Reading Response 12/4

In his article, “you are the product”, John Lancaster’s goal is to highlight the moral shortcomings of the wildly popular company, Facebook.  Lancaster claims that Mark Zuckerberg and other important figures in the corporation do not care about the quality of the content that they spread on their site.  He argues that Facebook’s primary goal is monetization and that the user experience is less important to Facebook.  Lancaster believes that Facebook’s loyalties are with the advertisers that pay to publish content, rather than the average user.

Lancaster’s disapproval of the social network spawns from multiple causes.  He claims that while social networking technologies are not inherently evil, Facebook apathy towards its content makes Zuckerberg’s company evil.  Lancaster is put off by both the amount stolen content and false news.  Lancaster begins his case against Facebook by comparing it to one of the other most popular social websites, YouTube.  He uses musicians as an example of the damages of stolen content.  The internet has become the primary source people use to listen to and acquire music.  While this is true artists made more money off the sale of vinyl’s than they did off YouTube which is the single largest player of music.  Lancaster uses this example to demonstrate how stolen content can actually hurt people.  He then continues to explain that while YouTube consistently removes content that is either stolen of offensive, Facebook has no such inhibitions.  The Facebook Company makes very little effort to sensor any material other than sexual content.

Lancaster wants us to see that Facebook’s lack of censorship is not due purely to a lack of caring, but by monetary motivation instead.  Facebook fails to censor its content, because the quality of the content does not affect their revenue stream.  Lancaster argues that Facebook’s consumers are advertisers, not the 2 billion daily users.  Lancaster says, “Facebook is in essence an advertising company which is indifferent to the content on its site except insofar as it helps to target and sell advertisements”.  This means that Facebook’s business is not interconnectivity like they claim it to be.  Lancaster believes that the social networks aim is to capture attention and then sell it to advertisers.  Fake news and polarizing content is not necessarily bad for advertisers, which is why Facebook does not censor it.  If this type of content generates attention and a following it will make the company money.  This is also why Facebook does attempt to censor specific things like sexual content that advertisers do not want to be associated with.

Lancaster like many rhetoricians and sociologists, uses the election of Donald Trump to demonstrate the power of social media.  Similar to Ott’s claim that the rhetoric of Twitter contributed to Trumps rise to power, Lancaster argues that Facebook had a similar effect.  Ott claims that twitter causes polarization of political groups, and Lancaster finds Facebook has a similar affect.  He claims that the nature of Facebook’s ability to connect us tends to push us to connect with like-minded groups.  This divisiveness helped Trump’s presidential campaign, which was based on emphasizing dissatisfaction with the status quo.

In my personal experience with social media I find that i agree with the majority of Lancaster’s claims.  I find myself holding a general distrust of information found on Facebook.   Daily I see biased articles from far right or far left sources of media and even overtly false information.  Rarely do I see that content has been removed or blocked.  While I agree with Lancaster’s claim that Facebook has prioritized financial gain over morality, I believe that Lancaster’s argument would have been more effective if he were able to remove his own biases.  His factual evidence is compelling but he makes his personal opinion on the social network overtly clear.   His use of the word evil makes him lose his feel of objectivity.  He also makes a significant effort to ensure the reader knows that Zuckerberg was drinking when the idea for Facebook was conceived.  To me this seems like an irrelevant fact Lancaster uses to try to remove credibility from Facebook’s founder.  I generally refrain from criticizing an author for using his own voice, but when he is arguing against bias content on social media, I believe his own bias takes away from his message.

 

Homework 4 Winner and Ott

In His writing, “The Politics of the artefact, Langdon Winner claims that the structures of new technologies affect the political and sociological systems around them.  He claims technological advances can affect their sociological atmosphere in two ways, incidentally and inherently. Winner’s claims are intriguing and increasingly relevant as new technologies emerge.  His work can be tied to Ott’s examination of twitters sociological influence, specifically focusing on how it pertains to Donald Trump.

Incidental sociological influences are not directly connected to the purpose of said technologies.  Winner better explains this by discussing the example of low overpasses in Long Island, New York.  While many of us would not think much of these overpasses with barely nine feet of clearance, Winner takes a deeper look.  He reveals that an architect, Robert Moses, who worked from the 1920’s to the 1970’s created theses overpasses with a deliberate purpose.  Moses built these low overpasses to deter public transportation from taking less wealthy citizens to parks and other places that he wanted to save for a wealthier class of people.  Moses used these overpasses to deliberately change the sociological environment around him, to favor the wealthy people that he was biased towards.

