Thank Your for Arguing Ch 10

 Chapter 10 of Thank You for Arguing explains how to calm the audience with a passive voice. The technique works to calm the emotions because it disembodies the speaker and removes the actors. The passive voice calms the audience, which can be seen as a "pathos trick."

The book provides many methods on how to calm an angry person/audience. The first suggestion is to keep everything simple. You need to use simple language and avoid jargon. It also explains how you should keep your sentences short in your argument. Another method is to make your audience feel powerful. This is providing your audience with a sense of self-control. Make your audience smile with humor! Humor also works to assuage anger. 

To conclude, the tools for directing an audiences temper are: 

Passive Voice, comfort (cognitive ease), humor, emotional refusal, and backfire. 

How to Calm Down an Angry Audience

 In chapter 10 of Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs explains different tactics one can use to help someone calm down when they are angry.  The tactics that stuck out to me were to "keep everything simple" and "make your audience feel powerful." I thought these were interesting because people can do these without even realizing it.  

When someone is angry, they don't want to be confused by what someone is saying, they want easy simple answers.  If they have to ask what the person means or they have to ask them repeat every sentence, they are going to get more frustrated than before.  On the other hand, if the angry person can easily answer someone's questions or comments, they are less likely to get even angrier.  

Another strategy Jay Heinrichs talks about is making "your audience feel powerful."  No one likes the feeling of being powerless or like they have no control.  It can make many feel anxious or angry, especially when they are already angry.  By making your audience feel powerful they feel like they have control over the situation and can help them calm down.  A good example of making them feel powerful is giving them a choice, because they get to choose what answer they want to pick.  

Next time someone you know is angry try using one of these strategies to help calm them down. Everyone likes to feel powerful and smart, so these tactics are sure to help.

Chapter 9 TYfA and the election

 Control the mood, how do your supporters feel about you? As my mom always told me; "people will forget what you said but they will never forget how you made them feel." Trump stands for the working man, this nations security and protecting capitalism, while Biden stands for women's rights, free health care and protecting immigrants, both in broad senses. 

Yet how do they make you feel? It is their job to make you feel a way about their cause. They want you to share their belief or they align themselves to a group belief. Whether it is nostalgia for what once was or lust for what one wishes to be the future; we lead to different thought groups more often than not out of anger. both candidates use storytelling with Biden using it some more and Trump instills patriotism more among his supporters.

Columbus and Human Nature

Genghis Khan, Christopher Columbus and Adolf Hitler to name a few are known for killing, but why? Why did Columbus set foot on the land he did, see beautiful and selfless people and decide to kill upwards of a million? Why was Adolf in such conflict with Jews, homosexuals and impaired that he ordered the death of close to 15 million? And Khan, to create the largest contiguous empire ever, killed 40 million individuals; In the name of conquest hundreds of millions of lives have been taken through history but why? Suppression of oppression clearly, but not so much when you really look at it closely. Not to say it's perfect but the adversaries could be exiled like the natives by the US government. But killing fellow humans is what these people did and I believe it is human nature. 

None of these men saw their adversaries as equal, just like how almost anyone can kill a bird and not live with remorse these men saw their adversaries as non equals, non human and thus killed in-affectionately. To see another man as unequal is arrogant, to be arrogant to another life and kill without moral weight is human nature. America bombed Japan when lets face it, "they messed with our boats" but we didn't Nuke Germany even though mid-way through the war we knew they were committing genocide. White America saw white Germany as equal and asian Japan as lesser then. 

In conclusion, I believe killing is in human nature just as much as arrogance does and when both combine in the name of conquest you see the mass murder and a lack of moral weight.

Ethos: The Three Components

 This week, we seem to be focusing heavily on ethos. In the book, Thank You for Arguing, it is the first method that Heinrich addresses on how to win over an audience. Heinrich focuses on Aristotle and the term "character" as he explains the proper definition of ethos. Heinrich starts it off by dividing ethos off into three sections. The first part of ethos is disinterest. Wether you believe it or not, an audience is more sustainable to trust a speaker who shows little interest in bettering themselves. Someone who truly cares about the audience and their needs, much more than there own. 

                                    

The second section of ethos would be virtue. This is focusing on the audience's values and trying to understand them. An audience will appreciate you more if you can relate to them. This means a speaker should take the time to learn about the audiences language, culture, certain traditions, and everything in between. 

