Reflection on Project 3

Longo, Dr. Wendy, "Looking Back" 05/13/07 via Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0 License

In this post I will reflect on my revision process for my public argument, mostly through answering the 9 questions provided in Writing Public Lives pg. 520.

1. Specifically, what I revised from one draft to another was the addition of new points to my argument. From the feedback I received, I learned that the best way to improve my piece was to just add more points to make to my argument, such as the history of my argument, and the counterargument. I also used these new points to strengthen the convincing analysis of my argument, my tone, and my evidence/support.

2. I didn't really reconsider much globally. My thesis didn't change, nor did my argument or my way of organizing my argument. I simply added more depth to what I had already provided, so nothing too major was reconsidered.

3. The changes I made were mostly due to reconsidering and reflecting on both my audience and my purpose. I realized that my audience was starting on the opposite side of my argument, most likely, so it would take more to convince them (which was my purpose) of my own opinion. This is especially why I included the counterargument, to relate to my audience and restate my opinion on the argument at the end.

4. These changes definitely improve my credibility as an author. Adding evidence, historical perspective, and acknowledgement of the counterargument all can fall under the category of "ethos" in an argument, although evidence can add to logos as well. By adding these things I am showing my audience different perspectives, proving that I know what I am talking about from all angles of the argument.

5. Again, the counterargument addresses the audience's presumable opinion on my subject for argument. By doing this I not only relate to the audience better, increasing their liking of my piece and therefore making them more likely to agree with me, but I am showing my audience that I have thought of everything when developing my argument. I also add the use of the word "our" at the end of my piece, saying "Gender inequalities and injustice is a problem in our society," thus relating to the audience even more.

6. Sentence structure and style was not a big focus of mine when revising. The only local changes I made were adding variety to some of the phrases/words I seemed to repeat often, and making sure my tone was dramatically visible enough.

7. My audience will understand my purpose better now because of my last point that I added. My last point ties the entire argument together, facts with opinion, almost serving as a type of conclusion for my piece. In a way this almost restates my purpose for the audience.

8.  I definitely had to revisit the conventions of my genre when revising. My genre was surprisingly difficult to work with, because it is usually so incredibly brief. Each buzzfeed list will contain 5-25 points, with each point having a one sentence explanation. For a list of the 10 emojis your mom should have, this is perfect. For a public argument on neuroscientific sex-differences, this is impossible. I worked around this brevity as much as possible, but my argument still doesn't follow the genre completely.

9. Overall, the same thing happens to me every time I revise... I have trouble finding any flaws in my piece. It's not that my piece is godly or flawless, because there are definitely problems that others find in my piece, it is just that when I write a rough draft I usually feel pretty good about it, and so when I reread it, that doesn't change. This is why reading peer comments is helpful for me, to identify what I need to work on as a writer. This specific revision helped me realize that most of my pieces have potential, they just need more substance, which is how I revised this piece.

Publishing Public Argument

Thomaseagle, "Sharpened Pencil Next to Sheet Paper" 3/26/08 via Wikipedia Commons,  Creative Commons 3.0 license

This post contains the link to my final draft of my public argument, as well as a small analysis on my argument based off of the questions provided. NOTE: My argument has longer descriptions than a buzzfeed article, obviously. If I had only the tiny descriptions that buzzfeed articles describe, I would have no evidence at all in my argument, and it wouldn't be nearly as effective. Please take that into account when reading my piece.

1.

 ←----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------x---------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly 

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

2.

←----x------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

3.

         ___x___ My public argument etablishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument prooposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).

         _______ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4.

My argument is more than just a simple restatement of the facts I've gathered on my topic. My argument introduces the topic in a uniquely casual  way, with a great amount of passion and emotion attached, therefore providing a different outlook/perspective on the information I used.

5.

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view

                    __x__ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    _____ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)

                    __x__ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating

                    __x__ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)

                    _____ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    _____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    __x__ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

                    _____ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)

                    _____ Other: 

Emotional appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    __x__ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture 

                    __x__ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact 

                    __x__ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)

                    __x__ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience

                    __x__ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point

                    __x__ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)

                    _____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    __x__ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate

                    _____ Other: 

Logical or rational appeals

                    __x__ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    __x__ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    _____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position

                    __x__ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                    __x__ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc. 

