TOW #25 - Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell

At a glance, a well calculated decision seem to triumph over a decision made from an instinct. Malcolm Gladwell thinks otherwise.

                                                                                          

            Humans' ability to make quick decision with very little information is an amazing talent, as shown through Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. This ability to unconsciously find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experiences is known as "thin-slicing," and it's helpful properties are often overlooked in the world today. Gladwell argues that in many ways, snap judgments might be as accurate as or even better than thoroughly calculated decisions by utilizing anecdotes and rhetorical questions.

            With the use of interesting stories, Gladwell not only manages to keep his audience's attention, but also effectively demonstrates that thin-slicing can be very useful in determining something that would otherwise require an enormous amount of time. In one of the chapters, the author gives an account of a time when a young couple came to the University of Washington where their actions were thoroughly recorded. A psychologist named John Gottman was determining whether the couple will be still together after fifteen years by analyzing their argument of their dog.  Astoundingly, Gottman managed to predict the result with a jaw-breaking 90 percent accuracy, a no small feat considering that he did not use any other information than a fifteen minute videotape of the couple. Using this anecdote, the author is able to reveal that thin-slicing can indeed be used effectively in real life. This shows that in order to determine something as important as marriage, people do not need years worth of tedious data but several signs that jump right at them at a glance. Gladwell is also able to deliver his message of humans' snap judgments in a more interesting manner than to explain his ideas without an example to connect to.

            Gladwell's book periodically contains rhetorical questions to interact with the readers and to transition from the anecdotes to the author's analysis of thin-slicing. After the real dialogue of the couple, Gladwell throws in two questions: "How much do you think can be learned about Sue and Bill's marriage by watching that fifteen minute videotape? Can we tell if their relationship is healthy or unhealthy?" Sure, these questions might not have direct answers, but they do allow the readers to stop and think whether or not if thin-slicing is sufficient enough for the job. With this idea in mind, the readers are able to go directly into the author's take of the issue and his analysis of Gottman's "love lab" without any additional transitions. While these rhetorical devices might not directly show that snap judgments might be as accurate as or even better than thoroughly calculated decisions, they work as little checkpoints for the readers and urge them to read further. "Can a marriage really be understood in one sitting?" The readers would probably think 'I do not know. I better read more,' and would be satisfied to see the answer later on.

            Utilizing anecdotes and rhetorical questions, Malcolm Gladwell effectively argues that thin-slicing can be just as useful as or even better than a time-consuming judgment.  Gladwell's view on this relatively unknown ability makes the readers think twice about the whole nature of decision making.

IRB #4 - Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell

            Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell is a book about "intuitive repulsions" that people get from time to time. It is a book that tries to convince the reader that decisions made in a short burst of time can be as good as the decisions made in an extended period of time. The author claims that the book will touch on the subject of when instincts work against people, and how snap judgments can be educated and controlled. I decided to give this book a try because I personally believe that I am an intuitive person myself, trusting my gut instincts and sometime my impulses. While I was reading the introduction, a thought flashed across my mind: if people get their "intuitive repulsions" from time to time, doesn't that mean that I picked this book to give it a try because of my own "intuitive repulsion?" As it turned out, my intuition was right, for Gladwell claims that the design of the cover,  whatever associations I had with his name, and the short story that I already read at the beginning of the introduction has "fundamentally shaped the way" I read up to page 13 of the book. Through this book (which totally grabbed my attention after this incident by the way), I hope  to learn more about intuition and how I can control my own impulses so that they could benefit me. 

TOW #24 - "Lusting For Spring In Our Hearts" by Linda Holmes

Ahh...Spring!

            In her article "Lusting For Spring In Our Hearts," Linda Holmes expresses her joy of spring, a season that many people take for granted, and truly makes it special. To many people, spring is that natural phenomenon in which "their side of the globe" becomes warmer because it is closer to the Sun, but it means much more to Holmes. To her, spring is a gift that everyone was waiting for too long ever since the bitter winter started, and she is enjoying every second of it. Even the unpleasant rain and the wishy-washiness of the warm and cold weather are tolerable because it prepares people for their one perfect day. Throughout the writing, Holmes cleverly utilizes anecdotes to form a connection to the readers and to introduce her important ideas.

            The author's personal stories are scattered throughout the entire article which provides the necessary transition from one ideas to other while giving the idea that she is like any other people who cannot stand the winter anymore. Her introduction itself is an anecdote that starts out as "A friend of mine grumbled on Facebook recently about the phenomenon of people moaning in despair over April's weather. There's often a cold snap around this time, she pointed out. There's often unpleasant rain. There's often unpredictability" (Holmes). The author then uses this story as a springboard to propel herself to her assertion: all the impatience and restlessness in April are the signs of people's lust for spring. Later on in the text, Holmes mentions how she brought a comfortable chair for her balcony and (admittedly) watched an episode of Orphan Black on her table with her feet propped up on the railing. Through this, Holmes openly shows that she is just one of many people enjoying the warmth and the good-hearted air in the spring, and ultimately forms a connection with the audience who are trying to enjoy their perfect day of spring.
            Through her use of anecdotes, Linda Holmes is able to smoothly introduce her ideas and form connections with her readers. She asserts that everyone has been waiting for  the spring, and all the agitation going around this time of the year shows that people are dying for that day when the weather would finally get warm enough for the stupid jackets to come off. Lucky for them, for as Holmes states at the very end of her article, "Lust so rarely comes with a guarantee."

