Youtube Project

For this project, I have chosen to advocate for the existence of critical thinking in education. More specifically, I have proposed that an abstract thinking class be required for middle school and high school students. Through this, I think that students will be more inclined to engage in thinking about serious issues more critically and in their own way. However, in order to argue in favor of this proposal, I need to have some mode of marketing this information to other people. For this specific proposal, I think that creating a Youtube video would be most beneficial for advocating such policy changes.

The focus of the Youtube video that I am creating for my advocacy project is directly related to the persuasive essay. They advocate for the same policy. However, the video is aimed at motivating people, specifically students, to care about the lack of critical thinking in education. The end goal of this would be to encourage a politically active generation to influence policy. This is different from the persuasive essay in the sense that the persuasive essay is meant to persuade legislators and people in power. In other words, the focus of the video will only change or differ due to the intended audience.

The main reason for changing the audience is that policymakers and legislators will not be exposed to something as insignificant as a Youtube video. However, the general populous ventures all across Youtube all the time. They are far more likely to come across this content and actually pay any attention to it whatsoever. As a result, the video should pertain to those people. The whole point of advocating for anything is to foster change and the only way to foster change through Youtube is tailoring to the general public.

In doing this, there are a couple strategies I will utilize in order to appeal to my audience. One such strategy is the use of an anecdote. By telling a story of someone who suffers from the current education system and its lack of critical thinking, people will not only be more sympathetic to any argument favoring change but will also be more likely to remember the argument I make due to the creation of an emotional connection. Another strategy would be the use of examples. By demonstrating how critical thinking could exist in education through examples, the audience will be more receptive to the idea that critical thinking is lacking. This would be especially effective if unique and simple examples are used.

Logical Appeals of Gun Rights

The website “The Truth About Guns” is an organization that advocates for the rights of citizens to purchase and own a gun. This organization heavily opposes gun control and has strong political support around the United States. The website is formatted such that it conveys arguments in favor of gun rights through multiple different articles written by different people. They put out 15 articles every single day and from a quick glance, all of them seem to be in favor of gun rights and/or in opposition to gun control. It also seems to me that these articles are new articles written for this website specifically, although that could be wrong. All things considered, this is basically an organization that strongly supports gun rights, strongly opposes gun control, and is very committed to the cause.

Much like other gun rights advocacy websites, it seems kind of difficult to find much logos. That isn’t meant to insult the position of being pro-gun (well…maybe a little), but I think that because their position is likely to maintain the status quo, more or less, there is not much change they are advocating for. Rather, they are advocating against listening to advocacies for gun control.

From a few articles, I think I understand an idea of what kind of logos they use. One use of logos that “The Truth About Guns” uses is the argument that guns do not increase the degree of violence in this country and instead, often do the opposite. Their arguments for this rely on specific examples of times where someone was able to defend themselves using a gun. Their most recent example is about someone who was able to avoid being robbed due to possessing a gun. “The Truth About Guns” argues that the reality in which guns help people is alive. In fact, on their “Facts About Guns” page, they link an article that they say is the best article for understanding the facts revolving guns. In this article, they argue that guns do not increase violence because over the past decade, gun violence have been consistently on the decline when gun sales have increased.

“The Truth About America” also argues that the government and the left are trying to take away rights from the people. As supposedly established in the last paragraph, gun rights do not increase gun violence and they often deter or prevent it, “The Truth About America” argues that having a gun should be considered a right as it is beneficial for survival. The most recent article talking about the government and the left trying to take away people’s rights discussed “red flag” laws. They took the position that such legislation is the theft of freedom and demonstrates that the government is attempting to take away people’s liberties. As liberties should be protected, gun rights should be too.

A third point of contention for “The Truth About Guns” is the idea that guns are just inherently beneficial. While this organization already sees possession of guns as an unconditional right that is beneficial for the decline of gun violence, they have not really tackled whether or not guns are entirely beneficial. They suggest that the United States is not in a gun epidemic as many claim it is. They point out evidence that shows that the likelihood of getting killed by a gun is far lesser than the likelihood of getting killed by traffic or accidental poisoning. In addition, they argue that guns are beneficial for the safety of schools as it can help prevent a school shooter from having their way.

I have a couple problems with all these three arguments. The first argument is problematic because it uses correlation to prove causation. As the evidence they cite is supposedly the best evidence in their eyes about guns, we should uphold it to the highest standard. The best that their “best evidence” can prove is that there is a correlation between gun sales and decreased gun violence. However, that claim itself would even be a stretch to make as gun violence has been decreasing, according to their own very evidence, regardless of whether or not gun sales increase. To truly be scientific, “The Truth About Guns” would need to acknowledge that the decreased violence cannot be attributed to gun sales and is likely caused by other factors.