                    __x__ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)

                    _____ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments

                    __x__ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

                    _____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)

                    _____ Other: 

6. Here are three (1, 2, 3) examples of my genre. The third is possibly closest to my argument.

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

ClkerFreeVectorImages, "Thinker" 2012 via Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain

This post is my reflection on the process of writing and peer-reviewing for project 3. I reviewed Clay and Cynthia's project 3 drafts. Overall, upon reviewing their drafts I found some flaws, as well as strengths, in my own draft. It is hard with this project in particular to compare however, as we are all doing different genres.

1. Jessi Grossman, Tyler Gray and Rose Kowalski all reviewed my draft of a public argument.

2. I liked Rose's review the best, of course, because she gave me high scores for all of the topics that encompass my draft. However, in terms of what was the most helpful, Tyler's comments in my argumentation were good starting points for moving forward with my draft. While I have good points as-is, I could incorporate more of those points, new additions to the list, thus adding more support without straying from my genre.

3. I think argumentation needs to be my biggest focus from here on out. I feel, despite some of the scores I received, like I have a clear understanding of my purpose, audience, and genre, but I had so much fun creating my piece, I forgot to focus on making it much of an argument. Again, by adding more numbers to my list, I can open up more room for argumentation, rebuttals, more evidence, etc.

4. I did not attend any instructor meetings, as I probably should have in order to get a better sense of how I'm doing on this project, and if I'm at least headed in the right direction. Personally, I feel confident in my general idea for my argument. While my draft may not have been perfect, I feel like I am on the right track and my peers reflected my opinions, for the most part.

Draft of Public Argument

johnhain, "Conflict" 2014 via Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain

Here is my rough draft for Project 3, my public argument. I wanted to do an opinionated buzzfeed article swayed in one direction (the direction of sex-difference research mattering). I didn't realize buzzfeed doesn't have much in the way of actual "articles", more lists with pictures (like this), so that is what I created, with a few more words to add evidence. I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. I want to add more evidence to it, but the way it is split up, sort of into logos, pathos, and ethos is intriguing to me. Let me know what you think, what I should add or take away (since the lists are usually pretty short), etc.

Considering Visual Elements

Stux, "Frame" 2014 via Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain 

Project 3 Outline

Nicoguaro, "MindMapGuidelines" 06/07/11 via Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain

Introduction:

-Define or Narrow the Problem- This is most likely what will be used in an introduction in my piece, for my particular genre, as my genre uses its title as its largest portion of an introduction, and then a sentence or too defining the title further. I might use some outlandish title about men and women being different, and then clarify that this doesn't make them unequal.

Body:

1. Major supporting arguments

• there is scientific evidence of sex-differences and sex-difference research being important
• there are many neuroscientists who agree with my argument
• there is historical evidence of sex-difference research mattering 

2. Major criticisms

• neuroscientists who criticize the research
• societal views on sexism and its definition

3. I will likely address all of my supporting arguments, but in terms of rebuttal, since I'm trying to be as opinionated in my own view as possible, I will just talk about societal views, and possibly incorporate other critics into that category.

4. Topic sentences

• Scientific research has proven sex-differences between men and women.
• Dr. Larry Cahill, a neuroscientist with great credibility in the subject, believes in the importance of sex-difference research.
• In the past, avoiding sex-differences has caused life-threatening issues.

5. Evidence

• hyperlink to a source that contains evidence on what parts of the brain are different and how
• briefly describe the hyperlink
• hyperlink to Cahill's argument
• briefly describe the hyperlink
• hyperlink to a source that describes the ambien disaster in 2013
• briefly describe the hyperlink

6. Map of all of this

Conclusion:
-Call to Action- While my genre generally doesn't have any sort of conclusion,  a call to action might be appropriate to include, since that is going to be the tone of my argument, especially towards the end, that this problem of sex-differences being ignored must be changed in some way. However, my call to action may be more implicit than explicitly stated at the end of my piece like a normal conclusion.

