Category: Uncategorized

The picture chosen simply depicts two hands but it tells a story of starvation and poverty. In the picture the hand of a malnourished boy is held by a Catholic monk. The picture was taken in the Karamoja region of Uganda in 1980 by photographer Mike Wells. The photograph is a public controversy because calls for welfare and charity, especially spending for foreign countries, is a sometimes politically divisive topic. 

The first point this image conveys is the reality of extreme poverty. This is not just some image of some shabby agricultural town without cars or electricity, it’s a picture of a real live human being’s undeveloped hand. This picture reminds its audience of the existence of extreme poverty and the horrors it causes. In the picture the monk’s hand is holding the boy’s, but it is also holding the hand outward. This image literally presents poverty and starvation as the center object, making the audience aware of the situation. To the audience, starvation might be thought of as an issue of the past, but this image proves that starvation is a real issue in parts of the world. 

This image also reminds the audience how well off and fortunate they are. The monk’s hand, the Caucasian hand, is healthy and vibrant. The Ugandan boy’s wrinkled malnourished arm and wrist are highlighted by the healthy hand of the Caucasian man. When the audience views the image, whether it was published in a newspaper or magazine or displayed on television, they look down and recognize that they, like the monk, have healthy bodies. The idea of malnutrition is foreign to them. In addition the audience knows that the average child or toddler should be a healthy chubby. Since the image is of a malnourished boy, it furthers conveys an extreme difference in living conditions. The image makes the audience think that even the children are starving. 

By depicting the reality of extreme poverty and reminding the audience of their blessed living standards, elicits the audience to help the child. Ultimately the photograph presents the situation of starvation to its audience and asks for help and aid. The fact that the two people are holding hands furthers the call for aid. The photo could’ve very well depicted the starving boy by himself but instead it shows the boy and the monk holding hands. This reminds us as the audience that they are all connected as the human race and that they must help each other. In conclusion, it asks the audience to reach out to the parts of humanity that are not as well off and give help. 

The TED talk I selected is “When bad engineering makes a natural disaster even worse” by Peter Haas.

The main theme of Peter Haas’ speech is that bag engineering design and infrastructure can negatively amplify the effects of a natural disaster or make it even worse. Peter demonstrates his thesis by discussing the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. He claims that Haiti’s disastrous situation wasn’t a completely “natural” disaster: it was a result of bad engineering. One of the most important ideas that I took from the speech (which I will talk about later) was strong images are necessary. Strong images can reinforce the content of the speech just on their own. By the middle of the talk, Haas discusses an even more powerful earthquake that shook Chile a month after the Haiti one. He brings up the Chile example because the casualties of the quake were minimal compared to the Haitian quake due to better building design.

The speech did a fairly good job of expanding my understanding that quality engineering is needed to reduce the impacts of earthquakes. I already knew this idea as a general premise, but the talk filled in the detailed that I didn’t know. I didn’t know that buildings’ frames are supposed to be designed so that they are interconnected and move together.

In terms of presentation strength, the visuals are a strong point. For a full minute, Haas shows his audience pictures of the absolute destruction that occurred as a result of the earthquake. These are images of completely leveled buildings, with nothing left but the ashes of white concrete. He describes how these buildings were full of people at the time. This emotional appeal emphasizes the importance of his topic. It makes it clear if it wasn’t already how necessary steady infrastructure is for preventing disasters. Haas’ visual basically speak for themselves in arguing for better infrastructure. Delivery wise, Haas wasn’t that emotional or lively. From a viewer’s point of view, it didn’t seem like he fully cared about the topic. That made his presentation a bit less engaging and convincing. 

I’d say the difference between delivering a speech and a doing a presentation is that a presentation takes into account the visuals. A speech is meant to stand on its own in my opinion while a presentation presents something, and that something has to be complementary. A presentation seems more informative too. I’d say Haas’ TED talk would be be classified as a presentation. All of his points relate to his visual and his points would be confusing and ineffective without their corresponding visuals.

The video I have selected is of actor Leonardo DiCaprio delivering opening remarks at the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit. Since the video is over 2 minutes long, I am restricting the analysis to the first 2 minutes. 

Delivery wise, Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance is phenomenal. His delivery skill is only fitting for a talented actor like himself. Throughout the entire two minutes his eye contact is unfaltering. Not once does he need to look down, because his entire speech is memorized. He moves his head side to side decently frequently and naturally to make eye contact with the entire assembly. Whenever he emphasizes a new point, it seems that DiCaprio will turn his head a bit to address a new section of the assembly in order to connect with them for that short period. 

