AP Lang Summer Work 2017 discussion
This topic is about
Thank You For Arguing
What have you learned about argument?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jeffery
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Jul 13, 2017 08:57AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I learned that argumentation is an omnipresent force that drives our everyday processes. Being able to argue productively is a powerful tool that one can use in their life. Fortunately, although many people might not be the best at using this tool, Heinrich teaches his audience ways to hone in on their argumentation skills. For example, in part 2 of the book, Defense, Heinrich discusses common logical fallacies that might not be noticed in the heat of an argument. These include: making inaccurate comparisons, drawing from insufficient evidence, and confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Noticing these fallacies might allow you to defend against false arguments. Examples like these are scattered throughout the book; they allowed me to learn that there are many aspects to argumentation that I failed to notice before, but will be aware of in the future.
I learned of the meaning of "disinterest", and how it contributes to the user's ethos. In Chapter Eight, Heinrichs states, "Caring, or 'disinterest,' the appearance of having only the best interest of your audience at heart-even to the point of sacrificing for the good of the others" (Heinrichs 80). Before reading this book, I thought the word meant to simply show no care for an item or idea. With the author's definition, I realize that it rather means to show no care for your own needs but for others. By showing that you care, you are able to gain the audience's trust.
Like Mr. Frieden, I don't believe the book has taught me anything I haven't already known about arguing, (except for the proper names of the concepts.) While reading through the book, I noticed that I have used many of these strategies without being conscious of it, as if it were some kind of innate ability humans were born with. However, now being aware that these are rhetorical strategies, it allows me to get a better grip on how to correctly use them to my advantage while arguing.
Honestly, this book has been a big "Aha Moment" for me. I used to spend so much of my time "arguing" with people who I thought were giving a good argument. However, this book has shown me that those people are just inarguable people and that most of the time those "arguments" were really just fights. This book has shown me new techniques that I am going to love putting to the test in my everyday life. They also have shown me what not to use in an argument. Essentially, this novel showed that arguing is finding a persuader's goals, what appeal they are emphasizing, and whether the timing and medium is on par.
I personally feel that this book wasn't very eye opening because of how repetitive the author got at a certain point. In the beginning chapters Heinrichs introduces the basics of making a convincing argument and even states that the best arguments use the future tense. However the author continually repeats these main points throughout the book only going a layer deeper each chapter till he has milked as much as he can from the topic. One thing I did learn from this book was how sense can be a very helpful manipulator. Senses such as sight, smell, and sound can all be linked back to memories, which trigger emotional responses. I was also intrigued that ethos, your character, played such a strong role. It was my "Aha Moment" to learn the importance of that trait and find how manipulating emotion can be so effective in getting a active response from an audience.
Okay to start, I have to agree with you Mr. Frieden. The book itself has no good points and hasn't really helped create a stronger argument. The book points out obvious ways, and in my own eyes, it seems as if he picks on the basic ideas, and tries to make it sound bigger. Argument wise, he doesn't even touch it as much as he probably could have. Yes, it is helpful when he does point out things some people may have known, but he goes off-topic so much. Not only that, hes so attached to ethos pathos logos. Also he refers to old Greek/Roman history too much(like SOCRATES WOULD AGREE ON THIS!!). This is only much of an eye opener to common techniques used in our ever day life and allows us to get a better grasp of it? I guess the best Aha! situation would be when he really does how to explain to use it so it allows us to be more aware of when someone uses it so we could even counter with our own argument. But in the end, the book feels repetitive to me and just tries to grab onto viewers attention by things you may use but haven't noticed to peak someones interest. But yea its ok, maybe if he stuck to the point more, I give it a solid 4/10.
Well to be completely honest, the main point I learned from this was that every conversation, decision, and interaction can basically be an argument if the purpose has "persuading" in it. The beginning chapters felt like review, bring to life the ideas and concepts of ethos, logos, and pathos to be used. I don't know what to think to be honest, like it was - like completely- like you know - like informational - and like water under the bridge. As a side note however, it does make one think about how they act and speak with people compared to the author.
Mod
That's got to be rough. You read a chunky 328 page book that has sold thousands of copies, has been used as a text in a couple hundred college classes, and continues to influence people year after year and for you, it's water under the bridge. My sympathies are with you.
Eek at some of the earlier comments... I felt the book was incredibly interesting and taught me so much new forms of arguing. I wouldn't even say arguing is a real thing, it's about whose persuasion is more effective. I can say I've been in many arguments that became never ending battles and I've persuaded a good majority of people, but after reading this book, I realize I've been doing it all wrong. There are many warning signs that show an argument will be inconclusive, but I guess I always chose to ignore them. ALSO! Persuasion is so powerful, watch me "win" so much arguments this year.