Reflection: Upon reading Mark and Breanna's outlines for Project 3, I realized mine is much shorter in length and substance than theirs. It is clear that they went more in depth in their outlines than I did. I am not usually someone who maps out my writing before I write a piece, so for me outlines are sort of useless, and therefore I don't feel the need to include specific evidence in them like the others included in theirs. I also think that things are a little different in my genre, so I have less that needs to be included, which is why my outline reflects that brevity that I need.

Analyzing My Genre

BuzzFeed, "Buzzfeed Logo" 03/30/12 via Wikipedia Commons,  Public Domain

This post will explain the genre I intend to use forma public argument. Overall I plan on it being a list-article like the ones that I usually only see on buzzfeed, so all of my examples are from that site.

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

Social Context:

• The genre is typically set on buzzfeed, as explained, but may be seen on any popular entertainment source online, that doesn't have much factuality or credibility. Practically anyone could write a buzzfeed article.
• There is not usually one subject of the genre, it ranges from serious topics to "12 emojis your mom would send", but most of the articles are lists, that give numbered points adding to the overall purpose.
• The genre is open to the general public, so it could potentially be used by anyone, but would most likely be used humorously, or to make an argument/describe an event through use of little words, i..e. the Rob Lowe example, so in any way that is not to be taken as the most credible source.
• The purpose of this genre is generally to be a source of relatable entertainment, or a time passer. However, at times Buzzfeed posts articles like "5 reasons you need _____ in your life", in which it will make a less factual, more opinionated argument in a very simplistic way. 

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre:

• Facts, statistics, and other in-depth evidence are very rarely found in Buzzfeed list articles. This type of content, or wordy quotes, are content unlikely to be included. There are usually hyperlinks that link to more evidence, however.
• The most common rhetorical appeal in this genre is the appeal to pathos. Appealing to emotion helps the author connect with the audience and seem more relatable, thus increasing the power of the argument. Especially on a less factual source like buzzfeed, people are expecting that kind of emotion.
• The organization in this genre mostly just includes a title, subtitles in list (but conversational) form, a related picture, and then a brief explanation. These vary from example to example, but this is the general outline.
• The sentences mostly share a simple, casual style. Again, to create that relatability, a casual tone, as if the author is simply having a conversation with friends, is employed. The sentences also are usually brief and lack depth.
• In terms of word choice, this genre keeps it pretty simple, and in a way dumbed-down. Using words that appeal to a younger, more hip generation are often employed such as acronyms like "idgaf" and "lol".

What the Patterns Reveal:

• This genre doesn't really exclude anyone. The only exception might be its lack of appeal to an actual scholar, or someone looking for real, in depth and ground-breaking information on a subject.
• The genre encourages a casual conversation about the topic or argument between its author and audience. Since it is usually so based on opinions, it is up for an open debate and often debated in the comments.
• It is assumed that most of the audience for this genre is going to be younger, more entertainment-enfatuated people. This group tends to sway democratic on social issues, politically speaking, which can change how certain arguments are perceived.
• The two most valuable types of content in this genre are pictures and outside references, such as hyperlinks. The least valuable for this genre is long explanations, or much evidence at all.

Reflection: After reading about Scott and Lauren's genres, I realize mine is way more simplistic. In both of their genres, it is easy to make an argument, including a great deal of evidence and opinionated explanation throughout. In my genre, however, There is usually an emphasis on brevity, so there is not much room to actually MAKE an argument. I'm not sure how this will effect my overall draft, but I will try to find a way to incorporate all of the pieces of my genre with making a public argument.

Considering Types

Chiltepinster, "Mocking Bird Argument" 6/26/11 via Wikipedia Commons, Creative Commons License 

In this post I will go over  the different types of arguments that can be made. Specifically, I will be commenting on if I will be using that type of argument, and why it does or does not work with my own purpose, for each type.

Position: A position is otherwise commonly thought of as a pro/con argument, you are using the argument to take a stand one way or the other. These arguments are usually good at capturing the audience through and emotional reaction, as well as putting certain ideas and biases into an audience's head about a subject. 