Credibility wise, DiCaprio introduces himself a normal person. He says he comes here not as an expert but as a concerned citizen. He mentions that along with hundreds of thousands of other protesters, he shares the same concerns. This allows DiCaprio to portray himself as humble and regular. Later on in his speech he brings up his personal career in acting as an interesting transition to the gravity of climate change. DiCaprio mentions how in film, people play fictional characters with fictional problems. His discussion of acting then leads him to draw a comparison that the world has viewed climate change too fictitiously and it must be taken seriously. This allows DiCaprio to delve into why climate change must be taken seriously. 

DiCaprio’s argument builds foundations for his argument using appeals to scientific facts and testimony. He lists worrying trends that scientific researchers have studied in an attempt to convey the importance of climate change to the UN. He even cites that the United States’ Navy chief of Pacific command has listed climate change as the greatest national security threat threat. All of DiCaprio’s statements create a sense of urgency and importance for his argument. DiCaprio is well executed and prepared. Personally I think he sounds effective but he may not actually have been effective. To UN representatives, the topic of climate change may be so common that speeches like DiCaprio’s, no matter how moving or well delivered, sound trite.

I agree with the initial premise of Kessler’s article — that we should take studies with a grain of salt. Yes, just because something says “a study shows” doesn’t mean it’s reliable. We should all take everything we see with suspicions, and by that I mean if we see an article that says “a study shows” we should look for more articles or commentary on the study in question. We need to determine whether the study and its methodology were done in a scientific unbiased way and whether the results are confirmable. If those prerequisites are met, we should believe the study.  

Writer Andy Kessler argues similar points, but I feel that he skims on the repeatability part of science. Yes he does mention that many popular psychology studies were not repeatable and that repeatable is important, but he never mentions that in the field of the physical sciences, if a study is repeatable, we should accept it. I also don’t appreciate how he never mentions that you should try to corroborate claims yourself by looking into the topics, instead opting to issue a blanket statement of always stay skeptical. I am always wary when I see people that try to deny science (and I’m not claiming that Kessler is denying science), because those people remind me of climate change deniers or anti-vaxers that could inflict many negative externalities on society. 

Also I don’t appreciate how he talks about studies in behavioral economics as done by “hung-over grad students” without elaboration. Kessler’s points seem too critical when his only supporting facts are other studies that support his results. He is aware of this irony, but it lacks some persuasion when he criticizes studies and then cites studies or research generally, like when he disproves Gladwell’s “Blink”.

But generally, I still do agree with his points. I agree that you can probably find research supporting any claim, especially if it’s on a topic that is inherently subjective or related to behavior. When I do my own research, I will try to  look for research that is well supported by other people. I think we should all try to find objective research that isn’t colored by the think tank or interest group that sponsors it. And I will try to look for research and use it to formulate my claims, not the other way around. In everything that we do, it’s easy to fall trap to confirmation bias and the article above does do a good job of reminding us that just because something was done in a study doesn’t mean it should be taken for fact. 

For now, I’ve thought of selecting the role of colleges and higher education in society. I intend to focus on an American perspective. My essay and TED talk will only discuss American institutions, even though colleges and schools in general have been around for thousands of years. Along with the role of colleges and the utility they provide, I want to examine the perceptions that people have of them. 

My time frame should start around colonial times, when colleges were founded as ministry schools. Skipping forward a couple decades, I think Benjamin Franklin founded the University of Pennsylvania for non-religious purposes, which was unheard of at the time. Then in the mid-1800s, I know that America’s westward expansion resulted in lots of new land, and new Federal lands were converted into universities. I think there is and was a perception that colleges, especially private colleges, are institutions of only the elite. I intend to explore the historical basis of that notation and figure out it has changed, because I think there is a much more prevalent perception about colleges nowadays; that attending college is the only possible path towards success. Along with that, colleges are heralded as great equalizers, a means of raising one’s social status and climbing up the socio-economic ladder. This attitude (perhaps a reality) is resulting in a greater percentage of high school grads enrolling in college every year, and paying for it too. 

The topic of colleges is especially relevant for me because, well, obviously I’m in college (and it’s not free). I am here for a reason and I would want to be here for a good reason. My entire audience is also in college, and some of us are probably dealing with student loans. Indirectly, I want to address whether the impact of a college education today is worth the size of student loans. 

Side comment: The topic of debt also intrigues me. I’ve heard that the United States is a debt driven society with our mortgages, credit-card loans, and student loans. Our government also has a huge amount of debt. I wonder if there has been a change in perception of debt, whether it is inherently bad or not.

What is a paradigm? I’d define it as the lens you see the world through. Something that augments the light waves of reality into something that you understand. In Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation, psychology professor Jean M Twenge examines some societal trends of the smartphone generation, or what he dubs “iGen”. The entire article is spent comparing how today’s teens differ with older generations in their habits of dating, partying and wanting to be independent. 