Lastly, the final section is practical wisdom. This is overall just proving your credibility and how much the audience can trust you. You want the audience the have faith in you that you can do your job and you will do it properly.

                                            

All of these things combined, you will have a pretty good shot at persuading your audience. Heinrich does make it clear that you do not need ethos to win an argument. You don't need to have good character for the audience to trust you. Although, he states it surely will help and encourages everyone through ethos, to have a better character. 

Logos

 In the book Thank You for Arguing Aristotle mentions three types of persuasion. The three types are pathos, logos, and ethos. Today I am here to explain what logos is and how it works. Logos originally means the argument by logos. For example logos would be the brainy one, the big sister who gets top grades in high school. According to Aristotle, Logos isn't just about following the rules of logic; it's a set of techniques that use what the audience is thinking. Logos and the two other types appeal to the brain, gut, and heart of your audience which is why they're so important. 

Logos is using data, statistics, or common sense to convince people of something. Logos is commonly used with things like marketing and advertising. An example of logos is when apple came out with the brand new iPhone X it was the brand new and expensive phone. The link right here is an ad apple came out with when the iPhone X was brand new. ( Meet iPhone X |  )  Apple made this ad simple and it then reels off a list of the phone's many qualities- like wireless charging, durable glass, and a lack of a home button, so they could create an ad that has a lot of logical appeal. With all the data and the facts Apple shows the iPhone X as the logical choice. 

Pathos

 Pathos involves emotion. People use pathos to try and persuade someone to get what they want. It is used a lot in todays commercials or in everyday life when talking to people.  You know when people try and make you feel bad for not going somewhere or doing something with you? Thats Pathos. They use guilt and try and persuade you to change your opinion. Pathos is one of Aristotle's three argument tools. In Chapter 4 of Thank You For Arguing, he stated "When a little girl acts sad, sympathy means looking sad, too; it does not mean chirping, "Cheer up!" I think by showing you have sympathy towards someone, they are using pathos to get you to that point. That was Aristotles point of using that example. 

A great example of pathos is when you see those commercials, especially during the Super Bowl, and its a little girl sad, or a puppy leaving home, and then they show you the brand of the product and it makes you want to buy it. Yes, they used pathos. They used things people can't resist, young children and puppies. They made your emotions feel sympathy towards them and want you to buy those products. I know when you're watching the Super Bowl or any sports, you don't think "oh they are using pathos, logos, or ethos" but they do to make people buy their product.  It is used everyday and most people don't even realize it. 

Disinterested = Caring

The definition of disinterested according to Dictonary.com says, "unbiased by personal interest or advantage; not influenced by selfish motives".

The definition of uninterested according to Dictonary.com says, "having or showing no feeling of interest; indifferent".

My whole life I always thought that these two words could be used interchangeably (similar to how I thought that argument and fight could be used interchangeably at the beginning of this semester). Chapter 8 in the book Thank You for Arguing talks about disinterest and how it does not mean uninterested.

Disinterest is a technique of ethos which shows that the person cares. This technique makes it appear that the person cares about the audience and people they are talking to more than themselves. This method makes it appear that they only care about the audience.

I find it sort of funny how a word I associated with not caring, indifferent, and detached means something completely different. When I first started reading chapter 8 I was insanely confused as it said something that was a 180 from my previous beliefs.

Having thought something completely different it was interesting to see the tools that are used to show disinterest. These include personal sacrifice, dubitatio, authenticity, and reluctant conclusion.

Personal sacrifice is where it appears that you are doing something that will benefit others at your own personal expense. A basic example of this would be letting someone cut ahead of you in a long line at the grocery store. This seems like a personal sacrifice as you are letting them go first so it will take you longer than it needed to. Now in reality, you may have let them go ahead of you because your mom isn't back yet and you don't have the credit card. By letting them go ahead it seems like a selfless gesture but in reality may simply be because you need your mom before you can check out.

Dubitatio is where you make it seem that you are uncertain of yourself and your skill in rhetoric. This means that you make yourself seem innocent and like you are not good at speaking. An example of this could be speaking softly and looking away from peoples eye while talking. For me personally, I do these sort of things simply because I suck at public speaking thanks to my social anxiety. But for others, they almost pretend to be this way to make the audience believe them.

