not making students grammar worse nor are students getting stupider than previous generations.

Thompson strengths include using many other people’s experiences, expert quotes, facts, and studies to support his argument. The author uses all four of these to support his claim about the audience effect, but what makes Thompson’s support is well thought out. Thompson starts by drawing the audience in with a quote from a blogger and his experience with the audience effect. The blogger said that if there is an audience reading his work, then the blogger will take his work much more serious than if there isn’t. To backup the bloggers experience, Thompson uses a social effect is from two formal studies: Vanderbilt University professors published in 2008 and a professor at Douglas College in British Columbia. Thompson has built a solid foundation of support of his idea before he brings up his more controversial idea. He finishes his argument with an experience by a small blogger claiming that anyone can feel the social effect. Thompson evidence is strong which helps persuade readers his argument is correct. By using prestigious sounding schools, he relies on ethos to show that if they believe in the audience effect than it must be real. Thompson also chooses to include bloggers big and small to show that everyone can experience it. On many levels Thompson has strong evidences, he uses facts and he slowly builds to his claim which all makes his piece very persuasive.

Thompson’s weaknesses include using an old studies and having poorly supported claims.  When the author claims that writing helps your memory, he uses an out of date study from 1978 and the study was 35 years old when Thompson published his book. There are better study that are more recent and more related to his claim that he should have used. Thompson may have not felt the need to support his claim because it is a common practice to write down notes in school to remember facts, but this is one of his least supported claims. Thompson uses one out of date study to prove his claim, when he previously has used multiply different studies and experiences to persuade the readers with previous claims. Another claim that was poorly supported was that the introduction of the internet in less democratic countries would allow citizens to speak out about more rights and free speech but his hypothesis was wrong. Thomson talked to a famous blogger from China and she said most people only talk about popular shows and movies as well as their personal life. Thompson still believes that the internet facilitates political conversations and is crucial to democratic societies. Thompson has claims that lack the support they need to fully convince his audience.

Clive Thompson has written some well-supported claims and some poorly supported claims about how the internet has changed our lives for the better, but overall his evidence is powerful. Thompson brings up very prestigious universities and very strong studies as evidence to support his argument. Cognitive thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics all have gone through significant changes by the increase in public writing from internet. The main claims typically have strong evidence that convince the audience that writing for an audience improves your writing and people with similar interests connecting through the internet can produce more discoveries. These topics about the internet are extremely important to talk about because of how heavily we rely on technology throughout our everyday life.

Typically when you hear people talk about the internet, they say it is bad for your brain and your well-being. In Clive Thompson’s “Public Thinking”, Thompson proposes the opposite. Thompson argues the increase in public writing made possible by the internet has important effects on thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics.Clive Thompson is a writer for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Wired, he typically writes about technology and its impact on our society and culture. Thompson argues the increase in public writing made possible by the internet has important effects on thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics.

Knowing about the effects of the internet is important because it is being introduced to all aspects of our lives: from our social life to our school and work. The internet is a regular occurrence now, that we barely remember how the internet has completely changed our lives, especially when it comes to how much we write and how often we write. It is also good to know that there are many beneficial things connected with the internet when you only hear the bad things connected with it.

In this paper, I will talk about Thompson’s main claim, the evidence he uses, his rebuttals, and the strengths and weaknesses of Thompson’s argument. The three main claims I will be addressing are: that the increase of writing from the internet is having beneficial effects, writing for an audience improves your writing, and people with similar interests connecting through the internet will produce more discoveries.  

Thompson insists that the increase of writing from the internet has many benefits including improves memory and clear thinking. Thompson claims people write more now than ever before because of the convinced of the internet. Thompson uses a Historian’s work to prove just how little people wrote letters. It was exceptional for the time, “the per capita volume of letters in the United States in 1860 was only 5.15 per year(page 49).” As the historian points out, it is difficult to find anyone not writing at least five messages a day.  Thompson believes that writing boosts memory and uses the “generation effect” to prove his claim. A study from 1978 compared whether writing and reading improved memory and it indicated that writing “requires more cognitive effort than reading.” Meaning that writing improves memory because writing something you generate yourself makes your brain works harder. He also gives an example of college students using this for their benefit. To show that people use it all the time and it works for real people. Thompson claims that by forcing yourself to write something down you are forced to defend your position and fully understand your topic before you start to write on it. He uses the concept of “hand waving” to prove that, if you were to write a controversial blog post with the concept of hand waving people wouldn’t be persuaded or care what you wrote. By not being able to “hand wave” you have to know what you are talking about so you must clarify your thinking. Thompson uses a study and the concept of hand waving to convince his audience that writing can change way people think.