I also think their second argument is fallacious because they do not prove what constitutes a right or a liberty. Personally, I do not view the ability to injure or kill someone as a right. They also cannot argue that self-defense is necessary because there are many other means of self-defense that do not include guns and can be extremely effective. If they are going to argue in favor of guns, they should at least acknowledge that it should not be considered a right; it should be considered a privilege if anything. Also, they seem to only be arguing that the left and the government are trying to take away people’s rights for the sake of creating a group to antagonize that followers can get behind, strengthening their initiative through manipulative means.

Their third argument is problematic because it is insufficient. I can get behind the idea that if guns are beneficial, they should be valued. However, I simply do not think “The Truth About Guns” takes into account all variables. Even if there is a 52 times higher likelihood of getting killed by traffic, that is still barely higher as both percentages are fairly low. Additionally, it does prove that guns should be valued or are beneficial. Of course transportation should be valued as it provides immense benefit but such benefit is not proven to be true for guns by them. Also, they argue that guns are beneficial for school but when giving it a closer look, they really are only arguing that teachers with guns are more effective against school shooters than teachers without guns. They do not account for the increased likelihood of a school shooting happening due to the teachers possessing guns nor do they account for the psychological change teachers could experience.

Overall, I do not like this organization.

Mandating Critical Thinking in Curricula

Proposal: A critical thinking class revolved around abstract thinking should be mandated in education at all levels starting in middle school.

Ever since the mid-20th century, critical thinking has lost its place in education and has been replaced with a far less mind-enhancing and motivating engagement: memorization. This can be attributed to the fact that in the 20th century, the economy switched from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. As a result, the labor that was available became increasingly more skill-based. Because a lot of these skills were not easily attainable, people went to college in order to gain skills for the purpose of obtaining jobs in the economy for monetary gain. This affects lower levels of education too as those levels of education are almost entirely necessary for college. In other words, the focus of education, at every level, has shifted from valuing learning to valuing money. Schools have become businesses rather than institutions of learning (Morse).

Breslin of The Huffington Post explains, “The essence of an education – the ability to think critically and protect oneself from falsehood and lies – may once have been taught in American schools, but, with few exceptions, is today a lost art” (Breslin). He warrants this explanation by arguing that there is no part of the curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking or even upholds it as a value that is necessary to be taught (Breslin). In fact, he says that despite teachers wanting to teach and encourage critical thinking, the educational structure and system ignores it due to the amount of content they promote students to memorize (Breslin).

Not only did capitalism cause this issue but the federal government, at the very highest level, played an integral part in the deterioration of critical thinking in education. An author, Joe David, wrote in the Observer that NCLB, Common Core, Race to the Top, and Goals 2000 all willingly sacrificed critical thinking for the purpose of increasing standardized test scores.

Many would argue that this service economy cannot be replaced and to some extent, I would agree. That does not mean, however, that people should be complacent in the prioritization of memorization over critical thinking. For this reason, I propose that critical thinking be mandated in curriculum.

This seems like an overly broad proposal so I think it is important to figure out what severely mandating critical thinking in curriculum would look like. I think the biggest way in which critical thinking separates itself from memorization is through abstract contemplation. Someone could argue that math, in a way, is memorization because even if it takes deduction and analysis, it is done so in a systematic way that can be easily mastered if memorized. However, one could not easily argue that practicing philosophy is memorization as part of its very nature is to question everything. For this reason, I more specifically propose that a philosophy or “abstract thinking” class be required at all levels of education starting in middle school. Rather than simply teaching the history of philosophy and different theories that have already been proposed and established (which is valuable and important to education), these classes should focus more on thinking itself. Through this, people can engage with learning better, progress their intelligence, and be motivated to form opinions about the world and the things around them that they care and can be challenged about.

Research Questions:

What constitutes critical thinking?

Why is critical thinking important?

Should education exist for the purpose of jobs or learning? If both, which should be prioritized?

How does a system balance between supporting critical thinking while passing down the knowledge that has already been discovered?

Resources

Breslin, Frank. “Why Public Schools Don’t Teach Critical Thinking — Part 1.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Aug. 2016, www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-breslin/why-public-schools-dont-t_b_7956518.html.

Morse, Ben. “Why Critical Thinking Is Overlooked by Schools and Shunned by Students.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 12 Sept. 2012, www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2012/sep/12/critical-thinking-overlooked-in-secondary-education.

