Oral Rhetoric: the art of persuasive speaking Mr. Franklin
Fall 2015
Access an ONLINE version of this Course Reader at:
http://rhsweb.org/assignments/franklin/Oral%20Rhetoric/
We’ll learn to “own” the stage, whether in front of a big crowd or at an intimate business
meeting. Want to exude confidence and credibility not only from tenor and pitch and
poise of posture, but also from clearly establishing signals that say, “I am a critical
thinker who has come prepared.”? Then you’re in the right place. Around the bend, you’ll
learn quick-think tricks and organizational structures for short-notice, impromptu
speeches. Mindful of the damage it can cause, you’ll learn to identify and gracefully
disarm false logic. Having internalized the eleven virtues of rationality, you’ll actively
seek and speak truth even in the face of ambiguity, embracing a counter-point habit of
mind without worry of weakening your own sound reason. In order to prepare for the
culminating debates and inform your own speech-writing process, you’ll spend ample
time examining the choices speakers and writers make via rhetorical, stylistic, and
literary analysis; to this end, we’ll view and read historically enduring speeches
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speechbank.htm) and read non-fictional, sciencebased theory books that model thoughtful research. These theory books offer optimistic
views of our possible futures that will work well in confirming and debunking the visions
of the core text: Brave New World. To prepare for Da Big Final, everything we do will help
you answer the 200 point Final 18 Essential Questions for Speaking (see page 3 and
poster on podium): these are sequenced so that your understandings deepen and prepare
you for the final.
Challenges:
1. Treat everybody like a VIP
2. Execute Maupain’s “log-less” writing and smooth reading of it
3. Get HOTer
4. Practice the Six-Fold Way
Grades

 Participation (180 points)
 Introduction Speech (10 points)
 Brave New World Quizzes (120 points)
 Impromptu Speech (30 points)
 Seminar on Non-Fiction Book used as Group Presentation Groundwork (50 points)
 Non-Fiction Book Group Presentation (50 points)
 Fallacies Test (100 points)
 Persuasive Debate (100 points)
 Post-Debate “Storm” Slam Video (70 points)
Final Essential Questions Seminar (200 points: Writing 100 points /Speaking 100 points)
TOTAL POINTS = 900 points
1
Reading Selections:
 Fourth edition of A Speaker’s Guidebook: text and reference by Dan O’Hair,
Rob Stewart, and Hannah Rubenstein
 Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
 Excerpts from a variety of other plays, essays, and speeches
Nonfiction selection for your 2 choices: (2nd choice read before main group presents on it)
(I’ll deliver blurbs on these later to help you decide)
1.
A General Theory of Love
by Thomas; Amini, Fari; Lannon, Richard Lewis
2. The Continuum Concept: In Search Of Happiness Lost
by Jean Liedloff
3. Mindfulness by Ellen J. Langer
Monthly Participation (60 Points at end of each month)



Active Oral (20 Points)
o Frequently Involved in Discussions without being called on/and prepared when
called upon.
o Seeking Clarification from teacher/peers (group work)
o If you have a hard time formulating thoughts on the spot in class, you must email
me twice a week to share your thoughts or come to SMART (where I can have the
most effect on improving your writing)
Attentiveness (20 Points)
o Always on task/Writing through full time
o No side conversations/distractions/cell phones off and away
o Listening the way Hafiz does = see poem on wall
Preparedness (20 Points)
o Always have Oral Rhetoric Reader and current Text on Desk prior to bell
o No Tardies/Unexcused Absences
o Make-up work immediately  Email afranklin@redwood.org
o On Pace Reading in current text
Daily Procedures/Evaluation


Have your Oral Rhetoric Reader, and current Text out and on the desk.
The bell does not dismiss class. You do not dismiss class. Mr. Franklin dismisses class. Do not
pack up before Mr. Franklin dismisses you.
Though email is my preferred contact, I can be reached at 415-924-6200 x 6155
2
Be not Right, Be Less Wrong
Essential Questions for 200 point Persuasive Speaking Final:
Note: Nothing we do in this semester will be extraneous to these questions.
1) What four rhetorical elements frequently show up in
Historically/Culturally enduring speeches and why?
2) In what ways can a speaker’s best establish ethos (credibility)?
3) How much of a successful speech is in the writing and how much is in the
delivery?
4) What factors create miscommunication?
5) Is thinking/speaking quickly on your feet inborn or learnable?
6) Are digressions always a bad thing in speeches?
7) How does contemplating the three distinct truths—Absolute, Relative,
and Subjective—effect one’s rationality?
8) How do we know what we know? And, What is worth knowing?
9) Should we seek absolute truth and are the “Twelve Virtues of
Rationality” a good guide to seeking it?
10) Why should we be able to detect logical fallacies?
11) What are the limits of strong rationality in persuading a target
audience? When rationality is not enough, then what?
12)
13)
How do various types of audiences affect the writing and delivery of
a good speech?
Do the three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) work together?
14)
15)
16)
17)
What ethical obligations does a speaker have?
Why bother listening to other peoples’ points of view?
Does a counter-point habit of mind rob us of convictions?
How do we move beyond thoughtless research?
18) Why listen to or participate in debate?
3
What will the final entail?
Writing: 100 points
You will type 18 essential understandings—
paragraph-long answers—to the 18 essential
questions on the previous page. Include the following
in
all your written answers:

Use the speakers and writers we’ve analyzed
over the course of the semester as examples in your
answers.
 Also use personal 1st-person narratives.
 Voice: how you write what you know matters as much as
DATA:
what you know: “You are the lead singer in your
understandings. The data and evidence are the
background chorus!” Avoid voiceless answers. A POOR
answer to EQ #1 on a literal (voiceless) level is:
“1. Contrasting pairs, 2. repetition of a slogan,
3. allusions or pop-culture references, and 4.
patterns of three.” Get meta with your answers by
using those four elements in all you answers (think
of all 18 answers as good speeches), for example:
A GOOD answer to # 13 might read like: Of course
the three appeals work together. Fourteen years ago
I taught in a bankrupted, broken district (WCCCSD)
that was hard to fix. Four years later, ten years
ago, I came to the Tamalpais Union High School
District, an if-it-ain’t-broke, well, fix it anyway
district. What a blessing to complain about how to
turn Blue Ribbon schools into Gold Standard
guarantees. However, when federal and state dollars
mandate that we find a consultant to “improve” our
curriculum what do you get? Well a two-year,
wholesale retooling of all we already do so well,
like goodbye Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose Dan
Pink, put on these chains of lock-step scripted
activities. How did we Redwood teachers speak truth
4
to power? How did we combine Ethos, Pathos, and
Logos? Mr. Mattern summed up the mood of the
faculty in his pathos-laden speech at the end of
the staff’s Guaranteed Viable Curriculum (GVC)
meeting: “Yeah, I’ve been teaching for 25 years
{ethos}, and I’ve never been run through so much
cattle prodding. The GVC, more like Gee We’ll See.
We’ll see if we keep coming here. Right now I want
to race home, cry in my spouse’s arms, and beat my
dog {pattern of three}. I mean, I’m like Gary
Radnich {cultural reference} in the morning here.
The super-intendant of the district gets a free
house from the GVC brass and we get air-conditionless rooms to teach in {contrasting pair}. The
money motivates this move. Where’s my money for
creating and implementing this curriculum? Yeah,
Gee We’ll See {Repetition of slogan}.”
Mr. Franklin then piped in with what he thought was
some logos: “We spend all of our Department
meetings preparing for the GVC we’re going to hash
out at the District level. Then we come to these
staff meetings and Admin is asking us to report out
what happened at the District meetings. Where’s our
time for autonomy? Where’s our mastery applied?
What about the Purpose we have that already nets us
a 900 API? We’ve engineered our success and our
reward is a strait-jacket.” The administrators told
us they understood, but that we had to move forward
with the two year plan because dollars were
attached to it. We heard that and they at least
treat us with more sympathy under the
circumstances.
Speaking: 100 points
You cannot get better than an F if you do not
speak during the final Seminar (this is Oral
Rhetoric after all). The Seminar is meant to
test your listening for other students’ answers
5
that you want to corroborate or counter-argue.
What they say may not have occurred to you and
your writing will help you respond or adapt.
Also the complex overlap of all 18 Essential
Understandings that happens in building communal
synthesis is too difficult to do in isolation.
Remember what H.L. Menken said:
“For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
Also note Taylor Mali on re-evaluating
initial thinking:
“Changing your mind is one of the
best ways to see if you still have
one.”
6
Introduction Speech (2 to 3 minutes = 10 points)
You’ll help us to get to know you by telling us a story which you witnessed or of which
you were a part. Or you can tell us the story of your intended future—what you want to
be, where you want to go. The story should be engaging, but the important reason for
telling it is that it reveals a bit of who you are, a bit of your character.
Note that the events we remember best do not necessarily reveal bits of our character.
Because physically painful episodes tend to etch in our memories with vivid imagery,
these can be strong memories. However, consider this, of my 89 Oral Rhetoric students in
the Fall of 2011, 78 of them told stories that had injuries in them. Many, many, many
students spun tales about sports injuries, bee stings, surfing accidents, close scares with
sharks—while these action stories are not prohibited, please understand that the
point is to see how you acted in your story so we get a sense of not just what
happened to or around you, but WHO YOU ARE!
Partially, one aim of our sharing our unique stories is to set us up for knowing our
audience members intimately later on when we are crafting impromptu and debate
speeches, allowing for direct connections and increased pathos.
What should your writing be like?
“I write to be read aloud. I never finish a paragraph without
being certain that it can tumble effortlessly from my own lips. I
come from the Southern tradition of storytelling, and I believe
that reading should be like an exhilarating run through the
woods, with no ill-placed logs to trip you up.”
--Armistead Maupin
Things to include in your content:
Start with the name or nickname that you’d like to be called.
I’ll provide an example story and you will then use the rest of the period to write your
story to be delivered tomorrow
“Hi, I’m Mr. Franklin (or Boneyard if you feel and make me feel comfortable calling me
that). My Sister’s Wedding was life-altering…
7
Evaluate Content and Delivery
See #1 Ziggy, why so dry? In school, we worry that we’ll be ostracized if
we’re not serious enough. However, see Zest of # 2 Georgia Tech
Convocation…then the #3 Bad Zest of Phil Davison…#4 Chef Holden…#5
Man of Action Zev
How to deliver a good speech: 1. care about the content and craft it in the aim
to make the audience care too 2. know the speech well 3. deliver it with zest.
The analogy we’ll use: Eating a Taco. The fresh written ingredients, layered well,
comprise the Taco. The zest is the hot sauce which makes the eater/audience pay
attention to the eating. Too zesty and you can't taste the ingredients; no sauce and the
audience drifts into daydreams.
Even in the low-stakes, nobody’s-running-for-election world of every day high
school the context of academics too often induces us to wear purpose-logic-context straightjackets, unleashing flocks of wingless, boring deliveries; instead risk playful speeches even,
or especially, during important, useful lessons; voice tweak like 35% of your schooling such
as debates, math, seminars until we’re all eating sugary Data-Crunchberry Cereal.
Mr. Franklin’s # 1 tip for Zest is to purposefully step
outside of the established flow of the narration by
locating three or four moments to be an actor (use distinct
voices and gestures):
Practice by delivering the speech excerpts on the next page with you doing the
orator’s flow, momentarily trumped by you as an actor
Note: All of you will practice stepping to the podium over the next 4 or 5 class meetings with your Intro
Speech, but just for today, we’ll need a group of 5 volunteers to demonstrate orator-turned-momentaryactor through a fishbowl
After each student version, you’ll be followed by Mr. Franklin's version
8
Process from Cold-Read to Pop-Out Gestures
#1
I was hiking the trail with my bunny, my dear Whiskers, in my arms. Just then, I heard
an eagle screech from above. Whiskers scurried out of my arms and darted down the
trail. That eagle dove and snatched my beloved. I fell to my knees and sobbed.
#2
The cop flashed his light in my eyes and asked, "Have you had anything to drink
tonight?" Of course I hadn't but something in me panicked and I ran. He chased me up
the stairs and caught me, pinning me on the railing.
#3
Ask questions about their life. Parents love this: “Where did you go to college?” or “Is
the pay the best part of your job?” or “Ever have an affair?” (just kidding). Adults like to
tell stories and pretend that the reason they tell them is to pass on advice—sometimes
the advice actually helps. It turns out, you don’t need to have the same interests as
them in order to be a nice, decent, and normal human being around them.
#4
If some guy is pressuring you to hook up, saying, "Come on. Just get in the car and go
for a ride with me," and you are not feeling it, just be honest. Tell him, "Hey, I am not
interested in popping one of you face zits in my mouth!"
#5
How'd I end up homeless in San Jose for four months? Good question. One night I was
drinking a cup of water in my dad's kitchen and my dad came crashing in, holding my
sack of weed like it was a murdered baby. He fumed out that I had screwed up one too
many times. Then he hit me with it; the next day, I would be sent to a rehab camp in
Utah. I lost it. I simultaneously cussed and threw my cup against the wall. Then I bailed
to San Jose.
9
Now run through your prepared Intro Speech and find three or four
good Pop-Out moments for Acting with distinct voices and gestures to
engage the audience.
All Speech Delivery Requirements
 Volume: audience can easily hear; voice is full and
resonant
 Articulation: words are pronounced correctly, clearly
and precisely
 Eye Contact: speaker does not rely too heavily on
notes; appears confident; looks out to audience as
speaking to establish contact
 Posture: Speaker does not slouch or lean nor does
he/she shift or move around
 Controlled Breathing: Controlled breathing gives
voice resonance and power; speaker does not interrupt
sentences inappropriately to breathe
 Tone: Speaker establishes and maintains a tone
appropriate to topic and speaker; tone modulation also
used to engage audience

