“When was the last time you felt challenged or that you couldn’t understand something?”

I’m gonna sound arrogant, I think, but.. most concepts I’m taught I catch on to pretty quickly.

“Carlos”

Carlos isn’t this student’s real name, but that’s what the host of the podcast calls him to protect his identity. He is a student who just transferred from a big public school to an elite private school in order to be challenged academically. His previous classes have been a breeze to him and he has always understood what was being taught. Gladwell highlights the fact that Carlos is a sharp kid who has a level of maturity that allows him to seem older than he actually is. Since he excels so much in school, Gladwell brings up the topic of capitalization. He tells us that, according to our society’s ideals, hard-working, smart individuals can make their way up the socioeconomic ladder of civilization and improve their livelihood. But, with the lack of capitalization in our society, not all smart, hard-working individuals are able to do so. The main question he begs in this episode is, “is it true that Americans are good at capitalization?”

One of the situations the interviewers bring up to Carlos was his “sneaker episode” in which he wasn’t able to afford shoes that fit him properly. Someone bought new, better-fit shoes for him and he began to play at recess again. He says he doesn’t remember this incident. In light of this, Gladwell discusses how most opportunity for capitalization is in rich white neighborhoods rather than truly being anywhere like the higher-ups say. If anybody can really make it up there, why didn’t Carlos until he met Eric Eizner? It’s because of the nature of the low-income neighborhoods in almost every major city in America. Colleges don’t start looking for poor smart kids until their junior year of high school. This means that they’ve most likely already lost that level of encouragement for performing well academically because they don’t have many resources to access. They also may have to cross gang territory just to make it to their high school at another town – which can make learning a terrible environment. Schools need to start looking for smart kids at the elementary ages, like fourth grade.

In fact, Carlos got an amazing scholarship offer to a prestigious school but was forced to deny it because he needed to stay home and continue taking care of his little sister. His parents were constantly getting into trouble and eventually the two children were sent to multiple different foster homes, most under poor condition. He was even separated from his sister at a point, in which he uses his selective memory, again, to discard the gruesome details of the situation. This brings privilege into question relating to the underside of our society – those of the white upper/middle class have a privilege that buys them a second chance multiple times, which poor individuals don’t have the luxury of. This speaks volumes about our society and how those of higher power work to keep lower-class families down. In this system, privilege is blatantly obvious and exploited by those of higher class commodity.

This episode of the Revisionist History Podcast focused on Wilt Chamberlain’s most famous game. He was 7 feet and an inch tall and 275 pounds. He scored 100 points, the most to ever be scored in a single basketball game. But, while he was one of the most skilled in-game shooters, he struggled heavily without defenders. His percent average behind the free-throw line was 40% – absolutely horrid, especially in the scope of his offensive skill displayed versus defenders. Because of this, he begins shooting his free throws underhand at a slight crouch. To the world’s surprise, his accuracy improves drastically and he soars up to 60% shots made. That game, heends up scoring 28 free throws, which was also the most to be ever scored in a single game of basketball. His coaches informed him that if he began to make most of his free throws, they’d have an exponentially greater chance at winning their games each season. Wilt had every reason to continue shooting underhand and carry the team on his wings – but he stopped. Even Shaquille O’Neil argued against the underhand philosophy, “I’d rather shoot zero than underhanded.” Malcolm Gladwell explored why this happened. What makes it so tough for good, obviously advantageous ideas to spread? The issue is about thresholds rather than beliefs. While thresholds sometimes overlap with beliefs, they usually differ. Thresholds are based around peer pressure and societal expectations. The more people around an individual, the less likely it is for them to evaluate the consequences of their decisions, and, consequentially, succumb to peer pressure.

This concept of threshold interference with the human mind speaks volumes not only in the scope of professional sports, but society as a whole. Because humans are heavily social creatures, we rely on interaction with others and influence. This causes us to lose critical thinking skills in social situations, usually when expectations are set on us. Many individuals will change their ways just to fit in – usually out of fear they will be seen as an outcast if they don’t. Wilt writes, “I know I was wrong. I felt silly, like a sissy,” which signifies that, even though he understands he could be making 90% of his shots, he goes against success in order to seem macho and fit in with the rest of the basketball scene. Many people think they won’t be affected by peer pressure, but the nerves and mental effects that come into play in the actual, suspenseful moment are so impactful that they alter even professionals’ mindsets. It is paramount to our success that we think twice about our actions – by thinking less about what others think, and more about the choices we should make based on probability, we can collectively be more successful as both individuals and a functioning society.

