READ THIS POST AND THE ARTICLE LINK

Because we are gonna talk about "Why You Shouldn't Go To Law School" on Monday, March 3.

Also, I hope you're having a marvelous Spring Break, my little chickadees. :)

yo pop check out cognitive dissonanceeeeeeee

LETTER TO DAD

Dear dad,

I’m writing you this letter because I feel I really need to explain to you the cognitive dissonance theory and how it affected me. You might not know what the hell I’m talking about at first but just stay with it and try to understand what I’m saying, and also keep an open mind. So the cognitive dissonance theory is a theory where one thinks something to be true and one knows something is true. It’s conflicting thoughts and beliefs that occur at the same time or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. Follow me so far? If not then just keep reading it until you do.
Now I’m going to tell you how this influenced my life. As you remember, a few years ago I was a very lazy and lethargic guy. I was not very active and was basically a couch potato. Then, I started changing my attitude towards my diet and becoming active again. I stopped eating junk food, and even my favorite foods like pizza (because of the cheese) and every type of fast foods. I also stopped using sugar and stopped consuming foods with high sugar in it. This helped me get in better shape in a short period of time, but then I felt it wasn’t enough. I enrolled at Gold’s Gym (by the way thanks for paying for it) and started a strict workout regiment. I am in very good shape today and trying to get in even better shape as I continue my regiments. Now going back to my definition of cognitive dissonance theory which I hope you were able to process, this example of my health and diet is a clear example of changing my behavior that resulted in changing my attitude. I started to expect more from myself. I didn’t like the fact I was completely out of shape and a total fat couch potato. So I challenged myself and raised my expectations, and I wanted to see if I could match them or even pass them. Not only did I excel my goals and expectations, I became a workout freak and follow my regiments very seriously. I even thought about becoming a part-time personal trainer because I felt like I could help a lot of people achieve their expectations with a little help from me because I know how hard it was to do this without much outside help.
Pop, there are things you can do to protect yourself from influences. The first thing to do is to recognize if your attitude is positive or negative. Now you’re probably thinking “define negative and positive”, but no, just use your COMMON SENSE. If you think the attitude is positive, then go with it and act on it. If you think it’s negative, then try to convince yourself that your attitude is going to hurt you and not help you in any way, so change your attitude a.s.a.p.
Ok pop, now that I did my best to explain to you what cognitive dissonance theory is and I hope you use it to your advantage and not to your disadvantage.

Cara's Wag Reaction

“War is show business that’s why we’re here!” These words spoken by the protagonist Conrad set the premise for Wag the Dog, a film epitomizing a simulated war all in the efforts to cover up a presidential scandal before the elections. The professional political spin-doctor Conrad and the unappreciated (but filthy rich) Hollywood producer Stanley team up to create a media fueled illusion that sways a nation. Conrad uses powerful rhetorical devices and conceives the plans for the ‘war’ whereas Stanley appeals to the visual senses and uses pathos to persuade the nation. This dream team not only persuades the American nation to reelect the fictional president, but the duo also gains the sympathy of the audience despite their blatantly corrupt plans.
“I just said that! There is no B-3 bomber. I don’t know how these rumors get started,” (Conrad). Conrad first decides to cover up the president’s scandal by creating a much bigger distraction for the American media. He puts the notion that there is some sort of terrorist threat by ironically denying the bomb’s existence. This tactical approach of using the modern American’s largest fear to distract turns into an entire war that does not exist. This is one example of Conrad’s scheme to create a conspiracy, which is uncannily similar to the methods used by Stalin to create a communist regime e.g. scare-tactics, biased reports, scapegoating, etc. Conrad is the rhetorical genius behind the plans and persuades even the CIA that the conspiracy is for the best.
Whilst Conrad is the true verbal politician, Stanley appeals to the visual senses through his production of the bogus war on Albanian terrorists. Stanley’s job is to know what audiences want and this is his biggest work because his audience is every American voter. “This is the greatest work I’ve ever done in my life—because it’s so honest,” (Stanley). This statement drips with irony. Stanley forgets the fine line he crossed in assisting to create this war. Stanley forgets they were not just creating an imaginary world, but indeed a true simulation of one. Stanley (and even the audience) are so caught up in this imaginary setting that the true affects of this ‘war’ are forgotten. Stanley’s lust for credit leads to his inevitable doom as he realizes this war is not just a game. Despite the horrible conspiracy created, the audience mourns the death of Stanley, which in itself is an example of how persuasive he is unintentionally.
This movie is clearly a satire on corrupt politics and conspiracy, but it raises an interesting question. As an audience, why do we always sympathize with the protagonist? In this instance Conrad and Stanley have us on the edges of our seats every time they get into a sticky situation. When the CIA pulls them over and Winifred (the woman who hired Conrad) starts panicking, we find ourselves panicking with her. This movie questions our conceptions of a ‘hero’, when our ‘heroes’ of the movie are stuck on the plane with their ‘war hero’ who turns out to be a nun-rapist. If “Three Little Pigs” or “Little Red Riding Hood” had instead the wolf as the protagonist we would find ourselves upset that those pigs tricked him into a pot, or that the wolf did not get to eat the tasty Little Red. Wag the Dog reminds us how easily we can be persuaded whether by the politicians, media, or even just the story of our protagonists.

