ENG124 IllinoisState Family Guy And Freud By Antonia Peacocke

Anonymous

Question Description

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Rodriguez 1 Maria Rodriguez Professor Stafford English 124 3 October 2018 Not a Pundit "I'm not a pundit, semicolon, I do research.” So says freelance journalist and blogger Clive Thompson in a 2012 interview with the Science Journalism Fellowship of MIT (Inside The Story, Henry). Thompson may just be acting humble; he has worked with computers since he was a youth, graduated from U of Toronto after studying Political Science and English, worked for several magazines and writes freelance for publications including Wired (Nunes). Poly-Sci draws upon ideas of the fields of economics, law, sociology, history, philosophy, geography, psychology/psychiatry, and anthropology. Such subjects are important in his writing about ideas centered on humanity v. technology. His past has made him an effective source in many different aspects of human interaction as well as a possibly reliable source on technology in a growing digital age. However, Thompson is correct in his self-evaluation that he is not a pundit. He lacks formal education on many technological studies and thus he must rely on the side of his writing that relates to human nature and development more than on the technological side if he wants to remain in his zone of expertise. Fortunately, the other half of his statement is also correct: he does research. Rodriguez 2 Admitting that he is not an expert in everything he writes about actually allows him to strengthen his eventual overall arguments. Right off the bat he doesn’t present self as expert in anything he isn’t. In fact, in his essay from his book Smarter Thank You Think, he supplies an anecdote about his own writing style that demonstrates his use of more advanced sources to strengthen his argument. He states that when he was working on the section in this particular essay from the book that had to do with chess strategy, he “often realized [he] couldn’t quite remember a detail and discovered that [his] notes were incomplete” (“Smarter Than You Think,” Thompson). So he’d “zip over to a search engine”. There he was able to read long passages from chess experts and grandmasters and find information about chess and its interaction with technology in the form of centaur-play (that is, chess played by humans with the augmentation of a computer program). Obviously he is no grandmaster himself but he makes it a point to draw from primary sources to fill in the gaps on knowledge he himself is not already an expert source on. Another interesting thing about Thompson as a source is his views on technology and its interaction with humanity. According to his writer bio on the Smarter Than You Think website, he started out pessimistic about technology. He worried “that society and civility would fall off a cliff” but over the years he realized “when everyday people were given remarkable powers of self-expression on a global scale, amazing things happened more often than not” (“Bio,” Thompson). Any conflicts of interest Thompson might have are mostly alleviated here as he has had opinions on both sides of the argument. Now he may be more inclined to respond positively to ideas of technology but due to his past as more of a naysayer of such things, we can see that he Rodriguez 3 is most likely taking the facts on and benefits of technology into account more in order to form his opinions. Now, his ideal audience is wider as well. As a freelance technology writer that works often with Wired, his central audience is no doubt those who are interested in learning about emerging technology and hearing his thoughts on said advancements. However, he also writes effectively for those who are concerned by such things as well. His blog on clivethompson.net, as well as his former blog “Collision Detection,” both mainly serve as updates on things he finds interesting in the digital age. His Wired articles are also generally updates on technological phenomenon and his thoughts on them. However, he also writes in order to assure his more pessimistic audience that technology is not a social cliff that we will eventually fall off of. The essay adapted from Smarter Thank You Think that is found in They Say, I Say is a prime example. He chooses examples of scenarios that people are worried about (Q: will AI make things such as chess obsolete?) and postulates that such scenarios are examples of things society can use to improve, not examples of the end of the world as we know it (A: humans and computers collaborating are smarter than any single human or computer). He assures the worrisome audience that the future is in our hands and that technology is a springboard to the future, not the edge of a cliff that we’ll fall from before we reach the future. Because he appeals to both of these audiences, his opinion matters doubly in the field he opines on. He is a useful source for several walks of life that have questions about the future of the tech world. Rodriguez 4 Clive Thompson is somewhat of a Renaissance man. His experiences range wildly and his areas of expertise do so as well. He has college education in the fields of poetry and political science, yet he loves technology and is an expert journalist. When he’s not working as a journalist, blogger and science/tech writer he writes poetry and lyrics and is a musician involved with two bands. His wide variation of interests thus enable him to look at many aspects of the world when he writes and does research. In his interview with Jacqeuline Nunes of the Ryerson Review of journalism he sums up his ability to research like this: “When the story came out,” says Thompson, “the FBI called and said, ‘You actually hunted down people that we weren’t able to contact'” (Nunes). Thompson can be considered a reliable source in the fields of technology and its effect on humanity because of his years of experience in the technological spheres, his ability to research extremely efficiently and his tendency to address both sides of the technological debate. He is qualified to have an opinion on almost every facet of technology and his opinion matters because he is able to educate people in new, unique ways. His chess essay from Smarter Than You Think provides a positive