TOW #23 - Ken Ham: The Unbiblical 'Noah' is a Fable of a Film by Ken Ham

Noah is a 2014 film in which a man is given a divine mission to save creation from a great flood by building an Ark. Based on the famous Bible story...or is it?

                 

            Ken Ham makes it clear that he is not a fan of the recent movie "Noah" in his article "Ken Ham: The Unbiblical 'Noah' is a Fable of a Film." Ham, who reveals himself as an Creationist and a believer of the biblical account of Noah and the Flood, admits that Noah may be the worst film that he's ever seen and argues that it is a very inaccurate account of the story from the Bible. He further claims that the film insults many aspects of the Christian beliefs, and that because of this, Hollywood will "have a much harder time in marketing future biblically themed movies to Christians.

            The key technique that Ham uses to defend his position is the comparison between  the movie and the actual Bible. The author first admits that to some degrees, the movie did have Biblical references. It is true that Noah and his family's names were all accurate, that the Ark in the  film was "true to the massive biblical proportions," and that there were many animals that boarded the Ark. However, the Ark illustrated in the movie did not look like a seaworthy vessel, and there were far more animals in the ark than the needed pairs of each kind of animals. Unlike the Bible which explains that the sins that the people committed were rebellion against God and man's atrocity to man, the film depicts the people's destruction of the earth as the main sin. Ham also points out that for a movie that is supposedly based on Christian ideas, it does a horrible job depicting Noah, who apparently gets the idea of building the Ark after drinking some kind of potion, and his grandfather Methuselah, who is like a witch doctor. To further prove that there are signs of "biblical fidelity" in the film, he compares the openings of the film and the Bible. The two seem to have very different ideas about the existence of God because while the former starts out as "In the beginning there was nothing," the latter starts out as "In the beginning God [...]." Ham also believe that the directors of the film got the message of the story wrong, because in the Bible, the account of the Flood is about judgment, mercy, and salvation, while the account in the film was solely focused on judgment. Just for the record, Ham still does not understand why some Christian leaders have recommended this movie when the movie is "so anti-biblical that it will do more harm than good in relation to the Christian faith and the Word of God."

            Using comparisons to effectively guide through his arguments, Ham successfully asserts that the film Noah is a very inaccurate account of the famous story from the Bible, and that the movie may offend many Christians with its pagan ideas. Through his argument, Ham's audience of Bible-believers would be able to understand that watching the movie  is not a great strategy of evangelism, and that they should find some other forms of biblical entertainment instead.

TOW# 22 - BMW Advertisement

BMW used glare! The wild Jaguar is paralyzed! It may be unable to move!

                                                

            Advertisements play a big role of introducing new products and influencing consumers to buy them. BMW's advertisement successfully manages to do both with a simple photo. The ad does not have any text, but it is obvious that the message of the ad is "BMW is better than Jaguar" by using humor. The clever features of the picture will most likely a person captivated by the car, or make him crack a smile at the very least.

            The first thing that pops out at the audience is the shapes of headlights and bumpers of both cars that resemble human facial expressions. With circular headlights, Jaguar looks like a scared kitten while BMW with its wide headlights looks like a glaring predator, waiting to strike its opponent. After one look it is clear which car is the domineering one.  This car ad takes advantage of pareidolia, a phenomenon in which people see human faces in practically anything, to cleverly establish ethos with its audience. I certainly used to see many different "faces" of cars when I was little, and I am sure that many other people did too.  Once the main idea settles into the audience's minds, other little details that makes the ad effective start to stand out.

            The designer of the ad brilliantly took the photo so that the two cars are so close to one another, making it seem like the two cars are "fighting face to face." The fact that the picture of the BMW takes up two-thirds of the whole ad while the Jaguar is in less than a third, however, seems to emphasize the dominance of BMW by making the Jaguar look like it is backing up cowardly from its "snarling" predator. If one looks at the Jaguar carefully, he can notice that the Jaguar symbol on top of the car hood is showing its back to the BMW, further making  the Jaguar look like a "scaredy cat." The absence of texts and complex background actually adds onto the overall "tension" of the two cars because there are no distractions. This fight is just between BMW and Jaguar, and it is clear which one will triumph.

             All these elements of the picture contribute to the overall humor in order to make the ad hilarious and persuasive. The designer obviously did a phenomenal job personifying both cars and creating a tense yet amusing kind of a mood. This is the kind of a car ad that grabs people's attention and linger in their minds as they flip through a magazine.

TOW #21 - Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever by Bill O'Reilly

Lincoln's assassination at Ford's Theatre on April 14th, 1865.