Reaction to a Reaction: A Response to Sam C.’s Ch 3 Reaction

This reaction was well thought out and really was a great synopsis of the chapter. The one thing I found interesting was the way you broke down the differences between how Aristotle views rhetoric and Plato’s counter theory of rhetoric called dialectic. Now at first I thought you were trying to say Plato didn’t care about the truth, but as usual I jumped to conclusions early on, only to be proven of my ignorance later. In other words yay you, boo me (there are you happy now). The question I wanted to pose to you was which approach to rhetoric, do you agree with more. I find myself contemplating this very statement more and more for two reasons 1. It comes up often in the classes I’m currently taking (Dam speech/philosophy classes…as if I didn’t have enough to worry about) and 2. I’m a loser with way to much time to think about this stuff.

The reason I ask this is because I feel both sides make a strong case. As you said yourself Aristotle believes “The best thing a persuader can say to the audience is something that will bring happiness and speak against those that destroy happiness” I mean how can you argue with that? Happiness good, people who destroy happiness Bad. It’s so simple even a cave man could do it (P.S. If I see another one of those stupid Geico cave men commercials I’m going to hurt somebody. Not only is the commercial just stupid but now when I can’t figure out my car insurance claims I feel really dumb so thanks a lot Geico, really appreciate it…O and who the hell green lit the idea to make this commercial into a TV series I mean come on people….wait what was this thing about again… o yea Aristotle) So I dig the whole idea of rhetoric being the deliverer of happiness, but Plato makes a valid point as well. He makes a claim in his book the “Gorgious” that rhetoric is nothing more than mere flattery words made to infatuate the listeners. It holds no real value, and the truth is never learned. He talks about a true form of rhetoric though is kind of vague on the examples. He says that true rhetoric should be more informative as apposed to persuasive. That knowledge of truth will always win out over those skilled in the art of manipulation.

Actually the same argument came up yesterday during a debate, were the discussion branched of into the differences between US policy debate and British Parliamentary debate. It was said that policy debate was an interesting art form, but it really didn’t show how to arrive at a logical answer, but more so that my arguments are better than your arguments. It was even stated that this practice really just teaches people how to be master of manipulation and deception. In the Parliamentary style however, it not really about making your opponent look bad but rather who brings the strongest argument that can be discussed in length, equally by both sides. The thing is I really respect both aspects but I sometimes come into conflict with which is right and which one is wrong.