David, Joe, and Joe David. “How the American Education System Suppresses Critical Thinking.” Observer, Observer, 11 Jan. 2018, observer.com/2018/01/american-education-system-suppresses-critical-thinking/.

Should TV Programs Feel Obligated To Increase Diversity?

I do not think that the person proposing this topic is talking about obligation in the legal sense. Therefore, I think it is important to evaluate this topic on a moral basis. With regard to whether or not television shows should make progress with diversity, I see a really one-sided issue. I do not know why people would argue against increasing diversity in television. Not only is it clearly beneficial but there are no noticeable harms to doing so.

An article by The Conversation titled “Why it’s so important for kids to see diverse TV and movie characters” argues that diversity is essential because it helps minority kids construct their identity better. The article articulates, “There’s a relationship between low self-esteem and negative media portrayals of racial groups, in addition to an association between poor self-esteem and the paucity of portrayals of a particular group. Others have found that media misrepresentations of ethnic groups can cause confusion about aspects of their identity among children of these groups” (Dobrow). I not only agree with this article but think that the importance of this can be underrated by people who do not really care about the level of diversity in television.

People who disagree with increasing the level of diversity in television often think that television is diverse enough for it to matter. The numbers are irrefutable and no one is arguing that television is representative of the population because it is not. However, people are arguing that with the inclusion of at least one minority character, the issue is solved. However, an article in TIME dispels this by calling it “tokenism” and further explaining that the one non-white mentality is “creating an environment in which lone staffers are expected to speak on behalf of entire racial or ethnic groups” (D’Addario). In order to progress properly, the article encourages at least three non-white characters. I do not know the specific amount but what I do know is that there is still ways to go in constructing an array of non-white characters for minority children to identify with and for minority actors to have opportunity in a discriminatory system.

Two questions I think could be important are: how do children construct their identity? and does the lack of inclusion of minority actors make the television industry racist, sexist, etc.?

Resources:

Deliberation on Homosexual OCD

Journalist Chadwick Moore wrote an opinion article in Out, a popular magazine, called “Homosexual OCD is a Thing, and Thousands of Americans Suffer From It“. In this article, he tells the story of a 13 year old girl named Olivia Loving and many other individuals who have experienced what is considered Homosexual OCD or HOCD. Moore argues that HOCD exists and that it entails obsessive worrying about whether or not oneself is homosexual. However, he also argues that it does not necessarily make someone homophobic because it is not that the individual who experiences HOCD views homosexuality as bad but rather the individual experiences “unwanted thoughts” about it.

As there is not real scientific literature on HOCD yet, there was a lot of skeptical doubt in the comments. In fact, it got quite intense and argumentative. People completely denounced this article, arguing that it is media produced by discomfort with different types of sexuality. Some even argue that this article makes homosexuality appear as a mental disease. Others retort back, arguing that such an article is not making commentary on whether or not different sexualities should be acknowledged, accepted, or appreciated but rather about the compulsive obsession of checking one’s own sexuality.

The arguments in the comments do not really classify as effective deliberation. Neither personal nor emotional experiences are incorporated (which I encourage). Facts are somewhat included but are not used very properly. However, one can only expect so much from a comments section on a magazine article. Values are somewhat established. People’s emphasis differ between a focus on the societal perception of homosexuality vs. the acceptance of a potentially rare type of OCD. Additionally, some solutions are proposed such as the advocacy to do scientific research before making definitive conclusions on the issue. Some argue to abandon the exploration of HOCD while others argue for readily accepting HOCD as a serious condition. I think I would count these as mini-solutions. While they do not propose societal change, it proposes a perspective.

However, a lot of things are missing in these comments. None of the comments really evaluate the pros and cons of each viewpoint effectively. Also, people do not update their own viewpoint in light of new information. This is probably tied to the lack of respect in these arguments (another important factor for effective deliberation). Mutual comprehension is not really ensured and people do not listen carefully to what each other says. At the very least, there is equality when it comes to speaking opportunities but that is inevitable as it is in a comments section.

Overall, whether or not the arguments are good, the debate over this article is an ineffective deliberation.

Lucidity

http://thirdeyedrops.com/lucid-dreams/

When looking at this image, there are a couple different components that come together to make this image unique. In this image, a man is perceived walking through a desert and stemming from the top of his head appears a large bubble filled with a depiction of what seems to be space.

The main argument I think that this piece is trying to convey is that when experiencing lucid dreams, one witnesses the vast and limitless thought the unconscious or subconscious engages in.