However Langdon Winner makes is clear that, while this example may be an easy example to demonstrate inherent social change, it is not always so egregious or even deliberate.  This is demonstrated by the movement of civil rights for the handicapped in the 1970’s.  Handicap accessibility was nowhere near as commonplace as it is now, and while cities were not designed to oppress handicapped people, they did have that effect.  You can also see social change enacted in the rebuilding of parts of these cities, in order to accommodate the handicapped population.

While some technologies sociological ripple is not intended other technologies have the specific aim of catalyzing change.  The simplest example would be the nuclear bomb.  The bomb was designed to end a political and military conflict with force and it succeeded.  The lingering effect it has left politically is nearly unmatched.  There are now expansive systems and policies in place in all countries with nuclear capabilities.  Hierarchies are created to advise on and control the use of these new weapons.  The sociological footprint of nuclear weapons can also be seen in the tension between nations, dating back to the cold war.  Winner also provides a few less extreme examples of inherent sociological influence.  He explains how solar panels can be used to break away from current hierarchies.  Regardless of their economic and ecological affects, solar energy can play a role in decentralizing a society’s energy consumption.  If people are able to use solar panels to harness their own power, they are less reliant on centralized sources of power like fossil fuels.

Winner’s claims are increasingly relevant because of the age of the internet and digital media.  He discusses how printing and television both changed society as they became society primary source of connectivity.  Now sociologists must examine the effects of social media.  Brian Ott examines the effects of specifically twitter in his article, “The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement”

In this Ott discusses the type of rhetoric twitter tends to enable.  I found Ott’s claims to have many similarities to my research on how twitter contributes to President Trump’s use of Demagoguery.  The claim is that twitter lends itself useful to impulsive, simplistic and malicious rhetoric.

The lack of depth required to form a tweet in conjunction with the ease of logging into, and posting on twitter, contributes to a massive outflow of impulsive and brainless ideas. Many rhetoricians have discussed   how the process of writing helps to clarify ones thoughts and twitter removes the need for this process.  Twitter attributes to an atmosphere of malice by depersonalizing interactions.  Ott believes (and I agree) that it is much easier to be generally nasty in your interactions when you have almost no chance of seeing someone face to face.  You can viciously argue with little more than a name and a profile picture of someone from across the world without fear that the interaction will ever leave its digital home.

The greater effect of the age of twitter can be seen in the rise of President Trump.  Twitter fostered and environment that fit perfectly into Trumps strategy.  His goal was to challenge the status quo in a time of disillusion   His divisive and simplistic style of argumentation flourished in the world of Twitter.  During his campaign Trump thrived off of controversy.  Twitter made it easy for Trump to make quick and impactful challenges to his opposition.  A country that was generally angry with the state of the union, wanted to support a candidate who shared their discontent.  While his logic is overly-simplistic and often very aggressive, that is what twitter conditioned people to respond to.  The way Trump, a man with very little political experience, used twitter to help win an election perfectly demonstrates Winner’s claim that new technologies severely impact the political environments of their times.

Reading Response 5: Trolls

In his book Phillips discusses the actions of an increasingly relevant group in the age of growing digital media.  In the chapter of his book, The Thin Line Between Trolling and Corporate Punditry, Phillips discusses the group we now call “Trolls”.   Trolls are known for using aggressive, and typically racist, language on the internet in order to elicit a response from others online.  Phillips’ goal is to highlight the differences and similarities between racism in media and racism in troll communities.

Phillips begins her argument by discussing the differences between overt racism and inferential racism.  She explains that inferential racism is racism that is not outright and clearly racist.  As opposed to trolls, inferential racism is used by more reputable sources including media outlets.  Trolls however rely on overt racism, because that can be used to more easily elicit an extreme response.  Phillips uses examples of both types of racism as the basis for this chapter.

Phillips compares the effects of an image of President Obama depicted as Heath Ledger’s joker, with the media’s inability to let go of discussions surrounding the president’s birth certificate.  The Image of Obama with “socialist” inscribed across the presidents chest, was meant to cause people to associate the President with chaos and disorder.  Anti-Obama groups took this image and used it to spread negative beliefs about the president.  Groups used this and similar images in campaigns fighting “Obama’s Nazi Death Care Plan.  However one of Phillip’s main arguments is that this kind of rhetoric can actually be less damaging than inferential racism.  This argument is based on the fact that overt racism advertises itself as much.  Inferential racism however can be portrayed as false information.  Phillips claims that the controversy over the Presidents Birth certificate influenced viewers of certain media to internalize racist thoughts.  This can be displayed through an interview on the Colbert Report, in which lawyer-dentist Orly Taitz, claims he cannot trust Obama because his father was born in Africa.  Taitz was on national television expressing beliefs that are both racist and xenophobic, but he is taken seriously given his reputation and the setting of the interview.