Perhaps there is no universal right and wrong here, maybe it’s all about context and the different situations that call for different methods. I mean maybe if Socrates was a little bit better at Aristotle’s style of rhetoric he wouldn’t have been sentenced to death after a jury of his peers persecuted him for his “Corrupting the mind of the youth”. Isn’t it funny how stupid we were back then to condemn a man for his belies in science and the search for truth. Thank God (the one true God, The God of Abraham, who sent is one and only true begotten son to save us and deliver us from our sins and lead us not into temptation one nation under God indivisible with liberty and just for all, and by all only legally born citizens of this great country the good old US of A, Amen) we don’t live in a time like that anymore. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Jesus!

chap 4 react.

This chapter is about social scientific approaches to persuasion. The first kinds of theories are dual-process theories. This is when two different modes of information processing operate in making decisions and judgments. The first theory is the Elaboration likelihood model which is a model of how attitudes are formed and changed. Second is the heuristic-systematic model and this is a shortcut to comprehensive treatment of judgment-related information. Lastly, the automatic activation of attitudes treats the mind as a place where vast amount of information is stored.
Hovland considered the variable-analytic approach to persuasion as a person’s need for motivation to process information that will change their existing attitudes and the actions that flow from them. There are source effects in this which is the source’s credibility and the source’s attractiveness to the receiver.
There are also alternatives to dual-process models. These are alternative approaches to persuasion that don’t fit within a dual-processing framework. Balance and cognitive consistency theory is when a person wants to balance or reduces stress or discomfort. Fritz Heider’s balance theory states that one person is connected or seen as being a unit with the object or third person. Balance happens if the two people like each other and have a positive or negative judgment of one another. Recent advances in persuasion have identified the importance of the mental processes of the brain. This is in accessibility and activation of attitudes. Recent studies have focused the importance of storage of information in memory, accessing that memory, and changing stored attitudes in the memory.
Overall, the importance of affect in the persuasive situation is gaining more respect from researchers. The problem is that this does not approach the mainstream ideas of persuasion today plus it’s not a complete consideration of the persuasion literature.

Chapter 3 Reaction

It is amazing that it’s been around 2300 years but Aristotle’s ideas and teachings still play a bug part of contemporary rhetorical studies. Aristotle saw that there isn’t just one approach to persuasion, but rather every situation depends on its context and the persuader must adapt differently to the different contexts. Aristotle proposed that the best thing a persuader can say to the audience is something that will bring happiness and speak against those that destroy happiness. Maxims is another popular technique used by Aristotle, and is still used today. I feel that a maxim or saying is effective because it is something that stands out therefore something that will remain in the audience’s memory.

In his book Rhetoric, Aristotle focused on what he called artistic proofs. He basically broke it down to three types of proof which I believe are very much relevant in our modern time. First is called ethos, which is an imagery the audience has of the speaker, particularly to body type, height, complexion, movements, clothing, grooming, and so on. The second is pathos, which describes emotions that come into play and to which the audience holds a connecting to. Evoking fear is a very powerful tool that falls under pathos. And finally, logos is what appeals to the intellect or rational side of humans.
In Plato’s dialogic approach, Plato is not so concerned with finding the truth, but instead states that truth is something we do not directly see, but rather truth is indirect images, glimpses, or shadows of the truth. He says absolute certain truths exist, but are obscured from our direct view.
According to Scott’s epistemic approach, truth is never certain, whether it’s concerned with science or public affairs. For him, truth is seen as moments in “human, creative processes” (p. 59).
Communication theorist Walter Fisher’s theories of rational world paradigm and narrative paradigm suggest that humans are “as much valuing as they are reasoning animals” (p. 60). The rational world paradigm basically states that rational individuals base their decisions on the quality of arguments and evidence. This I must agree with, because the higher the quality of evidence, the higher quality of the argument, and vice versa. Narrative paradigm suggests that human communication must be argumentative in form and evaluated in standards of formal logic. This then includes the theory of rational world paradigm.
In conclusion, I feel the general thing to say about persuasion, after reading this chapter, would be that people need to pay more attention to the topic of persuasion, particularly to the power struggle that is going on here. The greater attention should be paid to those smaller interest groups who are completely being ignored by the powerful ones.