outlook about humans and machines improving together that few naysayers (or even optimists) would have considered in the past. By being self-aware of his ability as an expert opinion or “pundit” he allows the audience to realize he can support his arguments with good data without overstepping his boundaries. Being that careful to ensure his opinions are based on solid evidence and expertise takes time though. As Thompson himself admits, “he drinks lots and lots of coffee” (Nunes). Rodriguez 5 Works Cited “What Makes Clive Run.” Jacueline Nunes, Ryerson Review of Journalism, https://rrj.ca/whatmakes-clive-run/. “Bio.” Smarter Than You Think, smarterthanyouthink.net/bio/. “Inside the Story.” Martha Henry, Rovi Corporation, web.archive.org/web/20120101174626/http://web.mit.edu/knightscience/fellows/interviews/thompson.html. Exhaustive Source Research Paper Using one of the authors of one of our example essays, or one of the sources they cite, write a four or more page paper in MLA format where you explore their background and qualifications. Please note that someone can be a very good source without all of the qualifications I ask about, and they can be an acceptable one even with a red flag or two. Look at their qualifications: 1. Are they educated in the field that they discuss? Did they get their education from a reputable institution? 2. Are they experienced in their field? Did they work in it? Have they researched it? Have they interacted with it in some other way over time? 3. Do they have personal, anecdotal evidence about the topic? This can be highly biased, but also highly compelling to an audience. Eye witness testimony from a credible source can carry a great deal of weight. Look at their credibility and their ethical appeal regarding their expertise: 1. When they make assertions, do they provide evidence from other, credible sources (experts should always be willing to make statements like “I know this because…” followed by evidence—which doesn’t mean they always will). 2. Do they “stay in their lane”? In other words, does the political scientist stick to politics, or does he portray himself as an expert on, say, medical issues as well? 3. How do they make their living? If they are paid for their expertise (most people are, this isn’t bad in and of itself), does it seem to bias their understanding of the issue? Is there evidence to this effect? 4. Is their position an “outlier”? While it is still just barely possible for one lone genius to be right about some obscure point, and the rest of their position to be wrong, the way that science works today this should be extremely unlikely, and in the long run, most such “lone geniuses” turn out to be cranks & charlatans. Look for other red flags: 1. Does this person have other characteristics that might make them less than trustworthy? Do they have a history of lying, plagiarism, fraud or general criminality that may make us want to think twice about taking them seriously? 2. Do they have a history of being right or wrong in their public pronouncements? 3. (& while this shouldn’t make their point of view automatically wrong), do they hold noxious views or engage in acts which most people would find repugnant that might reduce their ability to convince a large and diverse audience (are they a racist, sexist or homophobe? Are they a blatant hypocrite? Have they been found guilty of spousal or child abuse, stalking, etc.?)? This paper should have at least four sources, all of which are used in writing the paper & listed in the Works Cited page. Exhaustive Source Research Paper Using one of the authors of one of our example essays, or one of the sources they cite, write a four or more page paper in MLA format where you explore their background and qualifications. Please note that someone can be a very good source without all of the qualifications I ask about, and they can be an acceptable one even with a red flag or two. Look at their qualifications: 1. Are they educated in the field that they discuss? Did they get their education from a reputable institution? 2. Are they experienced in their field? Did they work in it? Have they researched it? Have they interacted with it in some other way over time? 3. Do they have personal, anecdotal evidence about the topic? This can be highly biased, but also highly compelling to an audience. Eye witness testimony from a credible source can carry a great deal of weight. Look at their credibility and their ethical appeal regarding their expertise: 1. When they make assertions, do they provide evidence from other, credible sources (experts should always be willing to make statements like “I know this because…” followed by evidence—which doesn’t mean they always will). 2. Do they “stay in their lane”? In other words, does the political scientist stick to politics, or does he portray himself as an expert on, say, medical issues as well? 3. How do they make their living? If they are paid for their expertise (most people are, this isn’t bad in and of itself), does it seem to bias their understanding of the issue? Is there evidence to this effect? 4. Is their position an “outlier”? While it is still just barely possible for one lone genius to be right about some obscure point, and the rest of their position to be wrong, the way that science works today this should be extremely unlikely, and in the long run, most such “lone geniuses” turn out to be cranks & charlatans. Look for other red flags: 1. Does this person have other characteristics that might make them less than trustworthy? Do they have a history of lying, plagiarism, fraud or general criminality that may make us want to think twice about taking them seriously? 2. Do they have a history of being right or wrong in their public pronouncements? 3. (& while this shouldn’t make their point of view automatically wrong), do they hold noxious views or engage in acts which most people would find repugnant that might reduce their ability to convince a large and diverse audience (are they a racist, sexist or homophobe? Are they a blatant hypocrite? Have they been found guilty of spousal or child abuse, stalking, etc.?)? This paper should have at least four sources, all of which are used in writing the paper & listed in the Works Cited page. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