Emphasis/modulation: Speaker uses voice to
highlight key points about story or argument.
10
Two Kinds of Cool
I was getting to know a class that I was teaching at UC Berkley by having students
ask any questions they wanted to ask about me and attempting to answer with the
best, most entertaining and revealing stories I could until, after the 5th or 6th story, a
student named Jacqueline asked me with a little bit of a sneer, “Do you think
you’re cool?” I sensed that she thought I was too full of myself, that she felt I was
trying to show that I was better than everybody in the room. So I paused for a bit,
thought of the types of people who were deemed cool and something became very
clear to me: I feel that there are two ways to be thought of as cool: one of those
ways I don’t admire at all—coolness through exclusivity.
Some project a velvet rope aura about them, deciding who can interact with them
and who doesn’t have what it takes to belong in the same room. This selfmanufactured fantasy V.I.P. strut, with you-wish-you-were-as-fly-as-me dissing, is
a cheap, immature, slithery power.
A much more powerful coolness is the one that is Inclusive. I cite you an example
of someone who is a master of inclusivity: Mr. Dibley. Yes he may be treated like
a V.I.P., but he does not let that stop him from making everyone around him feel
like a V.I.P. I admire him for that. Think back to the inclusivity of the narrator of
the story we read, “What Do You Know,” [btw: written by Mr. Ryan]. His
particular genius is to make all the people around him not just think they are
important, but to know what is important about them.
Now consider the two types of coolness, the exclusive jerk who puts others down
and the inclusive genius who makes everyone feel important, in the context of Oral
Rhetoric. For many people, even for those who would not like to admit it,
speaking in front of even the most supportive group is a terrifying ordeal. As
listeners to each featured speaker’s speeches or their casual conversations, our #1
challenge as a class is to make everybody who comes into this room to feel like a
VIP .
Inclusive…inclusive, that’s the mantra
Follow with a re-mingle (handshake…mirror…dance moves…)
11
1. If you were to try to build a future paradise on earth, how would you
use science and art to do so?
2. In what ways have science and art already contributed to the goal of
building paradise?
3. In what ways have science and art damaged the goal of paradise?
no longer afraid of the dark or midday
shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and
desperate,
nothing so childish - at a better pace,
slower and more calculated,
now self-employed,
concerned,
an empowered and informed member of
society
(pragmatism not idealism),
will not cry in public,
less chance of illness,
tires that grip in the wet
(shot of baby strapped in back seat),
a good memory,
still cries at a good film,
still kisses with saliva,
no longer empty and frantic
like a cat
(the ability to laugh at weakness),
calm,
fitter,
healthier and more productive
Fitter Happier
Fitter, happier, more productive,
comfortable,
not drinking too much,
regular exercise at the gym
(3 days a week),
getting on better with your associate
employee contemporaries,
at ease,
eating well
(no more microwave dinners and
saturated fats),
a patient better driver,
a safer car
(baby smiling in back seat),
sleeping well
(no bad dreams),
no paranoia,
careful to all animals
(never washing spiders down the
plughole),
keep in contact with old friends
(enjoy a drink now and then),
will frequently check credit at
bank,
favors for favors,
fond but not in love,
charity standing orders,
on Sundays ring road supermarket
(no killing moths or putting boiling water
on the ants),
car wash
(also on Sundays),
12
As we shall gather, by reading from the class list of non-fictional,
persuasively written books, we are pushing brain-science and
technology and psycho-pharmaceutical therapy to some
miraculous, promising ends. Perhaps we are not as far away from
a near-perfect societal existence as you might think! After reading
these persuasive books, you might be less skeptical, but, until
then, for now, assume that the following world is possible
before you respond to wanting to live in it or not.
Pre-reading poll question(s) about Future World: Who among you would not
like to live in a world that is stable, in which all people are happy, consumers get
what they want, and they never want what they can't get, in which promiscuity is
a virtue (the word "whore" would not apply to either gender), a world in which all
of us are well off and safe because there are no wars or protests, partially
because everyone's health and psychological states are stable because of fetal
health boosters and partially because we produce an infinite, free supply of a
perfected, organically produced, OxyContinish, ultimate lucid-dream inducing
drug that has none of the deleterious side-effects (no hangovers, no braindamage, no allergic reactions: rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, swelling of the
mouth, face, lips, or tongue; no abnormal snoring nor confusion, nor difficulty urinating; no fainting; no fast, slow, or irregular
heartbeat; no mental or mood changes nor seizures nor severe dizziness, drowsiness, nor lightheadedness; no severe or persistent
), so that
nobody is ever ill, we all remain always blissfully ignorant of old age, living fully
up to the moment of death without fear of, nor care about, what death is?
stomach pain nor constipation; no shortness of breath; no slow or shallow breathing; no tremors; nor vision changes...
In addition, on the economic and social front, we can live life un-plagued by
pressures, expectations, obligations, and responsibilities from either family or any
institutions, no SATs, no status striving of any kind, working only at jobs that
match perfectly with individual skill-sets and pleasure-giving tasks that benefit
others, whether those jobs are childishly simple or intellectually stimulating.
Nobody will be underworked as to suffer from excessive leisure, nor over-worked
as to suffer from exhaustion. All entertainment and education will be packed with
agreeable sensations to every audience member.
Wouldn't such an existence free you so that you couldn't help but behave the
way you ought to behave?
13
Fitter Happier by Radiohead
Fitter, happier, more productive,
comfortable,
not drinking too much,
regular exercise at the gym
(3 days a week),
getting on better with your associate
employee contemporaries,
at ease,
eating well
(no more microwave dinners and
saturated fats),
a patient better driver,
a safer car
(baby smiling in back seat),
sleeping well
(no bad dreams),
no paranoia,
careful to all animals
(never washing spiders down the
plughole),
keep in contact with old friends
(enjoy a drink now and then),
will frequently check credit at
(moral) bank (hole in the wall),
favors for favors,
fond but not in love,
charity standing orders,
on Sundays ring road supermarket
(no killing moths or putting boiling water
on the ants),
car wash
(also on Sundays),
no longer afraid of the dark or midday
shadows
nothing so ridiculously teenage and
desperate,
nothing so childish - at a better pace,
slower and more calculated, no chance
of escape,
now self-employed,
concerned (but powerless),
an empowered and informed member of
society
(pragmatism not idealism),
will not cry in public,
less chance of illness,
tires that grip in the wet
(shot of baby strapped in back seat),
a good memory,
still cries at a good film,
still kisses with saliva,
no longer empty and frantic
like a cat
tied to a stick,
that's driven into
frozen winter shit
(the ability to laugh at weakness),
calm,
fitter,
healthier and more productive
a pig
in a cage
on antibiotics.
14
In order of priority, our discussions and
Seminars will aim at:
WHAT?
1. Equity of student access
2.
Flow (repetition without adding something new is a flow-killer)
3. Depth and richness
HOW?
1.
Call on peers who tend to speak the
least frequently next = All Peer Voices
2. If you paraphrase a previous speaker, build on
their ideas rather than merely repeat them =
ZEST
3. Over-prepare and don’t settle for monosyllabic glibness
GLIB:  = speaking with offhand ease that
shows little thought, preparation, or
concern, thus suggesting insincerity,
superficiality, or deceitfulness
15
BOOKMARK for Brave New World Oral Quizzes Due Dates:
You should volunteer to answer questions during discussion
quizzes and, if you have nothing to say during them (even if you
don’t volunteer and are called upon), then, on each of the other
due dates, you must turn in insightful written answers to receive
credit.
________________________________________________
August___
1) Chapters 1 and 2: “Seeing Huxley’s World” (20 points)

How do these vocabulary words shape the Community, Identity, Stability
world Huxley is laying out for us: viviparous, hypnopaedic, sententious,
platitude?

Your Active Reading Questions/Clarifications to help understand the world
Huxley is giving glimpses?
August ___
2) Read Chapter 3

Your Active Reading Questions/Clarifications to help understand the world
Huxley is giving glimpses?
September ___
3) Chapters 5-9: “Huxley’s Worlds Collide” (20 points) 3 SMALL
GROUPS
 “This may be the whole difference that separates natural man from
civilized man; the savage has only feelings. The civilized man has
feelings and ideas. So with the Savage, little impression is made on
the brain.” --Balzac
What is the irony of Huxley naming the reservation Indian, John
Savage, especially when comparing him to the people in Brave New
World? What is John Savage’s family upbringing like?
16

Your Active Reading Questions/Clarifications and explained significance of plot
events?
September ___
4) Chapters 10-15 “Savage Disgust” (20 points) 3 SMALL GROUPS
 Why is “Savage Disgust” a good title for this six chapter stretch?
Explain by citing at least five different scenes.
 Also, why does Helmholtz feel restless and alienated?
 Function of Omegas
The role of the omega dog is crucial to the stability of day to day
wolf-pack life. Usually this animal is the outcast and is not allowed
to join in pack activities. Some scientists believe that the omega
position offers a way for wolves to disperse energy. If the omega
strays from allotted territory or attempts to join in on a feeding,
the pack will persecute the omega until order is restored. Energy
is released during the confrontation and this is immediately
followed by a period of peace.
 How is V.P.S. used, and how is the same objective handled in the
novel 1984?
September ___
5) Chapters 16-18 SEMINAR STYLE for whole class— (60 points)
 What was the Cypress Island experiment and how does that lead to
Mond’s ICEBERG Philosophy? Does our own real-life 2015 world
(including all 7 continents) mirror Mond’s ICEBERG?