My initial impression was that this article is heavily biased. The author views everything through his gen X lens. He reacts to a shifting norm, instead of accepting it as reality. For the first half of the article, he paints a narrative that technology is bad, barely framing any of the good. By the middle, Twenge begins to report facts without the underlying jabs. He starts to detail the changes with less accusation towards technology as “ruining a generation”. 

By the end of the article, Twenge has explored enough about Gen Z culture that he is experiencing a paradigm shift himself. When he interacts with his undergraduate students and learns about their phone habits in bed, he realizes what is now the norm for young people. Then he delves into his own personal life, recounting his experiences with his young children wanting smartphones and screen time. More generally, the article serves to highlight a shifting paradigm in the lives of teens. It also strings along some of the effects that it may be causing, such as an increase in teen suicide and depression. Through a plethora of graphs, Twenge compares changes in frequency that teens would hang out with friends, learn to drive, date and feel lonely. His interview with Athena also serves as anecdotal evidence for what his graphs and research imply. Overall, this article is a reflection of a shifting paradigm. His reactions are odd to me because I am already accustomed to the norm, but to his older audience, it could be an eye-opening paradigm shift. Even if it has helped just one boomer understand today’s generation, it has brought us closer to solving our issues.  

In opposition to the Occupy Wall Street movement, I’ve chosen an excerpt from a 2016 Donald Trump campaign rally. This speech given by the Republican nominee was delivered at a campaign rally on October 16, 2016 in West Bend, Indiana. Like most campaign speeches, it aims to rouse the electorate and persuade them to vote in a certain direction. Specifically, this excerpt addresses the issues of corruption within the “system”, jobs and opportunity, and safety and equality. 

Excerpt Text:

“I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying to stop me. I’ve been paying my own way. The voters in the Republican Party this year defied the donors, the consultants, the power brokers, and choose a nominee from outside our failed and corrupt and broken system.

The other party – the Democratic Party – nominated the personification of special interest corruption. The Democratic Party rigged the nomination to give it to Hillary Clinton, thus giving the soul of their party this year to the special interests.

I am running to listen to your voice, to hear your cries for help. The quiet voices in our society, not the loudest demonstrators, need to have their demands heard.

Jobs. Safety. Opportunity. Fair and equal representation.”

In other words, Trump is declaring “vote for me in the election because I’ll fix America and all the problems within the system”. 

When I was considering companion artifacts, I narrowed it down to three options: anti-globalization protests, the Bernie Sanders campaign, or the Donald Trump campaign. All of these movements share the same populist fervor that Occupy Wall Street created. I wanted something relevant so I then narrowed it down between Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Since my speech topic is politically left, I choose the Trump speech because it provides a stark contrast. I thought it would be interesting because the members of both movements feel that they are victimized and powerless to America’s big institutions. They are both upset by what they see as a declining quality of life. However, their political alignments could not be more different. Choosing these two topics, I wanted to explore the commonplaces behind the movements and where they differ in interpretation. 

As of now, I want to focus on analyzing common places and enterprises that the people of each movement share. I’ll then discuss how that has colored been colored by the conflicting ideologies. One main contrast is that Occupy Wall Street was leaderless, while the Trump campaign clearly wasn’t. I plan to use this contrast to discuss the effectiveness of the movement. As for the Greek word bundle, I think I’ll try to do a who did it better and how. 

“There is no planet B.” I agree. You agree. Scientists agree. Anyone in their sane mind would agree. Even optimistic astronomers working at national observatories would agree that there is no planet B (that we know of). It’s common knowledge to know that aside from Earth, there is not a single habitable place in the entire universe. The elegance of this bumper sticker reminds us of the hard truth that we are actually a very special speck of dust in the cosmos– the only place suitable for life. 

In one short sentence, the bumper sticker presents a true description about the state of the universe. In an appeal to logos, it calls us to take better care of Earth, our planet A, by reminding us of the reality of the lack of a planet B. The rhetorical situation of this bumper sticker is driven by, and drives, the ideology that our society must protect the environment because it we don’t, we won’t have an alternative. The audience of this sticker, after reading it while stuck at a red light, would naturally infer that since there is no planet B they must conserve and protect planet A. 

To convey its purpose, the poster invokes a couple commonplaces and ideas that we all know. First, that we are responsible for protecting our planet. It is universally agreed upon that protecting the environment is a “good” thing, despite the execution of this principle not having as much support. In a clever play on words, the poster alludes to the idea of a “plan B” with the words “planet B”. To all those understanding English, “plan B” is synonymous with “back up plan”. In order for this bumper sticker to be effective, it relies on the assumption that its audience will know the term “plan B”. 