wambuiguama
School: University of Virginia

Hello! Here is the answer. Thanks.

Surname1
Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Family Guy and Freud
In the essay, “Family Guy and Freud,” Antonia Peacocke seeks to show how jokes relate
to unconsciousness in the TV program, “Family Guy.” At the time of writing the essay, Peacocke
was in summer between her high school graduation and joining Harvard. She would go on to study
Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley (Peacocke 146). As an art lover,
the discussion of the “Family Guy” by Peacocke was spot on. It enabled her to apply the skills and
talent she had in attaining a proper analysis of the TV program. Thus, she had the chance to
exercise more on the different approaches which she would need to apply while studying arts at
Harvard. While she might not have had the expert level of a rhetoric analyst, she was had the
interest as well as minimal training at it, having undertaken high school education and qualified to
study arts at Harvard. Peacocke draws insights from the various exercises and activities she has
had in schooling and writing English papers. The narrative seeks to show the credibility of the
author.
Although Peacocke had not yet enrolled to Harvard, a prestigious institution, the fact that
she had been already selected to join it shows the level of prowess she had in regards to analysis
of a TV show. Thus, such a situation is imperative in relation to ensuring that she would provide
accurate insights in relation to the concepts which are detailed within the TV show. She provides
a thorough evaluation of the TV show, providing a link between jokes and unconsciousness. She

Surname2
appears to be fully aware of what is expected of her, especially in relation to providing an
appropriate characterization of the TV show.
Peacocke appears to have researched a lot in relation to the arguments which she is putting
forth. For instance, she starts with what others are saying. For instance, she talks about the ideas
provided by Sigmund Freud, especially touching on the insights he provides in the book, Jokes
and their Relation to Unconscious (Peacocke 147). Thus, the reader attains the ability to
understand the level of expertise which Peacocke adopts in line with characterizing, “Family Guy.”
Through drawing a background on Freud, the reader is fully satisfied with the idea that the writer
is fully aware of what she is talking about. The reader, thus, attains the chance to follow through
the ideas projected within in a bid to establish the various characteristics in the TV show which
might have had gone unnoticed (Neuendorf 2).
Another aspect which makes the essay of Peacocke believable is tied on the authority which
she applies in her writing. For instance, she states that chances that when a person is watching a
certain television program, the chances are high that they are not thinking about Freud. She goes
ahead to state that, the situation is still the same, “if you’ve heard of his book” (Peacocke 147).
The insight helps to show that she is fully aware of the different mechanisms of thought which the
audience normally applies while watching a certain s...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Anonymous
Just what I needed… fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors