Writings From Ritner

In Andy Kessler’s article Studies Show That Studies Are Bunk, he brings to attention a very real problem: assuming that everything you read, if said it comes from a study, is true. But, I have a problem with this article.

Isn’t he asking us to assume what he’s saying is true?

As a psychology major, I think I had a hard time establishing a solid ethos for Mr. Kessler from the start. He referred to behavioral scientists as “pop psychologists”, and deemed the field as “the study of college kids in psych labs”. I get what he’s going for – he wants to make a point that most published studies are a result of a bunch of college kids sitting in a room and doing something stupid (and they’re most likely sitting in that room just for the $30 pay). I’m not saying that’s wrong, but that’s a pretty broad claim. While a lot of experiments occur in settings like these, not all of them do. And, even if they do, maybe the results aren’t completely inaccurate!

The one line of Kessler’s article that particularly angered me was when he supported his claim by saying “newer research has deflated this theory,”. Now, Mr. Kessler, is this not hypocritical? It’s hard to believe a claim debunking studies when the writer uses studies to support his claim.

In my opinion, the bottom line is this: when studies are conducted, they result in theories, and the conclusions are simply that. Theories. As kids are continuously taught in school, a theory isn’t fact, it’s just highly probable and based on observations. So, while I will remain skeptical in an effort to keep in mind the overarching warning of Kessler’s article, I will apply this same skepticism to his own claim.

In the 18th century, there was no question about the role of a woman. She was to take care of the household, her husband, and her children. Women battled for their rights, arguing that they deserve at least basic rights such as being able to vote. In 1919, women were granted this right. Now, a century later, times have changed. But, how much? And in what aspects?

In present-day society, many will argue that women are in fact “equal” to men. With the modern feminist movement, women receive a lot of push-backs. Both men and women claim that feminism is past its prime, and no longer necessary. This idea that feminism is no longer necessary in society is a very controversial topic. While women are fighting for their right to equal pay, proper punishment for sexual assault, and simply the right to their own bodies, many people will claim that this effort is no longer necessary and that feminism is an archaic cause.

Why is this the notion that so many people are holding today? What makes people think that while progress has been made, there is nothing more to be done? The wage gap has become smaller, and we nearly had a woman in the presidential office. However, there is still more to be done, and younger generations are taking this problem to the forefront. 1919 had women’s suffrage, 2019 has the #MeToo movement and the challenging of rape culture. This shift, though slight, is still influential. Women’s rights may potentially be my paradigm shift topic, as I find it very interesting due to the intersectionality of the topic.

In the early 2000s, the thought of a phone not only mobile, but equipped with professional-level cameras, thousands of options for games, and easy access to a growing social media platform seemed crazy to imagine. Now, in 2019, smartphones have become an essential for U.S. citizen’s lives, and the age at which children are given one of their own continues to drop.

Merriam Webster defines paradigm shift as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way”. The evolution of smartphones and their use in society is a perfect example of a paradigm shift occurring today. Cellphones have greatly impacted the way people live today – in some ways positively, and in some ways negatively.

The main argument to how cellphones have positively impacted the way people live by making communication easier and faster. For parents, ensuring their child’s safety is a mere click of a button away. Or, if texting and calling still doesn’t make them feel certain their kid is okay, parents can now track their children via cellphone. While this seems to be a positive, kids would disagree – constant monitoring can negatively impact their sense of freedom, and therefore instill a sneaky, rebellious spirit in the child as they grow older. Even the positive aspects of cellphones can be examined as a negative aspect.

Then comes social media. Not only are today’s teens being faced with constant monitoring by their parents, but thousands of strangers as well. With all of the various social medias accessible today, such as Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, and more, Millennials and Generation Z are having to deal with a new aspect of their lives. Especially for teenage girls, hours in a day can be spent editing their pictures to make themselves appear more desirable to society’s standards, liking and commenting various people’s posts, and dealing with comments from others on their own posts – whether they are positive, or negative. Not only do teenagers today have to maintain a social media appearance, but they also encounter lots of negativity online, and numerous studies conducted have linked growing rates of depression and anxiety to this dependency on social media. Mental health isn’t the only thing suffering – social media also appears to be harming social skills, primarily in face-to-face interactions.

While cellphones may appear to be a luxury item that has made life not only easier, but also more enjoyable, they have caused detrimental effects on the way people view themselves and spend their time.

Most people by now are familiar with Lizzo, the new feminist icon soaring across music’s top charts. While her songs are upbeat and provide catchy instrumental elements that appeal to all, Lizzo has become much more than just a pop artist. Her new album, Cuz I love you, features songs all centered around girl power. Almost perfectly, one of her most popular songs is even titled “Like A Girl”, the same exact phrase Always used in their campaign surrounded the commercial I have chosen for my speech.

Lizzo, born Melissa Jefferson, is a 31 year old rapper, singer, songwriter, actress, classically trained flutist, and activist. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Lizzo around the country before landing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she began seriously pursuing her musical career. Though she has been recording and releasing music in various groups and under various labels since 2012, she quickly rose to popularity in roughly the past year, with her single “Truth Hurts” even becoming a Penn State Football game staple.