My Reaction To Wag the Dog

Wag the Dog
The movie Wag the Dog was a story about the way in which a producer created a fictitious war with Albania in order to cover up a presidential sex scandal. The movie had a quote that stood out the most which stated to “never change your horse during midstream”. That basically meant to stick it out, in relevance to the movie it meant to re-elect the president. The movie made sure that it surrounded its theme (Wag the Dog) to show that we as people are easily manipulated by the media. In the beginning of the movie it was stated that a tail cannot wag a dog because the dog is smarter than the tail, but the movie proves that we are not in fact smarter than we think and that we have been outsmarted by our own tail. The biggest element that was conveyed by this movie was social proof; this took place when every one was throwing their shoe on either the gymnasium floor or in the tree. Everyone in the movie enjoyed having the idea of having a war hero even though no one knew who he actually was. What made this movie so significant is the fact that no one really questioned the war with Albania and everyone just went along with it and called it patriotism. The movie demonstrated that media and the people as a whole are in fact so easy to manipulate. The movie also showed that “liking” is an important factor when creating a story, because though everything looked like it was taking a bad turn they were able to flip it around and use it to there favor and just said it was “Producing”. i.e., when the convict was shot dead they were able to use it as a bonus, because they were able to bring back a solider that died while at war. In a way I felt that the movie was discussing the presidency of bill Clinton when they brought up the issue of a sex scandal. It also makes one think that the real reason we are at war with Iraq, could be to cover up a scandal, or could it have been just to win reelection.

Wag the Dog Reaction

Wag the Dog: great political movie that shows the true power of persuasion and how it can be used in a negative light or an un-clever name for a bestiality porno? You be the judge! If you selected choice number one you’re correct, good for you, your mom would be proud. If you selected choice number two you need serious psychiatric help and may God have mercy on your soul, but then again I’m not here to judge... (Sinner). Too preachy? Anyway, on with the reaction.

This is one of the rare cases in which a movie is made and the content serves as a major foreshadower for the real life future, kind of like a whole life imitating art sort of thing. If you haven’t seen the movie, which if you’re reading this you should have because you’re either a fellow classmate who also has this assignment, or are the professor who has given the assignment and is getting tired of me stalling with this intro so we’ll continue, the movie is about this master of “spin,” played by Robert Deniro, which devises a plan to stage a fake war in order to divert the public’s minds away from a recent sex scandal involving the president. The plan is to stage a war in the country of Albania because few people know enough about the country to question the clever ruse. Although this movie is cleverly disguised as a comedy, it really does have a much deeper, powerful, and rather dark message of how politics and the media can be used and how easily we as a nation can be misled, or in this case, downright lied to. This movie became extremely controversial because it was made shortly before the Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky fiasco happened, where at the same time “coincidently enough” the president had just gave orders on a three day bombing of Iraq.