Phillips other claim that I find the most intriguing is the claim that trolls that use racism are not necessarily racist.  She says that trolls rely on the power of certain racist words, but are unaware that they are passing on racist ideologies.  She also argues that it is impossible to prove if someone over the internet is racist to the point is invalid.  I do appreciate the ideology behind the claim that the use of racist language does not inherently make one racist.  I however would argue that consistent and intentional use of racist language should be considered legitimate racism.  While these “trolls” intentions may not be to spread stereotypes, their intentional use of the language just to anger people displays a lack of empathy and some level of aggression towards whichever minority is offended by said language.   With that said, I do agree with Phillips’ point that this type of overt racism is less dangerous since it is easily identifiable.

Project Proposal: Demagoguery in the Presidency

I believe studying demagogic rhetoric is increasingly important in a time where the Unites States’ political machine seems to be increasingly polarized by bi-partisanship.  President Trump has popularized demagogic logic with his aggressive presidential campaign and constant use of twitter.  Trump often displays many of the characteristics of demagogy that Roberts Miller described.  His commonplace use of demonizing and divisive language has led people to feel very strongly about Trump, one way or another.

Demagogic rhetoric generally has a negative connotation tied to it, as popular examples of demagogy include controversial and hated leaders like segregationist George Wallace, and Adolf Hitler.  President Trump currently has an average approval rating of 37% according to Gallup polls, seemingly fitting in with typical opinions of demagogues.  (The lowest average approval rating for a president over their term was 45%, but to be fair presidents have reached single time weekly lows of 22 %.)   I would however like to research if politicians, specifically presidents, who are generally liked and respected also display any of millers characteristics of demagoguery.  I plan on comparing the rhetoric of presidents with some of the highest approval ratings such as JFK (70%) and George Bush Sr. (61%), against presidents with low ratings including Truman (45%) and Gerald Ford (47%).  I will look at members from both parties, for both the most liked and the most hated presidents, to isolate possible differences in rhetoric that may derive from differences in party policies.  My main goal in this segment will be to see if demagogic rhetoric is unique to public figures we view negatively.  I am interested to see if any or all of the characteristics of demagoguery are used in the rhetoric of the Presidents we love the most.

I will continue my study of demagoguery in the presidency by looking at presidential rhetoric across different historical contexts.  Specifically I want to see if demagogic rhetoric increases after significant events in American history.  I will compare presidents’ rhetoric before and after some of the biggest trials of their presidencies.  I want to see if the strain of the great depression could cause President Herbert Hoover to use Demagoguery.  I will look at rhetoric from FDR leading into WWII, comparing isolationist pre-war rhetoric to his speeches after the USA had joined the international conflict.  I also intend to examine the effect of the 9/11 tragedy on the rhetoric of President George W. Bush.  I hope to find patterns that show demagogic logic emerging in times of great stress.  I want to see what, if any, specific characteristics of demagoguery are used commonly and which are not.  I think it would also be interesting to compare the rhetoric of the two presidents during the civil war Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis.  The civil war was the most violent divide since the United States conception, and it would take powerful rhetoric to spark a civil war.

If I fail to find any patterns of demagogic logic in either of my other two comparisons I will see if and how demagogic logic has evolved as the presidency has been passed on.  I predict that I will see demagogic rhetoric become more commonplace as time passes.  If this is true this could be explained by the growth of sensationalism as interconnectivity grows, as Rose-Stockwell argues in his article, This is How Your Fear and Outrage are Being Sold.  I want to see if presidents as early as Washington and Madison have dramatically different styles of rhetoric than the presidents of the last few generations.   Again I want to examine members of both parties in each period of time to eliminate party biases from the question.

I hope that in my research I can reveal some pattern of Demagoguery in Presidential rhetoric.  I aim to find examples of demagoguery that differ from typical ideals of demagoguery.  I will see how time has affected the prevalence of divisive language, and how rhetoric shifts in the wake of major world events.  Most importantly I want to show at least a few examples of demagogic rhetoric in our favorite leaders in an attempt to display demagoguery out of the negative context we typically associate it with.