Looking at the large bubble, one can see a black space filled with many colors and small white particles. This likely is meant to represent space as space is perceived as mostly black filled with unique colors from different phenomenons and white stars that are only white because of how minuscule they are when perceived by the human eye. Stemming from the person’s head, it is likely that the creator of this image is showing space or the universe as inside the person’s brain. Because the universe is characterized as the ever-expanding reality people live in, this depiction is likely meant to represent infinite and limitless thought.

Another thing to notice is that the person who has the bubble over their head is trotting through a desert. The setting of a desert might help emphasize the significance of the large bubble. While the large bubble is filled with unique and complex phenomena, the desert is filled with nothing substantial or noticeable. As a result, the bubble’s significance is heightened and it appears even more interesting and complex. The disparity between the complexity of the bubble and the setting also serves to show the contrast between the subconscious and conscious. It shows that the conscious mind and its perception of reality is nothing compared to the complexity of the subconscious mind.

Where this all ties to lucidity is the border of the image. The center of the image has the brightest sky and the further away from the center, the darker the sky. The effect is so exaggerated that all corners of the image are completely black. In fact, if the viewer pays attention to the outline the darkness creates for the image, it is shaped like an eye. In other words, the artist is trying to depict a moment where the individual perceives their conscious selves experiencing a venture into their own subconscious. A time in which this happens is when one experiences a lucid dream. Overall, this image seems to be created for the purpose of sensationalizing the experience of a lucid dream and appreciating the complexity of the subconscious that is witnessed during such experiences.

The Beautiful Unknown

This past week, I was scrolling through TED talks and came across one that seemed particularly interesting to me: Underwater Astonishments. In this TED talk, oceanographer David Gallo discussed many of the intriguing feats accomplished by sea creatures. As someone who loves the mysteries of the ocean, this caught my immediate attention.

The thesis of this TED talk is not that deep as it simply argues in favor of exploring the ocean. Gallo’s argument for this relied on the idea that the ocean has been barely explored and that it holds incredible wonders. He pointed out that humans have only explored 3% of the world’s oceans. With so many wonders such as the interesting abilities and nature of the octopus or the cuttlefish already discovered in the depths of the ocean, the length of “astonishment” the rest of the ocean can provide us is unlimited.

The speech did not expand my knowledge as much as it expanded my curiosity, which I argue is more important. He did not come up with a theory about the way the world works nor did he propose some kind of brilliant solution to a pressing problem. While those are useful, he took a different approach. Instead, he ignited the audience’s curiosity. In fact, after watching this TED talk, I heavily considered switching aspects of my career paths. I will be pursuing information about the ocean a lot more. Instead of expanding my understanding of something with twenty minutes of knowledge, Gallo provided me with curiosity that could lead me to pursue hours of knowledge.

What made Gallo’s speech so effective is his use of visual aid. He marketed oceanography and exploring the ocean by demonstrating how “aesthetic” the wonders of the ocean were. With a visually appealing presentation, Gallo was able to make an impression on his audience. As far as weaknesses go, there were not many. However, I was hoping he would go a little more in-depth into the nature of the ocean or demonstrate other wonders of the ocean.

This demonstrates to me that delivering a speech requires framing the topics and arguments in ways that interest the audience. That is why hooks are so often emphasized. However, with presentations, while framing is important, demonstration can be a really critical component. Presentations allow the speaker to appeal to the audience in more ways than through words. In other words, there should be some form of demonstration in order to gain the audience’s attention. Demonstrations act as a supplement to speaking.

Obama’s Message to Black Voters

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/800533326754843/

Approximately two years ago, the 2016 presidential election was going on and the time for people to vote was nearing. This election specifically seemed important because of the two candidates at the forefront were not only perceived as unique (in different ways) but corrupt as well. The amount of drama that occurred during the 2016 presidential election seemed exceed previous elections by a large amount. As a result, it felt as if many voters became apathetic to the election and as a result, became apathetic to voting.

To counter this, Obama created a speech to the black community and tried to instill the feeling that voting matters and that “there is no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter”. In delivering such a speech, he hoped to influence the minds of many black voters.

When assessing the effectivity of Obama’s speech, I personally felt as if it was effective. Although this video is just a small clip of the larger speech, I think it demonstrates many admirable qualities a speaker should aim to have.

The delivery of Obama’s speech was critical to its effectiveness. His hand movements communicated his frustrations with the idea that voting does not matter. Additionally, he rose his voice when talking about issues that matter and were “on the ballot”. But him increasing the volume of his voice did not come off crazy or off-putting. Instead, his use of volume helped inspire the crowd he was speaking to. He emanated passion for the audience to absorb. He also used vocal variety to convey rationality and care while also conveying passion and frustration. This allowed people to see Obama as human and relate to what he was talking about better. I know that we are only supposed to analyze one aspect of his delivery but I think all these aspects complemented and completed each other.