This was a little creepy to see I must admit, but at the same time it’s not as if we can just look back on that as a scary time in politics where perhaps a real life “wag the dog” was taking place because things in the movie still to this day directly correlate with some of the current administration actions taken under G.W. Bush. For instance, the scare tactics of a war used in the movie to scare the public into a blind faith of their current president sounds a little familiar doesn’t it… by the way, it’s code blue tomorrow so make sure to pack your rations in you backpacks. How about when Bush miraculously found Saddam Hussein in that spider hole in the middle of no where right around the same time as his reelection? The creepiest part of the movie was Deniro’s character and his complete lack of respect for common ethics. If this isn’t proof that some type of ethical foundation needs to be used in teaching ethics then I don’t know what is. Canrad (Deniro) has a complete Sophist-esque outlook on life in that perception is reality. Throughout the movie, he keeps making reference to if you see it on TV it must be true. Clearly he doesn’t actually believe that but he does know that that’s what most people believe. If the newsman says something it must be true. It’s like the Nazis and the theory of the great lie. If you say a lie enough, people will not only believe it but possibly embrace it. Conrad is a true believer in the end justifies the means or as Plato once said “It doesn't matter how the fuck you get there as long as you get there.”(Insert smile face here) A great example of this is when at the end of the movie Conrad has Stanley killed out of fear he will go public with their fake war. Now I’m not sure if I’m reading too much into this but, in the final shot where Conrad looks at Stanley for the last time through the window, the American flag is reflected on the window around Conrad’s face and it seems transparent. Perhaps this was the director’s way of saying that perhaps this flag that we hold so dear as a symbol of freedom and honor has now been made transparent or without substance with actions like that of Conrad. Or maybe he thought it was just a really cool camera shot… who knows? All I can say is that I really enjoyed this movie and call me crazy, but this unknown Deniro kid, I think maybe just maybe he’s got a future in this movie business.

Wag the Dog, by MirO

Helloooo, "1984." As soon as I understood what "Wag the dog" is about, I thought of George Orwell's book. The movie started with the elaborate explanation of the joke about the dog and its tail - if the tail is smart enough, it will wag the dog instead of the other way around. The movie showed how two smart men can manipulate the whole nation. Their power to control all the media is a little far-fetched because such a big scam will have a leak from somewhere; for example - someone form the set where they shot the clip with the Albanian girl.

However, the idea is what important. Mass media is a very powerful tool and the image that the average man has is the key to unite the nation under one cause. History shows that too - Communist propaganda and Hitler's reign in Germany controlled the masses.

De Niro's character, Conrad, impressed me with his methods. First, the whole idea with getting nation's attention away from the sex scandal with a made-up war was brilliant. Even his assistants were asking him about the B-3 bomber - that's how persuasive he was. Second, the talk with the man from the CIA was another great example of rhetoric. Conrad went for the weak spot in CIA's position - he actually blamed them for not being able to find any evidence of terrorism, bombs, or preparations for war.

Another important point made by the movie was the power that Hollywood has. Although mass media reaches everybody in the country every day, Hollywood creates images and stereotypes that also affect the mindset of the people.

Finally, the movie also reminded about a piece of information that reached me in a way or another. During some of the wars, CNN actually artificially shot some of the footages that were supposed to be part of a report on one of the wars in Asia. The source where I read or watched that (I don't remember since it was a long time ago), pointed out that due to the lack of "action" at the war front, CNN made up such action just to have fresh material to show.

Who Wagged the Dog?

“Wag the Dog” is a movie about an ideology of rhetoric and how it affects its audience. First, the ideology is to take advantage of the audience’s trust. Almost everyone relies on the government and has some level of trust with them. This is a trust, but not as powerful as the impact the media has on people. This is the medium that is powerful enough to convince a large population of people of whatever they want them to believe. The rhetoric comes in play when two people, Conrad and Stanley, use their rhetorical skills with the power they are given, and use the medium of national media to orchestrate their own war. The audience, which is the general public, is going along with the whole thing, because the two things they trust and rely on, the government and the media, are working together with some powerful people to generate a series of events which are completely fictional.
The title of the movie is very interesting. It’s taken from the joke: Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog." This is the first sequence shown in the movie. There are many ways to interpret the title. First, the dog is public opinion, and the tail represents the media. Second, the dog is the media, and the tail is political campaigns, and thirdly the dog is the people, and the tail is the government. When considering the personal relations in the movie, the dog is the president and the tail represents his PR assistants, who immediately assume the authority for the damage control. Plus the expression "the tail wagging the dog" refers to any case where something of greater significance is driven by something lesser. The last sequence, when Stanley is taken away by the agents, I knew he was going to be killed, because he was the “something lesser” and Conrad was the “something greater”. I believe Conrad knew from the beginning that this was going to be the demise of Stanley, and he was the one wagging the entire time.