I’ll show you a funny video called “Thug Notes” before we discuss
the character debates about Art, Science , Religion
 In Chapters 17-18, Where does John go to escape the Brave New
World? What happens there and what symbolism do you notice in
the last few scenes? How does this suggest Huxley’s intended
purpose in writing the novel?
17
Chapter Three pages 44-56
Roles: 18 actors
Mustapha Mond (Contoller); Director of Hatcheries
(D.H.C); Henry Foster; Assistant Predestinator;
Lenina;
Fanny;
Bernard Marx;
Boy;
Group of ten 16 year old boys (chorus)
Narrator in italics = Mr. Franklin
All Actors listen to Narrator for stage directions
Three settings with 96 cross-cuts EQ: why?
#1 In the nurseries, the Elementary Class Consciousness lesson
#2 In the men’s locker room after work at the hatchery
#3 In the woman’s locker room after work at the hatchery
1___________________________________________________
Mond: …"Fortunate boys! No pains have been spared to make
your lives emotionally easy—to preserve you, so far as that is
possible, from having emotions at all.”
D.H.C.: “Ford's in his flivver; all's well with the world.”
2___________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "Lenina Crowne?" Henry said, echoing the
Assistant Predestinator's question as he zipped up his trousers.
"Oh, she's a splendid girl. Wonderfully pneumatic. I'm surprised
you haven't had her."
Assistant Predestinator: "I can't think how it is I haven't. I
certainly will. At the first opportunity." From his place on the
opposite side of the changing-room aisle, Bernard Marx
overheard what they were saying and turned pale.
18
3___________________________________________________
Lenina: "And to tell the truth, I'm beginning to get just a tiny bit
bored with nothing but Henry every day." She pulled on her left
stocking. In a tone whose excessive casualness was evidently
forced, she asked, "Do you know Bernard Marx?"
Fanny looked startled.
Fanny: "You don't mean to say …?"
Lenina: "Why not? Bernard's an Alpha Plus. Besides, he asked
me to go to one of the Savage Reservations with him. I've
always wanted to see a Savage Reservation."
Fanny: "But his reputation?"
Lenina: "What do I care about his reputation?"
Fanny: "They say he doesn't like Obstacle Golf."
Lenina: Lenina mocked, "They say, they say."
Fanny: There was horror in Fanny's voice: "And then he spends
most of his time by himself–alone."
Lenina: "Well, he won't be alone when he's with me. And
anyhow, why are people so beastly to him? I think he's rather
sweet."
She smiled to herself; how absurdly shy he had been! Frightened
almost–as though she were a World Controller and he a GammaMinus machine minder.
4___________________________________________________
Mustapha Mond: "Consider your own lives—has any of you ever
encountered an insurmountable obstacle?"
The question was answered by a negative silence.
19
Mustapha Mond: "Has any of you been compelled to live
through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a
desire and its fufilment?"
Boy: "Well," began one of the boys, and hesitated.
D.H.C.: "Speak up, don't keep his Fordship waiting."
Boy: "I once had to wait nearly four weeks before a girl I wanted
would let me have her."
D.H.C.: "And you felt a strong emotion in consequence?"
Boy: "Horrible!"
D.H.C.: "Horrible; precisely! Our ancestors were so stupid and
short-sighted that when the first reformers came along and
offered to deliver them from those horrible emotions, they
wouldn't have anything to do with them."
5___________________________________________________
Bernard: through ground his teeth, "Talking about her as though
she were a bit of meat. Have her here, have her there. Like
mutton. Degrading her to so much mutton. She said she'd think
it over, she said she'd give me an answer this week. Oh, Ford,
Ford, Ford."
He would have liked to go up to them and hit them in the face–
hard, again and again.
Henry Foster: "Yes, I really do advise you to try her."
6___________________________________________________
Mond: "Take Ectogenesis. Pfitzner and Kawaguchi had got the
whole technique worked out. But would the Governments look at
it? No. There was something called Christianity. Women were
forced to go on being viviparous."
7___________________________________________________
Fanny: "He's so ugly!"
20
Lenina: "But I rather like his looks."
Fanny: "And then so small."
Fanny made a grimace; smallness was so horribly and typically
low-caste.
Lenina: "I think that's rather sweet; One feels one would like to
pet him. You know. Like a cat."
Fanny: Fanny was shocked. "They say somebody made a
mistake when he was still in the bottle–thought he was a Gamma
and put alcohol into his blood-surrogate. That's why he's so
stunted."
Lenina: Lenina was indignant, "What nonsense!"
8___________________________________________________
Mond: "Sleep teaching was actually prohibited in England. There
was something called liberalism. Parliament, if you know what
that was, passed a law against it. The records survive. Speeches
about liberty of the subject. Liberty to be inefficient and
miserable. Freedom to be a round peg in a square hole."
9___________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "But, my dear chap, you're welcome, I assure
you. You're welcome." Henry Foster patted the Assistant
Predestinator on the shoulder. "Every one belongs to every one
else, after all."
One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years,
thought Bernard Marx, who was a specialist on hypnopædia.
Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.
Idiots!
10__________________________________________________
Mond: "Or the Caste System. Constantly proposed, constantly
rejected. There was something called democracy. As though men
were more than physico-chemically equal."
21
11__________________________________________________
Assistant Predestinator: "Well, all I can say is that I'm going
to accept your invitation. I’ll give Lenina a try!"
Bernard hated them, hated them. But they were two, they were
large, they were strong.
12__________________________________________________
Mond: "The Nine Years' War began in A.F. 141."
13__________________________________________________
Lenina: "Not even if it were true about the alcohol in his bloodsurrogate."
14__________________________________________________
Mond: "Phosgene, chloropicrin, ethyl iodoacetate,
diphenylcyanarsine, trichlormethyl, chloroformate, dichlorethyl
sulphide. Not to mention hydrocyanic acid."
15__________________________________________________
Lenina: "Which I simply don't believe," Lenina concluded.
16__________________________________________________
Mond: "The noise of fourteen thousand airplanes advancing in
open order. But in the Kurfurstendamm and the Eighth
Arrondissement, the explosion of the anthrax bombs is hardly
louder than the popping of a paper bag."
17__________________________________________________
Lenina: "Because I do want to see a Savage Reservation."
18__________________________________________________
Mond: Ch3C6H2(NO2)3+Hg(CNO)2=well, what? An enormous hole
in the ground, a pile of masonry, some bits of flesh and mucus, a
foot, with the boot still on it, flying through the air and landing,
flop, in the middle of the geraniums–the scarlet ones; such a
splendid show that summer!
19__________________________________________________
Fanny: "You're hopeless, Lenina, I give you up."
22
20__________________________________________________
Mond: "The Russian technique for infecting water supplies was
particularly ingenious."
21__________________________________________________
Back turned to back, Fanny and Lenina continued their changing
in silence.
22__________________________________________________
Mond: "The Nine Years' War, the great Economic Collapse. There
was a choice between World Control and destruction. Between
stability and …"
23__________________________________________________
Assistant Predestinator: “Fanny Crowne's a nice girl too.”
24__________________________________________________
In the nurseries, the Elementary Class Consciousness lesson was
over, the voices were adapting future demand to future industrial
supply.
All Boys in chorus: They whispered, "I do love flying. I do love
flying, I do love having new clothes, I do love …"
25__________________________________________________
Mond: "Liberalism, of course, was dead of anthrax, but all the
same you couldn't do things by force."
26__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "Not nearly so pneumatic as Lenina. Oh, not
nearly."
27__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "But old clothes are beastly," continued the
untiring whisper. "We always throw away old clothes. Ending is
better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is
better …"
28__________________________________________________
Mond: "Government's an affair of sitting, not hitting. You rule
23
with the brains and the buttocks, never with the fists. For
example, there was the conscription of consumption."
29__________________________________________________
Lenina "There, I'm ready," but Fanny remained speechless and
averted. "Let's make peace, Fanny darling."
30__________________________________________________
Mond: "Every man, woman and child compelled to consume so
much a year. In the interests of industry. The sole result …"
31__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "Ending is better than mending. The more
stitches, the less riches; the more stitches …"
32__________________________________________________
Fanny: "One of these days, you'll get into trouble."
33__________________________________________________
Mond: "Conscientious objection on an enormous scale. Anything
not to consume. Back to nature."
34__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "I do love flying. I do love flying."
35__________________________________________________
Mond: "Back to culture. Yes, actually to culture. You can't
consume much if you sit still and read books."
36__________________________________________________
Lenina: "Do I look all right?"
Her jacket was made of bottle green acetate cloth with green
viscose fur; at the cuffs and collar.
37__________________________________________________
Mond: "Eight hundred Simple Lifers were mowed down by
machine guns at Golders Green."
24
38__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "Ending is better than mending, ending is
better than mending."
39__________________________________________________
Green corduroy shorts and white viscose-woollen stockings
turned down below the knee.
40__________________________________________________
Mond: "Then came the famous British Museum Massacre. Two
thousand culture fans gassed with dichlorethyl sulphide."
41__________________________________________________
A green-and-white jockey cap shaded Lenina's eyes; her shoes
were bright green and highly polished.
42__________________________________________________
Mond:"In the end, the Controllers realized that force was no
good. The slower but infinitely surer methods of ectogenesis,
neo-Pavlovian conditioning and hypnopædia …"
43__________________________________________________
And round her waist she wore a silver-mounted green moroccosurrogate cartridge belt, bulging (for Lenina was not a
freemartin) with the regulation supply of contraceptives.
44__________________________________________________
Mond: "The discoveries of Pfitzner and Kawaguchi were at last
made use of. An intensive propaganda against viviparous
reproduction …"
45__________________________________________________
Fanny: "Perfect!" cried Fanny enthusiastically. She could never
resist Lenina's charm for long. "And what a perfectly sweet
Malthusian belt!"
46__________________________________________________
Mond: "Accompanied by a campaign against the Past; by the
closing of museums, the blowing up of historical monuments
(luckily most of them had already been destroyed during the
25
Nine Years' War); by the suppression of all books published
before A.F. 15O.''
47__________________________________________________
Fanny: I simply must get one like it."
48__________________________________________________
Mond: "There were some things called the pyramids, for
example.
49__________________________________________________
Lenina: "My old black-patent bandolier …"
50__________________________________________________
Mond: "And a man called Shakespeare. You've never heard of
them of course."
51__________________________________________________
Lenina: "It's an absolute disgrace–that bandolier of mine."
52__________________________________________________
Mond: "Such are the advantages of a really scientific education."
53__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "The more stitches the less riches; the
more stitches the less …"
54__________________________________________________
Mond: "The introduction of Our Ford's first T-Model …"
55__________________________________________________
Lenina: "I've had it nearly three months."
56__________________________________________________
Mond: "Chosen as the opening date of the new era."
57__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "Ending is better than mending; ending is
better …"
26
58__________________________________________________
Mond: "There was a thing, as I've said before, called
Christianity."
59__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "Ending is better than mending."
60__________________________________________________
Mond: "The ethics and philosophy of under-consumption …"
61__________________________________________________
All Boys in chorus: "I love new clothes, I love new clothes, I
love …"
62__________________________________________________
Mond: "So essential when there was under-production; but in an
age of machines and the fixation of nitrogen–positively a crime
against society."
63__________________________________________________
Lenina: "Henry Foster gave it me."
64__________________________________________________
Mond:"All crosses had their tops cut and became T's. There was
also a thing called God."
65__________________________________________________
Lenina: "It's real morocco-surrogate."
66__________________________________________________
Mond: "We have the World State now. And Ford's Day
celebrations, and Community Sings, and Solidarity Services."
67__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: Bernard Marx was thinking, "Ford, how I hate
them!"
68__________________________________________________
Mond: "There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they
used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol."
27
69__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: "Like meat, like so much meat."
70__________________________________________________
Mond: "There was a thing called the soul and a thing called
immortality."
71__________________________________________________
Fanny: "Do ask Henry where he got it."
72__________________________________________________
Mond: "But they used to take morphia and cocaine."
73__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: "And what makes it worse, she thinks of herself
as meat."
74__________________________________________________
Mond: "Two thousand pharmacologists and bio-chemists were
subsidized in A.F. 178."
75__________________________________________________
Assistant Predestinator: Pointing at Bernard Marx, "He does
look glum."
76__________________________________________________
Mond: "Six years later Soma was being produced commercially.
The perfect drug."
77__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "Let's bait him."
78__________________________________________________
Mond: "Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant."
79__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "Glum, Marx, glum."
The clap on the shoulder made him start, look up. It was that
brute Henry Foster.
28
"What you need is a gramme of soma."
80__________________________________________________
Mond: "All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of
their defects."
81__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: He thought, "Ford, I should like to kill him!" But
all he did was to say, "No, thank you," and fend off the proffered
tube of tablets.
82__________________________________________________
Mond: "Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come
back without so much as a headache or a mythology."
83__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "Take it," he insisted, "take it."
84__________________________________________________
Mond: "Stability was practically assured."
85__________________________________________________
Assistant Predestinator: Citing a piece of homely hypnopædic
wisdom: "One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments,"
said the.
86__________________________________________________
Mond: "It only remained to conquer old age."
87__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: He Shouted, "Damn you, damn you!"
Henry Foster: "Hoity-toity."
88__________________________________________________
Mond: "Gonadal hormones, transfusion of young blood,
magnesium salts …"
89__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "And do remember that a gramme is better than
a damn." They went out, laughing.
29
90__________________________________________________
Mond: "All the physiological stigmata of old age have been
abolished. And along with them, of course …"
91__________________________________________________
Fanny: "Don't forget to ask him about that Malthusian belt!"
92__________________________________________________
Mond: "Along with them all the old man's mental peculiarities.
Characters remain constant throughout a whole lifetime."
93__________________________________________________
Henry Foster: "… two rounds of Obstacle Golf to get through
before dark. I must fly."
94__________________________________________________
Mond: "Work, play–at sixty our powers and tastes are what they
were at seventeen. Old men in the bad old days used to
renounce, retire, take to religion, spend their time reading,
thinking–thinking!"
95__________________________________________________
Bernard Marx: “Idiots, swine!" he was saying to himself, as he
walked down the corridor to the lift.
96__________________________________________________
Mond: "Now–such is progress–the old men work, the old men
copulate, the old men have no time, no leisure from pleasure,
not a moment to sit down and think–or if ever by some unlucky
chance such a crevice of time should yawn in the solid substance
of their distractions, there is always soma, delicious soma, half a
gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two
grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity
on the moon; returning whence they find themselves on the
other side of the crevice, safe on the solid ground of daily labour
and distraction, scampering from feely to feely, from girl to
pneumatic girl, from Electromagnetic Golf course to …"
30
D.H.C.: "Go away, little girl," shouted the D.H.C. angrily. "Go
away, little boy! Can't you see that his Fordship's busy? Go and
do your erotic play somewhere else."
Mond:"Suffer little children," said the Mond, the Controller.
Slowly, majestically, with a faint humming of machinery, the
Conveyors moved forward, thirty-three centimeters an hour. In
the red darkness glinted innumerable rubies.
BACK TO EQ AND ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDING OF
ORCHASTRATION AND STBILITY FOR MACRO AND MICRO
31
Function of Omegas
The role of the omega dog is crucial to the stability of day to day
wolf-pack life. Usually this animal is the outcast and is not allowed
to join in pack activities. Some scientists believe that the omega
position offers a way for wolves to disperse energy. If the omega
strays from allotted territory or attempts to join in on a feeding,
the pack will persecute the omega until order is restored. Energy is
released during the confrontation and this is immediately followed
by a period of peace.
Also what is V.P.S.? How does it parallel 1984?
32
33
Agree/Disagree
“A society made up of individuals who
were all capable of articulating original
thought would probably be
unendurable.”
H. L. Mencken
for a long time
we didn’t know
if they were idiots or not.
“I don’t know,” my wife said 30
when I asked,
interrupting her bath.
Towers of bubbles.
but she said that
to most things.
35
Idiot City (poor Helmholtz)
They built a wall around the city
To keep the idiots in
But left me there by mistake
5
10
15
20
25
It was an okay life,
at once torture—
the omnipresent insult
of imprisonment, the mockery
I had to hold back—
And a chain of
sweetnesses and pleasures.
I couldn’t figure out
The latch on the door.
And the wall was not scalable.
They piped in jazzy music
And projected
instructional videos onto the wall
To help us get smarter.
Problem was that
The videos were for idiots
And so spent hours
Simplifying the obvious.
We had apple trees
“From which come apples!”
(everybody was fond of saying).
There was no shortage
Of lovemaking, alcohol,
Games of dodge ball.
If I ever get out,
I thought, I will
Kill all of them
In a genius manner.
The hug of an idiot child
Is still the hug of a child.
I learned to stop thinking so much
Of myself and just love people.
Their hearts.
Meanwhile, I took
An idiot bride
Who was very sweet and gave
me children:
One Two Three.
40
45
50
For their sake and fashion’s,
To wear a helmet even when I knew 55
I didn’t need it.
Because even the sharpest
children develop slowly, from
scratch,
--A. Franklin
34
Louis CK on wife’s digressions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRZd1I1hiqI
Holden’s Thoughts on Extemporaneous Speaking [Art of Freestyle]
(notice Salinger’s use of italics)
“What was the trouble?” Mr. Antolini asked me. “How’d you do in English? I’ll
show you the door if you flunked English, you little ace composition writer.”
“Oh, I passed English all right. It was mostly literature though. I only wrote
about two compositions the whole term,” I said. “I flunked Oral Expression. That I
flunked.”
“Why?”
“Oh, I don’t know.” I didn’t feel much like going into it. I was still feeling dizzy
or something, and I had a helluva headache all of a sudden. I really did. But you could
tell he was interested, so I told him a little bit about it. “It’s this course where each boy in
class has to get up and make a speech. You know. Spontaneous and all. And if the boy
digresses at all, you’re supposed to yell ‘Digression!’ at him as fast as you can. It just
about drove me crazy. I got an F in it.”
“Why?”
“Oh, I don’t know. That digression business got on my nerves. I don’t know.
The trouble with me is, I like it when somebody digresses. It’s more interesting and all.”
“You don’t care to have somebody stick to the point when he tells you
something?”
“Oh, sure! I like somebody to stick to the point and all. But I don’t like them to
stick too much to the point. I don’t know. I guess I don’t like it when somebody sticks to
the point all of the time. The boys that got the best marks in Oral Expression were the
ones that stuck to the point all the time—I admit it. But there was this one boy, Richard
Kinsella. He didn’t stick to the point too much, and they were always yelling
‘Digression!’ It was terrible, because in the first place, he was a very nervous guy—I
mean he was a very nervous guy—and his lips were always shaking whenever it was his
time to make a speech, and you could hardly hear him if you were sitting in the way back
of the room. When his lips sort of quit shaking a little bit, though, I liked his speeches
better than anybody else’s. He practically flunked the course, though, too. He got a D
plus because they kept yelling ‘Digression!’ at him all the time. For instance, he made
this speech about this farm his father bought in Vermont. They kept yelling ‘Digression!’
at him the whole time he was making it, and this teacher, Mr. Vinson, gave him an F on it
because he hadn’t told what kind of animals and vegetables and stuff grew on the farm
and all. What he did was, Richard Kinsella, he’d start telling you all about that stuff—
then all of a sudden he’d start telling you about this letter his mother got from his uncle,
and how his uncle got polio and all when he was forty-two years old, and how he
wouldn’t let anybody come to see him at the hospital because he didn’t want anybody to
see him with a brace on. It didn’t have much to do with the farm—I admit it—but it was
nice. It’s nice when somebody tells you about their uncle. Especially when they start
telling you about their father’s farm and then all of a sudden get more interested in their
uncle. I mean it’s dirty to keep yelling ‘Digression!’ at him when he’s all nice and
excited….”
“Holden…One short, faintly stuffy, pedagogical question. Don’t you think
there’s a time and place for everything? Don’t you think that if someone starts to tell you
35
about his father’s farm, he should stick to his guns, then get around to telling you about
his uncle’s brace? Or, if his uncle’s brace is such a provocative subject, shouldn’t he
have selected it in the first place as his subject—not the farm?”
“Yes—I don’t know. I guess he should. I mean I guess he should have picked his
uncle as a subject, instead of the farm, if that interested him most. But what I mean is,
lots of time you don’t know what interests you most till you start talking about something
that doesn’t interest you most. I mean you can’t help it sometimes. What I think is,
you’re supposed to leave somebody alone if he’s at least being interesting and he’s
getting all excited about something. I like it when somebody gets excited about
something. It’s nice. You just didn’t know this teacher, Mr. Vinson. He could drive you
crazy sometimes, him and the goddam class. I mean he’d keep telling you to unify and
simplify all the time. Some things you just can’t do that to. I mean just because
somebody wants you to. You didn’t know this guy, Mr. Vinson. I mean he was very
intelligent and all, but you could tell he didn’t have too much brains.”
From “Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong,” a chapter from Tim O’Brien’s The
Things They Carried
“Whenever he told the story, Rat had a tendency to stop now and then,
