Freakonomics is a non-fictional book; published in April 12th, 2005 and was done by the works of Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. Freaknomics as a whole is a pop-cultural ride through economics with many casual laughs, such as how private parts if lost at work equals as a 7 year pay, while having a very strict and persuasive argument of how economics is more the study of incentives. They have received many awards for the publication of this book including,Book Sense Book of the Year Award, and Quill Award for best business book. The works of Steven and Stephen have been recognized as economic nerds that have made economics fun. They are both very well skilled on the subject and have been studying it most of their lives.
There are many uses of logos but also pathos to entertain but also persuade readers on the subject of incentives. The dynamic duo uses many analogies yet also contain statistical graphs inside the book to give you a better understanding of economics and its different fields. Later on persuasion on how incentives are the root of economics and without it there is no economics. Steven Levitt's weird and oddly theories actually do seem to work out at the end and with his expertise on economics the theories are actually believable.
The vision this book is to create a fundamental understanding of economics and to be able to entertain and catch readers attention on such a dull topic. Its multiple theories and representations opens possibilities of what can or cannot be possible. They also try to go into weirdness of economics and government which makes the book an enjoyable read as stated before.
Their audiences seems to be more on the young adult side with its immature jokes while also serious issues. Yet with a decent mind and to be able to understand the vocabulary and analogies the book can be handed to anyone in high school. It broadens of what economic is about and can really produce love for the subject. This book is also for anyone not just people who are interested in business, it is a very beneficial read and can grow your knowledge of intensives and what crazy stuff is out there in the business world. Persuasion is used in theories when Mr. Levitt explains them with somewhat enthusiasm. all in all, reading even half of freakonomics can be enjoyable.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Comparison of Freaknomics and Were Not Broke
Were Not Broke is an educational film about government several excuses that america has "no money in the bank". Yet, this documentary focuses on big corporations that are dodging income tax towards the U.S government by placing their money in offshore exotic places which have little to no income tax. The film uses many pathos to connect with the viewer by showing what average day Americans are trying to do against the government so that large corporations do not continue this act.
Freaknomics share a similar topic in one of its chapters about the dirty side stepping businesses dodging tax pay. They both share the same idea that government flaws economics since of it being controlled somewhat by lobbyists inside council. They both use rhetorical triangle by using logos and pathos, but since of the documentary visual works it might be more persuasive as it shows images rather than reading words. Yet they both share the same statistics and the documentary even uses the numbers from the book. "Google, exxon, and facebook has 0% income tax payed since of 2013." Pathos takes a different turn, the documentary uses pathos vigorously while freaknomics is more logos based.
With similar views on this topic i would go on either side of the argument. yet Freaknomics has more statistical measuring which allows it to counter many other persuasion arguments that are thrown at it. This makes freaknomics a better side to take and it also goes in much more depth than the documentary which was made to let people know about the problem.
Sitings:
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/
Freaknomics share a similar topic in one of its chapters about the dirty side stepping businesses dodging tax pay. They both share the same idea that government flaws economics since of it being controlled somewhat by lobbyists inside council. They both use rhetorical triangle by using logos and pathos, but since of the documentary visual works it might be more persuasive as it shows images rather than reading words. Yet they both share the same statistics and the documentary even uses the numbers from the book. "Google, exxon, and facebook has 0% income tax payed since of 2013." Pathos takes a different turn, the documentary uses pathos vigorously while freaknomics is more logos based.
With similar views on this topic i would go on either side of the argument. yet Freaknomics has more statistical measuring which allows it to counter many other persuasion arguments that are thrown at it. This makes freaknomics a better side to take and it also goes in much more depth than the documentary which was made to let people know about the problem.
Sitings:
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Audience Speaker and Subject Logos Pathos Ethos
The basis of the rhetoric triangle was explained in the previous post, which was it being split into ethos, pathos, and logos yet what are these three devices? The use of these three have always been in many pieces of writing and each creating a way to connect to the reader or to get a point across. Learning about each of them can tell you when and where to place one of these devices.
Logos is one of the most beneficial ones out of the three. The reason behind why, is because logos uses facts and logic as a way to persuade the reader. Facts, as you may know, are truths that have been tested and have research backing it up while logic is using strong reasoning by taking in data and perceiving it. So in writing when the author uses logos it is hard to to fight against the persuaded text because of the truth it holds. Some examples of logos could be, "over the last 5 years studies have shown a 70% increase on student textbooks." The statistics help with rhetoric by applying facts that are hard to question.
