Don't Be So Quick to Judge- The trap of Hasty Generalizations

 

Thanks to the efforts of the internet and modern modes of communication, our society is saturated with information.  Any question can be answered with the touch of a button, and our thirst for knowledge is easily quenched by a quick trip to Google.   You would think that with so much information made available to us, that we would be a more informed public- one that is careful to consider all sources before making any type of judgment or decision. 

Unfortunately, that is not the case.  The logical fallacy of hasty generalization (or overgeneralizing) is alive and well in our modern world.  A person only has to look at the recent election and the current polarization of our society to see that many people continue to pass judgment based on the statements and actions of a few instead of taking the time to investigate and consider a wide variety of information.  For example, I'm sure we all envision a certain type of person when we think of a "Biden supporter" or a "Trump supporter."  We are also probably guilty of assuming that people who are in favor of wearing masks are "sheep" when that may be far from the case.  

Maybe we fall into this trap because as humans we tend to "categorize" and we like to have a world that is predictable and orderly.   In reality though, that is far from what our world is like- we are each individuals with the ability to think and feel how we choose.  I would certainly not someone to push me into a particular "peg" (category), and I would hope to not fall victim to being "quick to judge" as by doing so I am every bit as guilty as the person (or persons) I am so  quick to condemn. 

7 Logical Sins

 There are 7 main groups of logical fallacies that infest politics and people's daily lives. These include false comparison, bad example, ignorance as proof, tautology, false choice, red herring, and wrong ending.

False comparison is where two similar things must be the same thing. This situation leaves out part of the information. A basic example of this could be comparing candy to vegetables. Let's say the comparison is, "Veggies are healthy than candy and therefore better!" This example leaves out the part of the information that has to do with the taste of the food. Candy tastes a lot better than veggies. 

Bad example is another one of the 7 main groups of logical fallacies. This group uses false information. This group also uses irrelevant or wrongly interpreted information as well. An example of a bad example could be when two people are arguing about the rain. A bad example would be if someone says that snow makes people happy. Now maybe this is true, however it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

The third main group of logical fallacies is ignorance as proof. This is where someone says something can't happen simply because they can't see it. An example of this could be people's argument about global warming. Some claim that global warming can't be happening because they can't see it happening since it got cold last winter.

Next, tautology is the fourth main group of logical fallacies. This is where the same thing is said two different ways. This is where people reword the same sentence (probably what you do when your essay isn't long enough for a class). An example of this would be X = Y and then turning around and saying Y = X. 

The next main logical fallacy group is false choice. This is where there are not actually the same number of choices that are presented. An example of this could be what your mom may say when she makes dinner. "You either eat what I make or you go hungry." There are technically more options that this as you could get a snack, order food online, go to a restaurant, etc. 

Red herring is another one of the main logical fallacies groups. This is where the person distracts the audience and gets their minds on something else. A basic example of this is when someone yells that there is a bird. "Oh look a bird!" This distracts the audience from what they were thinking and makes them want to look up to see this bird.

The last main group of logical fallacies is wrong ending. This is where the "proof" that they present does not lead to an ending. An example of this could be that heavy metal music causes kids to be goth.

These are the 7 main logical fallacies and examples of each of them.

Rhetoric

 

I think rhetoric can be used in many ways and this picture explains it very well. When explaining rhetoric to anyone you can actually use rhetoric. This can be done by making it seem like you persuading them to do something is not so bad and all sunshine and rainbows. You can show them the better side of rhetoric, if you want them to believe rhetoric is good, persuade them to think its good without them knowing. People use rhetoric everyday to their advantage, without even realizing what they are actually doing. 

Rhetorical and Literal

 

I think this meme explains a lot about rhetoric in everyday life. You see so many social media posts that people take literally when they are not meant that away. When someone says something literally they are saying it to basically tell a story, but when its meant rhetorically they are using their emotions or persuasion techniques to get you to feel a certain way. When you see a post on social media or hear someone talk about something next time, think of the way its meant to be portrayed. Is it literal or rhetorical. 

Examples of Rhetoric in Everyday Life

 When people talk about rhetoric they usually just mention how it's used to persuade people or persuade a whole audience. Then people talk about just how ethos, logos, and pathos are used, but what people don't really mention is that it's used in our everyday lives. People use rhetoric everyday in their lives without even noticing it. Some examples of rhetoric in everyday life are the radio, advertisements, billboards, posters, and even flyers on campus. All of these are examples that we see everyday of rhetoric being used. 

fallibility

 To an extent we are all infallible to ourselves. We perceive the world in a way that works for us and go about it in a way that works for us. We most frequently have a sense of fallibility in social situations or ones not concerning us directly or initially. The best way to go about being wrong is admitting fault; at least I've found through experience, it is the easiest way to be less fallible. 

 

Have you ever been in this situation where you receive a message, but you can't tell the real meaning behind it? 

Language today has changed from what it was before. Generation by generation, new words, abbreviations and pronunciations evolve, which can be a great thing, but also a negative thing.

In today's world, the change in language is often created by technology users; when texting/emailing, some prefer to use abbreviations rather than typing the whole phrase. For example, "on my way" is often sent as "omw", which can be quite confusing for those unfamiliar with it. In addition, sometimes those who prefer texting over phone calls can confuse others by simply doing nothing but sending the text. Sometimes it's hard to understand the tone behind a message; are they angry or excited? Joking or serious? These questions often arise because there is no way to tell the tone of a message by just reading it. This can cause issues if not cleared up, and can also cause negative views on language development.