interrupting the flow, inserting little clarifications or bits of analysis and personal
opinion. It was a bad habit, Mitchell Sanders said, because all that matters is the
raw material, the stuff itself, and you can’t clutter it up with your own half-baked
commentary. That just breaks the spell. It destroys the magic. What you have to
do, Sanders said, is trust your own story. Get the hell out of the way and let it tell
itself.”
1. “It all depends…” as an answer is legit, but who is more with Holden and
who is more with Louis C.K. and Sanders, do you like digressions and find
them more interesting or do you need people to get to the point, get the
hell out of the way?
2. Given only a short time to prepare, how important is the skill of staying
on topic outside of school? When and where might digression be a
hindrance?
3. Should weeding out digressions be practiced (a traditional goal of
extemporaneous speaking)? And what do you think of this method to
yell out ‘Digression!’ when we notice it?
4. Should we all allow speakers to follow their hearts into endless
digressions? Or at some point can we say, “Hey, what’s your point?”
36
5. Mr. Antolini suggests an Oxymoron: MEASURED SPONTANEITY
(EFFICIENT AND GENUINE) How do we get a balance? Here is my
proposal. I think we should have many opportunities to practice
extemporaneous speaking without worrying at all about digressions so that
we can experience quick preparation and how long three minutes of speaking
feels. Maybe we’ll target cutting out digressions after a lot of practice. Later
we’ll use this skill so that you can give speeches that ignite
exuberant/enlightening discussions.
Over-prepare and then go with the flow.
Mr. Franklin has learned that Practicing Spontaneity is good for all speeches, but
also to be prepared and on point. My advice:
The beauty of living in the here and now is one of the reasons that I
love improvisation acting. I do some improvisation in teaching
students lessons. However, I’ve come to embrace the philosophy that
anybody who speaks to a group for whatever purpose should live, and
thus more likely thrive, by the motto: “Over-prepare and then go with
the flow.” I used to wing it a bit as a teacher—did the whole high-wire
act with tremendous here and now rewards and student epiphanies,
but that came also with a few low-energy days fraught with whole
audience dead silence and WTF, glazy-eyes (not just a teen thing). To
avoid those lulls, I’ve adopted the motto above. My advice to any
public speaker is to over-script and over-rehearse the speech/lesson
but be ready to abandon it if the audience/students are resistant or
confused or checked-out. Be open to here and now digressions away
from your slaved-over intended gift of a script if you spy a possible rich
exchange or serendipitous playful group-vibe.
37
Extemporaneous Speeches
Procedure
Watch video advice and performance from Debate Coach and Varsity debaters.
PREP (2 minutes)
1. Decide on 3 major focuses (see organizational tips)
2. Plan 3 key points to hit and a conclusion
DELIVERY (3 minutes)
3. During the 3 minute speech, allow yourself (as will all your
classmates and Mr. Franklin) heartfelt digressions (Kinsella’s uncle)
4. Either come back to some of your 3 key points and conclusion or
adjust on the fly.
5. In order to build confidence prior to being scored, you will
practice with a partner two times, then you will practice another
two times in a group of 5 peers who will give feedback that tests
the level of pith.
6. The 5th performance (live = lenient) or (videoed = one take rule) Either
way, they will be pith tested with follow up questions from the class.
Grading Criteria (30 points)
1. Pithy—precisely meaningful; forceful and brief (15 points)
2. Organized (see page 45 for great tips) w/No Mali Filler (i.e., umms, urrs,
like like like, you know, stuff like that) or long pauses or repetition, and
digressions don’t rob pith. (15 points)
38
IMPROMPTU
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
Tip: WHEN USING EXAMPLES, DESCRIBE
THEM FULLY AND EXPLAIN LESSONS LEARNED
TOPIC
Love
Occupy Wall
Street
POINT ONE
SMALL
Within family
POLITICAL
Could have
powerful effect on
balance of the
existing parties
Lower drinking
age to 18
IN FAVOR
Can vote, can
serve in military
Eyeglasses
PAST
Invented 800
years ago, with
Ben Franklin
inventing bifocals,
had problems
WOODROW
WILSON
Campaigned hard
for League of
Nations-ruined his
health
HISTORIC
EXAMPLE
300 Spartans
PROVIDE
DEFINITION
A symbol for
dispelling
darkness
CAUSES
Poverty, poor
education, difficult
economy
Vigor
Courage
Lamp
Crime
POINT TWO
MEDIUM
Within community
ECONOMIC
Rightfully believe
there is too much
corporate money
in politics and
banks are too big
AGAINST
Would increase
drunk driving
injuries and death
POINT THREE
BIG
Within the world
SOCIAL
Due to economic
crisis-lack of jobs,
especially for
young people, led
to movement
ADVOCASY
I either support or
don’t the conceptpick one and
explain
PRESENT
FUTURE
Contacts and laser Perhaps, alter
surgery
genes to avoid the
need
TEDDY
ROOSEVELT
Despite long odds,
and a loss,
campaigned hard
for Presidency
POLITICAL
EXAMPLE
Martin Luther King
ARGUMENT
It dispels the
darkness of
ignorance
PERSONAL
The toils of college
applications
EFFECTS
Devastating to
criminal in jail, the
community in
costs and suffering
SOLUTIONS
Governments to
advance more
economic help
and improve
education
39
LITERARY
EXAMPLE
Paradise Lost
ARGUMENT
It dispels the
darkness of
apathy
YOUR NEW WORLD (100 points) 
The Continuum Concept: In Search of Happiness Lost
by Jean
Liedloff (192 pages)
Rationale: Why was Mr. Franklin so insistent on establishing current empirical and
scientific data to claim and endorse a future that can adopt the good stuff in Huxley’s
Brave New World and Joseph’s Resource-Based Economy? Thank you for asking. 1)
empirical data and culling arguments made by many experts in various fields lends Ethos
to an argument, and 2) I want you to see how the arguments made by your chosen nonfiction author can help you envision ways to improve upon Huxley’s and Joseph’s worlds.
Maybe your author will even inspire you to seek new evidence in re-framing your ideas
and show you how to better craft the writing of your upcoming big persuasive speech.
Finally, 3) the content of these theories might get you thinking about yourself in new ways
and inspire you to see the world around you in new empirical frames.
Product
Please type answers to all of these questions before our seminar as a guide to your
listening and speaking.
1st ½ of book read and answered = 50 points: Due _____.
1. What concepts connect to Brave New World?
2. Since publishing the book is there more research and science to corroborate Liedloff's
claims?
3. Are we doing our children a disservice by using any modern child-rearing techniques
at all?
4. Are most of us victims of an incomplete childhood?
5. Is the average member of westernized society simply trying to fill some unnatural
emptiness created in its earliest and hardly memorable experiences?
6. Are major beliefs in our modern culture skewed (e.g. happiness is elusive and only to
be pursued but never attained)?
7. Is the most exhilarating experience in life `falling in love' or is this just a brief lapse
into the state of being we should be living our entire lives under?
8. Is the combination of our modern upbringing and the modern world we live in so grossly
mutated from the environment that mankind evolved in, that there is no way to adapt and
find our way back to intuitive living, and the kind of self-acceptance (being comfortable
in our own skins) that so many of us strive for?
9. At some point have a discussion with the group who read A General Theory of Love,
about what they learned of “Limbic Synchronicity”
10. How well does the author apply the Three Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (provide a
best, and a least effective appeals passages from the text, for each of the three appeals
= six passages as examples)?
11. Based on what you read in your group’s book, will you make any adjustments in how you
live your life (now or in the future)?
40
YOUR NEW WORLD (100 points) 
Mindfulness by Ellen J. Langer (204 pages)
Rationale: Why was Mr. Franklin so insistent on establishing current empirical and
scientific data to claim and endorse a future that can adopt the good stuff in Huxley’s
Brave New World and Joseph’s Resource-Based Economy? Thank you for asking. 1)
empirical data and culling arguments made by many experts in various fields lends
Ethos to an argument, and 2) I want you to see how the arguments made by your
chosen non-fiction author can help you envision ways to improve upon Huxley’s and
Joseph’s worlds. Maybe your author will even inspire you to seek new evidence in reframing your ideas and show you how to better craft the writing of your upcoming
big persuasive speech. Finally, 3) the content of these theories might get you
thinking about yourself in new ways and inspire you to see the world around you in
new empirical frames.
Product
Please type answers to all of these questions before our two seminars as a guide
to your listening and speaking.
1st ½ of book read and answered = 50 points: Due _____.
1. What concepts connect to Brave New World?
2. What is “premature cognitive commitment”? What other factors
contribute to Mindlessness? What does Langer suggest as remedies?
3. How well does the author apply the Three Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and
Logos (provide a best, and a least effective appeals passages from the
text, for each of the three appeals = six passages as examples)?
4. Based on what you read in your group’s book, will you make any adjustments in
how you live your life (now or in the future)?
5. Khan Academy and the Effectiveness of Science Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8 Consider using this in your
taught lesson.
41
YOUR NEW WORLD (100 points) 
A General Theory of Love by Thomas;Amini, Fari;Lannon, Richard Lewis (254 pages)
Rationale: Why was Mr. Franklin so insistent on establishing current empirical and
scientific data to claim and endorse a future that can adopt the good stuff in Huxley’s
Brave New World and Joseph’s Resource-Based Economy? Thank you for asking. 1)
empirical data and culling arguments made by many experts in various fields lends
Ethos to an argument, and 2) I want you to see how the arguments made by your
chosen non-fiction author can help you envision ways to improve upon Huxley’s and
Joseph’s worlds. Maybe your author will even inspire you to seek new evidence in reframing your ideas and show you how to better craft the writing of your upcoming
big persuasive speech. Finally, 3) the content of these theories might get you
thinking about yourself in new ways and inspire you to see the world around you in
new empirical frames.
Product
Please type answers to all of these questions before our two seminars as a guide to
your listening and speaking.
1st ½ of book read and answered = 50 points : Due _____.
1. What concepts connect to Brave New World?
2. What is limbic resonance?
3. What is limbic synchronicity (cite animal examples) and how does it get
developed? Why is it essential for psychiatrists to do a good job?
4. What do psychiatrists have to be careful not to get sucked into?
5. Have a dialogue with the Continuum Concept group about your understanding
of love in surrogates and how it applies to their author’s findings.
6. How well does the author apply the Three Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and
Logos (provide a best, and a least effective appeals passages from the text,
for each of the three appeals = six passages as examples)?
7. Based on what you read in your group’s book, will you make any adjustments in
how you live your life (now or in the future)?
42
Group Lesson on Non-Fiction Book (50 points)
After reading the 2nd Half of your chosen Non-Fiction book:
1. Present a quick overview of the scope of your book
2. Present a quick overview of the scope group members’ opinions on the applicability
of the theories in the book.
3. Use very little text if doing a Power-Point (Remember “Death by PPT.” Don’ts!)
4. Consider using an instructive Youtube video clip that lasts no longer than Four
minutes.
5. Follow up opinions (and optional video) with one or more of the following:
 Visuals (in the Power-Point or that you hold)
 Skit
 Music with projected lyrics
 Quiz
 Inter-textual points of reference (books we’ve all read, concepts from other
classes…overlap with other presentations)
6. MOST IMPORTANT: Any time you deliver a speech of any sort, go with the
“Over-prepare, then go with the flow!”
mantra:
7. After the 5 minute informational phase with all group members providing input, open
facilitation of 20 minute discussion with 2 or 3 key open-ended questions that allow
all of your classmates to speak with pith.
GRADING
YOUR grades are not tied to group performance, they are individual and I assess
them on the five minute informational portion delivered to the class as well as
the 20 minute facilitation of discussion. This is a matter of preparation. As I said:
“Over Prepare and then go with the flow!” That means you have to know more
than what you present in order to facilitate beyond the power-point phase. In the
computer lab and laptop time I provided you, I should witness you over43
preparing, whether your group members do or not. You may try to rally group
outside of class time, but know that, if that is the first and only time you attempt
to rally them, it will be too late to present something of good quality.
Proper preparation leads to
An “A” lesson that presents novel ideas that students can easily understand and
then engages the whole class using “so what?” commentary, then guides them
into deeper thinking. That guiding requires you to facilitate sustained discussion.
If it stalls a bit, you won’t panic because you know more than what you
presented and you can adjust by reading your audiences’ responses, you can
intuit what to ask next without the teacher’s input (though it may inspire even
the teacher to run with the ideas you present and become a participant).
A grade of B also elicits deep thought, but needs some teacher input to facilitate
it for 20 minutes.
A grade of C elicits some thought, but not as deep and needs teacher guidance.
A grade of D elicits clichés and sputters and will be mostly teacher directed.
An F stifles even the teacher in terms of what to discuss—little to no learning
comes from the lesson.
44
1. Why would children do this and it’s accepted, but not in the adult world? What
happens to adults who act like this?
2. When we want an audience to see something that is not what they are interested in,
how should we handle that?
3. How can a presenter transform the obvious and public into the intimacy of the
mysterious and private?
45
Epistemology
The branch of Philosophy that explores
the limits of what we can know and how
we come to know what we know.
1. Persuasion is augmented
when we speakers
demonstrate the what and the
how.
2. Sometimes persuasion
happens from dynamic
speakers who do not know
what they think they know or
who consciously deceive. As
listeners we will learn how to
spot falsehoods and
gracefully reply.
46
Certitude and Belief
“How do you know?”
Write definitions of three different degrees of truth:
Absolute/Universal:
Relative:
Subjective:
Our inner voices seem to suggest that we all want to know the truth. Even when the truth
is painful, we seem to be inclined toward truth rather than living under false pretenses.
1. Write 15 examples of how we know truth through each of the following “pathways”:
Empathy
Introspection
Instinct
Faith
Perception (5 senses)
Memory
Conscience
Logic
Practice
Perspective
Morals
Acquaintance
Authority (Experts)
Evidence
Teaching
2. Add any other avenues through which we arrive at truth.
3. Individually Rank these fifteen (or more) pathways from those that lead only to
Subjective belief (#1) to those which most likely will lead to Universal certitude (#15).
When done, explain your rankings with members in a group of four or five students.
4. Choose an all-star triad of pathways that combine to lead us to certitude. Write a short
paragraph explaining why that triad works best.
5. Which of the three degrees of truth do you value the most and why?
6. Prior to DWEK show Pre-cognative or Mis-Cognative video starting at 1:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8
Class Motto: Be Not Right, Be Less Wrong!
47
What Do You Know
1.
In the elevator were five men. All wore suits and ties and regarded each
other easily. Not friends perhaps, but companionable, certainly not adversaries.
There was a faint whiff of “we’re in this together” along with the Old Spice from
the oldest man, the senior IBM rep, and the fruiter scent from his younger
colleague, the more stylish technical top gun. The lead programmer from my
company smelled of green-bar computer paper and too many lunches eaten at his
desk. The man with the prep-school tie was our specialist – our in-house top gun.
He was a long-term consultant we’d hired six months ago, waffling still on his
decision to continue on as paid consultant, at a princely hourly wage, or to accept
the offer to join as a fulltime salaried employee with benefits. He had good skin
and bad hair in which far too many products fought for Exxon-slick supremacy.
2.
I smiled benignly at them and they all did the same. No one spoke. The
elevator rose. We were heading to the 35th floor, to the largest, most wellappointed conference room to meet with the CEO, the CFO, and the Directors of
each department. I was the Operations Manager, in charge of a small staff and
responsible for, among other things, seeing that the technology – an IBM
mainframe and ancillary telecommunications – that kept the company buzzing
along ran smoothly and with minimal interruption. I was also the de facto liaison
between Information Systems and each of the other departments; as it happened, I
was about the only person of rank in the department who could speak with others
without totally pissing them off. I had “people skills,” a necessary adjunct to any
progress our department made, but from the techie point of view, the equivalent of
a baseball player whose top skill is that he really knows how to apply eye-black on
sunny days.
3.
This was the mid-1980s and a new concept had recently sprung up:
computers no longer had to operate as stand-alone machines (terminals, they were
called, as in the end of the line, conversation over) hard-wired to a mainframe
computer that held all the data. This mainframe was the beast I fed and watered
and corralled as best I could. The concept to be presented to the big wigs was
called networking, a way to allow terminals to talk to one another. The tether to
the mother-ship would remain, but now, a certain discretionary conversation
between individual stations, via something called a Token Ring Network, was
possible.
4.
In light of the ubiquitous sharing of information personal computers and the
Internet have made so de rigueur, this idea of “dumb terminals” talking to each
other in such limited fashion seems quaint. At the time, and certainly in that
elevator, it was innovative, even radical stuff. The question, unspoken still as the
elevator doors opened to the lush beige carpeting of the corporate offices with
their floor to ceiling windows overlooking downtown San Francisco, was who
would helm this ship that promised to sail us into the unchartered waters of our
technological future.
48
I was not the smartest guy in the group – or maybe I was, but at the time I
don’t think I saw it that way. I definitely had the least technical aptitude. But I
had something over the other guys. I could read people, and I was more selfaware than any of them. One guy might review numbers in his head, another sees
algorithms, another strains against logical constraints looking for weaknesses, but
I realized that what was most important for this particular situation is to
understand exactly how much you know, and how to express that to best
advantage. Understanding what you know, and what you don’t know, and not
fooling yourself about this, is key. This means you know yourself and you can
accurately assess your own strengths and weaknesses in a given context, and that
you can then make the same assessment of those around you. The line between
knowing enough about something, or not, is a key demarcation; however, it is
often the perception others have of you in this regard that makes or breaks you.
6.
If you know too little, you risk banishment and shame. Relegated to a
supporting role of diminishing consequence, you become a mere token
representative of the project, with all the irony that implies. You lose access to not
only decision making, but to the decision makers; you’re out of the loop, out of the
action, off the fast-track and into the grandstands to watch as the future unfolds,
sans you. As the cutting-edge becomes reality, you don’t get your slice. You find
yourself stalled, fading, a hollow figure with an important title, which quickly gets
embarrassing. Future earnings are compromised and day-to-day function becomes
increasingly pedestrian. Not knowing enough – being found out in this regard – at
such a crucial moment, can be a career killer.
7.
However, knowing too much carries a terrible cost too. Should the
Excalibur to sever the umbilical cord of this new technology be handed your way,
you will of course feel the exhilaration of birthing this fantastic enterprise. But the
baby will teeth, it will get rashes and ear infections. Its nappies will need
changing and that will often be messy and horrifically challenging; the baby will
kick and scream and roll off the changing table just when you most need it to
cooperate and work efficiently. It will require feeding at ungodly hours and you
will go sleepless, your pager buzzing and beeping at 3 a.m. as glitches occur that
must be resolved before the workforce arrives at eight. The system will crash and
it will be because of your baby – your frustrating and demanding new networking
technology – often enough that every glitch and crash gets blamed on you. You
take the heat for everything from slow response time to the Kennedy assassination.
All the pointed fingers from frustrated peers who, often covertly, opted to abort
early-on and now resent the mere presence of this new entity that you cradle so
lovingly, are mixed to the beat of the CFO’s fist slamming on his desk and the
CEO stomping his wee enraged foot because everything doesn’t run smooth as
clockwork 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You must prove your baby’s worth
every minute because your worth, as a drawer of pay, as an intelligent human
5.
49
being, as a person of integrity and good intention, are inextricably tied to its
nurturance, growth, and prosperity.
8.
I had a vague notion of how Token Ring Networks actually worked, and
vague is probably a bit generous. I knew it was set up as a kind of star, with the
mainframe as a hub and arms going out to each station around it in a kind of circle,
and I knew that twisted-pair cabling was used to facilitate the movement of
something called a “token” around this “ring.” But I didn’t really get what this
meant actually. It seemed like a good idea to me though, this networking. It
seemed like the kind of thing that, with the right minds and right equipment, could
be done. I certainly didn’t know how to do it. I did know myself though, and I
know people, as I said, and by the time we’d exited the elevator and made our way
across the amber waves of grain carpet to the expansive conference room, I had
my companions sussed.
9.
Old Spice would nod sagely, probably even begin the conversation once we
were all seated. He’d want to assert his seniority. After introductory remarks,
he’d deftly hand off to Top Gun though, step back from the precipice onto solid
rock, a vantage point from which he could remain prominent and visibly incharge, still very much in the picture, but well back from the front lines action.
10. Top Gun was cocky and he’d get ahead of himself and be off the cliff ten
minutes in, arms flailing, with no real idea how he got there, and no way back. He
was simultaneously full of himself and entirely self-unaware at any level that
mattered. He had signed up for the guru role before he even stepped out of the
elevator, he just didn’t know it yet. The way he punched the elevator button for the
35th floor, rising up on his toes like he’d performed a noteworthy deed, that
surreptitious glance to be sure we saw him, that we were watching, his swagger
across the carpet and the way he held the conference room door for us all, the All
American golly-gee Boy Scoutness of him – how could he do otherwise?
11. Consultant would need to prove his worth; everyone knew, or assumed, he
was ridiculously over-paid, so he’d come off as the real expert; he had to out-guru
the IBM guru. This would actually relieve Top Gun considerably. Consultant was
no fool though. He’d been around. With a well-placed comment and a
strategically posed question, he’d enlist Burt the Programmer as workhorse. He’d
position it so Burt would have no choice in the matter. The nod of affirmation
from the CEO to Burt would seal the programmer’s fate. Consultant would get the
midnight phone call, but he’d have Burt on speed dial, and Burt would carry Top
Gun’s pager number close to his heart.
12. Me? I certainly couldn’t just sit there silently. I let the boys play their
game and set their roles, calmly interjecting “we can accommodate Top gun’s
concerns here by…” and “Burt’s efforts will be effective due to the…” to show
my efficacy and integral role in all that might transpire. I used just enough
technical jargon to impress the wigs, but not so much that the tech-gurus might
50
call me on something. I didn’t want to get out on the thin ice of arcane
explanations.
13. I came across as fully invested in the project, a key player, someone who
could be counted on to hold up his end. I would interface, frequently, with the
guys who “owned” the project and if it went well I’d be part of the reason it did.
If it went down the toilet, I’d be the guy who did all he could to save a misguided
