Blog 7: Logical Fallacies 11/27/16

I had no idea that logic could be so innacurate until this week's plethora of fallacies. Reflecting, I remember both using them and having them used against me. Ad hominem and Strawman are the most prominent in my memory. Ad hominem, or a personal attack irrelevant of the argument at hand, provides the user with a fall sense of logic and lays a cracked foundation for further points. It is a last resprt, something to lean on when there is no support left. Telling someone they failed a math class in an argument about world politics would be an example. Strawman, or citing a misinterpreted or false claim and striking it down as if it were an original of the other, is used more insightfully than Ad hominem yet probably more prevalent in "proper" argument. I did not know Strawman is any counter argument citing what an opposing side would say. I have used this technique countless times, without ever realizing this logic is a fallacy. If someone is building a case against the fast food industry, and I say they are against a capitalistic society, I am using Strawman. The fallacy my group and I used in our project was circular reasoning, where the end stage of the argument is already being used for the beginning stage, creating a loop. This logic is easy to spot becauase all points made are essentially derived from the same claim. Circular reasoning is weak because it includes no outside reasoning and promotes the idea of a lazy arguer who doesn't feel like incorporating new information into their claim. A store brand being the simple choice for consumers would count as a circular reason, ending with the claim that the choice is simple. Being aware of these fallacies can promote new, concrete forms of logic that can only continue to improve my writing. It can also help me break down points that don't have good foundations, making me a better critic and all around writer.

Blog 6 : Social Media 11/18/16

Throughout the week, we've looked at several pieces that take stands on social media. The clip, "Nosedive," is engraved the most in my memory. The seemingly dystopian future depicts a world of ratings. Virtual reality eye contacts provide users with floating star rankings that ultimately define who they are. Some jobs do not take users under 2.5 stars, and users with 4.5 stars and over are considered the social elite. Some may argue that our reality is far from such circumstances, but there is some truth to it if it has come to the center of our media in the form of network shows. We do have a social elite, caracterized by their millions of likes and followers, who both directly and indirectly shape the minds of the masses who aspire to be like them. The ideals of beauty are shaped by Hollywood celebrities, all of whom dominate social media platforms. Likes fuel our strive, like a false accomplishment. Judging by myself, I wouldn't post something that I knew wouldn't get any likes. If a post is genuinely a thought of that person, why can't it stay as a thought? The purpose of posting it is either to see another viewpoint or validate the original. The other text this week focused on arguments on social media, and how they dont exist constructively. The idea of a screen, or virtual mask, allows the user a no-holds barred approach. Things that would have been bottled up in person are uncorked through the nonexistent meeting of social media. Emotion cannot be displayed on either side of the spectrum: the speaker cannot convey emotion through their words, and the listener cannot convey their emotions in a response. On the other hand, as someone who deleted their social media for over a year, I can honestly say it connects like no other. I am able to communicate with friends I do not get to see regularly, and I've also been exposed to ideas that I did not take into consideration. Social media is here to stay, and ultimately it is up to the individual to make up the majority, and how that majority uses it.

Blog 5: Wisdom of Psychopaths Analysis 11/6/16

I thought this piece was very interesting and promoted claims that I've never thought of before. It concentrated on both sides of psychopathy. Society tends to have a negative denotation of a psychopath. If someone does something incredibly insensitive, one might call them a psychopath. Even the root word is often seen as an insult to demean someone else: "psycho." Movies, exactly labeled "Psycho," have been changing the denotation of psychopath for decades. This article sheds light on what psychopathy really is. Using logos, the piece brings up bomb-disposal operatives, highly important people who prevent terrorism and brutal murder by deactivating bombs. The studies mentioned show that many bomb operatives experience a drop in heart rate while they are doing their nerve-wrecking jobs. This is a key characteristic of a psychopath: a laser focus during stressful tasks. "...There are individuals whose basic biology is so fundamentally- different that curiosly and subconsciously, they remain impermeable to the minutest trace of anxiety antigens." This might take someone by surprise. "Aren't all psychopaths cold-blooded killers?" The answer is a concrete no. The piece argues psychopaths have wisdom, "innate, ineffable function of their being." Surely, our bomb experts are heroes. They prevent catastrophes, and are mentally tough enough to do it ten times over. The minority of psychopaths that are killers is just like any other minority out there. Extremists in every religion and racist cops don't paint the entire picture of religion or police department. Why should killer psychopaths? The bad, sadly, outweighs the good most of the time. It is easy to see a spot of dirt on a white canvas than a spot of white on a dirty canvas. The focus is mostly put on the instances of murder, not the instances where neurosurgeons and bomb experts save lives. This is what backs up the main claim of the text: "Psychopathy is a double-edged sword that inevitably cuts both ways." During our podcast, my group mentioned that there was no pathos in this piece. Ironically, if there was, any psychopath reading it wouldn't understand it. Lastly, I'd like to finish off with a controversial claim that was mentioned on the last page of the piece. After defining psychopathy as a double-edged sword, the writer then labels those edges as psychopathy and antipsychopathy. The killers and slashers on one hand, and tibetan monks and saints on the other. I really liked this claim. With anti meaning opposite, the writer argues that everything is part of the same spectrum, no matter how long or wide that spectrum is. It sums up that we are all human beings, and a lack of empathy, or an overabundance, does not take away our humanity. Psychopaths should not be singled out, and they are a very important part of our society.