In my book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, the use of logos were everywhere because of the authors persuasion on how applying flow(total focus on something) in an activity gives us a sense of discovery. "In our studies, we found that every flow activity, whether it involved competition,chance, or any other dimension of experience, had this in common: it provided a sense of discovery, a creative feeling of transporting the person into a new reality, it pushed the person to higher levels of performance, and led to previously undreamed-of states." In the beginning, "in our studies" is a giveaway that this is a logos because studies are experimentation's that lead to facts, and this fact applies to the study persuading you that, said previously,-flow activity provides the human body higher level of performance and discovery. Another argument the author portrayed was, how parent interaction when a child is young stays with them and creates what kind of person they are. To back up this claim Ms. Csikszentmihalyi told us a study done by her, "In one of our studies conducted at the University of Chicago..." Again, the use of "studies" shows that this sentence is a logos that is trying to persuade you with the statement.
Ethos, as stated is, "appeal of ethnics and it means convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader." Simply ethos means, the trustworthiness of the speaker, a good example would be, "Many teachers agree that summer assignments show that a student is able to take an AP course." The credibility is, "many teachers" because it trying to convince the reader that AP summer assignments are good because teachers agree with it.
In the beginning of Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, credibility of the author, Ms. Csikszentmihalyi, was shown on the first page saying, "[Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi] has been researching optimal experiences of the human mind for 20 years." 20 years gives the credibility that Mihaly knows what she is talking about and gives an ethnic of how experience she is. Another example was shown in chapter four, "Although the Declaration of Independence may have been the first official political document it is probably true that no social system has ever stayed around that long." Using the Declaration of Independence, as an appeal of american ethnic, Ms. C (Csikszentmihalyi), questioned the credibility of other political documents.
The point of using pathos is creating an emotional connection or using stories to connect with the reader. Emotion is a great connection since it causes the reader to move, to feel sad, surprised, happy, etc. An example of a pathos would be, "after the rigorous punishment, Tom barely spoke again. this shows that child punishment is not the answer." The feeling of being punished connects with the reader and they feel what Tom must be feeling.
Many psychology books uses pathos because psychology is all about the body, brain, nerves, and feelings. i found many examples in just one chapter. "Christopher Burney, a prisoner of the nazis.... gave a typical example of this process." Christopher is the pathos connection because his story is being used to create an emotional connection while also the sentence is being used to persuade about the process of autotellic personality. Another example was about Tollas Tibor, " a poet who spent several years in solitary confinement during..." I decided to cut the text off since of its length but we can already see that Tollas's story is also being used as an emotional attachment to the subject. These are primary uses of pathos.
It seemed out of all three Ms. Csikszentmihalyi steered away mainly from using ethos. The reason why must be because using ethos does not always provide with truth and it is more of a guess rather such as, "many doctors believe sensodyne is the best toothpaste." Ethos are very opinion based and when writing a nonfictional book especially one of psychological research opinions should be kept out if it.
Logos is one of the most beneficial ones out of the three. The reason behind why, is because logos uses facts and logic as a way to persuade the reader. Facts, as you may know, are truths that have been tested and have research backing it up while logic is using strong reasoning by taking in data and perceiving it. So in writing when the author uses logos it is hard to to fight against the persuaded text because of the truth it holds. Some examples of logos could be, "over the last 5 years studies have shown a 70% increase on student textbooks." The statistics help with rhetoric by applying facts that are hard to question.
In my book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, the use of logos were everywhere because of the authors persuasion on how applying flow(total focus on something) in an activity gives us a sense of discovery. "In our studies, we found that every flow activity, whether it involved competition,chance, or any other dimension of experience, had this in common: it provided a sense of discovery, a creative feeling of transporting the person into a new reality, it pushed the person to higher levels of performance, and led to previously undreamed-of states." In the beginning, "in our studies" is a giveaway that this is a logos because studies are experimentation's that lead to facts, and this fact applies to the study persuading you that, said previously,-flow activity provides the human body higher level of performance and discovery. Another argument the author portrayed was, how parent interaction when a child is young stays with them and creates what kind of person they are. To back up this claim Ms. Csikszentmihalyi told us a study done by her, "In one of our studies conducted at the University of Chicago..." Again, the use of "studies" shows that this sentence is a logos that is trying to persuade you with the statement.