effort. I was solid.
14. We rode back down in the elevator, back to the 28th floor inhabited by
Information Systems and Accounting, everyone musing on his own pressing piece
of the puzzle we’d just committed to putting together. I remember wondering as
we descended whether knowing people was really more important, more valuable,
than knowing things – factoids, code, data systems, the esoteria of the field – or if
I just thought so because that’s what I could do. The way I saw it, the meeting in
the conference room could’ve been about depreciation schedules and amortization
tables, or Kant’s logical proofs of the existence of God, or the false readings on
drug tests from participants who’ve eaten poppy seed muffins for breakfast. It
happened to be about Token Ring networking.
15. The problem at hand is never the problem you really need to solve – not in
this context at least. The start to any solution to most problems invariably
involves knowing what you know and what you don’t know and experiencing that
relative proportionality consciously. When you apply that specific consciousness
to what you observe around you, when you speak, it is because you understand
what’s going on, not because you want others to hear your “expert” voice. To do
this well requires patience and close listening, a kind of hyper-awareness of
yourself and your surroundings, a honing-in. As I’ve indicated, this awareness
will often make clear that what’s really going on at the most human level has little
to do with the ostensible matter at hand.
16. But is understanding psychology and what motivates people to say and do
particular things at particular times a kind of wisdom, or is it just clever
manipulation? Or is it just a question of elevating the significance of that with
which you are facile? Was it even fair, if that’s a question worth considering, that
Burt the programmer would bear the brunt of the work and take the lion’s share of
stress because even though he knew more computer science than I, he was unable
to articulate his position the way I could?
17. Some of this comes down to skill sets. Burt thought in terms of lines of
code and his speech often seemed a product of that, a series of banal distinctions
coupled like so many zeroes and ones which might, if one could follow the series
to its endpoint, produce something that made sense and worked, at least logically.
The problem was, nobody could ever hang with his obtuse utterances long enough
to get there. My skill set allowed me to articulate complex ideas such that anyone
– techies or lay-people – could comprehend them, even though I could not produce
the actual technology behind my words in any concrete pragmatic way. So, yes,
51
skill sets. But for me, this all goes to something deeper and more fundamentally
human; it is realizing that we all tell ourselves stories.
18. Tell yourself only true stories (as Bob Dylan puts it, “I don’t cheat on
myself, I don’t run and hide, hide from the feelings that are buried inside; I don’t
compromise, and I don’t pretend”), but be aware – be very aware – that most
people maintain a running narrative that merely shadows the truth of what they
really know, or don’t know. They hide in these shadows because the brightness
beyond them is often unbearable. They don’t want to look that clearly at
themselves, and so they tell themselves the story they most want to hear, with all
the occlusions and delusions that entails. If you shine a light quickly and
precisely, you can work with their narrative such that it continues for them
uninterrupted, while still allowing you the glimpse you need to understand what’s
really going on between you, and by extension, between everyone present.
19. Once you understand how this works, you need to decide how you’re
going to use this knowledge. You do not have to become a con man, a
manipulator of people, a destroyer of dreams. You do not have to search
constantly for weakness with the goal of exploiting it. You can – and I strive to do
this every day – perceive the stories around you with empathy in your heart.
20. While it’s true that I positioned myself well in terms of the networking
project on that day so long ago, it’s also true that I brought much support to Burt
the programmer when he was buried beneath mountains of stress. Burt was smart
but fundamentally inarticulate when it mattered, and I stepped in at key times to
voice what he could not. I could have used Burt’s techie arrogance and lack of
facility with expression (he had zero tolerance for anyone who could not
appreciate technology in its grand and most minute forms, and he was not only
intolerably insensitive about this, but incapable of linking his gibbering
explanations to the incomprehension he wrought) to put him down and maybe
even to improve my own standing with the big wigs, but instead I chose to honor
the talent he brought to the table and to use the abilities I had to ease his burden.
This allowed him to get more work done and to appear to be on top of things, and
he was incoherently grateful. Everything improved; we moved forward; we
progressed.
21. I helped Top Gun understand that yelping one’s attributes might not
always be the smartest tactic. Time and again, he over-extended himself. He took
on far more than he could handle because the story he told himself was wrapped
up in expertise and leadership and the glory of leading the charge. This was,
unfortunately, not a true story. He wasn’t Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; frankly – and
he could never bring himself to admit this – he wasn’t even Consultant. Again, I
could easily have watched him crawl out on those limbs and cackle with glee as
they cracked beneath his cumbersome ineffectiveness, but I recognized how lost
he was in the narrative he swirled around himself, and so I threw him a lifeline
now and then. I pointed him at discrete subsets of the project that he could in fact
52
lead to fruition, and when he opened up wide to chew off something too big, I
subtly redirected him toward smaller, but equally juicy, bites of the pie. It took a
while, but eventually he caught on, and he began to prosper. Not only did this feel
like the right thing to do, it bore practical results. The project moved forward; we
progressed.
22. It’s important to know what you know, and what you don’t know. It’s
important to consciously weigh your strengths and weaknesses in this regard, and
to be honest with yourself about what you discover. If you can understand what
you really know, and you don’t delude yourself, you can then begin to understand
why other people might be acting the way they do, and you can learn to interact
with them more successfully because of it. None of this matters though unless
intentionality is part of the discussion. You can’t go to bed telling yourself you’re
a fine person when you haven’t used what you know to improve conditions around
yourself. I believe that those who have a wider sphere of influence have as much
responsibility in this regard as those of us who affect only a relatively small circle
of others. You might not save everyone, but you can catch those close to you, or
those meaningful to you in some way, before they fall. Otherwise, what does it
matter what you know?
53
Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth
N.Y. Times By PATRICIA COHEN June 14, 2011
Pre-read Terms to know:
1. Confirmation Bias, 2. Falsification, 3. Deliberative Democracy
Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different
purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but
we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion
to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other
supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that
enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however
sharply it may depart from the truth. The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of
reasoning, is the brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred
excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, political scientists,
educators and psychologists, some of whom say it offers profound insight into the
way people think and behave. The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted
its April issue to debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything
from the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication. “Reasoning
doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better
decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan
Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others
and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the
point. Indeed, Mr. Sperber, a member of the Jean-Nicod research institute in Paris,
first developed a version of the theory in 2000 to explain why evolution did not make
the manifold flaws in reasoning go the way of the prehensile tail and the four-legged
stride. Looking at a large body of psychological research, Mr. Sperber wanted to
figure out why people persisted in picking out evidence that supported their views
and ignored the rest — what is known as confirmation bias — leading them to hold
on to a belief doggedly in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Other scholars
have previously argued that reasoning and irrationality are both products of
evolution. But they usually assume that the purpose of reasoning is to help an
individual arrive at the truth, and that irrationality is a kink in that process, a sort of
mental myopia. Gary F. Marcus, for example, a psychology professor at New York
University and the author of “Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human
Mind,” says distortions in reasoning are unintended side effects of blind evolution.
They are a result of the way that the brain, a Rube Goldberg mental contraption,
54
processes memory. People are more likely to remember items they are familiar with,
like their own beliefs, rather than those of others.
What is revolutionary about argumentative theory is that it presumes that since
reason has a different purpose — to win over an opposing group — flawed reasoning
is an adaptation in itself, useful for bolstering debating skills. Mr. Mercier, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, contends that attempts to rid
people of biases have failed because reasoning does exactly what it is supposed to do:
help win an argument. “People have been trying to reform something that works
perfectly well,” he said, “as if they had decided that hands were made for walking and
that everybody should be taught that.” Think of the American judicial system, in
which the prosecutors and defense lawyers each have a mission to construct the
strongest possible argument. The belief is that this process will reveal the truth, just
as the best idea will triumph in what John Stuart Mill called the “marketplace of
ideas.”
Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber have skeptics as well as fans. Darcia Narvaez, an
associate professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame and a contributor
to the journal debate, said this theory “fits into evolutionary psychology mainstream
thinking at the moment, that everything we do is motivated by selfishness and
manipulating others, which is, in my view, crazy.”
To Ms. Narvaez, “reasoning is something that develops from experience; it’s a subset
of what we really know.” And much of what we know cannot be put into words, she
explained, pointing out that language evolved relatively late in human development.
“The way we use our minds to navigate the social and general worlds involves a lot of
things that are implicit, not explainable,” she said.
On the other side of the divide, Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the
University of Virginia, said of Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier, “Their work is important
and points to some ways that the limits of reason can be overcome by putting people
together in the right way, in particular to challenge people’s confirmation biases.”
This “powerful idea,”
he added, could have important real-world implications.
55
As some journal contributors noted, the theory would seem to predict constant
deadlock. But Mr. Sperber and Mr. Mercier contend that as people became better at
producing and picking apart arguments, their assessment skills evolved as well.
“At least in some cultural contexts, this results in a kind of arms race towards greater
sophistication in the production and evaluation of arguments,” they write. “When
people are motivated to reason, they do a better job at accepting only sound
arguments, which is quite generally to their advantage.” Groups are more likely than
individuals to come up with better results, they say, because they will be exposed to
the best arguments.
Mr. Mercier is enthusiastic about the theory’s potential applications. He suggests, for
example, that children may have an easier time learning abstract topics in
mathematics or physics if they are put into a group and allowed to reason through a
problem together.
He has also recently been at work applying the theory to politics. In a new paper, he
and Hélène Landemore, an assistant professor of political science at Yale, propose
that the arguing and assessment skills employed by groups make democratic debate
the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or
moral rationales. How, then, do the academics explain the endless stalemates in
Congress? “It doesn’t seem to work in the U.S.,” Mr. Mercier conceded.
He and Ms. Landemore suggest that reasoned discussion works best in smaller,
cooperative environments rather than in America’s high-decibel adversarial system,
in which partisans seek to score political advantage rather than arrive at consensus.
Because “individual reasoning mechanisms work best when used to produce and
evaluate arguments during a public deliberation,” Mr. Mercier and Ms. Landemore,
as a practical matter, endorse the theory of deliberative democracy, an approach that
arose in the 1980s, which envisions cooperative town-hall-style deliberations.
Championed by the philosophers John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, this sort of
collaborative forum can overcome the tendency of groups to polarize at the extremes
and deadlock, Ms. Landemore and Mr. Mercier said.
Anyone who enjoys “spending endless hours debating ideas” should appreciate their
views, Mr. Mercier and Mr. Sperber write, though, as even they note, “This, of
course, is not an argument for (or against) the theory.”
56
from The Elegance of the Hedgehog: “A fascinating phenomenon: the ability
we have to manipulate ourselves so that the foundation of our beliefs is never
shaken.” Please shake yourselves this semester with the…
Eleven Virtues of Rationality
1. The first virtue is curiosity. A burning itch to know is higher than a solemn vow to
pursue truth. To feel the burning itch of curiosity requires both that you be ignorant,
and that you desire to relinquish your ignorance. If in your heart you believe you
already know, or if in your heart you do not wish to know, then your questioning will
be purposeless and your skills without direction. Curiosity seeks to annihilate itself;
there is no curiosity that does not want an answer. The glorious mystery is to be
solved, after which it ceases to be mystery.
2. The second virtue is relinquishment. Taylor Mali said, “Changing your mind is one
of the best ways to see if you still have one.” P. C. Hodgell said: “That which can be
destroyed by the truth should be.” Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a
mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts.
3. The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though
you are a leaf, with no direction of your own. Beware lest you fight a rearguard
retreat against the evidence, grudgingly conceding each foot of ground only when
forced, feeling cheated. Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can. Do this the
instant you realize what you are resisting; the instant you can see from which quarter
the winds of evidence are blowing against you. Be faithless to your cause and betray
it to a stronger enemy. If you regard evidence as a constraint and yet still seek to
free yourself, you lock yourself into the chains of your whims. BEWARE THE
“STUDIES SHOW” PLOY: Play “Reconsider Everything” by 311.
4. The fourth virtue is evenness. One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence
permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force
me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions
you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you
attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data,
then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which
arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw
you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider. “He uses statistics like
a drunkard uses lamp-posts, more for support than illumination.” To
be clever in argument is not rationality but rationalization. Intelligence, to be useful,
must be used for something other than defeating itself. Listen to hypotheses as they
plead their cases before you, but remember that you are not a hypothesis, you are
the judge. Therefore do not seek to argue for one side or another, for if you knew
your destination, you would already be there.
5. The fifth virtue is argument. “It is better to debate a question without settling it
than to settle the question without debating it”--Joseph Joubert. Those who
wish to fail must first prevent their friends from helping them. Those who smile wisely
and say: “I will not argue” remove themselves from help, and withdraw from the
communal effort. In argument strive for exact honesty, for the sake of others and also
57
yourself: The part of yourself that distorts what you say to others also distorts your
own thoughts. Do not believe you do others a favor if you accept their arguments; the
favor is to you. Do not think that fairness to all sides means balancing yourself evenly
between positions; truth is not handed out in equal portions before the start of a
debate. You cannot move forward on factual questions by fighting with fists or
insults. Seek a test that lets reality judge between you.
6. The sixth virtue is empiricism (basis of science). The roots of knowledge are in
direct observation and its fruit is prediction. Do not be blinded by words. When words
are subtracted, anticipation remains.
7. The seventh virtue is simplicity. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said: “Perfection is
achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away.” Simplicity is virtuous in belief, design, planning, and justification. When you
profess a huge belief with many details, each additional detail is another chance for
the belief to be wrong. Each specification adds to your burden; if you can lighten your
burden you must do so. There is no straw that lacks the power to break your back.
Of plans it is said: A tangled web breaks. A chain of a thousand links will arrive at a
correct conclusion if every step is correct, but if one step is wrong it may carry you
anywhere. In mathematics, a mountain of good deeds cannot atone for a single sin.
Therefore, be careful on every step. [WORDS ARE IN TRUTH, BUT THE WHOLE
TRUTH IS NOT IN WORDS]. Stay bite-sized in argument and choose the spirit of
inquiry once the bounds of the argument have been crossed. This is anti-SPREAD
and how to defeat jerks like Virginia Ryerson from Rocket Science
8. The eighth virtue is humility. To be humble is to take specific actions in anticipation
of your own errors. To confess your fallibility and then do nothing about it is not
humble; it is boasting of your modesty. Who are most humble? Those who most
skillfully prepare for the deepest and most catastrophic errors in their own beliefs and
plans. Because this world contains many whose grasp of rationality is abysmal,
beginning students of rationality win arguments and acquire an exaggerated view of
their own abilities. But it is useless to be superior: Life is not graded on a curve. The
best physicist in ancient Greece could not calculate the path of a falling apple. There
is no guarantee that adequacy is possible given your hardest effort; therefore, spare
no thought for whether others are doing worse. If you compare yourself to others you
will not see the biases that all humans share. To be human is to make ten thousand
errors. No one in this world achieves perfection.
9. The ninth virtue is perfectionism. The more errors you correct in yourself, the more
you notice. As your mind becomes more silent, you hear more noise. When you
notice an error in yourself, this signals your readiness to seek advancement to the
next level. If you tolerate the error rather than correcting it, you will not advance to
the next level and you will not gain the skill to notice new errors. In every art, if you
do not seek perfection you will halt before taking your first steps. If perfection is
impossible that is no excuse for not trying. Hold yourself to the highest standard you
can imagine, and look for one still higher. Do not be content with the answer that is
almost right; seek one that is exactly right.
10. The tenth virtue is precision. One comes and says: The quantity is between 1 and
100. Another says: the quantity is between 40 and 50. If the quantity is 42 they are
58
both correct, but the second prediction was more useful and exposed itself to a
stricter test. What is true of one apple may not be true of another apple; thus more
can be said about a single apple than about all the apples in the world. The
narrowest statements slice deepest, the cutting edge of the blade. As with the map,
so too with the art of mapmaking: The Way is a precise Art. Do not walk to the truth,
but dance. On each and every step of that dance your foot comes down in exactly
the right spot. Each piece of evidence shifts your beliefs by exactly the right amount,
neither more nor less. What is exactly the right amount? To calculate this you must
study probability theory. Even if you cannot do the math, knowing that the math
exists tells you that the dance step is precise and has no room in it for your whims.
11. The eleventh virtue is scholarship. Study many sciences and absorb their power as
your own. Each field that you consume makes you larger. If you swallow enough
sciences the gaps between them will diminish and your knowledge will become a
unified whole. If you are gluttonous you will become vaster than mountains. It is
especially important to eat math and science which impinges upon rationality:
Evolutionary psychology, heuristics and biases, social psychology, probability theory,
decision theory. But these cannot be the only fields you study. The Art must have a
purpose other than itself, or it collapses into infinite recursion.
Curiosity, relinquishment, lightness, evenness, argument, empiricism, simplicity, humility,
perfectionism, precision, scholarship.
This document is ©2006 by Eliezer Yudkowsky and free under the Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License for copying and distribution, so long as
the work is attributed and the text is unaltered.
R CHAPS SLEEP, making us HOT!
“The Truth dazzles gradually or else the whole world would be blind.”
–Emily Dickenson
COMPUTER LAB ASSIGNMENT
Kate Kiehfuss
How To Share Your Opinion On A Controversial Topic
59
Why practice the virtue HUMILITY? Marcus Aurelius stated once:
"One person's opinion is not necessarily a fact, and one person's
perspective is not necessarily the truth."
Argument Clinic
BACON BLIND SPOT
Nearly 300 years ago, Francis Bacon provided a thorough account
of the misunderstandings we heap atop heaps of misunderstandings
through a habit of mind that too easily keeps verifying our favored
and unexamined models, theories, analogies, and viewpoints.
“The human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose
the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it can
actually prove…”
[If true, Why?]
60
“…When human understanding has once adopted an opinion, it
will draw all things else to support and agree with it…
A Counterpoint Habit of Mind
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold opposing ideas in the mind at the
same time yet retain the ability to function.”
--Fitzgerald
from “The Crack-Up”
Ever feel as though you were making a point during an argument (however petty) and it
was not heard? This is probably because your opponent didn’t address the point, but was
so anxious to prove their opinion that they drifted off to some unrelated argument they
had “confirmed” as right before the topic even came up.
For example, you say, “One benefit of Crew is that it has the highest GPA of any
Redwood team.” You opponent then says, “They eat their own offspring.”
Do you think you’ve ever made someone else feel unheard? I know I have, but I’m
working on listening to the actual points made rather than forming only one-sided points
to spew out in any random sequence, ignoring the other person as she speaks.
Knowing what Francis Bacon had to say about the inertia of opinions (the Bacon Blind
Spot or square 4 on the knowledge quadrant) and seeing how well a demagogue such as
Hitler can move opinion to certitude and action (especially through exploiting instinctual
impulses of crowds), perhaps a good way to maintain a first-rate intelligence in a sea of
persuasion is to develop a counterpoint habit of mind. This is not simply suggesting that
we be skeptics for being a skeptic sake—contrarians tend to lose friends and devil’s
advocates belong in hell—no, a counterpoint mind decreases its own blindness and tends
to make other people feel heard and thus keeps them from shouting
How can we do it? Let’s remove bias by removing opinion:
We’ll phrase a resolution such as “Be it resolved: we shall double our taxes for welfare.”
1. All students will have 4 minutes to T-Chart bullet-point reasons for the resolution and
reasons against the resolution. You will want to provide a fairly equal number of
reasons on both sides because a) other people may say the same thing you thought of
and you want to contribute more and b) correlations can be better mapped out across
the chart.
2. Counterpoints start with Student A
61





