The Summary

The article “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows” confirms what many of us know too well, in what the media has branded the Trump Era, but what might as well be the Subjective Era. As politics has grown more and more polarized and has corrupted nearly every facet of society, people have doubled down on their ideologies. In this process, they have departed from seeking the truth. Instead, both sides of the aisle have chosen to engage in ideological worship, following a dangerous trend towards the subjective reality. Subjective realities in which individuals choose what they want to be real and then evidence to support their stance. Rather than do the proper thing of collecting data and then building a stance based on the facts.

These subjective realities lead to the skewed and flaws world views that produce the things that the article discusses, false or unverifiable data. While this may seem to be like a minor issue, this is probably one of the biggest issues that threatens our society today. For if we allow ourselves to withdraw into our own subjective realities, then we head for dangerous territory. We will be unable to build consensus because no one will be able to agree on the foundation and basic facts that the conversation will be built upon. And if this occurs then all dialogue will break down. And if people stop fighting with words, then they will start doing so with fists.

The Problem

The problem with this article is that the only data that it provides is the actual study that states that these studies are wrong. It would have been a much more effective article if the author were to bring up contrary evidence to begin to deconstruct the examples that are mentioned within the article. Without this, the article suffers from an issue in which it looks like the kettle calling the pot black.

The Warning

The article can serve as an important reminder when writing our paradigm shift essays. A reminder that we must look at the research rationally and objectively and see where it takes us. For if we do the opposite enter the process with a bias or a story we wish to tell and then look at the data, then the argument will be weak and fall apart. The reason for this is simple, if a stance is not formed with facts then it can not be proven to be true in anyway. Instead it becomes a failure, and becomes a monument to bias and ideology.

Image Source

Facts vs Belief Source

The Shift

For my shift I will be covering the changes in political views of young adults from 1960-1990. The story I will attempt to demonstrate, is one of action and reaction. As generations, not only alter their political views to solve the problems of the time period, but also as a reaction of the norms established by the past generations.

I am starting in the 1960s so that I can encompass the entire shift and draw parallels to the political shift that has been happening over the past 15 years (but I will get more into that later). As the 60s began young adults of America held views that could broadly be described as center to center-right. As the decade went along, young adult views began to become more progressive/left wing. This change was largely brought about because of opposition to the Vietnam war. By the time of the mid-70s, this left wing view had become entrenched. However, as the 80s rolled around, young adults began to become more conservative. This change was largely caused by economic hardship in the 70s. By the mid 90s, the views of young adults shifted once more towards a more center right position.

In my TED talk, I will focus in on ideological changes between the 70s and 80s because of the parallels that exist between then and now.

The Reason

The reason why I find this paradigm shift so interesting is that I think that it is cyclical in nature. If this is true, then I think we are currently at the point of reaction against left wing progressivism (quite similar to the shift that occurred between the 70s and 80s). This becomes clear if one takes a look at the current polling of iGenners, which indicates a shift towards conservatism/libertarianism. As we move forward, it is important to understand the nature of this reoccurring paradigm shift, so as not to make irrevocable mistakes, in the form of extreme opposition to what seems to be a natural change in views overtime.

Image Source

Political Chart Source

Claim

The Atlantic article by Jean Twenge spends a great deal discussing a paradigm shift brought about by smartphones and social media. The article covers a vast range of changes brought about by smartphones, but simply put they can be simplified into two categories mental health, and time usage. Starting with mental health changes, smartphones have led to increased loneliness, and depression as iGeners spend more time interacting with people through technology (which reduces happiness) than through face to face contact (which increases happiness). Also correlating with smartphone introduction is a dramatic shift in how iGeners spend their time. No longer feeling the need to communicate through face to face contact, iGeners spend increasingly less time with friends or on dates. Now able to easily contact parents, iGeners are less likely to have drivers license because they can rely on parents for rides. With an instant line of communication between parents and children, iGeners are less likely to pursue independence. 

The Shift

The paradigm shift in this examples comes from the fact that not all generations were like this. Past generations spent more time engaged in social contact with peers, and more time pursuing activities independent from parental supervision. And so the shift, which is a dramatic one, is from a past teen culture of independence, self-sufficiency, and activity to new teen culture of reliance, obedience, and sloth.

Image Source

Phone Source

Mayor Tom Bradley Press Conference after First Night of LA Riots

Background

On April 29, 1992, the trial for the police who were charged with assaulting Rodney King concluded. The trial ended with the officers being acquitted of any wrong doing. In wake of this verdict, years of repressed hatred erupted on the streets of LA. On the following day, Mayor Tom Bradley held a press conference in which he urged the citizens of LA to remain calm and civil.

More specifically, Mayor Bradley stated that he understood the anger that the black population of the city felt at the verdict, but he argued that this anger should be expressed verbally, not through violence.

Relationship to RFK speech after the assassination of MLK

I chose to analyze this artifact, because I found the failure of the artifact to deliver the same result of the RFK’s speech interesting. Both speeches have the same message and both use similar methods to communicate their point, yet Bradley’s appeal failed. It is for this reason, the failure of Bradley’s speech to achieve it’s goal, that I wanted to analyze it, to see more clearly what exactly determines whether or not a speech will be successful.

By comparing the similarities and differences in the speeches, I am hoping that I will be able to isolate where Bradley went wrong, and what RFK did right. Choosing these speeches works quite well because the similarities between them allows for an almost scientific study of rhetorical persuasion. For example both were given in response to racial outrage, both attempted to calm riotous people, both attempted to convey a message of peace and tranquility instead of hatred and anger.

I think that my analysis will mostly focus on how the speakers used kairos and rhetorical appeals. It seems that the delayed press conference and lack of timelessness in manner that Bradley conveyed his message is one reason why he failed. While Kennedy succeed because he was delivering the speech the day of the assassination and focused more on the timelessness of his message (references the future that they are building throughout the speech). In regards to the rhetorical appeals, Bradley spent very little time developing pathos before jumping into logos, which is one big reason why I think that he failed. In comparison, the majority of Kennedy’s speech was based around pathos and ethos, before briefly touching on logos at the end. I think that this is one of the major reasons why Kennedy was successful, that he was able to invest the audience in his message before stating the purpose of his speech. I think that the thing that can most be learned from comparing the two speeches is that there is more to a speech than just having a superlative message, the methods in which a speech is delivered have to be superlative too.

Video Source

Riot Press Conference Source