The photograph taken and edited by Erick Pleitez showcases a human hand reaching out to a dog resting its head on the fencewire of its shelter cage. The depth of field in the image blurs the background so that the viewer can only focus on the hand and dog, rather than the contents of the cage or other various distractions. He has also edited the photo to appear as black and white instead of full color. All of these concepts can be analyzed and evaluated on both how they portray the image in comparison to reality and how they alter our perception.

The publisher of this image is Erick Pleitez, a frequent disaster/animal photographer. His background influences how we interpret the photo because it allows us to understand the image from his personal lens – these animals in shelters are in poor condition and need better homes than what they have had previously. The intended message of this image is telling viewers to go out and adopt animals in shelters in order to keep them from being alone/ suffer further. This is mainly perceptible because the dog is reaching out for the person’s hand as if it hasn’t interacted with a human in a while, and the fact that it is locked up in the fence and can’t reach the outside world indicates that they are trapped in a different world. This brings a segway to another aspect of the photo that has a powerful message behind it – the dog’s body language.

In the middle of the photo, we can see that the dog is leaning on the fence as if it is weak. Resting its head on the small fence opening highlights this. Another part of its body language that can be analyzed is its eyes. It appears that, while hard to tell because of the fence covering its eyes partly, its eyes are closed. This indicates the dog is tired or possibly in pain. Both of these likely outcomes correlate with the color correction on the image, black and white.

The monochrome color correction on this photo signifies a dark, depressive tone to the viewer. The lack of color brings a cold and sad view to the viewer’s mind when evaluating the picture. This effect is then multiplied by the body language of both the person and dog – the dog is reaching out of its fence cage revealing it wants to be around the human, but at the same time, it is resting on the cage meaning it is tired and possibly unmotivated. The person is reaching out as if they wish they could help the dog but is unable to or unconnected. The focus is on the dog reaching out to the human wanting to be taken into their home instead of remaining in the animal shelter. The use of depth of field blurs out the outside edges of the photo, leaving the center of the photo in focus and allowing the viewer to easily see the dog reaching out to the person’s hand, wishing for a better life. This all signifies a pathos approach to persuading viewers to adopt and care for animals in struggling circumstances, as they exploit human emotion and common affection for said animals.

A way this image could be altered to portray a more satirical definition would be to add blood dripping from the dog’s mouth. Everything else in the image, including the black and white CC (color correction), depth of field, the dog’s expression, and even the person’s hand reaching out to them. This would be satirical towards animal lovers – extremist ones, at that. Why would blood dripping from the dog’s mouth add satire to the image? The blood would signify that the dog had done something horrible and was possibly rabid, digging their teeth deep into a human’s skin. Meanwhile, the hand would still be reaching out to the dog, as if it had done nothing wrong. This would represent how some animal-loving extremists try to hide bad habits animals have and still love them just as another human. They ignore the negatives to animals in a naive manner simply for the reason that animals are “cute” or “more loyal than these horrible humans they are stuck with.” The image would exemplify this by showing clear evidence of the dog’s potential to harm further people,yet some individuals will still reach out and try to pet and “calm” the dog, as the person in the picture is. This would not only bring satire into the image, but also play into how humans as a whole are always affected by bias and struggle to maintain a fully factual debate due to our naivety on subject matters we haven’t dealt with first-hand. Almost all information we receive is filtered through multiple sources, making it tough to find information not altered by a bias report.

Both the original image and its theorized different version indicate to society that information can be filtered and lead to bias in the way we perceive events. Because of this, we must be more aware of our surroundings and fact-check what we see on social media and untrustworthy news sources by looking to non-partisan reports and sources so that we can acquire raw facts and data rather than manipulated half-truths that will change how we view situations in the real world.

I’ve written opinion pieces for newspapers or magazines, and there you have to write in somber, reasonable tones. Satire allows you to say almost anything. That’s where truth is spoken to power in our society.