Ethos, as stated is, "appeal of ethnics and it means convincing someone of the character or credibility of the persuader." Simply ethos means, the trustworthiness of the speaker, a good example would be, "Many teachers agree that summer assignments show that a student is able to take an AP course." The credibility is, "many teachers" because it trying to convince the reader that AP summer assignments are good because teachers agree with it.
In the beginning of Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, credibility of the author, Ms. Csikszentmihalyi, was shown on the first page saying, "[Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi] has been researching optimal experiences of the human mind for 20 years." 20 years gives the credibility that Mihaly knows what she is talking about and gives an ethnic of how experience she is. Another example was shown in chapter four, "Although the Declaration of Independence may have been the first official political document it is probably true that no social system has ever stayed around that long." Using the Declaration of Independence, as an appeal of american ethnic, Ms. C (Csikszentmihalyi), questioned the credibility of other political documents.
The point of using pathos is creating an emotional connection or using stories to connect with the reader. Emotion is a great connection since it causes the reader to move, to feel sad, surprised, happy, etc. An example of a pathos would be, "after the rigorous punishment, Tom barely spoke again. this shows that child punishment is not the answer." The feeling of being punished connects with the reader and they feel what Tom must be feeling.
Many psychology books uses pathos because psychology is all about the body, brain, nerves, and feelings. i found many examples in just one chapter. "Christopher Burney, a prisoner of the nazis.... gave a typical example of this process." Christopher is the pathos connection because his story is being used to create an emotional connection while also the sentence is being used to persuade about the process of autotellic personality. Another example was about Tollas Tibor, " a poet who spent several years in solitary confinement during..." I decided to cut the text off since of its length but we can already see that Tollas's story is also being used as an emotional attachment to the subject. These are primary uses of pathos.
It seemed out of all three Ms. Csikszentmihalyi steered away mainly from using ethos. The reason why must be because using ethos does not always provide with truth and it is more of a guess rather such as, "many doctors believe sensodyne is the best toothpaste." Ethos are very opinion based and when writing a nonfictional book especially one of psychological research opinions should be kept out if it.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Rhetoric and the Rhetoric triangle
Rhetoric as stated by a Merriam Webster dictionary is, "the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people." This definition is shared with many other sources and have been defined as the same way. A simple version of this definition would be that rhetoric is a formal way of writing or speech where the purpose of it is to influence reader or listener. Yet sometimes as stated in corporatevocabulary.com rhetoric writing can be extremely formal and "flowery" which then can be hard to find the meaning of what the speaker is trying to say.
Rhetoric can be seen in use in fundraisers, presentations and in nonfictional writing. It adds the speakers sometimes personal feelings or thought. An example of a rhetorical sentence could be "who made that dunce the boss?" where dunce make others show that the speaker does not believe the boss should be in power. As you can see, this is why rhetoric is such a useful way to add persuasion since by placing key words it lets the reader know the speakers opinion. While reading, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, I came across a rhetorical question which was, "does anyone really need to be creative or become a scholar to experience flow?" In the sentence you can see that the author, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, makes the question easy to answer (which is no) by using the key word, "really" which persuades the reader that anyone can experience flow.
*flow is what the author describes as "a state of concentration so
focused that it amounts to absolute absorption in an activity."
How this literature a work of rhetoric? Well, the moral of the book is to tell the reader how to reach a point of total "flow" which is the most optimal good feeling. Flow is generated by taking steps to reach it such as understanding human emotion and the mind. Uses of rhetoric writing was used many times to lead the reader into achieving and understanding flow while also explaining why its beneficial to have flow. Rhetoric writing uses many tools and in this book the use of questioning and repetition was used.
Rhetorical triangle is three points that make up a speech or writing which captures attention and is effective. Some describe it as ethos,pathos, and logos (ethos= beliefs pathos=experiences logos=facts) with these three, speeches and writing have a better way of obtaining effectiveness. The basis of the rhetoric triangle was developed by Aristotle while he studied many effective speakers, such as leaders, and discovered these 3 basic points that evoked the people. With the rhetorical triangle, speakers and writers can connect with the reader and cause influence. In Flow: POE (The Psychology of Optimal Experience), Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi used all three points when she was writing there was, ethos, "Each year hundreds of books are published with advice on how to stay trim, how to grow rich, or how to develop self-confidence. While these self-help books may help a reader in the short term, they are likely to be unsatisfying," Pathos, "The individuals who have inner harmony lead vigorous lives, are open to a variety of experiences" , and logos, "The studies have suggested that the phenomenology of enjoyment has eight major components, 1. We confront tasks we have a chance of completing; 2. We must be able to concentrate on what we are doing;" etc.