Thompson strengths include using many other peoples experiences, expert quotes, facts, and studies to support his argument. The author uses all four of these to support his claim about the audience effect. He starts by introducing his idea with a quote from a blogger that says that if there is an audience reading his work, then he takes it much more serious than if there isn’t. To prove that the social effect is proven he uses two formal studies done by Vanderbilt University professors published in 2008 and a professor at Douglas College in British Columbia. Finishing his argument with an experience by a small blogger. Thompson evidence is strong which helps persuade readers his argument is correct. By using prestigious sounding schools, he relies on ethos to show that if they believe in the audience effect than it must be real. Thompson also chooses to include bloggers big and small to show that everyone can experience it. On many levels Thompson has strong evidences, he uses facts and he slowly builds to his claim which all makes his piece very persuasive.

Thompson’s weaknesses include using an old study and having poorly supported claims. When the author claims that writing helps your memory, he uses an out of date study from 1978 and the study was 35 years old when Thompson published his book. There are better study that are more recent and more related to his claim that he should have used. Thompson may have not felt the need to support his claim because it is a common practice to write down notes in school to remember facts, but this is one of his least supported claims. Thompson uses one out of date study to prove his claim, when he previously has used multiply different studies and experiences to persuade the readers with previous claims. Another claim that was poorly supported was that the introduction of the internet in less democratic countries would allow citizens to speak out about more rights and free speech but his hypothesis was wrong. Thomson talked to a famous blogger from China and she said most people only talk about popular shows and movies as well as their personal life. Thompson still believes that the internet facilitates political conversations and is crucial to democratic societies. Thompson has claims that lack the support they need to fully convince his audience.

Typically when you hear people talk about the internet, they say it is bad for your brain and your well-being. In Clive Thompson’s “Public Thinking”, Thompson proposes the opposite. Thompson argues the increase in public writing made possible by the internet has important effects on thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics.Clive Thompson is a writer for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Wired, he typically writes about technology and its impact on our society and culture. Thompson argues the increase in public writing made possible by the internet has important effects on thought, knowledge-sharing, culture, and politics.

Knowing about the effects of the internet is important because it is being introduced to all aspects of our lives: from our social life to our school and work. The internet is a regular occurrence now that we barely remember how the internet has completely changed our lives, especially when it comes to how much we write and how often we write. It is also good to know that there are many beneficial things connected with the internet when you only hear the bad things connected with it.

In this paper, I will talk about Thompson’s main claim, the evidence he uses, his rebuttals, and the strengths and weaknesses of Thompson’s argument. The three main claims I will be addressing are: writing changes how we think, writing for an audience improves your writing, and people with similar interests connecting through the internet will produce more discoveries.  

Thompson insists that writing has many benefits including improves memory and clear thinking, which changes how we think. Thompson believes that writing boosts memory. He uses the “generation effect” to prove his claim. A study from 1978 compared whether writing and reading improved memory and it indicated that writing “requires more cognitive effort than reading.” Meaning that writing improves memory because writing something you generate yourself makes your brain harder than reading. He also gives an example of college students using this for their benefit. To show that people use it all the time and it works for real people. Thompson claims that by forcing yourself to write something down you are forced to defend your position and fully understand your topic before you start to write on it. He uses the concept of “hand waving” to prove that, in person you may not need to know exactly what you are talking about because you can use hand movements to pretend like you know what you are talking about, but if you were to write a controversial blog post with the concept of hand waving people wouldn’t be persuaded and tare what you wrote into pieces in the comment section. By not being able to hand wave you have to know what you are talking about so you must clarify your thinking. Thompson uses a study and the concept of hand waving to convince his audience that writing can change way people think. I think that these two points are on the weaker side because he references an old study and mentions that since you can use hand motions to persuade people in person it is weaker than writing your argument when it may be just as good.

An idea from Thompson’s “Public Thinking” that really revealed how useful the internet is how connected the world is. Thompson states that people with similar interests are able to connect and this could prevent an overlap of the same thoughts that happen throughout history. The benefit of this would be that when people aren’t aware of people’s discoveries people aren’t using the newest knowledge available to actually discover new things. The internet allows people to combined minds and interests to further the worlds discoveries. I have a lot of friends who love their online groups and friends they help them develop emotionally and definitely helps them people who can relate to them. One friend has used their platform to develop a place where they are comfortable expressing their interests and ideals. It has led to her to creating an English to Valcun (a Star Trek language) picture book to help people learn the language. This has connected her to many groups who are also interested in learning this strange language and has been commissioned to make more for people. I am pretty sure that this is the only Valcun picture book out there currently and with my friend putting it out there for people who also speak Valcun my friend will learn more and interact with people that will only make the next Valcan book even better.

