Directions: Watch the video below and answer the proceeding questions. The direct link to the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88.
- Who does the speaker identify as her audience?
- What is the speaker's hook? How does that hook work with her argument?
- What is the context for her argument? How does she center the audience in the argument?
- What do you imagine was her academic/thesis question? What is the argument/thesis?
- What are some of the parts of the body of the argument? What are some examples she gives to support her argument? How does she make those examples relevant to the audience?
- What is her conclusion?
Due before class on Wednesday, September 24th. Be sure to perform all of your homework readings before performing this blog, through the readings from September 22nd.
Reply to a classmate: in the spirit of embracing wrongness, find a post that says something different than what you said (in any large or small way), and consider how your classmate labeled the various parts of the argument. Pick one part of your classmate's responses that you agree or disagree with and detail for your classmate why you agree or disagree. When I say detail, I mean be specific. If you and your classmates all said precisely the same thing, then consider what you all might have missed in the video and then describe that for your classmate in your reply.
Reply due before 5pm on Friday, September 26th.
Schultz identifies her audience as people who think they are always right. The speakers’ hook is that society wants us to believe that is shameful to be wrong, but she wants us to come to acceptance that being wrong is okay. The context for her argument is that when you believe you’re always right, you will never notice being wrong and can make large mistakes. Such as her example of the surgeon performing surgery on the wrong leg of a patient. Schultz centers the audience in the argument by giving them examples that they can relate to. Her academic thesis question may have been why is it not okay to be wrong? Her argument thesis may have been always needing to be right can lead people to make large mistakes. Some of the parts of the argument are when she discusses how being wrong doesn’t make us feel anything, but when we realize we are wrong that is the part people become ashamed about. Examples she gives is the reference to the roadrunner and coyote cartoon, where the coyote doesn’t feel anything when is off the cliff until he looks down. She says that being off the cliff is the same as being wrong, but not realizing you are wrong. Schultz makes those examples relevant to the audience by saying that as a society we teach that being in the wrong is shameful even from an early age. Schultzs conclusion is that we as humans love being right so much that we have a hard time seeing when we are in fact in the wrong. But being wrong is a natural part of life that we shouldn’t be ashamed of.
ReplyDeleteMegan Coker
It is cool how many different interpretations there can be from one video, I do agree with most of your response, with exception of a couple of things. I really believe that the story of the picnic area was her hook. It did grab attention, proved her point on how perception differs among us, while incorporating some humor. And the only other part I have a bit different thought on. I believe her point (thesis) was geared more toward the fact that in order for us, as a race, to continue progressing we must know that learning from being wrong is part of being human, which could help in getting rid of unnecessary animosity, the feeling of self failure, thus making our world more peaceful.
DeleteTo me, people in general are identified as her audience. It was a clear message for all people to realize the importance of what she is saying. Her hook used was the "Chinese character sign", that is actually a picnic area sign. It was a way to show how we perceive things, at times, how they really are not. It also brought humor at the beginning of a very important topic that proves her point. Her context was based around the idea of "error blindness", the feeling that we believe that if we make a mistake there is something wrong with us. She also noted that everyone has an "internal sense of rightness". She suggests that this is limiting for us as humans, because we have to make mistakes in order to innovate. Her topic was supported by the facts of what has actually taken place in this world that were based on people being stuck in a place of feeling right, when actually they were wrong. Such as, President Bush's thinking there would be weapons of mass destruction found in the middle east, that they would be found and democracy and peace would be a reality. Or, a doctor who operated on the wrong leg of a patient, with the comment being made that this doctor "felt he was on the correct side." In conclusion, we all need to start seeing the world as it isn't, not as it is.
ReplyDeleteHey sherry,
DeleteI can completely agree with your main argument but I feel that people in general is to broad for the audience ,because even she didn't think that an audience would materialize for a subject no one likes to talk about.
, Kelly
point well taken. thanks. i always seem to think on a large scale in these types of topics. it's the hippie chick in me i suppose. thank u for the feedback!
DeleteI agree. I'm an unconvinced that labling the audience as "people" is to general. I believe that the true audience is for the people who are stuck in their way of rightness who never embrace that they are wrong, or even consider that being wrong is a possibility for them. I do think that your references to your own experiences and views was a really effective way to put your point across.
DeleteSherry,
DeleteI would also agree that the "Chinese character symbol" was used as a hook to engage the audience at the very beginning. Schultz used a funny story to catch the audiences attention by relating to them by telling a story.
Thanks,
Megan Coker
Schultz identifies her audience in the beginning of the clips as people who always believe they are correct about the things they do, the people that are stuck inside the box of rightness. She uses a story about a picture of a park bench as her hook, describing how for 2,000 miles of her journey across the country, she believed that this sign was a Chinese symbol. This served as a very good example of the point she was trying to make, showing the audience that humans make simple mistakes in their mind of rightness. She relates to the audience by coming up with hypothetical situations that were applicable to many of the viewers, centering them and addressing them directly about what is wrong with the culture that surrounds the idea of rightness. She argues the question of why people shy so strictly away from the idea of being wrong when it is a completely fundamental process to being human. She comes to the conclusion that people need to be comfortable with the idea of occasionally being wrong in order to learn and become better individuals, rather than tear themselves down every time something doesn't go as planned.
ReplyDeleteThe detail we don’t agree on is the hook you thought it was “Chinese character sign". While I thought it was that we are not "C.F.O., Astrophysicist, Ultra-marathoner ". It is amazing that we are all finding such different things to hook us in the same video. I can see how both answers could be divined from the video.
DeleteWhen Kathryn Schulz started working on "Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error" she did not know if she would have an audience. However, as she worked she saw that there was a common human tendency to be wrong, which expanded her audience further than she had originally thought. I thought her hook was that most of us are not "C.F.O. , Astrophysicist, Ultra-marathoner " and the common idea "I thought this one thing was going to happen then something else happened instead". From the start of the video she made her life stories into humanizing anecdotes to help give us some context about her work and life. To keep the audience centered in what she was getting at she would make a point then back it up with sound logical reason, and an on point story to make sure they were with her. I think that her thesis question was, "Is it wrong to be wrong?", which would lead to the thesis on " Being Wrong". She quoted St. Augustine "I err therefor I am", NPR's "This American Life", and the invasion of Iraq in search of WMD's. All the examples are about a wrong outcome. Her conclusion was simply "Maybe I'm wrong".
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
DeleteI would say that "most of us are not Astrophysicists" etc. would be a detail that Schultz explained rather than the main hook of her argument. I say this because although Schultz did say "I thought this one thing was going to happen, then something else happened" several times it wasn't the main point or "hook" to draw the audience in and get there attention. The main point of her speech was aimed toward telling the audience that it is okay to be wrong sometimes.
Thanks,
Megan Coker
Kathryn Schulz argues that mistakes should not be considered shameful, but necessary for success. Even though, we live in a society that preaches that failure is wrong. In 2011, Schulz discussed the topic of error blindness at a Ted conference; she captivated her audience with a humorous story about her confusion of a picnic table sign and a Chinese symbol. The story directly relates with her argument because it validates how we understand and perceive occurrence’s in our lives. She later describes how this inner rightness is taught from an early age, and that this problem is reoccurring in many social and economic activities. Schultz identifies her audience as being astrophysicists but she is clearly proposing this argument to anyone who is stuck in this this self-rightness. She gave many other examples of false rightness, such as the two hundred gallon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. She believes that this false safety net can actually limit society when we get stuck in this error blindness blunder. Schultz persuades her audience to break this reoccurring habit by “seeing the world as it isn’t.”
ReplyDelete