At risk of jumping the gun, I am already in favor of using a position in my argument. I just find that it is the easiest to use in an opinionated piece, as positions are so inherently opinionated.

Casual: A causal argument aims to focus on the future of the situation or topic at hand. It shows a cause and effect relationship between a problem and a solution, or a problem and a lack of sufficient solution. A causal argument is most helpful when you are trying to be extra dramatic in your position, and you are aiming for your audience to look at the situation and solve it rationally.

A causal argument might have worked for me, and I might still use pieces of causal arguments. However, a position works better for my purpose, seeing as I don't want people to look at the situation completely rationally, I want to invoke talk, controversy, and emotion among readers.

Evaluative: An evaluative argument can be either the least or the most argumentative and emotional of the types. It goes in depth on how successful something in a controversy is, such as a policy. An evaluative argument is like an objective version of a position, it shows the current state without necessarily taking a stance on it.

Evaluative arguments won't work for my sake, as I need to stir up that emotion, and the present situation is less important to me than how the situation is presented to the audience in an interesting way.

Proposal: A proposal asks its readers to take a stand on the argument. For instance, if the argument was feeding the poor and hungry in other countries, the proposal might be to donate money. If the argument was red light cameras being banned in tucson, the proposal is to have a vote on them being banned. 

For my purpose, a proposal is not important. I don't care which side my audience chooses, even though I am offering an opinionated position. All I want is for my audience to gain some interest in neuroscience controversies.

Refutation: A refutation looks at a current or previous argument and offers the opposing side to that argument. It shows all the ways in which that argument may be wrong, and in its own way takes a side or position on a subject. 

While I may refer to and refute some past articles or facts, there is not one specific argument that I want to focus on opposing for my own argument, which is why a refutation wouldn't work for the sake of my argumentative piece.


Reflection: I looked at Clay (Rhetorical Action Plan) and Mark's (Rhetorical Action Plan, Considering Types) posts in order to see how others were addressing making plans for there posts, and to reflect upon my own. I discovered that, when considering types and my action plan, I had been sort of narrow-minded and set on how I wanted my argument to be presented, just as it appeared others struggled with. I think that I will still go with my same plan and type of argument, as I think a position is what will be best for an emotional buzzfeed article, but analyzing others' plans has helped me to better realize how I can go about structuring the position in an interesting way.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

742680, "Planning" 02/15 via Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain

The purpose of this post is to analyze my plan in terms of my audience, my genre, and my actions/responses in and to my argument. Through the bulleted list of questions in Writing Public Lives, pgs. 412-413, I can achieve a detailed plan for my rhetorical actions in my argument, and better determine my audience, purpose, and context.

1. Audience: My audience does not need to know much, if anything at all, about my topic for argument, since I want the argument to intrigue them into the topic. In terms of values, I am assuming there will be an abundance of people who are on the liberal side of the argument, believing sex-difference research can be sexist. Statistical evidence with a great deal of claims to frame the evidence might be helpful for my audience, to give them some immediate information on the subject, as well as facts that appear irrefutable. Images, a few, might help engage my readers and peak their interest more, maybe even add to the emotion of the piece. My audience is reading my piece to gain knowledge about current controversies in gender equality and neuroscience, they will possibly take a position of their own after reading mine.

2. Genre: My genre will be an opinionated article for my argument. This genre, as previously mentioned, might be seen on sites like buzzed or slate. The reason this genre works for my purpose is because it appeals to the right audience, the younger audience that has little interest in academic issues. I can use an abundance of pathos in this argument to add to the emotional charge of it, and an informal, conversational tone to add reliability.

3. Responses/Actions: In terms of positive support, people could agree with the position I am taking, and possibly want to take the same or a similar position on the subject. Even if they don't agree, they could give positive support through peaceful disagreement and constructive criticism on the factuality of my argument. In terms of negative rebuttal, I am most worried about those who will still find the topic boring, or find it cheesy and obviously overdramatic. This could lead to them spreading the dislike of the subject of neuroscience, which is the opposite of what I want.