The speaker, Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi has been studying optimal experience for 20 years and have wrote several books during that time which makes her very skilled at writing rhetorically. She believes along with Aristotle that men and women are searching for happiness all their lives and with the right guidelines it can be achieved. She mainly is targeting people who seem to be at lost maybe depression or are unhappy beings and her guidelines sometimes contains being able to connect with spouse and children, "Flow in the family context has five characteristics: Clarity: children know what parents expect from them.(etc)" So the target audience is around mainly older people yet also contains some notes for the average teen and young adult, "Concern for the self disappears, yet, paradoxically the sense of self emerges stronger after the flow experience is over."
The subject is made clear with Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi usage of rhetoric, "This ability to persevere despite obstacles and setbacks is the quality people most admire in others, and justly so; it is probably the most important trait not only for succeeding in life, but for enjoying it as well." In this piece Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi point of what we admire in a person persuades the reader that
being able to achieve a goal such as that will make you be admirable. Throughout the read the author connects back to happiness and self regard with flow so the book subjects seems to be a guide to gain these feelings and to be consistent with it. I hope this is what the goal of the writing is because it seems that it will be a great read.
Rhetoric can be seen in use in fundraisers, presentations and in nonfictional writing. It adds the speakers sometimes personal feelings or thought. An example of a rhetorical sentence could be "who made that dunce the boss?" where dunce make others show that the speaker does not believe the boss should be in power. As you can see, this is why rhetoric is such a useful way to add persuasion since by placing key words it lets the reader know the speakers opinion. While reading, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, I came across a rhetorical question which was, "does anyone really need to be creative or become a scholar to experience flow?" In the sentence you can see that the author, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, makes the question easy to answer (which is no) by using the key word, "really" which persuades the reader that anyone can experience flow.
*flow is what the author describes as "a state of concentration so
focused that it amounts to absolute absorption in an activity."
Rhetorical triangle is three points that make up a speech or writing which captures attention and is effective. Some describe it as ethos,pathos, and logos (ethos= beliefs pathos=experiences logos=facts) with these three, speeches and writing have a better way of obtaining effectiveness. The basis of the rhetoric triangle was developed by Aristotle while he studied many effective speakers, such as leaders, and discovered these 3 basic points that evoked the people. With the rhetorical triangle, speakers and writers can connect with the reader and cause influence. In Flow: POE (The Psychology of Optimal Experience), Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi used all three points when she was writing there was, ethos, "Each year hundreds of books are published with advice on how to stay trim, how to grow rich, or how to develop self-confidence. While these self-help books may help a reader in the short term, they are likely to be unsatisfying," Pathos, "The individuals who have inner harmony lead vigorous lives, are open to a variety of experiences" , and logos, "The studies have suggested that the phenomenology of enjoyment has eight major components, 1. We confront tasks we have a chance of completing; 2. We must be able to concentrate on what we are doing;" etc.
The speaker, Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi has been studying optimal experience for 20 years and have wrote several books during that time which makes her very skilled at writing rhetorically. She believes along with Aristotle that men and women are searching for happiness all their lives and with the right guidelines it can be achieved. She mainly is targeting people who seem to be at lost maybe depression or are unhappy beings and her guidelines sometimes contains being able to connect with spouse and children, "Flow in the family context has five characteristics: Clarity: children know what parents expect from them.(etc)" So the target audience is around mainly older people yet also contains some notes for the average teen and young adult, "Concern for the self disappears, yet, paradoxically the sense of self emerges stronger after the flow experience is over."
The subject is made clear with Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi usage of rhetoric, "This ability to persevere despite obstacles and setbacks is the quality people most admire in others, and justly so; it is probably the most important trait not only for succeeding in life, but for enjoying it as well." In this piece Ms. Csikszentmilhalyi point of what we admire in a person persuades the reader that
being able to achieve a goal such as that will make you be admirable. Throughout the read the author connects back to happiness and self regard with flow so the book subjects seems to be a guide to gain these feelings and to be consistent with it. I hope this is what the goal of the writing is because it seems that it will be a great read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)