As for his organization, Obama structured his speech around what is “on the ballot”. He used repetition to make the audience remember the words “on the ballot”. This is effective because it not only makes the audience specifically consider something about voting but something that voting effects or impacts that can be relevant to their own life. Without this structure, it is unlikely for his speech to have been as effective as many would not remember nor feel the urge to contemplate “the ballot”.

In addition to delivery and organization, Obama’s speech also used different methods of persuasion. He started out by addressing the mindset his audience tends to have: the idea that their vote does not matter. By addressing this head on, he aimed to persuade the audience that their mindset on voting is not only negative but wrong. I think he could have done this more effectively but it certainly was more helpful than destructive. Also, when he talked about the importance of voting, the issues he talked about that were on the ballot were relevant to the black community more than other individuals. Issues regarding democracy, justice, education. and incarceration are all issues that are known to be specifically relevant to the black community.

Overall I think Obama’s speech was quite effective. While it was not as good in persuasive appeal as it could have been, as far as speeches go, I think his speech was more effective than most speeches given by public speakers.

Evaluation of Kessler’s Argument

When reading Kessler’s article, I had many frustrations with a lot of aspects of his argument. Kessler makes the argument that studies are inherently unreliable. I do not disagree with this argument but I think the way he argues this concept sends a message that instills an inaccurate perception of what should be valued in research.

The first problem with his argument is that he only uses social psychology as the basis for why studies are inherently unreliable. This does not account for plenty of other studies in fields that would not entail nearly as much variation and unreliability. Psychology, although considered a science, is still classified as liberal arts and a social science and while social sciences are not necessarily less real than hard sciences, the assertions and arguments are a lot more inconclusive and unreliable in social sciences.

The second problem with his argument is that he ignores the idea that theory and logic also have biases. Kessler’s argument for why studies are bad predicates on the idea that there is inherent bias within individuals. I agree with this completely. However, why single out studies? Why would this bias not transfer to theory or logic? I think that Kessler’s focus on studies ignores the idea that biases affect other types of intellectual contribution.

The third main problem with his argument is that he does not advocate for making studies more accurate in the intellectual community. Because bias is inherent, we will never achieve perfection. But even if we cannot achieve perfection or total accuracy, I do not see why we should not try to be more accurate. I know he does not argue against this but if someone is arguing that all studies are flawed, I would not see it as contributive or constructive if they do not propose any type of solution or method of improvement. At the very least, they should encourage improvement.

Ultimately, I believe that all studies are flawed. However, I think all logic and all rationality is flawed due to bias and imperfection. I advocate for the questioning of methodology in studies and I also advocate for the questioning of all logic and rationality.

The Evolution of Learning

On this blog post, I intend to summarize the shift experienced in the societal emphasis of learning and what society values in learning. However, I am still not sure as to what shift I am doing so I will explore the broad overall shift for now. Also, my research is currently insufficient.

Something that I always considered interesting or fascinating is Ancient Greece and how some of the greatest minds of all time existed so long ago. From philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to mathematicians such as Euclid, Archimedes, and Pythagoras, Ancient Greece was filled with knowledge and progress. A lot of the ideas and concepts theorized at this time are used in today’s textbooks.

However, not everything from Ancient Greece is still appreciated today. When wondering why or how these philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, etc. were so smart, I can only come to one conclusion: they learned for the purpose of understanding the world around them; they learned to achieve truth. Even with regard to academic institutions, such as Lyceum, truth was the central goal to the structure, content, and teaching style.

Today, education has deviated from the purpose of achieving truth and instead seems to focus on monetary success. In modern education systems, students are not told why they should care about a subject nor is the emphasis placed on motivating students to rationalize the world around them. They are not encouraged to think for themselves and are rather directed towards conforming with the conclusions already established in society. The vast majority of students do not come out of education with the mentality that they should theorize about the world but rather that they should try to be financially successful.

I would argue that this shift in mentality is one that occurred over a long time and has both negative and positive aspects to it. Seeking abstract thinking and questioning is critical in order to question and rationalize the world around us. As far as this goes, learning in today’s educational institutions has lost the purpose of rationalizing the world around us and has, thus, abandoned the value of abstract or unique thoughts and contemplations. At the same time, however, it is important to pass down knowledge of concepts that were already established in society in order to help people understand the world around them. While they are seemingly opposite values in learning, they should work together in order to progress human understanding of the world. I think our system needs to re-acknowledge the value of unique or abstract thought and reintegrate it back into the education system.