Reading Response 4

Fake news has become a term many of us hear daily since the beginning of the 2016 election.  Fake news has also become a preferred topic of discussion for many rhetoricians.  I however found it fascinating to look at Jacob Soll’s examination of fake news in centuries past.
Soll begins his article with an anecdote about news in the 1400’s.  He tells the story about how in 1475 a Franciscan preacher blamed the death of a young boy on the Jewish community.  The sermons spread quickly causing an anti-Semitic out roar in the community and led to the executions of fifteen people.  In looking at fake news more than 500 years ago you can see striking similarities to the sensationalist news streams we see today.  In this case we see an interest group (the part of Catholic Church) spread fake news in order to demonize some of those with opposing beliefs.  This serves to strengthen the following of the church while vilifying the Jewish community.  In this way Soll’s anecdotes of anti-Semitism in centuries past can be related to both Rose-Stockwells examination of sensationalism, and Roberts Millers piece on demagogic rhetoric.

The History of hateful propaganda is closely tied with the concept of sensationalism.  For hundreds of years groups used news to spread their way of thoughts.  Soll tells us of Irish Catholic men being accused of stealing bibles by anti-catholic groups in 1845.  These rumors were spread to take away from the Catholic churches reputation and following, and seemed effective causing “violent riots and attacks on the Catholic church.  The anti-catholic group made up a story at them knew would elicit an emotional response from a great number of people, disregarding any need for truthfulness.  This can draw comparisons to Rose-Stock wells description of online headline generation.  He claims that news sites now have more of a responsibility towards eliciting a response than they do to objective reporting.  This need to generate engagement causes authors to put out more polarizing viewpoints, and more hot takes not necessarily based in fact.

Fake news seems to be growing exponentially due to expanding global interconnectivity.  With more potential consumers available, authors have more incentive to use sensationalism to draw in followers.  With the potential to have millions of eyes see their words, authors are encouraged to play a numbers game, in which the most exciting news wins out over the credible.  This trend can make it difficult to receive reliable information as just about every source has some sort of bias.  The most reliable way to protect yourself from fake news is to identify possible biases of an author.  By determining an author’s motives for writing you can often determine whether they are a reliable source of information or a source of propaganda/ fake news.

HW 2 Demagoguery in the election

Miller describes demagoguery as, “is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and … “and escape from freedom.”  Demagoguery seems to become increasingly popular in American politics and seems to be contributing to the growing split between the left and right.  Miller claims that the most definitive characteristic of demagoguery is its polarizing nature.  Demagogic rhetors attempt to instill an “us vs them” mentality in their followers.  I find this especially relevant in a time where bi-partisan politics is at an all-time high.  There is often an incredible amount of animosity between republicans and democrats and this is divide expands with demagogic rhetoric.

I want to examine both how powerful and how prevalent demagoguery is in American politics by examining president Trump’s rhetoric.  My aim is not to accuse say that demagogic logic is unique to conservatives.  I use Trump as an example because of his habitual twitter use, which forces his rhetoric both concise, and accessible.  Trump’s goal leading into the election was to stir up an emotional response, condemning political trends over the last few decades.  His use of demagoguery contributed to one of the most controversial, and arguably the most effective election campaign in American history.

One of the most prominent ways Trump demonstrates Miller’s first demagogic characteristic, is in his “war on media”.  Trump uses polarizing logic through his constant criticisms of liberal media.  In a tweet from February 2017 Trump says, “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CNN, @CBS) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American people!”  This tweet pits liberal media outlets, and by extension their followers, against the “American people”.  Trump’s rhetoric here implies that those who disagree with him are not real Americans, and that therefore they are the enemy.  This makes conservatives the in-group, while making “dishonest” liberal media and opponents of conservatives the oppressive out-group.

Of all of Miller’s characteristics of demagoguery, Trump seems to be the guiltiest of dehumanizing his political opponents.  Trump’s campaign attempted to attach key words to significant opponents, in an attempt to create mental associations between candidates and specific negative qualities.  He uses perceived character flaws like nicknames to hurt opponents’ credibility.  During the primary race for South Carolina Trump said, “My opponents lie …Especially Cruz. He’s the single biggest liar I’ve ever seen.”  He continued to effectively trademarked the name “Lying Ted Cruz” doing significant damage to Cruz’s election chances.  Trump used the same strategy in the primary race to demonize Hillary Clinton.  Trump was able to popularize the phrase “crooked Hillary”, playing on the American peoples fear and distrust of career politicians.  Many would agree that the president’s campaign was based upon emotional response as opposed to logic and reason, but that may be what won him the election in a time where the United States seems as polarized as ever.