Malcolm Gladwell, 4:30

The tenth podcast from Episode 1, “The Satire Paradox”, calls into question the validity and implications of comedic approaches to political issues. While comedians’ jokes do apply to the obvious groups (or individuals) being made fun of, their satirical statements can also be turned around and viewed positively by the other side of the argument. This bites satire back in the same vicious way it attempts to bite the obvious victim. This happens because of satire’s complex nature – it is different than speech, which is easy to decode. It calls for interpretation. Essentially, the issue is that the viewers/readers have to spend much of their time thinking of who the satire is about and what it means, which distracts them from thinking of counterarguments or how it can actually apply to authority in real life situations. It leaves individuals thinking solely about the nature of the satire rather than the validity of the satire and arguments being presented. “When you sugarcoat a bitter truth with humor, it makes the medicine go down.” This means that the decoding of language and actions presented by the comedian almost distracts its recipients from considering the statement’s possible counterarguments. Laughter is even regarded to as a sense of “final stand” or final fallback, as those laughing have no other way to go about the overpowering issue so they must find humor in it to help themselves cope and feel like they are above the situation. This creates a paradox of impression that causes individuals of lower power to believe they are above the situation presented and know how to fix it, when, in reality, they are a mere victim of the power above them and are helpless. This can be related to the “loadsamoney” parody posted by Harry Enfield because a similar paradox occurs in his satirical take on the mid-1990s Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher. The song he created focuses on the lyric he made, “loadsamoney”, which essentially focuses on making fun of rich authoritative figures in power at the time. He is waving huge stacks of money across the screen and lacks common respect for people, solely “shaggin’ birds” and going out drinking. “He didn’t really like the operah, but he liked it because it was expensive. So, he liked to be seen there.” Anything that proves to others he has money, he does it. This made fun of the Prime Minister as the “Thatcherite nouveau riche buffoon,” but only left viewers laughing about the humor he made, rather than thinking about its downsides, possible counterarguments, or actions that need to be taken to work towards a better authority group.

The publisher of this image is Erick Pleitez, a frequent disaster/animal photographer. This background influences how we interpret the photo because it allows us to understand the image from his own lens – these animals in shelters are in poor condition and need better homes than what they have had previously. The intended message of this image is to go out and adopt animals in shelters to keep them from being alone and suffering further. This is mainly perceptible because the dog is reaching out for the person’s hand as if it hasn’t interacted with a human in a while, and the fact that it is locked up in the fence and can’t reach the outside world indicates that they are trapped in a different world.

The photographer puts an emphasis on a pathos approach by the black and white color scheme which indicates darkness, sadness, or memory.

The intended audience is the entire world, Pleitez is exposing the reality of animal cruelty and shelter life. A more specific audience he is likely targeting is those who have a stable enough home and income to take care of a sheltered animal. This is so that he can hopefully encourage the viewer to adopt and care take to prevent further abuse or mistreatment.

The image was taken on November 11, 2007. Details on where it was taken are not presented to us, but it is rational to assume it was in the Southern California area because that is where all of his other photos are tagged. Pleitez uploaded this image to his Flickr photo album, indicating it was an impactful image that had a meaning to him instead of a simple “going out with my friends” social media post.

As analyzed previously, the color scheme is monochromatic which indicates a dark, depressive tone to the viewer. This is then multiplied by the body language of both the person and dog – the dog is reaching out of its fence cage revealing it wants to be around the human, but at the same time, it is resting on the cage indicating it is tired and possibly unmotivated. The person is reaching out as if they wish they could help the dog but is unconnected to them. The focus is on the dog reaching out to the human wanting to be taken into their home instead of remaining in the animal shelter. The use of depth of field blurs out the outside edges of the photo. This leaves the center of the photo in focus and allows the viewer to easily see the dog reaching out to the person’s hand, wishing for a better life.

In Having it His Way, Freeman and Merskin reveal their studies associating fast-food advertisements with masculinity and the surpression of femininity. They state that they “unpack the connotative meanings within these commercials in order to tell us what they mean about masculine identity and values in America.” They also inform us that their roles as feminists and vegetarians may influence their view and what they say, as bias is almost always observable in academic writing because it is human nature. Their assertions that fast-food ads associate meat with dominance and masculinity and associate healthy, plant-based options with femininity are truthful in the scope they are viewed from. In the previous generation, this was definitely the case and that aspect can be seen in other various industries besides just fast-food. Throughout history, women have been sexualized by men and they have been represented as objects for a man’s dominance in most societies. Although, in the past few decades, society as a whole has made strides away from that and now sees both genders as equal regardless of physical difference. While some people’s views are still patriarchal, I believe society will eventually reach a truly equal state so that dominant misrepresentation, like these advertisements, will no longer take place. Healthy food options are just as good as, and in fact, sometimes better than, meat choices at fast-food restaurants. This is also true in longer-prepared meals, not only fast-food. As our society moves away from this patriarchal view regarding social status and relationship roles, we begin to see better representation of women and more equal value in healthy foods in comparison to the previously masculine meats. As shown below, a McDonald’s commercial from 2013 for their Fish McBites is not gendered and solely represents the food being introduced to their menu, rather than older commercials relating their food to masculinity.