Analyzing Purpose

godserv,"Got Purpose?" 4/13/10 via Flickr, Creative Commons License

The purpose of my argument is unlike the purpose of some others' arguments. While mine does have to do with a topic in my field of study, the purpose of my argument is more about the audience and the way my argument is presented than the argument itself. I explain my purpose more in the following answers to questions from Writing Public Lives pg. 326.

1. For my argument, my purpose is to engage the public, people who usually are not into the subject of neuroscience, or at least not as much as they are into the subject of tabloids and entertainment, of current topics in the field. I want to get people talking about neuroscientific controversies, even if that means instigating the argument with a fun, biased, and opinionated argument.

2. Possible reactions: readers could become more interested in neuroscience and its controversies, readers could not gain or lose any interest in the field, readers could become more interested in gender issues, and/or people could choose to take their own stance on sex-difference research.

Less possible reactions: people are even less interested in neuroscience or gender differences, people take a stand to completely support sex-difference research (since my argument argues against this)

3.  From my possible reactions from the audience of my argument, there is the possibility that readers could become more interested in the field of neuroscience. If a reader reads my argument and is more interested in neuroscience than before, this could lead to them wanting to become involved in the field, and possibly them aiding, financing, or doing some of their own research on the subject, giving my field more help and more information to work with, as well as more recognition from the public.

4. Because nearly anyone could be a neuroscientist or aspiring neuroscientist if they cared enough about the subject and put their minds to it, my audience can be the general public. But, more specifically, I need my audience to originally know very little about or have very little interest in neuroscience. This is why a site like buzzfeed seems like the perfect platform for my argument, as it could peak the interest of a less academic public there.

Analyzing Context

Stawig, "Argument Logo" 10/03/11 via Wikipedia Commons,  Creative Commons License

This post addresses the context of the argument that I will be making for project 3. My argument involves the question of whether it is immoral to do medical/scientific research (and make claims about that research) on how both sexes differ, as it could open up room for sexism, or if it is immoral not to do the research on sexes, since they do biologically differ. From the questions in Writing Public Lives:

1. There are two key perspectives on my argument. Either a person wants to continue sex-difference research, or they think it is sexist to do so. Both sides of the argument make good points about the morality of each option, as it has become such a moral development. The perspectives are on opposite ends of the spectrum of the topic, also, and the only middle-ground perspective is of those who simply don't care about the argument at all.

2. The biggest contention between perspectives on my argument is sexism, and how it factors into the research. The problem is that calling men and women inherently "different" allows people to treat men and women differently. For instance, finding out that women don't handle stress as well as men (just an example, not a real fact) could cause businesses to avoid hiring women, thus causing even more sexism against women in a society that is already troublesome.

3. The two perspectives do agree with what research and scientific facts have shown, that there are certain biological differences between men and women that can be dangerous to ignore. If these differences are completely disregarded, there could be medical complications for the different sexes, which even those against the research can recognize.

4. The ideological differences between the perspectives involve morality. Is it more important that a group of people is treated correctly medically, or is it more important that the group lives in societal and cultural peace? Essentially this is the moral dilemma that must be faced in my argument.

5. The only action plan proposed by either side of the argument is either urging for or against sex-difference research being performed. And it appears that most of the arguments FOR sex-difference research are more invested in their perspective than those against it. Therefore, the affirmative side argues a plan to its audience more strongly.

6. My own argument is going to be that the research is sexist, purely for the sake of that side being easier to be emotional about, and I want my article to be very loaded and emotional. An example of this is a blog post that is equally as biased and emotional as I want my article to be about the subject. Considering I would be trying to post the argument to a site like buzzed, it won't be very academic.

7. The opposite side of the argument, which is factual articles and books that look like this, will probably be a problem going against my argument, is the opposite side contains far more evidence and facts on the subject than my side, which is mostly personal opinion.

Reflection: I read Lauren and Michael's Analyzing Context posts, and discovered that my own post shows that I have less of a grasp on my context. While I know the basic arguments of each perspective in my argument, I don't know the details and facts about each side. I also realized that for other peoples' arguments, there seems to be one more popular perspective than the other, but I am not sure which perspective is more popular in my case.