Reading Response 3

Boyd argues that critical digital literacy is one of the most important and most overlooked skills in today’s society.  This means that people need to have the ability to analyze information, and question its validity as they take it in.  She compares the need for media literacy today to that of post-WWI Britain, and the United States in the 60’s.  In the UK after WWI media literacy became important with the rise of propaganda.  People had to realize that most of the images and writings presented to them held extreme biases aimed to instill a certain mindset of nationalism.  Similarly when advertising became popular in the United States, “educators argued that informed citizens needed to be able to critically evaluate the message that surround them. As new genres of media proliferated, many were concerned that audiences could be manipulated into believing a particular narrative.” (181)

There are several skills that combine to make one digitally literate.  First off Boyd argues that some level of technical prowess is needed to effectively make us of everything the digital age has to offer.  She argues that mere internet access may allow you to participate, but without a certain level of technical acumen, you will not be able to be a fully engaged citizen.  The other main skill Boyd promotes is the ability to differentiate between good and bad sources of information.  She makes this case by comparing the general beliefs about Wikipedia and google.  Her claim is that to be digitally literate you must be able to read a source and determine its validity on your own.  Boyd believes that blindly trusting the a webpage because Google promotes it, or distrusting a page because it was crowd sourced (Wikipedia), takes away from one’s ability to consume the endless amounts of information on the web.  While I whole-heartedly agree that these skills are necessary to become a fully involved citizen, Boyd does little to teach these skill.  Boyd focuses on why digital literacy is crucial to our new society, but it would be helpful for her to give ways to learn, or teach these skills.

The two student op-eds were interesting pieces of writing, promoting a habit that most people see as a negative quality.  The two authors make their points very differently.  The author, Miller, from Duke’s student paper’s argument is based on logic and statistics.  The author makes his argument with statistics, claiming that the number of deaths caused by smoking is greatly inflated by anti-smoking special interest groups.  He also claims most deaths that are ruled to be caused by smoking occur much later in life.  Because of this Miller argues that smoking damage could be called negligible, when compared with the dangers of other unhealthy lifestyle choices.

The article written by Simon Shieh in the daily Aztec, makes a similar argument, using completely different rhetorical strategies.  Shieh’s piece makes much more of an emotional appeal than Miller does.  While he does make small statement about how the dangers of second hand smoke are exaggerated, his main argument does is an appeal to pathos not logos.  Shieh’s’ main claim is that smoking is an emotional release, that some hard-working students need.  He also argues that it is a social activity, and could even help socially anxious people find acceptance.  This point of view makes the assumption that the majority of smokers are using tobacco as a coping mechanism.  While I am sure that for a large portion of smokers this is true, it makes it hard to accept his claim on a widespread basis.  His article also seems heavily opinionated.  While I could not find a source to confirm or deny the statistics Shieh gave on second hand smoke, many sources adamantly deny his claim that second hand smoke is harmless.  However the majority of sources posting about the dangers of second hand smoke are special interest groups like the ones Miller talked about, so it is important to acknowledge their bias, and take their warnings with a grain of salt.

Reading Response 2: Boyd on Digital Literacy

The purpose of Danah Boyd’s passage on digital literacy is to break down the term, “digital natives”, and the connotations the phrase has.  The term digital native is most often used to describe the younger generation, who was born in the age of the internet.  This very general viewpoint can be demonstrated best through a statement Boyd provides given my state officials in 2010.  ““The children who attend school today are digital natives who think nothing of learning through the use of technology. As adults, we are digital immigrants who remember lessons delivered through film strips and overhead projectors.”(176)  This quote shows the belief that all members of a younger generation are technologically savvy, while all older people are not equipped to use technology to its full potential.

This generality can negatively affect both the young and the old.  While people labeled “digital immigrants” were born before the age of internet, it would be unfair to assume that they could not or have not learned how to use technology.  The opposite holds true for “digital natives”.  It would be inaccurate to assume that everyone born in the last 25 years has a working knowledge of technology and digital media.