Personally? I wasn't so much of a big fan of this book, not like I'm a big fan of books in general... but on to the point. Heinrichs, truthfully, really did open my eyes on the many components of argument that could definitely become helpful tools in everyday usage. Who would've thought there could be such technical ways to effectively argue? Initially, I believed that arguing was much more associated with fighting, but boy I was wrong. True arguments don't have to have a negative atmosphere. I definitely came to a realization that I'm quite awful at arguing myself... but watch me take several of these tools into usage this following school year, teach!
To be completely honest, the book taught me a lot I didn't already educate myself on. Persuading has never been the hardest task for me, sure, the book did teach me new ways of using rhetoric persuasion but overall i'm still on the same boat I've always been in. I was taught that arguments shouldn't have an negative outcome, rather less a physically negative outcome. Over the years of learning about persuading and arguments, my train of thought was leaded more onto fighting. I always thought arguments would somehow lead to a fight, but this book has taught me otherwise. Arguments shouldn't have a physical outcome, rather a positive outcome. In general the book didn't teach me a boat load of information but it did it's justice, because of this book I see outcomes of arguments a lot differently.
Jay Heinrichs can be given credit in one way, his self awareness. Many a times in reading the book we can see the author use the rhetorical skills he just presented or he'd use previous skills. A great way to keep the reader engaged and see if their awareness of rhetorical devices have improved. That's his one and only credit, having created a book that is easily digestible for the masses. Would I say there's Kubrick level meaning into the book? Why of course the book wouldn't have that, it's a book of introduction and examples to rhetoric. The examples are from his ordinary life, the man actually 'clickbaited' academic institutions by putting "WHAT ARISTOTLE, LINCOLN, AND HOMER SIMPSON..." as a tasty piece of ethos. All the credit to Heinrichs for using a rhetorical skill in order to sell the book but seeing it used does feel quite cheap as you feel you may have just been scammed, lest it were not intentional and is therefore false advertisement in a way. Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer are barely used in the book. Therefore in my opinion the book is horribly stale as the author's life, which is by no stretch of my imagination interesting. It may have possibly been my upbringing that my standpoint on arguments have been what the book preached in the beginning, that they are for compromise rather than the precursor to physical engagement. That's basically the book, an array of commonly picked up social skills or social norms. In my point of view as a student, the book is merely a way to rename common skills and norms to a be more academically pleasing rather than being left alone to just existing. Such as the rhetorical skill where one imitates their audience's values, did that really need to be taught? It's such common knowledge that two people with differing values won't handle well together in areas that their values come against. For example, if you'd like to impress someone into becoming your friend and they hold a strong belief in the tenants of the Alt-Right while you hold strong beliefs in Liberalism. In that example you wouldn't try to persuade that person into becoming your friend with conversations that goes against their beliefs. You'd instead find a subject you both agree or are interested in to talk about to grow a friendship. I wouldn't say the book was a terrible addition into my life, but it has given me self awareness that I naturally use rhetorical skills with people. Somehow this awareness has made me feel in-genuine in my everyday life. The book has 'trigger warnings' all around the chapters warning about how some lessons may be 'offensive' to some readers. Offensive no, make me feel self-conscious about what I say to people in order not to accidentally 'manipulate' them yes. I'd write more but I feel as though this 'comment' is a bit too much, my apologies as it seems like a rant- I tried cutting it down to as little as possible.
"Thank you for arguing," does not create any new strategies for argument, rather it categorizes them and tries to organize them from the reader's use in argument. I feel as if we already use most of the techniques listed but rarely think about them. Basic logic can explain why we use these, such as decorum; if a person arguing is not behaving civilized and acting calmly, instead shouting and making threats, then why should they be taken seriously? Most of the devices and techniques listed are things we instinctively use everyday in social circles and when we interact with other people. I feel as if I already have used most of the techniques Heinrich described, but now I know what to call them.
After reading "Thank You For Arguing," in total, I just wasn't satisfied. I mean at first, the author did seem to hook me on to the rhetorical devices that should be implemented into arguing today. But after the first half of the book, it just seemed as if he was rambling off into other topics that were not needed. Also, referring back to message #10, I disagree with the statement, "I wouldn't even say arguing is a real thing." In my opinion, Jay Heinrichs created this book to improve our own view on arguing. It was meant to discover each and every quality put into the concept to make us strong in our rhetoric language used today. Humans drive the process of arguing through the art of persuasion, therefore making it a real topic seen before our eyes.