What’s especially interesting when comparing “Like A girl”, the song by Lizzo, versus “Like A Girl”, the campaign launched by Always, is that they bring to light the same phrase, but in completely different ways. While the Always commercial was focusing on engaging the audience more by providing the negative connotation surrounding the phrase “Like A Girl”, Lizzo’s song is entirely about the power women have and the fact the doing something “like a girl” means absolutely crushing the task. Even more interesting is the fact that the commercial was aired four years before Lizzo released her song, showing that in the past four years the Always campaign’s goal of changing the phrase “like a girl” from an insult to a compliment has been accomplished, whether by the campaign itself or not.

I am particularly drawn to using Lizzo’s song “Like A Girl” as my essay artifact because of the personal effect Lizzo’s music has had on my life. Since around May, my friends at home and I listened exclusively to Lizzo, especially when we were experiencing some kind of boy-related drama. I am very excited to compare these two artifacts in my essay, because not only do they exhibit many parallels though they are completely different media types, but because it’s exciting to see how far the “girl power” movement has come in four short years. One particular aspect I am excited to delve into is the portion of the commercial in which the girls discuss the gravity of being told they do something “like a girl” while going through puberty. This catches my attention because now that a role model like Lizzo has emerged, perhaps the girls going through this stage of their life won’t deal with such degrading insults, and instead absorb the confidence Lizzo spreads through her music.

Not often does one see a bumper sticker that calls out a hot topic in society. However, in this specific bumper sticker from Cafe Press, the creator masterfully calls out how sexual assaults should be dealt with by making a mathematical argument utilizing logos.

As you can see, the bumper sticker was created off the idea of “no means no”, and what the consequences should be for men that don’t quite understand the definition of “no”. The bumper sticker incorporates logos into its statement by setting up the scenario in a chronological, mathematical equation. It can be assumed that most people over the age of around six understand the concept of addition via a plus sign, and that what’s on one side of the equals sign must equal what’s on the other side. Cafe Press designed this bumper sticker under the assumption that a simple mathematical equation was commonplace knowledge.

Cafe Press also assumes that the graphics themselves would be easily understood. I think they do a pretty good job at this, because although they are assuming people will understand that given the word “NO” being added to the second graphic, the male figure touching the female figure is not consensual. While some may argue that this is too vague, I think it’s a fairly commonplace belief that touching followed by an explicit “no” is not consensual.

The bumper sticker then concludes by showing the man with an arrow in his crotch area to show what the violation of the word “no” deserves. Overall, I think the bumper sticker does a pretty good job at using logic to address a controversial topic.

Recently, Capital One released a new commercial in which they used pop sensation Taylor Swift to sell their Savor Card. Using Swift in their commercial, as well as the layout of her actions, is a perfect example of a pop culture use of Kairos.

In the short commercial, viewers watch as Taylor Swift plays various roles different from her typical pop-star identity. She makes mistakes as a bartender, and is a goofy waitress at a diner. While Swift acts out her roles, text pops up across the screen making puns connecting her mistakes to her previous hit singles. For example, while Swift is acting as a bartender, she spills the drink everywhere while mixing it in a shaker; Capital One then put “4% to shake it off” across the screen. These endearing moments, being acted out by a lovable celebrity, appeal to all three aspects of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle.

By using a celebrity, Capital One appealed to their audience’s sense of Ethos. When someone sees Taylor Swift using the Savor Card, they think it must be a smart thing to use, because Swift is a credible figure.

Branching off of Swift’s simple presence, her actions appeal to the audience’s sense of Pathos. When Swift makes mistakes, such a spilling the drink, the audience most likely relates, and therefore sympathizes with her, making them more likely to find the Savor Card as something beneficial to themselves.

Last but not least, Capital One makes sure to not lose any appeals to Logos in their commercial. Though the focus is primarily on Swift, Capital One sneakily places information about the Savor Card over top of the images. As mentioned earlier, this was even more effective because Capital One used Swift even when presenting their facts about the card by making connections to her previous songs.

All of these aspects of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle work together to make Capital One’s commercial a perfect example of using Kairos in the media. By choosing Taylor Swift as the celebrity playing the various roles, Capital One acted perfectly in their timing. Swift had just released a new song that was topping the charts, and was maintaining her position as a relatable celebrity, due to her advocacy for equal rights for people of all genders, sexualities, ethnicities, etc.. This made Swift the perfect celebrity for the time frame they released the commercial, as Swift was one of the most talked about celebrities of the moment.

Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, has brought caught the media’s eye ever since he began standing, or kneeling, for what he believes in. Disgusted by the American society’s prejudice against young black males, Kaepernick began kneeling during the National Anthem as it was played prior to his NFL games. The country became divided, one side being repulsed by his disrespect for his country and its veterans, while the other side claimed his actions embodied the idea of America being a free country.

Nike also brought their company into the spotlight when they decided to support Kaepernick in his public protest. While the majority of the country found his kneeling horrendous, Nike supported his actions, and even went the extra mile by creating an ad campaign in support of Kaepernick.

This sparked even more controversy for not only Kaepernick and the NFL, but for Nike as a company. Videos and images began flooding every social media platform of individuals burning their Nike merchandise, swearing to never again buy products from a company that would support such defiant, disrespectful behavior.

Both Nike and Kaepernick in this situation displayed their steadfast beliefs in upholding their morals. Though ultimately Kaepernick lost his position, and Nike lost millions in profit, they chose the higher path towards progression and social reform. The ad itself represents not only Kaepernick’s sacrifice, but Nike’s as well.