Boyd also preaches the importance of digital literacy.  The phrase digital literacy describes a person’s ability to seek out information, and weed out information that may be either irrelevant or inaccurate.  Boyd claims that as a society or digital literacy abilities are relatively untrained.  He shows this by explaining how preconceived notions about sites like Wikipedia, and google.  Boyd explains that the general belief with students is that Google is a reliable source of information while Wikipedia is not.  This shows a lack of digital literacy as students are unable to make the determination of what are and what are not reliable sources to pull research from.  By letting teachers and public opinions determine what sources students should use, you take away from a student’s ability to look critically at a source.  By telling students what sources to use or not use, you remove the need for a student to analyze a writing, and the biases and motives that may have influenced the data within it.  Students should learn that sources coming from the most popular sites may hold extreme biases and may not be reliable even if they are the first result you can find doing a basic search.

The importance of digital literacy is emphasized when Boyd says, “Scholars and governmental agencies began to argue that access alone mattered little if people didn’t know how to use the tools in front of them”  This means that just having access to the internet does not necessarily make you digitally literate.  This backs up Boyd’s opposition of the use of the term “digital natives”.  While most (95%) teenagers have access to the internet of some level, just having access does not teach students literacy.  Boyd shows that many students who use the internet regularly, do not fully grasp the intricacies that come within it.  Students were quoted saying things like, “google knows all” showing a clear lack of understanding as to what service google actually provides.  The ability to use technology to find information can only get you so far if you don’t understand where or who the information is coming from.

 

HW1 Ong & Sundiata

Some Psychodynamics of Orality is an analytical piece in which Walter Ong describes the unique qualities of cultures with no written language.  Ong argues there that primary oral cultures must use different rhetorical strategies, that when put in writing would not convey the same tone or meanings.  Ong’s claims can be supported by discussing the myth of Sudiata, a tale that originates from oral culture in the Mali Empire.  There are multiple transcriptions of Sundiata, and by comparing them, you can see how the storytellers change things to fit their audience and means of communication.  When contrasting a storyteller’s transcription to a version edited to suit western readers, Ong’s claims become well supported.

Ong claims oral culture must use repetition to ensure their point is clear and memorable. You can vividly see oral cultures affinity for redundancy in the spoken version of Sundiata’s story.  The griot repeats several parts of the story two or three times.  The young king’s mother begs for baobab leaves twice, and is rejected twice.  The mother asks her son, “will you never rise?” five times in one passage.  Then the young Sundiata attempts to stand three times only to succeed the final try.  However this kind of redundancy isn’t used solely to make the audience remember the words.  This repetition adds an increased sense of drama and accomplishment when Sundiata finally is able to stand on his final attempt.  While this kind of repetition would seem cumbersome in standard writing, this style would not seem so out of place in spoken word.  This supports Ong’s viewpoint that oral rhetoric holds more gravity than written word.

You can also see that the spoken word is much more concise than the written story.  The written version gives much more background to the story, and includes much more detail in the young king’s activities.  This is because when speaking the audience can only retain so much in their memories.  It is important for spoken word to minimize superfluous details, so that the audience can focus on relevant points.   The written text allows for in depth descriptions of settings and characters because the reader is able to go back and re-read anything they did not retain.

This concept of reader retention relates to a claim that writing becomes necessary when enough information is needed in the piece, Why write? A reconsideration.  In, this Young and Sullivan provide an example of multiple math problems.  They show that simpler math problems that we have seen many times can been committed to memory without having to actually solve the problem to recall the answer.  They then argue that when problems become more complicated, with more steps and larger numbers to remember, most of us will not be able to solve them without writing some intermediate steps.  We cannot recall every step of these problems even if we maintain focus.  This is just like how and audience can only retain so much detail of a spoken performance.  Ong’s claims coincide with the claims of Young and Sullivan in that they both acknowledge that memory is the limiting factor of spoken word.

About Me

My name is Ian Lubliner, but a since i can remember most people call me Lub.  I’m studying to receive IS3d focused on Kinesiology, and plan on graduating next may.  I grew up in San Jose CA, and am a diehard bay area sports fan.   When i was eight years old i picked up the two hobbies i have stuck with ever since.  I my  got my first drum set for my 8th birthday and had a passion for rocking out ever since.  The same year i picked up a lacrosse stick for the first time, which has consumed most of my free time for the last 14 years.  I rarely write for my own sake, but believe literacy is as important as ever with the limitless stream of information available which brings me to digital rhetoric.