Student A pro statement: “Tens of thousands of children go to sleep
hungry.”…
Student B will make a counterpoint that directly addresses the logic of Student
A: “Some people spend money on luxury cars rather than food.” …
Student C counterpoint to B on pro-side: “You can’t use food stamps o buy
cars.”…
D counterpoints C: “Some people sell food stamps over time for big cash”…
E counterpoints D: “My father didn’t and I only ate because he had help”…
Note that E use personal experience (pathos) to move discussion from the abstract
to the concrete.
Rules of Engagement
1. No statement/reason may be repeated
2. All statements must counter the previous statement (use a
phrase form the previous statement)
3. No statement may contain multiple points (KISS) Observe
the two sentence maximum.
Argument Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Rogerian Method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9knvRXU8zQ
He uses statistics like a drunkard uses lamp-posts, more
for support than illumination.
Romano Prodi
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/romanoprod385384.html
62
Listen to “Nut-job phone call”
What responsibility do we have as a society toward the mentally ill?
Scenario:
A 45-year old man spends his days and nights walking up and down 4th Street in
San Rafael, throwing his arms in the air, screaming at passersby about the “spiders!” He
scares kids. He impacts local businesses because people don’t want to interact with him,
so they stay away.
Let’s assume that he is arrested for disturbing the peace. Let’s also assume, (either
he is given a psychological evaluation or we have his medical history) that he has
schizophrenia or OCD. Let’s also assume that we can’t track down any relatives.
What should happen to him?
Should he be imprisoned?
Should he be forced into a state-run mental hospital?
Should he be allowed to roam the streets? What if I put that differently: should he be
allowed to live his life the way he chooses?
Should he be forced to take medication?
Here are a series of questions to think about as you consider society’s responsibility to
the mentally ill:
1.
2.
Does his age matter? What if he were 17? Or 77?
What if he is 44 years old and his parents are living but not financially secure
enough to pay for medical treatment? What if he has distant relatives (cousins) but
they live in a different state?
3.
What if he has a history of violence?
4.
What if it costs $35K/year to keep him in a state-run mental institution but $20K
to keep him in prison? Should the taxpayer pick up one of these costs?
5.
What if, instead of him being a 44-year-old man who yells at passersby, the
person we are talking about is a 35-year old woman who spends her days with a
panhandling sign near a freeway entrance, but she has the same mental disorder? Are
our responsibilities any different?
I’m sure there are lots of other twists we can add, but try to come up with a sound policy
that would be useful no matter what the twists.
Just one thing I want you to remember: he or she is a human being, and we who
encounter him/her are also human beings.
63
Part II of
What to Do with the Mentally Ill?
Proposed Policy
Imagine that the federal government decided that this issue should be left up to the states to
decide for themselves.
Now imagine that the California State Government created this new policy:
Because we believe that mental sickness deserves no less treatment than physical
sickness, the State of California from this point forward must make a concerted effort to identify
all residents who suffer from a mental disorder and treat those mentally ill patients who can’t
afford treatments themselves.
To accomplish this goal, we mandate the following actions:
-anybody who has been diagnosed by a certified California doctor as having a mental illness must
be registered in a statewide database.
-local law enforcement agencies must administer a psychological evaluation to any law-breaking
citizens who demonstrate psychotic tendencies. Those found to suffer from a mental disorder
must be registered in the statewide database.
-homeless shelters and soup kitchens must also administer psychological tests to determine those
clients who suffer from a mental disorder. Those found to suffer from a mental disorder must be
registered in the statewide database.
-local and state governments must establish an outreach program to evaluate the mental health of
homeless citizens and vagrants who do not utilize the services of soup kitchens and homeless
shelters. Those found with a mental disability must be registered in the state database.
-the state must establish a fund to pay for the treatments of those patients on the mentally disabled
registry who cannot afford to pay for treatment themselves.
-the state must establish a method of monitoring whether patients follow the treatment protocols
paid for by state funds.
-states must determine the punishments or next steps for patients receiving state funds who do not
follow treatment protocols.
I am going to put you into groups of 3 or 4. Discuss the proposed policy with your group
members and answer three questions:
1. How does this policy impact your group?
2. What changes would you like to see made to the policy?
3. How will those changes impact your group? Speculate how it will impact the other groups.
Groups
a. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), protects the rights of citizens
b. Police Officers Association of California
c. The Board of the California Prison Association
d. An advocacy group of relatives of people with mental disabilities
e. California Chamber of Commerce
f. Board of California Mental Health Doctors
g. Watchdog Group of Californians for Tax Relief
64
Show “Storm”
Show Intellectual Property Debate Slam Style from Ryan Twins
EQ #16
65
BNW done! Hey Mon[d] (get it), what’s your Brave New World? On Well
Being
Assuming that it is more difficult to satisfy the needs of all humans, than of a nation,
and that it is more difficult to satisfy the needs of a nation than of a
community…than of a family,….than of yourself, what group matters most to your
well-being? Use polleverywhere.com for multiple choice of a) humans, b) U.S.
citizens, c) Redwood students and parents, d) family, e) self
MISSION STATEMENT [Updated April 24th '11]
After [no knee-jerking please] reading the introduction below we’ll watch and discuss
the level of pragmatism in Peter Joseph’s vision from his talks and interviews.
See 19 minute intro to resource-based economy video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization
which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network
of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, Media and Charity Work.
The Movement's principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the
social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result
of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of "human nature"
or other commonly held assumptions of causality in the activist community. Rather,
The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse,
homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be "Symptoms" born out of an
outdated social structure.
While intermediate Reform steps and temporal Community Support are of interest to
The Movement, the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic
model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and
66
Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning
problems and finding optimized solutions.
This "Resource-Based Economic Model” is about taking a direct technical approach to
social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about
updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science
has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions
which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits,
corporations and other structural and motivational components.
The Movement is loyal to a train of thought, not figures or institutions. In other
words, the view held is that through the use of socially targeted research and tested
understandings in Science and Technology, we are now able to logically arrive at
societal applications which could be profoundly more effective in meeting the needs
of the human population. In fact, so much so, that there is little reason to assume
war, poverty, most crimes and many other money-based scarcity effects common in
our current model cannot be resolved over time. The range of The Movement's
Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model
based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication. The long term view,
which is the transition into a Resource-Based Economic Model, is a constant pursuit
and expression, as stated before. However, in the path to get there, The Movement
also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct
Community Support. For instance, while "Monetary Reform" itself is not an end
solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still
considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity. Likewise, while
food and clothes drives and other supportive projects to help those in need today is
also not considered a long term solution, it is still considered valid in the context of
helping others in a time of need, while also drawing awareness to the principle goal.
The Zeitgeist Movement also has no allegiance to a country or traditional political
platforms. It views the world as a single system and the human species as a single
family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources
and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run. Hence, the solutions arrived at and
promoted are in the interest to help everyone on the planet Earth, not a select
group.
67
Who feels as though you’ve not only memorized the 11 virtues of rationality, but that you can also
recognize HOTness when you hear it?
Test: If the debate resolution is “Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose should be used as incentive for better
work production more than above the water-line pay.”
Which Virtue is most in play in the following Example?
1.
Party A says: “Everybody wants to be richer than everybody else.”
2.
Party B asks: “Everybody wants to be richer. You sure? I don’t.”
3.
Party A says: “Well, the majority.”
4.
Party B says: “How much of the majority, 80%...51% and what is your evidence?”
5.
Party C chimes in on Party A’s side: “I don’t want a Lamborghini if everyone’s got one.”
1st Name Party B’s operative Virtue__________
What is the level of Truth used by party C in # 5 above? a) absolute, b) relative, c) subjective
“Yes,” you say, “But Party B used a subjective truth in #2 above, the ‘I don’t.”
True, but a debater can use Subjective Truth to counter an “All people…” statement, however, a debater
can’t use a subjective truth to fully confirm an “All people...” statement
Who feels that you can not only recognize HOTness when you hear it, but also, you are getting HOTer?
______________________________________________________________________________________
The Crossover from Virtue to Fallacy
If a substantial # of people were polled and the results yielded the evidence:
“79% of Americans say they would not want a Lamborghini if everyone else had one.”
And if that stat was used by the Con team as evidence to support the premise “The promise of purchasing
luxury that others won’t have motivates people to work hard…”
Then what fallacy could you, the pro team, cite in the other con team’s conclusion from that evidence as a
premise:
“How can 79% of Americans be wrong about what motivates them? Perhaps the 21% who do not feel that
way are wrong!”
______________________________________________________________________________________
In Fall of 2011, after we watched Dan Pink’s RSA-Animate lecture, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About
What Motivates Us.” Half a dozen people told me that it was the most persuasive speech they had yet
heard in the class [truth? Poll]. I think that it was most effective as a follow-up to our Brave New World
discussions and the other of Peter Joseph’s speeches and our discussions of them. I hope that all the other
practice of arguing with the 11 virtues in mind was like the 5 people who attempt to open the mayonnaise
jar, with the last guy in the family, Dan Pink getting the credit. In other words the context of
68
contemplating possible, if not probable future worlds that set up his speech, made his science and
credibility that much truer, and more importantly meaningful [True? Poll].
Even if you are not convinced that moving toward a Resource-Based Economy would be wise, I’d just like
to point out that your arguing and relinquishments to new mini truths over the past month waxes me
optimistic and grateful (two of the 7 performance characteristics). You smart (sorry, I know that’s bad for
your self-esteem to call you smart) Redwood students, and I know this, maaaan! can move past cynicism
and apply rationality to come up with and even implement the best flotation-solutions to the eight-ninths
of humanity currently drowning under the iceberg. What a glorious challenge! I seriously do not think it
is too big for you to do.
BTW: We had no time to debrief Pink’s lecture…Can you summarize the important points? Point out the
reasons he provides for optimism? And call attention to any contradictions he has found in relation to
Peter Joseph’s vision?
Triangle of three Societies with different central aims
BNW goal = Happiness
Resource Based Economy aim = Basic Needs
Monetary Economy aim or inevitability = 11% above water and .5% atop Iceberg
RBE is not about making us all equal and does not prohibit creativity as in BNW nor
achieving from own decision to make the world what you want it or not do anything.
When a few people’s wants trump the majority’s needs, the system is not serving
humanity.
69
The Three Appeals of Argument
Aristotle postulated three argumentative appeals: logical, ethical, and
emotional. Strong arguments have a balance of all of three, though logical
(logos) is essential for a strong, valid argument. Appeals, however, can also
be misused, creating arguments that are not credible.
Logical Appeal (logos)
Logical appeal is the strategic use of logic, claims, and evidence to convince
an audience of a certain point.
When used correctly, logical appeal contains the following
elements...