Second Persona Reaction

Although the article The Second Persona beats the phrase ‘cancer of communism’ to death, Edwin Black’s extensive analysis produces several interesting points. The Second Persona first discusses the idea of human bias in all forms of rhetoric even the most seemingly arbitrary. He also discusses the extreme difference between idiom and ideology. Finally, the most interesting point that he alludes to is the power of words and the psychology that accompanies rhetoric.
Black puts the ethics of rhetoric into perspective by stating that no human work goes without some bias. “Moral judgments, however balanced, however elaborately qualified, are nonetheless categorical. Once rendered, they shape decisively one’s relationship to the object judged,” (Black). Black defines the ‘second persona’ as the auditor and focuses his essay more on the ethical responsibility of the auditor because they must acknowledge the constant biases in the speaker.
Addressing the issue of personal bias, Black brings up his definition of ideology. He addresses the fact that any human concept and moral position on a certain subject can become their ideology and exemplifies this through the rhetoric used for school integration. “…if the auditor himself begins using the pejorative term, it will be a fallible sign that he has adopted not just a position on school integration, but an ideology,” (Black). Identifying certain beliefs as an ideology becomes in itself an ideology and bias. In his discourse, he craftily displays his own personal biases by identifying the biases in even such simple terms as “cancer of communism”.
Black argues that this term is not just an idiom, a stylistic expression with non-literal meaning, but a rightwing ideology. Through an extensive analysis of each word and word origin Black conveys that this term, which can many times be absorbed peripherally, actually involves an extensive centralized though-processes. Black brings to light the power of words in his “word psychology”, if you will. “…if psychiatry had a “line” of any kind on this symptom—such clinical information could be applicable in some way to those people who are affected by the communism-as-cancer metaphor,” (Black).
Black states that all rhetoric contains a bias and this is reflected in the ideology of the rhetorician, but it is also the duty of the auditor to identify this. “…the association between an idiom and an ideology is much more than a matter of arbitrary convention or inexplicable accident,” (Black). He encourages us not to take seemingly simple idioms for granted if we want to be a responsible auditor and truly exhibit a perceptive ‘second persona’.

Let's Talk about Violence

Watch these movie trailers, and think about the aesthetics of violence... What is the ethics of violent response? How do these two movies address different notion of appropriate responses? How might pretty persuasion like this shape our understanding or interpretation of the current war?

Stop Loss-a movie about US troops in (and out of) Iraq.


Defiance-a movie about Jewish/Russian refugees/warriors in WWII.

Second Persona by Edwin Black

Hey...

Question: Have you ever read something, and after you read it asked, "What the hell?"

Answer: Second Persona by Edwin Black takes the cake of boredom and confusion. The only piece of wisdom I got from this essay was when Black stated:

"Each one of us, after all, defines himself by what he believes and does. Few of us are born to grow into an identity that was incipiently structured before births. That was, centuries ago, the
way with men, but it certainly is not with us. The quest for identity is the modern pilgrimage. And we look to one another for hints as to whom we should become. Perhaps these reflections do not apply to everyone, but they do apply to the persuasible, and that makes them germane to rhetoric."

Will I be wrong if I say that each person in my class is a victim of "social proof"? How many us of look to someone for hints as to whom he/she should become? I will take a guess here and say that we all did. Every person (no matter how original you are) comes to a point where fitting in or following someone is the if and but of all things! It is natural...if we dont follow how do expect to lead?! Burke makes a point that since "some" follow...they are persuasible, thus vulnerable to rhetoric. But aren't we ALL vulnerable...to speakers with fancy words, people with good looks...its society. For Burke to conclude that it does not apply to everyone is naive. Everyone is has the ability to persusade and to be persuaded.

Cheating is in the Air

Check out this blog, written by a friend of mine. Look at the clip about cheating, and tell me there isn't something weird going on around here.