In “Yes / No / Okay, But: Three Ways to Respond,” Graff and Birkenstein elaborate on the three proper ways to respond to ideas. While these ideas consist of agreeing, disagreeing, and/or a combination of both, an area of confusion arises when writers worry they will have to oversimplify their argument to fit these response forms. Graff and Berkenstein argue that it is, in fact, better to simplify one’s argument in order to allow readers to gain a strong understanding of your stance initially, then understand its details as they move through the writing. A unique way to disagree through this template is to agree with the evidence provided with a claim, but make a contrasting statement that causes said evidence to support your own claim. The two refer to this method as the “twist it.”

I found this chapter to be quite applicable to my own life because of the ACT’s essay section. Each ACT essay requires you to evaluate three stances on a topic and form your own while comparing it to those provided. I now have a better knowledge of how to compare others’ responses to my own going forward.

In “And Yet: Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say,” Graff and Birkenstein inform the reader of the significance of distinguishing others’ viewpoints from one’s own while using creative ways to rebuttal others’ claims. A unique assertion that these two make in the chapter is that writers can be more successful by using the first-person “I” or “we.” This is because when contrasting others’ viewpoints with one’s own, they are able to establish their own claim clearly so the reader can understand their argument and what they are arguing against. The authors point out that if writer’s didn’t do so, the summaries of others’ views can be confused in a mix with one’s own ideas throughout the paper.

I now understand that it is crucial to not only evaluate my own viewpoint, but to also clearly identify and explain the viewpoint(s) I am opposing.

In “Skeptics May Object: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text,” the Graff and Birkenstein signify that it is important to always identify and assess what critics will rebuttal your claims with in order to enhance your credibility. “When you entertain a counterargument, you make a kind of preemptive identifying problems with your argument before others can point them out for you.” They also state that doing so will allow writers to come across as “generous, broad-minded [people] who [are] confident enough to open themselves to debate.” By providing possible counterarguments to your own argument, you are proving you are well-educated on the issue at hand and are prepared to dispute with others respectably. But, it is important to evaluate and summarize others’ viewpoints fairly to avoid bias and misperception by yourself or readers.

This is significant to me because it puts me one step ahead of the game in academic writing. Thinking about possible counters to my argument will be beneficial so that I can not only establish them in my writing to appear as a better-educated individual regarding the issue, but also preemptively work around them and find their flaws.

In “So What? Who Cares?: Saying Why It Matters,” Graff and Birkenstein highlight that it is important to move on from the assumption that readers will understand why our claims matter and address their real-world implications upfront. They use New York Times writer Denise Grady’s report about recent fat call research to exemplify the importance of addressing previous claims and contectualize one’s argument into the larger conversation it is a part of. This is a key element in allowing readers to understand why what you say is important. She also involves the “so what?” factor by addressing statistics that indicate the severity of obesity and how widespread of a condition it is in our current society, using phrasing like “our increasingly obese world.”

I learned a useful method on addressing why my topic is important on a broader scale and applying it to the real world of the reader.

“Creativity, now, is as important as literacy, and we should treat it with that same status.”

Sir Ken Robinson

Sir Ken Robinson is presenting the argument that the world’s public education system needs to be re-worked because it surpresses creativity in children. He has been both a student and professor, which means he understands both aspects of the education system and their shortcomings. Because of this, his target audience is adults who can influence change in the academic system – he is also sending this message to parents to encourage creativity and reinventive ways of thinking in their children. The context of his argument is that it is brought up on his own will in light of what he has experienced in himself and his children.

Robinson’s main argument is that every major public education system in the world discourages creativity and enforces conformative thinking instead of expressive thinking. He makes the claim that the hierarchy of schooling always goes like this: Mathatics, literature, history, then the arts are always at the bottom if they are even taught at all, which surpresses students’ creative thinking abilities. The evidence he uses is mostly anecdotal – in one of which he explains an interview discussing a girl who was thought to have a mental disorder similar to ADHD but was really just a professional dancer in the making. Her need to move to think deviated from the “meta” of standardized schooling and was thought to be a mental disorder instead of uniqueness and creativity.