Strong, clear claims
Reasonable qualifiers for claims
Warrants that are valid
Clear reasons for claims
Strong evidence (facts, statistics, personal experience, expert
authority, interviews, observations, anecdotes)
Acknowledgement of the opposition
When used poorly, logical appeals may include...





Over-generalized claims
Reasons that are not fully explained or supported
Logical fallacies
Evidence misused or ignored
No recognition of opposing views
Ethical Appeal (ethos)
Ethical appeal is used to establish the writer as fair, open-minded, honest,
and knowledgeable about the subject matter. The writer creates a sense of
him or herself as trustworthy and credible.
When used correctly, the writer is seen as...
70





Well-informed about the topic
Confident in his or her position
Sincere and honest
Understanding of the reader's concerns and possible objections
Humane and considerate
When used incorrectly, the writer can be viewed as...




Unfair or dishonest
Distorting or misrepresenting information (biased)
Insulting or dismissive of other viewpoints
Advocating intolerant ideas
Emotional Appeal (pathos)
Not surprisingly, emotional appeals target the emotions of the reader to
create some kind of connection with the writer. Since humans are in many
ways emotional creatures, pathos can be a very powerful strategy in
argument. For this same reason, however, emotional appeal is often
misused...sometimes to intentionally mislead readers or to hide an
argument that is weak in logical appeal. A lot of visual appeal is emotional
in nature (think of advertisements, with their powerful imagery, colors,
fonts, and symbols).
When done well, emotional appeals...




Reinforce logical arguments
Use diction and imagery to create a bond with the reader in a
human way
Appeal to idealism, beauty, humor, nostalgia, or pity (or other
emotions) in a balanced way
Are presented in a fair manner
When used improperly, emotional appeals...




Become a substitute for logic and reason (TV and magazine
advertising often relies heavily on emotional rather than logical
appeal)
Uses stereotypes to pit one group of people against another
(propaganda and some political advertising does this)
Offers a simple, unthinking reaction to a complex problem
Takes advantage of emotions to manipulate (through fear, hate,
pity, prejudice, embarrassment, lust, or other feelings) rather than
convince credibly
Ethos pathos logos of Drug Zone speech by Major Colvin THEN
What’s worse: Mobster Bootleggers or Bartenders (93,000 Bars in America)
71
Fallacies
"Being logical" is something anyone
can do, with practice!
The following are common logical fallacies, which you may encounter in your own
writing and public speaking or the writing and public speaking of others. I’ve provided
definitions, examples, and tips on calling attention to these fallacies.
Introduction: Arguments
Most academic writing tasks require you to make an argument--that is, to present reasons
for a particular claim or interpretation you are putting forward. You may have been told
that you need to make your arguments more logical or stronger. And you may have
worried that you simply aren't a logical person or wondered what it means for an
argument to be strong. Learning to make the best arguments you can is an ongoing
process, but it isn't impossible: "Being logical" is something anyone can do, with
practice! Each argument you make is composed of premises (this is a term for statements
that express your reasons or evidence) that are arranged in the right way to support your
conclusion (the main claim or interpretation you are offering). You can make your
arguments stronger by
1. using good premises (ones you have good reason to believe are both true and
relevant to the issue at hand),
2. making sure your premises provide good support for your conclusion (and not
some other conclusion, or no conclusion at all),
3. checking that you have addressed the most important or relevant aspects of
the issue (that is, that your premises and conclusion focus on what is really
important to the issue you're arguing about), and
4. not making claims that are so strong or sweeping that you can't really
support them.
You also need to be sure that you present all of your ideas in an orderly fashion that
readers can follow.
72
This handout describes some ways in which arguments often fail to do the things listed
above; these failings are called fallacies (sometimes used intentionally to manipulate
or deceive an audience). If you're having trouble developing your argument, check to
see if a fallacy is part of the problem!
It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings
about your topic--if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you're more likely to just assume
that it is true and to be careless with your evidence. To help you see how people
commonly make this mistake, this handout uses a number of controversial political
examples--arguments about subjects such as abortion, gun control, the death penalty, gay
marriage, euthanasia, and pornography. The purpose of this handout, though, is not to
argue for any particular position on any of these issues; rather, it is to illustrate weak
reasoning, which can happen in pretty much any kind of argument! Please be aware that
the claims in these examples are just made-up illustrations—they haven't been
researched, so you shouldn't use them as evidence in your own writing.
What are fallacies?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own
and others' writing/speeches, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments
you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First,
fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the
casual reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in
newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate
whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak,
somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have
some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach
you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at
your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and toward the "strong" end
of the continuum.
So what do fallacies look like?
Youtube and view all of PhilosophyFreak's examples on argumentation and fallacies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdK7Lirngg&list=PLFA7A1828F43E3E39
and check out this overview on how to write with sound logic and avoiding fallacies
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/what-are-logical-fallacies---define-identify-andavoid-them.html
For each fallacy listed bellow, there is a definition or explanation, an example, and a tip
on how to avoid committing the fallacy in your own arguments.
1. Hasty generalization
Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a
sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). Stereotypes
73
about people ("frat boys are drunkards," "grad students are nerdy," “Members of Crew
are cultlike etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.
Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard,
too. All philosophy classes must be hard!" Two people's experiences are, in this case, not
enough on which to base a conclusion.
Tip: Ask yourself what kind of "sample" you're using: Are you relying on the opinions or
experiences of just a few people, or your own experience in just a few situations? If so,
consider whether you need more evidence, or perhaps a less sweeping conclusion.
(Notice that in the example, the more modest conclusion "Some philosophy classes are
hard for some students" would not be a hasty generalization.)
2. Missing the point
Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion--but not the
conclusion that the arguer actually draws.
Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime.
Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a
very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the
punishment for drunk driving." The argument actually supports several conclusions-"The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in particular--but it doesn't
support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
Tip: Separate your premises from your conclusion. Looking at the premises, ask yourself
what conclusion an objective person would reach after reading them. Looking at your
conclusion, ask yourself what kind of evidence would be required to support such a
conclusion, and then see if you've actually given that evidence. Missing the point often
occurs when a sweeping or extreme conclusion is being drawn, so be especially careful if
you know you're claiming something big.
3. False Cause (also called Post hoc)
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which
translates as "after this, therefore because of this."
Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes
one event really does cause another one that comes later. Yes kissing someone when you
have a cold can pass that cold to that person. But sometimes two events that seem related
in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as
causation.
Examples: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up.
Jones is responsible for the rise in crime." The increase in taxes might or might not be
one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the
other.
74
“Headline: Teen stabs pregnant mother after playing violent video game.” You could just
as easily point out: “Headline: Teen stabs pregnant mother after eating four
cheeseburgers.”
Tip: To avoid the post hoc fallacy, the arguer would need to give us some explanation of
the process by which the tax increase is supposed to have produced higher crime rates.
And that's what you should do to avoid committing this fallacy: If you say that A causes
B, you should have something more to say about how A caused B than just that A came
first and B came later!
4. Slippery Slope
Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire
consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.
The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up
sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.
Start at 4:00
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-18-2009/the-gun-show---barrelfever
Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life,
we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our
society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will
be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal
experimentation illegal right now." Since animal experimentation has been legal for some
time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events
won't necessarily take place. Even if we believe that experimenting on animals reduces
respect for life, and loss of respect for life makes us more tolerant of violence, that may
be the spot on the hillside at which things stop--we may not slide all the way down to the
end of civilization. And so we have not yet been given sufficient reason to accept the
arguer's conclusion that we must make animal experimentation illegal right now.
Like post hoc, slippery slope can be a tricky fallacy to identify, since sometimes a chain
of events really can be predicted to follow from a certain action. Here's an example that
doesn't seem fallacious: "If I fail my swim test, I won't be able to graduate. If I don't
graduate, I probably won't be able to get a good job, and I may very well end up doing
temp work or flipping burgers for the next year."
Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say "if A, then B, and
if B, then C," and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.
75
5. Weak Analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or
situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant
respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy
of weak analogy.
High Fructose okay in moderation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q&feature=related
Retort
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiEFu54o1E
Example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal parts that could be used
to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers--so
restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous." While guns and hammers do
share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being
potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict
guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of
people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd
with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.
You can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: "My
paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when
I'm stuck inside) and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you draw an
analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.
Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion--arguers frequently compare
fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the
rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses. Whether these
arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and
fetuses share the property that gives adult humans rights? If the property that matters is
having a human genetic code or the potential for a life full of human experiences, adult
humans and fetuses do share that property, so the argument and the analogy are strong; if
the property is being self-aware, rational, or able to survive on one's own, adult humans
and fetuses don't share it, and the analogy is weak.
Tip: Identify what properties are important to the claim you're making, and see whether
the two things you're comparing both share those properties.
76
6. Appeal to Authority
Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or
authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we
try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by
appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the
fallacy of appeal to authority.
Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor
Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may
be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why
anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is probably no more of an authority
on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.
Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure
that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather
than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the
reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way,
your readers have more to go on than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose
authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will
be perceived as biased.
7. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum)
Definition: The Latin name of this fallacy means "to the people." There are several
versions of the ad populum fallacy, but what they all have in common is the arguer takes
advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that
desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument. One of the most common
versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to
do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.
Example: "Gay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so!" While the
opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have,
it certainly doesn't determine what is moral or immoral: There was a time when a
substantial number of Americans were in favor of segregation, but their opinion was not
evidence that segregation was moral. The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the
conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans.
Tip: Make sure that you aren't recommending that your audience believe your conclusion
because everyone else believes it, all the cool people believe it, or people will like you
better if you believe it, and so forth. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always
the right one! Just ask John Savage from Brave New World.
77
8. Attack of Character (Ad hominem) and
9. Attack of Hypocrite (Tu quoque)
Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem
("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people
rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is
usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing Soand-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque).
In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the
opponent's argument.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-19-2009/barneyfrank-s-town-hall-snaps
Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms
women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her." Dworkin's
appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have
nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the
thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be listened
to. Here's an example: Imagine that your parents have explained to you why you
shouldn't smoke, and they've given a lot of good reasons--the damage to your health, the
cost, and so forth. You reply, "I won't accept your argument, because you used to smoke
when you were my age. You did it, too!" The fact that your parents have done the thing
they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument
(smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.
Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal
character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about
someone's character--if your conclusion is "Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy person,"
premises about his untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)
10. Appeal to Pity
Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a
conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.
Examples: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an
A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for
me to study!" The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the criteria for
getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the
principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A's) is
clearly unacceptable. The information the arguer has given might feel relevant and might
even get the audience to consider the conclusion--but the information isn't logically
relevant, and so the argument is fallacious. Here's another example: "It's wrong to tax
78
corporations--think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already
pay to run their businesses!"
Tip: Make sure that you aren't simply trying to get your audience to agree with you by
making them feel sorry for someone.
11. Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no
conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on
this issue."
Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has
yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist." Here's an opposing argument
that commits the same fallacy: "People have been trying for years to prove that God does
not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists." In each case,
the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth
of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified
researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time,
they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the
fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't exist.
Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a
conclusion from that lack of evidence.
12. Weak re-wording of opponent’s argument (Straw Man)
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond
in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the
arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by
knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't
very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't
very impressive either.
Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But
such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its
readers should be left in peace." The feminist argument is made weak by being
overstated--in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any
punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things
like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and
producers, not readers, for damages. So the arguer hasn't really scored any points; he or
she has just committed a fallacy.
Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and
sympathetically as possible. If you can knock down even the best version of an
opponent's argument, then you've really accomplished something.
79
13. Irrelevant Tangent (Red Herring)
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side
issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never
returns to the original issue.
Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all,
classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well."
Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:
Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along
well.
Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.
When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent--the
fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness
and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may
feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from
the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.
Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many
issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise
supports the conclusion?
14. Black and White (False Dichotomy)
Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are
only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are
left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often
there are really many different options, not just two--and if we thought about them all, we
might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends!
Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new
building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's
safety, so we must tear the building down." The argument neglects to mention the
possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from
the risks in question--for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we
shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: If you're saying that we have to choose between just
two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven't mentioned? If
there are other alternatives, don't just ignore them--explain why they, too, should be ruled
out. Although there's no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options,
four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also
be avoided.
80
15. Circular Logic (Begging the Question)
Definition: A complicated fallacy; it comes in several forms and can be harder to detect
than many of the other fallacies we've discussed. Basically, an argument that begs the
question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence;
the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which
you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or simply ignores
an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. Sometimes people
use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that
an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning
we're going to discuss here.
Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help
another human being escape suffering through death." Let's lay this out in premiseconclusion form:
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering
through death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.
If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing
twice: "decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and
"help another human being escape suffering through death" means "active euthanasia."
So the premise basically says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the
conclusion does! The arguer hasn't yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is
acceptable; instead, she has left us asking "well, really, why do you think active
euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real question (think
of "beg off").
Here's a second example of begging the question, in which a dubious premise which is
needed to make the argument valid is completely ignored: "Murder is morally wrong. So
active euthanasia is morally wrong." The premise that gets left out is "active euthanasia is
murder." And that is a debatable premise--again, the argument "begs" or evades the
question of whether active euthanasia is murder by simply not stating the premise. The
arguer is hoping we'll just focus on the uncontroversial premise, "Murder is morally
wrong," and not notice what is being assumed.
Tip: One way to try to avoid begging the question is to write out your premises and
conclusion in a short, outline-like form. See if you notice any gaps, any steps that are
required to move from one premise to the next or from the premises to the conclusion.
Write down the statements that would fill those gaps. If the statements are controversial
and you've just glossed over them, you might be begging the question. Next, check to see
whether any of your premises basically says the same thing as the conclusion (but in
other words). If so, you're begging the question. The moral of the story: You can't just
assume or use as uncontroversial evidence the very thing you're trying to prove.
81
16. Equivocation
Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single
word or phrase that is important to the argument.
Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to
our money." The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both
something that is correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and
something to which someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life"). Sometimes
an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice,"
"rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding.
Either way, it's important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.
Tip: Identify the most important words and phrases in your argument and ask yourself
whether they could have more than one meaning. If they could, be sure you aren't
slipping and sliding between those meanings.
So how do I find fallacies in my own writing/speaking?
Here are some general tips for finding fallacies in your own arguments:

Pretend you disagree with the conclusion you're defending. What parts of the argument would
now seem fishy to you? What parts would seem easiest to attack? Give special attention to
strengthening those parts.