Overall, changes in language have and will continue to change as our world grows, so be prepared for new letter combinations to come through your phone in the future! 

Listen to Jesus: He knows His Rhetoric

 

Those who have read the Bible may be familiar with the Book of Acts. However, most are probably unaware of the rhetoric within it. 

The Book of Acts is where rhetorical analysis makes a large contribution to understanding what is happening. This portion of the Bible is the second part of Luke's historical writing, which consists of over one third of speeches, conversations, debates and legal proceedings. The Book of Acts also demonstrates the incredible skill of Luke; he captures the difference in form and style of the speeches, depending on speaker, audience, and context. For example, Luke 1-2 and Acts 2 are very different from Paul's speech in Acts 17. However, even though the two are not alike, they both demonstrate remarkable rhetoric skill and sophistication.

This hidden rhetoric within the Bible is very useful within our lives; they model adaptability within the use of media to share and publish the story of Jesus. Therefore, this clever use of rhetoric can save our lives, so listen to Jesus and always look for rhetoric while reading! :) 

Picture Frame =/= Framing

 When you think of framing you may think of putting a picture into a frame to hang on the wall. In rhetoric framing is not simply hanging a picture on the wall. In rhetoric framing is the act of resetting the argument. Framing lets a person reset an argument and put the ball back in their court. This allows the person to get the upper hand on the argument by allowing them to put the topic and the opponent where you want them.

Framing requires three different steps. The first step is to find the commonplace words that work towards your goal. Commonplace words are the words that boil down the opponent’s argument. These words are what really matters to the audience and what they want most of all. Identifying the commonplace words allows you to switch the direction of the argument by making it appear that you want the same things.

The next framing step is broadest context. This is defining the issue in a way that appeals to the widest amount of people. The broadest context is what it sounds like, the less descriptive definition of the issue that the most people can relate too. Let’s pretend that a group of people are arguing about whether Reese’s candy is good or bad. A person may get up and say that they like candy in general, most people will agree with this. This is an example of broadest context.

The third framing step is to deal with the problem by speaking in future tense. By speaking in future tense, it makes it where it seems that nothing has to happen in that moment. When people think that they won’t have to deal with an issue til later on they are more likely to be okay with that solution. An hypothetical situation could be that someone’s car is on it’s last leg and will probably die within a couple months. The repair person could say that their car is dead and needs replaced as soon as possible but this would make the person upset. The repair person could also word it as though the car will need to be replaced in the future. Even though in both wordings the car will need replaced soon, the second one makes it appear as though it is a future problem and does not need to be worried about at that moment.

These are the three different framing techniques and how they are useful to change a conversation in your favor.

Revisions

 To "re-examine and make alterations to" the act of revision can sometimes take swallowing your pride and to admit that you are wrong. It can take going back on something that one put a lot of effort and time into to rectify it.

To revise shows growth and adaptation in the face of change and or scrutiny. Don't be afraid to revise an opinion or choice in your life, it's only human to make mistakes but it's selfish to die by it.

Take the High Road or Gain the High Ground

Everyone who has siblings has at some time been told to take the high road. Most of the time kids were told this after their siblings did something bad to them. The parents would always tell them to take the high road and do better than their siblings. They did this by making an argument about what they want from the kid. Whether this was by telling the kid it was wrong, that it would upset the sibling, that it would upset the parent, or whatever they come up with at the moment. Now, anyone who has ever been told to take the high road didn't want to and weren't convinced not to by the parents (whether or not they actual did something about it is another story). Your parents argument was in crumbles from the beginning because they based their argument on what they wanted and not what the kid wanted.

When the parents argument was about what they wanted without thinking about what their kid wanted it wasn't going to be effective. If the parents really wanted to convince their kid not to hit their brother back they probably should have considered gaining the high ground. To gain the high ground parents should have thought about what the kids wanted and manipulated it to get what they wanted. By this I mean that the parents should have started with something that their kids believed or wanted to convince the kids to do what they wanted.

To gain the high ground in this situation your parents should have started with a commonplace. A commonplace is something that the audience all believes. So for the example above, the parents may sit the kid down and say how they know why they want to hit their brother (and potentially say they would have wanted to hit them back too in the situation). This helps the kid feel like they are understood and that the parents get why/what they wanted. A commonplace is something useful to find in every argument as it boils down the audience place which makes it easier for the persuader to manipulate the situation to benefit themselves.

In order to find a commonplace look for babbling. This is where the audience keeps repeating the same things over and over again. The parents may find the commonplace from their kid repeating that they hit them first a bunch of times when they talk. This would help the parents realize that the reason the kid wants to hit the other is because they hit them first.

Another way to find a commonplace is to see the rejection. This is good to spot a commonplace because the audience has a reason why they turned you down and that is a commonplace. The parent may be able to find the rejection when they offer the kid a piece of candy in exchange for them not to hit their brother but the kid doesn't want it because they want to hit the sibling back.

The commonplace label is where the persuader will add the commonplace into their argument. By doing this it makes it seem like the audience got what they wanted and if someone objects to it they seem like an outsider who doesn't have the same opinions as the audience. The parent may do this by saying something such as if the kid hit the sibling back that their hand would hurt and it would hurt them more than their sibling.

Gaining the high ground will always be better than telling the audience to take the high road. By telling someone to take the high ground you are simply making they stew in their anger and not understand why they shouldn't hit their brother back. By gaining the high ground it is actually possible for the audience to change their opinions and believe what you want them to believe. 

Two examples of rhetoric