Examine an ongoing public discussion (which may have been addressed in the previous paper) through a group of texts. Describe the texts’ arguments and position yourself in relation to them in order to make an argument that enables you to “join the conversation.”
In Project 1, you explored ways that context (past and present) shaped Lincoln’s famous argument. In Project 2 you explored rhetorical figures (strategies) and how those built appeals to support an author’s argument. Now that you understand how arguments are shaped and made, you are ready to enter a conversation.
So, in this paper, I want you to build on Projects 1 & 2. Take a position in relation to the ideas of Carr, Thompson, Cadwalladr, and Turkle. Take your time to review Carr, Thompson, Cadwalladr, and Turkle’s positions about the ways our interaction with the internet, digital machines, programs, and apps might or have affected our bodies and our minds and our relationships and our society. ( these article are in the book THEY SAY I SAY, 4TH EDITION )
- See the big picture, the larger conversation.
- Read and understand complex arguments and Identify general concerns, topics within those arguments.
- Write and organize clearly using multiple texts.
- Edit your papers effectively for clarity and grace, using accurate punctuation, grammar, and citing.
- 6-7 pages: up to 10 points
Prewriting: Before writing a draft, writers prepare.
- What is the Main Concern/Issue of this conversation? That is, what concern/issue links all these authors? What drives this discussion about the internet and high tech? How would you position yourself in this conversation? Which authors do agree with? Disagree with? Both agree and disagree? Try writing a sentence beginning, Overall, on the main concern of X, my position is ………….
- What are the minor issues/concerns within this conversation?
- What are the authors’ main concerns?
- Carr: LOOSING OUR HUMANITY, HE SAW PEOPLE BECOMING MACHINES
- Thompson: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENTERING OUR LIVES
- Cadwalladr: GOOGLE IS TELLING US WHAT TO THINK
- Turkle: SOCIAL MEDIA A TEXTING IS COLONIZING OUR MINDS, THEREFORE IT IT MAKING US LESS INTIMATE
- READ chapter 4: “Three Ways to Respond” in They Say I Say. Then, use templates from chapter 4 to position yourself next to the authors. Try writing a sentence for each author’s main concern: In relation to Carr’s concern X, my position is (close, distant, etc.) …………..
- What points can you agree with? What points do you agree, disagree, or both. with? To what points can you extend, modify, or limit? WHY do you think so? What have you got to go on? What is your evidence? What are your reasons for agreeing, disagreeing, or both?
- Exordium (intro), establishing your subject of discourse, tone, your ethos, signpost, exigence. The following can be done in many ways, as you know from reading our sample papers. Just do what seems natural. Keep it simple. Easy.
- Subject: You can begin in any way you wish, but you might try templates for introducing a conversation on page 11 of They Say. Or you can start with an anecdote, either your own experience or from a movie, book, play, or friend.
- Tone: Use any tone you wish, but one suitable for a general, educated reader.
- Ethos: Remember, however you begin, you are showing your character. You want readers to see you as intelligent and caring and knowledgeable of your subject.
- Exigence: See They Say I Say, chapter 7 “Saying Why It Matters,” “templates for indicating who cares” and templates for saying why your subject matters. Give us readers a reason to read your paper.
- Signpost: This indicates where we are going to go. Usually, for a short paper, writers keep this simple. Your full ‘claim’ may not be clear until later.
- Confirmatio: Several sections based on concerns or authors:
- I recommend the They Say I Say technique. But again, it’s your paper. Do what you want. Us readers want an interesting paper, blending your ideas with other writers’ ideas. Explore where and how and why you agree, disagree, or both agree and disagree about the many concerns authors discuss.
- Eventually, though,I do want you to note an author’s position on one of the concerns. Better if you can blend two or three authors’ views.
- Take a position. Give YOUR reasons for agreeing, disagreeing, or both.
- Add authors’ views, perhaps a quote or two. And note your own view—GIVING and EXPLAINING your own reasons for your position.
- Peroratio (Conclusion): See the Silva Rhetoricae: peroratio
- This section pulls all your points together.
- Here you wrap up all your ideas.
Remind readers why your topic is important: see They Say I Say, chapter 7 “Saying Why It Matters.”