 

Thompson’s main argument is that internet and cellphones have changed how people write, how often they write, and how people communicate their ideas.

 

One of most important claims is that that writing to an audience improves the writing. The author uses a story of a blogger to introduce the concept that people who write for an audience want write better, so they do.Thompson uses a study by Vanderbilt University Professors that proves that having an audience makes you perform better. He also states another study that had the same results but with a different experiment.

The second most important claim is that writing can change how people think. The author uses many quotes from poets about how writing helps clarify thinking.  He also used a phenomenon called “Hand Waving” to prove that you have to have a clear thought to write it down because you can not “hand wave” in your writing. Thompson also uses an old study from 1978 as evidence that writing helps your memory.

The last important claim he makes is that the internet has changed how people communicate and network new ideas. Thompson uses previous scientific breakthroughs that happened more than once around the same time to prove that the internet can connect people and advance society by instead of working on, “needless duplicates,” they can start applying it to people’s lives.

 

A Rebuttal in Thompson’s “Public Thinking” texting and the internet has created people that have bad grammar. Thompson states that very few writings had any shortened words out of thousands of pieces of writing. Another Rebuttal that was addressed was that college students were worse at writing now than people in the past. Thompson used a study from a Stanford English Professor as supporting evidence that people now write more than ever before.

What I found interesting about how Rifkin’s argument led the readers into believing that his conclusions is the best one. Rifkin uses his introduction to make you curious about what the article is about, and he doesn’t state his main claim till the last few paragraphs of his piece. I understand that his claim is a very strong and controversial one so I understand why he chooses to do it this way. I enjoyed how it felt like he isn’t telling you how to feel about the situation before giving you the facts. Rifkin does the complete opposite, he gives you all the incorrect thoughts about animals not being like humans and provides you with facts that prove that animals are more like humans than you think.

 

A main claim that Rifkin uses is that animals are self-aware. The author uses two examples to show that animals have individuality, one of the examples was that this orangutan from the Atlanta Zoo using a mirror to adjust his sunglasses. Another main claim is animals have  conceptual abilities. His evidence was a study done by Oxford University, and an example of the use of an abstract thought. The example Rifkin uses is a gorilla found in Northern California that has learned “1,000 signs and understand several thousand words,(paragraph 8)” this shows animals can think complexly, learn, and memorize.

 

The types of evidence Rifkin uses are examples, expert research results, and expert quotes. When the author is convincing the readers that animals can mourn, Rifkin uses an example of elephants mourning over their loss of their kin. He says that, “Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.(paragraph 11)”  He has many expert research results including Oxford University, Purdue University, and Gettysburg College. Rifkin also uses an expert quote to start the audience thinking about how we think about how we justify the treatment of the animals.

 

Rifkin uses rebuttals and exemplification to persuade his audience. He starts the majority of his major claims with a false thought about animals and then showed the audience that that notion was wrong with his evidence. One example of this is when Rifkin argues about animals having their own identity. He starts the paragraph by saying most scientists think that animals aren’t self-aware. Then goes on to state two examples to persuade his readers with facts and logos.

 

Parry’s main argument in “The Art of Branding a Condition” is that healthcare marketers market medical conditions to make the treatment more profitable. What I find that is useful about the text is that I am now able to recognize when they are trying to persuade me into buying their product. A thing that I find is interesting is learning about the markets for treatments that were once not very profitable, but have now became so big that there are many brands, like mouthwash and heartburn.

 

Parry suggests that healthcare marketers use scare tactics to make people want to buy their product. They make the problem sound more dangerous and in more urgent need of a solution than there really needs to be. Listerine persuaded customers by using a more serious sounding condition to create more sales and in the following four years they saw a major increase. I haven’t recognized any similar methods of persuasion used.

Nicholas Kristof in “Do We Have The Courage” uses rebuttals to strengthen his argument. Kristof directly addresses two different arguments. One stating, no matter how much gun reform there is, the wrong people will always get guns and the other being that more people should carry guns to stop the shooters. Kristof uses these topics to persuade his audience even further by refuting and reframing the counter arguments. The author reframes the perspective of stopping all crazy people from getting guns to reducing the amount of people dead by implementing more reforms. He purposes that we shouldn’t accept how things are, but there won’t be a solution that will eliminate all gun deaths. Kristof refuted that caring guns would change any outcome of a mass shooting by stating most shooters either kill themselves or are captured after so there would be no point. By using refutation rebuttals, it shows that there are flaws in the opposing sides argument and that can help persuade people to believe in Kristof’s argument.