                                                

            Every event seems to be ordered perfectly so that the assassination would go flawlessly. Most of the people that President Lincoln asked to go turn down his invitations. John Parker, President Lincoln's only body guard with a long history of terrible behaviors, leaves his post to have a long drink with his drinking buddy Charles Forbes. John Wilkes Booth, knowing the play that the Lincolns are watching by heart, creeps behind the President when the punch line "you sockdologizing old man-trap" booms out, causing the audience to explode in laughter. In his book Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, Bill O'Reilly gives a very detailed account of the day when America's beloved president Lincoln was assassinated in the Ford's Theatre in the midst of the play Our American Cousin by using vivid (graphic) descriptions.

            O'Reilly takes his audience through history by describing each scene, people, and actions with details so striking yet true so that the readers could imagine the whole event as if it is a movie. At one point, the author illustrate the whole action scene right after the crime is committed. Booth hacks down President Lincoln's guest Major Rathbone and hurls his body over the railing, attempting to land like a "conquering hero" but ends up getting his foot hopelessly tangled in the flag's folds. Falling with his "left foot and two hands braced in a bumbling attempt to catch his fall" (O'Reilly 209) Booth breaks the fibula of his lower left leg two inches above the ankle. Split second later, the chaos ensues. "The theater explodes in confusion...men climb up and over the seats, some fleeing toward the exits while others race to the stage, hoping to climb up into the box and be part of the action. Women faint. Children are trapped in the panic" (O'Rielly 210). In here the descriptions are used to vividly show the chaos in a fast paced manner. The description of each action as the time passes by makes the whole event more gripping for the readers.

            However, once things start to settle, O'Reilly's descriptions start to illustrate the scene and the people more than they illustrate the actions in order to slow down the time as Lincoln's life slips away. Only when Lincoln is stripped down to further examine the wounds does O'Reilly recall that the president's upper body still possesses "the lean musculature of the young wrestler renowned for feats of strength," the very appearance that "is in marked contrast to that famously weathered face" (O'Reilly 223). As people carry his body to a place where doctors could properly examine him, O'Reilly describes the procession to be "lit by that murky yellow light from the tar torches" (O'Reilly 224). The author describes the room where the President spent his last moments to be "ten feet wide and eighteen feet long, furnished with four-poster bed, table, bureau, and chairs" (O'Reilly 226) and ironically, the exact room John Wilkes Booth rented three weeks ago. Lincoln "draws his last breath at seven twenty-one" and his heart "beats for another fifteen seconds, then stops altogether at ten seconds past seven twenty-two A.M." (O'Reilly 231). Silver coins are placed on his black and blue eyes and his arms are folded across his chest. Here, O'Reilly does a phenomenal job slowing down time to illustrate Lincoln's dragged on battle with his death. Instead of quickly summarizing the whole event, O'Reilly allows the readers to actually be in the historical event through their minds by setting up all the vivid details.

TOW #20 - New Report Confirms You Are Most Interesting, Most Important Individual On Earth from the Onion

Writing Goals:

To analyze, not summarize. To go back to my thesis and support my analysis.

Reading Goals:

To read a writing with a deeper meaning that requires an higher level close reading and annotating.

You are the most interesting, most important individual on Earth...or are you?

            According to a six-year study that consists of a 220-page report and an analysis of thousand hours, your existence is obviously the most compelling thing on this planet. In New Report Confirms You Are Most Interesting, Most Important Individual on Earth, the Onion claims that the readers, or in this case, you "are the center of everything" (the Onion 7) and cleverly demonstrates the idea of narcissism in a satirical way by using drastic juxtaposition and overly positive diction.

            Throughout the writing, there are numerous examples of when you are compared with other people to illustrate how overly significant you are. Samuel Lerman, the study's lead author, specifically claims that "you are, in short, the only person who matters. The rest of us do not matter" (the Onion 4). Lerman further claims that while your words are "highly desired" and "desperately needed," other people's words are plain "monotony" and "meaninglessness," and that "what other people think or experience is completely irrelevant when compared to even the most minor thoughts and experiences in your everyday life" (the Onion 8). The juxtapositions used here are clearly exaggerated. No matter how important you may be, it wrong to say that the opinions of others are completely irrelevant, and that your existence is the most significant existence in the world. The juxtaposition in the article doesn't actually make you feel better about yourself; it allows you to question whether you are truly important to that drastic extent.

            The Onion also uses overly positive diction to make you as the reader feel like you are important - too important for your own good. Words like "significant," "interesting," and "compelling" describes who you are. Your value to society is "immeasurable," your insights on every topic "well-thought-out", your thought most "profound," your stories most "gripping," and your approval the most "desired"...the list goes on and on. By making countless claims sugar coated with these charming adjectives without giving one actual evidence to support these claims, the fact that this writing is about a scientific research - a research about ever-so-great you - loses all of its credibility. As soon as you as the reader realize that this article is not about the scientific research that you are looking for, you start to realize that this article is not talking about how you are the most significant person on this planet, but that it is talking about narcissism.

            The Onion's article takes the quote "you are the hero of your own story" to a whole new level. By using drastic juxtaposition and overly positive diction, the Onion ingeniously attacks the idea of narcissism indirectly by placing the audience, you, as the main character of the article, because everyone knows that they cannot get enough of your ever-so-"gripping" story.