I’d assume the commonplaces the bumper sticker references are known by at least 90% of the US population. Logically, the bumper sticker makes a lot of sense since it is built on a universal fact and alludes to common principles that we all understand. For that reason, I think the bumper sticker is effective in advocating its environmentally positive stance. The sticker is clear enough that anyone glancing by it would understand the message of its argument. Would it invoke action and change, that is tough to say… However, it does help create a greener world, by reinforcing the ideology that we must protect our environment. By normalizing messages like that, change will come.  

As we prepare to enter the end of 2019, debates about climate change still loom around us. The idea of climate change has yet to be legitimized in collective interest — a sizable population denies the reality of the topic. Even despite climate change denial, the issue of climate change has remained relevant due to activism and scientific opinions, such as the one shown. This poster, which was created in 2011, a time when the issue of climate change was just as relevant as it is now, urges its audience to act on climate change. 

The creators of this poster recognize the kairos in this situation as they advocate protecting the climate in an era that holds climate change as a pressing issue in the media. The poster’s creators know that since the topic is relevant, the audience they are attempting to persuade has general knowledge about the topic. The audience has most likely already heard about global warming and the melting of ice or sea levels rising. This poster converts background information from the news around us into foreboding scenery. More than ever, now is the right time to warn people about the issue of climate change — before it is too late. 

The poster does not appeal to credibility, as it does not cite scientific articles or climate change experts.  Nor does it appeal to facts or reason, as it lacks statistics or journals. The persuasive element of this poster is built solely upon an appeal to emotion. The poster shows an image of a pristine city that is put to threat by global warming and climate change. The hourglass imagery with water dripping down about to flood a city combined with the caption “we are running out of time act now before it’s too late” clearly conveys the idea that actions to prevent climate change must come now rather than later.  

However, this campaign poster is most effective when its audience already accepts the reality of climate change. I doubt the potency of this poster on climate change deniers. Environmental activists will recognize the urgency of the situation while climate change deniers will ignore it. In other words, the poster has strong appeals to kairos to some of its audience, and weak appeals to kairos to others. The drop of water that is forming creates a feeling of tension that is haunting but urgent. Bad things to come are implied in a menacing way, not an immediately threatening way, which is understandable since the poster was published in 2011. If the poster was remade for 2019, I would increase the water level so that the city is already partially flooded to heighten the sense of urgency and importance of this issue.

I am not a climate change denier, so this poster’s design accomplished its goal of provoking ideas about saving the environment into my thoughts. For the climate change denier though, this poster would probably have no effect. I’d think that the average citizen, who might see this at a bus stop or subway station, would pause to admire the metaphor in the artwork and reflect on what they’ve heard in the news. And even though that’s not much, the fact that it gets thoughts flowing is enough for it to have been worthwhile.  

Like a normal person who mostly only cares about things related to me, I don’t pay much attention to the ads that I see. I glance once, then ignore them and go on my way. Or if I have to pay attention, in the case of the pop up that covers your screen or the video you can’t skip, I’ll instinctively search for the close button as quickly as possible. But when I see a truly terrible ad, and by terrible I mean the type that makes you gape in disbelief, I stay in bewilderment for a few extra seconds before I close the ad. 

Coming across this Mr. Clean Mother’s Day advertisement, I immediately wondered who would approve of this and if they were fired afterwards. Needless to say, it’s a terrible ad. Mr. Clean egregiously misinterpreted what people think of the role of women. Even though the ad was published in 2011, it was and still is unacceptable. The text is sexist: “This Mother’s Day, get back to the job that really matters.” Despite whatever Mr. Clean thinks in his bald head of his, it clearly implies that a mother’s only important job is cleaning the house. The text has missed its mark, offending its audience — women and men alike. It discredits the vast majority of women who have jobs that really matter, like being CEOs or engineers or any other way they contribute to society. 

The timing of the ad is also off. Mother’s Day is normally a day of relaxation for women across the country, not a day of work. Most Mother’s would not imagine spending their Mother’s Day cleaning. Mr. Clean tries to be relatable to its audience, but instead misses the whole premise of the holiday. Mr. Clean’s marketing department should’ve kept Mother’s Day out of it and opted for an ad that all would enjoy. 

Visually, it is bizarre to me that the mother and daughter duo look overjoyed because for the most part people don’t enjoy cleaning. They might enjoy the feeling of accomplishment after cleaning is over, but not during the process. In the image the mother happily scrubs a glass door while her daughter points in excitement. The ad tells girls that what they should enjoy is cleaning, not chasing your dreams in any other fashion. This is also offensive to Mr. Clean’s customer base; it doesn’t help sell any products. If the ad was framed around being able to clean so effortlessly that the duo could do other activities on their Mother’s Day, that would be better. Instead, it is enforcing an old standard that should be swept away.