Robinson’s arguments are all sound and applicable to our real-life scenario except for one of his larger pieces of support: The dancer who was thought to be mentally ill instead of creative. While logical in its reasoning, the incident itself dates all the way back to the 1930s and most likely doesn’t represent our current medical diagnostics nor education system. This leads to flaws in his reasoning because of the lack of proper evidence.

Robinson’s credibility on this subject is fantastic – he has been both a student and professor, so he understands both sides of the coin regarding the issue of poorly idealized education. Telling this to the receivers of his message allows us to gain his trust and value what he has to say about the system he has been a part of for decades. Without this, we would think less of him and not understand his connection to the world of education.

He uses various emotional phrases that describe how children have extraordinary capacities for innovation and creative thinking. He uses quotes from artists such as Pablo Picasso: “All children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist when we grow up.” Robinson then continues to elaborate on how nowadays we grow out of the creativity we once had and public education plays a big part in that loss.

All terms he used were easily understood by the audience because we are all familiar with the education system. Because the dilemma is revolving around an essential everyday part of life, it is easy to understand and get behind.

“We don’t grow into creativity – we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out of it.”

Sir Ken Robinson

Source used:

In reading Evidence, I gained an understanding of how the human mind works when forming beliefs, setting rules, and addressing anything else involving thought. The passage exposed me to an important question surrounding the human mind – are our opinions intentionally biased or is selective attention and inductive reasoning a natural human tendency?

Our opinions have many ways in which they can be influenced or changed. Some of which are the result of inductive reasoning – the use of a small portion of evidence to form a full conclusion. This has many negative impacts on us because we make statements consisting of a very slim amount of knowledge and a large amount of assumption. A reasonable example the author gave of this was the idea that we remember the rule that past tense words end in “-ed” instead of painstakingly memorizing the past tense of every single verb. This works for most words, but eventually we will make the mistake of saying “thinked” or “eated.” This smaller-scale example can then be applied to bigger issues in society, such as sexism or racism. This is an issue because people begin to make assumptions without having facts to back them up – these prejudices make for negative interaction and false accusation. Although, while fundamentally flawed, inductive reasoning still helps us in quick thinking. We are able to form reasonable, logical conclusions based on previous experience and knowledge. This allows us to save time and energy avoiding repetitive memorization. The author connects the drawbacks and positives of inductive reasoning to highlight a significant idea we need to remain conscious of – its strengths also serve as its weaknesses. When we create assumptions based off of little information, we are exercising bias, even sometimes at the subconscious level. It is important to be aware of this so that we can take a step back and re-evaluate our thoughts. We may need to find more evidence to support them or change viewpoints altogether.

Perception is the way humans form an understanding of the information we receive. When we create an understanding of something in our heads, many influencing factors come into play subconsciously. Sometimes, we are filtering out information without even realizing it, which is a prime example of selective attention and selective retention. In the excerpt from Perception in Mass Media, the authors present this idea and explain how it can influence the way we think and see. Perception can be influenced by many factors, for instance selective attention. Selective attention is when an individual will only search for information that supports their claim and disregard any refuting evidence. For example, if I were pro-choice regarding the abortion debate, I would only search for facts that support the benefits of abortion. I would ignore all facts that go against my stance. This is similar to selective retention, as the only difference is that I would listen to and look for evidence against my claim, but I wouldn’t embed it into my memory or really hold it to any value. Therefore, it still has the same effect as selective attention. This is one example of how our perceptions can be altered by our personal biases. Another example of perception interference is cultural value. Sometimes, if we are accustomed to certain ways of interpreting and doing things, we will attempt to make sense of foreign things in relation to our familiarities. For example, a study that Bagby conducted indicated to us how prevalent this can be in our own lives. When shown two different cultural images in each eye, we tend to see the image closer to our own culture before we make sense of the image of the other culture that we are less familiar with. This study proved that our cultures can also influence how we perceive information around us. Another example of how our perceptions can be shifted is through subliminal messaging. This relates closely to today’s widespread advertisements and general media. By planting secret messages in videos, companies can influence us, the viewers, to think differently of their brand without us knowing. Even though the authors refute the effectiveness of subliminal messaging, it is still used in mass media as a further attempt at manipulating the way we see things to their benefit. The big corporate side of the world has become exploitative of human tendencies and it doesn’t seem to be stopping any time soon with technology and media becoming more and more advanced. If we continue multiplying our reliance on technology like we are today, we may end up destroying ourselves because of greed.