MAIN POINTS YOU SHOULD DO:
WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- FIRST INTRODUCE HER OR HIM
- FOR EXAMPLE: START WITH (sherry turkle, mit professor the writer of the book .... and so on ( do that for all author when first mentioning them
TALK AND ORGANIZE THE AUTHORS BY
- MAIN CLAIM AND IDEAS
THIS IS IMPORTANT:
- YOU NEED TO WHEN TALKING ABOUT AN AUTHOR IDEA SUCH AS TURKLE, YOU HAVE TO COMPARE TO ANOTHER AUTHOR'S IDEA
- FOR EX, YOU CAN FIRST SAY TURLES IDEA, THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT CARR AGREES WITH HER OR ANOTHER AUTHOR DISAGREES WITH HER BECAUSE AND SO ON
++++++++THEY SAY I SAY ++++++++++++++++
FIRST YOU START WITH WHAT THEY SAY, THEN SAY IF YOU AGREE, DISSAGREE AND GIVE YOUR REASONS
USE THEY SAY I SAY FOR FORMAT, FOR EX, LOOK AT PAGE 47-48
DO NOT USE THE WORK HOW
Explanation & Answer
26th April 2019
Entering the Conversation on Internet Technology
In the contemporary times, the internet has become a very critical part of our work, school and
family life. Several scholars, internet savvy’s and social commentators however caution against
over reliance of the internet as a source of information. Nicholas Carr is worried that the internet
makes us utilize little of our brains. On the other side, Thompson sees the internet with both the
constructive effects and the negative effects. Carole Cadwallar believe that the search technology
for Google makes use of predictive tools that ‘force’ us to think in a certain way as we make the
internet search. Turkle believes that internet can be censored to reap only the positive effects.
Nicholas Carr is worried that the Internet is making us utilize less of our mental capacity.
He trusts this isn't simply the aftereffect of the substance we are devouring by means of the
internet, instant messages, email, Twitter and Facebook however a reaction of the medium
through which this substance is transmitted and expended. Considerably more inauspiciously, the
change, as per Carr, isn't restricted to an injurious impact in transit we think, yet incorporates the
neural structures in our minds that empower considering.
Carr's contention appears to repeat and expand the alerts of Neil Postman from a quarter
century prior, who anticipated that TV was delivering a culture that was never again keen on the
profound kind of deliberative reasoning that has portrayed Western rationality for more than two
centuries. Yet The Shallows isn't simply an update to Amusing Ourselves to Death, filling in a
couple of specialized subtleties Postman got wrong; it changes the contention in significant
To comprehend this change, it is useful to help ourselves to remember the circumstance
in 1985 when Postman was composing; a brief forward to the Twentieth Anniversary Edition of
Amusing Ourselves to Death written by Postman's child Andrew does only that. North American
perusers who survived those days will in all likelihood be amazed by a couple of things they had
overlooked, and slip back to when TV was quickly turning into the prevailing worldview for
mass correspondence, starting to dislodge what Postman calls the typographic culture.
One may reasonably describe the typographic culture commended via Carr and Postman
as requiring a functioning duty with respect to the reader: a responsibility on the double physical
and mental, reached out over a delayed timeframe. In this center clarification of the typographic
culture, Postman and Carr are in understanding. The two of them keep up that perplexing and
inconspicuous contentions require the sort of straight consideration at which educated culture
exceeds expectations, and in spite of the fact that they don't state so unequivocally, it is obvious
from their separate mourns that with the end goal for us to grapple with the most profound
inquiries of our reality and ourselves, we should utilize only this sort of mindfulness. The
epistemological contention to a great extent gets from Marshall McLuhan, whose 1964
perception, "the medium is the message," cautions that each correspondence medium works by
its own internal standards. While this hypothesis is basic to their contentions, Postman and Carr
contrast both on the kind of media that worries them and by the way they guarantee those media
impact our idea independently and socially.
Does innovation make us languid, unequipped for pondering answers for social issues?
Does it make us shallower scholars, ever dependent on PCs to enable us to form our reactions to
any issues? Thompson has begun by posing rhetoric on what technologies do to us. He then
dives to optimism that new technology is not all destructive. I agree with him that there are
nuggets about technology that can be helpful. In this hopeful, quick paced story about the
appearance of innovation and its effect on people, columnist Thompson addresses these and
different inquiries. He concedes that we regularly enable ourselves to be utilized by features of
new innovations and that we should practice alert to maintain a strategic distance from this; yet,
he illustrates, adv...