Authenticity is a very common theme in ethos. It's all about making people believe you. This makes the audience believe you and think that you are telling the truth. To do this people make others like them simply for being who they are. An example of this could be a comedian. A guy gets up on stage and starts telling jokes about a random topic for the point of this post lets say sleep apnea. Now this guy starts telling this joke about sleep apnea and what it is like for him at night. This comedian throughout his routine has made you like him and so you are more willing to believe what he says about sleep apnea because you like who he is. 

Reluctant conclusion is the idea that you came to a conclusion because none of the others would have worked. A basic example of this could be a person who loves ice cream. Now this person loves it so much that they want to eat it for every meal. A reluctant conclusion would be that they know that is reality they cannot eat ice cream for every meal.

I find it interesting how disinterested means that they care more about others and less about themselves. I also think it is neat how there are different techniques including dubitatio, authenticity, reluctant conclusion and personal sacrifice to show disinterest and to use in rhetoric.

How to get what you want out of an argument

 According to the book Thank You For Arguing sometimes people need to distuingish between an argument and a fight, and to choose what you want to get out of an argument. You succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience. You have to use the kind of persuasion that might change somebodies mood, mind, or willingness to do something.  To win an argument don't try to outscore your opponent. Try instead to get your way. When you decide what you want out of an argument, you can determine how your audience must change for you to achieve that goal. 

There are three goals when it comes to persuading people.

1. Stimulate your audience's emotions

- This means to start by changing its mood. Changing the mood is the easiest goal, and usually the one you work on first. The secret, according to Aristotle is not to be content merely with seizing the audience's sympathetic attention. 

2. Change it's mind

3.  Lastly fill it with desire to act

- What Aristotle means by this is you get the audience to do something or to stop doing it, which is the most difficult part of the process. It requires a different, more personal level of emotion, one of desire. 

Ethos: Examples, Definition and Aristotle's Thoughts

 "As a doctor, I am qualified to tell you that this course of treatment will likely generate the best results."

"If his tears as a marine taught him anything, it's that caution is the best policy in this sort of situation."

"Based on the dozens of archaeological expeditions I've made all over the world, I am confident that those potsherds are Mesopotamian in origin."

These are all examples of Ethos, which is an appeal to ethics. It is used as means of convincing an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader. 

In the first example, the doctor is the persuader, and is using his degree status and title to establish credibility in order for the patient to be persuaded that the treatment they are given will generate the best results.

The second example shows a marine and his experience with war to establish credibility in order to persuade others to believe caution is the best policy within war.

The third and final example is using archaeological expeditions to prove the speaker is credible and has what it takes to prove the potsherds are Mesopotamian in origin.

Aristotle once said "We believe good men more fully and more readily than others." This describes the sole purpose of ethos, which gives way to a successful path for persuasion.

What Do You Meme?

 

There is a clear indication that the man in this meme is confused, angry or annoyed with the argument he is reading. It is unclear, however, whether the argument is based upon persuading the other or not, but we do know there are two parties. Even though this is not the typical form of argumentation throughout rhetoric, the reaction is still valid.

When arguing or attempting to persuade someone else, this reaction of the audience is something persuaders should try to avoid. When this is their reaction, they are not being sent in a positive direction when it comes to believing what you believe. Typically, persuaders want their audience to be happy with what is presented to them, so that there is a better chance of them turning their minds around. When they are unhappy, upset or confused with the presentation, they are not likely to change their beliefs. 

This is why using Aristotle's three tools of Ethos can be crucial when persuading. Sharing the audiences' values, having practical wisdom and keeping the audience interested are key to your audiences' minds.

Bending the Rules to Gain Trust

There are three different techniques that people use to get the audience to trust their decisions. These three techniques are: show off their experience, bend the rules, and seem to take the middle course. I find it funny that one of the three techniques to get the audience to trust your decision is to bend the rules.

Bending the rules is basically breaking the rules but in ways that the person doing it can justify it to themselves. Bending the rules is when you change them slightly to get out of something or to help yourself in some way. 

An example of bending the rules would be such as when grocery store employee gives you a discount for a coupon that doesn't match. This would be bending the rules because technically the employee is not allowed to apply the coupon unless it perfectly matches; therefore, by giving it to a customer that didn't buy what the coupon required is bending the rules. A grocery store employee may bend the rule in this case to not risk dealing with a rude customer when they deny the coupon or possibly because they don't care whether or not they bought the items.

I find it funny that one way to get an audience to trust you is to bend the rules. This pretty much means that in order to get someone to trust you, you are going to break the rules and lie about it. Bending the rules is a slippery slope because at what point does the person actually break the rules?