List your main points; under each one, list the evidence you have for it. Seeing your claims and
evidence laid out this way may make you realize that you have no good evidence for a particular
claim, or it may help you look more critically at the evidence you're using.

Learn which types of fallacies you're especially prone to, and be careful to check for them in
your work. Some writers/speakers make lots of appeals to authority; others are more likely to rely
on weak analogies or set up straw men. Read over some of your old papers to see if there's a
particular kind of fallacy you need to watch out for.

Be aware that broad claims need more proof than narrow ones. Claims that use sweeping
words like "all," "no," "none," "every," "always," "never," "no one," and "everyone" are
sometimes appropriate--but they require a lot more proof than less-sweeping claims that use words
like "some," "many," "few," "sometimes," "usually," and so forth.

Double check your characterizations of others, especially your opponent’s, to be sure they are
accurate and fair.
Bibliography
Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Thornson Learning, 2000
Lunsford, Andrea and John Ruszkiewicz. Everything's an Argument. Bedford Books, 1998.
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall, 1998. An easily navigated fallacies cite is:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
82
Get Geeky-Level Logic
After reading the instructions below, click on the link and read with the following
aims:
It is a chapter from Star Trek and Popular Philosophy: “Harry Mudd Always Lies”
Read the chapter only up to the paragraph that starts with: “Although we may think
that the liar’s paradox is nothing more than an interesting brain teaser…”
Before that paragraph you’ll learn of rational reasoning structures. Warning! Learning
this stuff might lead to your more rapid and adept reasoning skills and that can
result in your becoming H.O.T.er (Hero of Truth) and thus you’ll battle increased
frustration with those who lack those skills. To be their hero, you’ll have to learn
how to be gentle with people, how to allow them graceful exits, how to become
egoless in your guidance.
Write down your answers to the following:
1. What are deductive and what are inductive arguments? Also give an example of each.
2. In terms of persuasion when is it useful to use deduction and when induction?
3. What makes an argument each of the following:
valid invalid strong
weak
sound
cogent
4. Which fallacy is likely to creep up if there is an unsound premise?
5. What should we do when all the pieces of logic on both the pro and the con work well
and yet we encounter paradox? See again Fitzgerald’s “The test of a first-rate
intelligence is the ability to hold opposing ideas in the mind at the same time yet retain
the ability to function.”
Remember that logic is the beginning of wisdom…not the end! Logic can dizzy
people, so keep it simple and keep truth seeking as your prime target…don’t use it
as a cruel head-game at SPREAD-pace unless the opponent is a jerk who needs a
lesson on how to employ the rationality virtue of Humility.
IF YOU WANT TO DO SOME MENSA BRAIN TEASER LEVEL LOGIC THEN
FEEL FREE TO Read past the paragraph that starts with: “Although we may think
that the liar’s paradox is nothing more than an interesting brain teaser…”
http://books.google.com/books?id=yWmLCGN5uFoC&pg=PT269&lpg=PT269&dq=%2
2Although+we+may+think+that+the+liar+paradox+is%22&source=bl&ots=MGv4bUO
WSU&sig=b9c7yuUwUOWLz7OVLr4r3JTXYa0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JTSpUMGlBqq22
gW0w4CoCA&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA
83

What’s worth knowing? How do you decide? What are some ways to
go about getting to know what’s worth knowing? When should
divergent questions converge and aim at empirical data and
application?

What useful connections can you make between the Inquiry in this
forum to other parts of our class curriculum: books we read,
discussions we have, writing we do?
84
Debate Teams of 3 Formation
&
Resolution Storm
After watching Resolved
Two years ago, during a debriefing with students of what worked and what could
have been improved in this course, Corbin Wirta (anybody know him?) said he
was disappointed that he did not get to do a speech that was important for him to
deliver. When debate groups phrased resolutions he came up with: “Organized
religions should be abolished because they do more harm than good on the
planet.” The group they were matched up against had a member, Alex O’Dorsio,
who refused to debate that resolution on the chance that the coin flip would make
his team argue the affirmative and he could not bring himself to bad-mouth
religion. I asked Corbin what I could have done—should I have forced Alex to do
it anyway? No. But the simple solution would have been to say to the class at the
beginning of the semester, as I am saying to you now, that right now we have got
to resolution- storm something for which at least one member of your team feels
passionately.
We do not want to debate purely for the intellectual exercise of it, because such
debates feel stiff and sterile, so by the end of the period, your team must hand me
a single slip of paper with three possible, researchable resolutions (should
statements) that lend themselves to Richard and Lewis’s format: Purpose,
Method, and Identity (at least one team member should not only care deeply
about the topic, but have a direct connection to it). I will support you in crafting
and delivering that debate.
An example of a well-phrased resolution
 Same-sex couples should be able to adopt children.
Two examples of poorly-phrased resolutions
 People should be kind.
[too broad, narrow the frame: where would you start for research?]
 Mountain Biking should be an official sport rather than a club sport.
[too narrow, too subjective: think of audience and how to re-phrase for pathos
research?]
85
Research Opened with our district’s Super-Intendant, Laurie Kimbrel’s email from June
1st, 2014:
“21st Century Information Overload: Fact vs Fiction”
Fabulous Research sites:
1. googlescholar.com
2. deeperweb.com
3. Badke’s book Research Strategies
Drinking Age, Point Counter Point


Point: drinking could be taught
through role modeling and educational
programs. 18 year old users could avoid
making bad decisions if alcohol was not
a taboo.


Counterpoint: How do we provide
the “role modeling and educational
programs”? That issue aside, the
problem is that the percentage of
young drinkers actually fell when the
limit was raised to 21.
Counterpoint: 18 to 20 year olds are
responsible for ten percent of
drunk driving deaths while it’s
illegal for them to drink.
Point: 18 year old alcohol users
are only likely to cause the same
amount of accidents as those
who are of age. Is it fair to say
that they can’t drink because
they are more likely to cause
driving accidents?
Point: Drinking is not
(statistically) connected to
increased rates of violence or
suicide. The Journal of Studies
on Alcohol estimates that 72% of
studies found no correlation
between drinking and criminal
acts.


Counterpoint: According to Uniform
Crime Reports, half of crimes are
committed under the influence.
Whether or not criminal acts
increase, drunk driving and traffic
accidents go up.
Point: In the United States, 18 is
the age that people earn other
responsibilities and rights such
as the right to serve on a jury, be
prosecuted as an adult, join the
military, vote, etc. If we trust our
citizens to make these important
decisions, we can trust them to
drink as well.

Point: In parts of states where
the drinking age is 18, less driving

Counterpoint: Drinking is not the
only thing in the U.S. you must be 21
or older for. To adopt a child,
purchase a handgun or enter a
casino, you also must be 21 or older.
These things entail even more
responsibility, so we restrict it.


86

Counterpoint: Driving under the
influence of alcohol was associated with
accidents occurred. Between 1982 and
2004, there was a 62% decrease in
accidents.







age in 2010. The rate was highest among
persons aged 21 to 25 (23.4 percent). An
estimated 5.8 percent of 16 or 17 year olds
and 15.1 percent of 18 to 20 year olds
reported driving under the influence of
alcohol in the past year. Beyond age 25,
these rates showed a general decline with
increasing age

Point: 18 to 20 year olds are

Counterpoint: When you lower the
going to drink whether the law says they age limit, you risk introducing alcohol’s ill
can or can’t.
effects into schools.




http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html
http://www.madd.org/statistics/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812397,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3529878&page=2#.UHrt7pjA-8A
http://drinkingage.procon.org/
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dcare/pdfs/Miron.pdf
http://www.calculateme.com/car-insurance-articles/drunk-driving-facts.htm
"Statistics." MADD. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. <www.madd.org/statistics/
Engs, Ruth. "Why Drinking Age Should Be Lowered." Indiana University. N.p., n.d. Web. 14
Oct. 2012. <www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html
"Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered? - TIME." TIME.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/
"Page 2: Alcohol Laws: Should the Drinking Age be Lowered? - ABC News."ABCNews.com
n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3529878&page=2#.UHrt7pjA-8A>.
"Drinking Age ProCon.org." Drinking Age ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<http://drinkingage.procon.org/>.
"Drunk Driving Facts." CalculateMe.com - Comprehensive Conversion Utility. N.p., n.d.
Web. 14 Oct. 2012. <http://www.calculateme.com/car-insurance-articles/drunk-drivingfacts.htm>.
"Rethinking the Drinking Age ."Dartmouth University . N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<www.dartmouth.edu/~dcare/pdfs/Miron.pdf>
87
Ten Timeless Persuasive Writing
Techniques
INSTRUCTIONS: Pick examples of when a speaker we’ve encountered, in print, on
video, or live in this classroom used the following techniques well.
Want to convince your readers to do something or agree with your point of view?
OK, that was a silly question. Of course you do.
Persuasion is generally an exercise in creating a win-win situation. You present a case
that others find beneficial to agree with. You make them an offer they can’t refuse, but
not in the manipulative Godfather sense.
It’s simply a good deal or a position that makes sense to that particular person.
But there are techniques that can make your job easier and your case more compelling.
While this list is in no way comprehensive, these 10 strategies are used quite a bit
because they work.
Repetition
Talk to anyone well versed in learning psychology, and they’ll tell you repetition is
crucial. It’s also critical in persuasive writing, since a person can’t agree with you if they
don’t truly get what you’re saying.
Of course, there’s good repetition and bad. To stay on the good side, make your point in
several different ways, such as directly, using an example, in a story, via a quote from a
famous person, and once more in your summary.
Reasons Why
Remember the power of the word because. Psychological studies have shown that people
are more likely to comply with a request if you simply give them a reason why… even if
that reason makes no sense.
The strategy itself does make sense if you think about it. We don’t like to be told things
or asked to take action without a reasonable explanation. When you need people to be
receptive to your line of thinking, always give reasons why.
Consistency
It’s been called the “hobgoblin of little minds,” but consistency in our thoughts and
actions is a valued social trait. We don’t want to appear inconsistent, since, whether fair
88
or not, that characteristic is associated with instability and flightiness, while consistency
is associated with integrity and rational behavior.
Use this in your writing by getting the reader to agree with something up front that most
people would have a hard time disagreeing with. Then rigorously make your case, with
plenty of supporting evidence, all while relating your ultimate point back to the opening
scenario that’s already been accepted.
Social Proof
Looking for guidance from others as to what to do and what to accept is one of the most
powerful psychological forces in our lives. It can determine whether we deliver aid to a
person in need, and it can determine whether we muster the courage to kill ourselves.
Obvious examples of social proof can be found in testimonials and outside referrals, and
it’s the driving force behind social media. But you can also casually integrate elements of
social proof in your writing, ranging from skillful alignment with outside authorities to
blatant name dropping. Jack Cornfield is a master of ethos through social proof.
Comparisons
Metaphors, similes and analogies are the persuasive writer’s best friends. When you can
relate your scenario to something that the reader already accepts as true, you’re well on
your way to convincing someone to see things your way.
But comparisons work in other ways too. Sometimes you can be more persuasive by
comparing apples to oranges (to use a tired but effective metaphor). Don’t compare the
price of your home study course to the price of a similar course—compare it to the price
of a live seminar or your hourly consulting rate.
Agitate and Solve
This is a persuasion theme that works as an overall approach to making your case. First,
you identify the problem and qualify your audience. Then you agitate the reader’s pain
before offering your solution as the answer that will make it all better.
The agitation phase is not about being sadistic; it’s about empathy. You want the reader
to know unequivocally that you understand his problem because you’ve dealt with it
and/or are experienced at eliminating it: Mr. Franklin has the empathy and intends to
agitate in a way that breaks down New Tribalistic boundaries, but (esp. in Humanities)
needs to better offer solutions to heal. The credibility of your solution goes way up if you
demonstrate that you truly feel the prospect’s pain.
89
Prognosticate
Another persuasion theme involves providing your readers with a glimpse into the future.
If you can convincingly present an extrapolation of current events into likely future
outcomes, you may as well have a license to print money (or in the case of advocating for
RBE; to stop printing it).
This entire strategy is built on credibility. If you have no idea what you’re talking about,
you’ll end up looking foolish. But if you can back up your claims with your credentials or
your obvious grasp of the subject matter, this is an extremely persuasive technique.
Go Tribal
Despite our attempts to be sophisticated, evolved beings, we humans are exclusionary by
nature. Give someone a chance to be a part of a group that they want to be in—whether
that be wealthy, or hip, or green, or even contrarian—and they’ll hop on board whatever
train you’re driving.
This is the technique used in the greatest sales letter ever written. Find out what group
people want to be in, and offer them an invitation to join while seemingly excluding
others.
Address Objections
If you present your case and someone is left thinking “yeah, but…”, well, you’ve lost.
This is why direct marketers use long copy—it’s not that they want you to read it all, it’s
that they want you to read enough until you buy.
Addressing all the potential objections of at least the majority of your readers can be
tough, but if you really know your subject the arguments against you should be fairly
obvious. If you think there are no reasonable objections to your position, you’re in for a
shock if you have enabled counter comments.
Storytelling
Storytelling is really a catch-all technique—you can and should use it in combination
with any and all of the previous nine strategies. But the reason why storytelling works so
well lies at the heart of what persuasion really is.
Stories allow people to persuade themselves, and that’s what it’s really all about. You
might say that we never convince anyone of anything—we simply help others
independently decide that we’re right. Do everything you can to tell better stories, and
you’ll find that you are a terribly persuasive person.
As I mentioned, this is in no way a complete list. What other persuasive writing strategies
work for you?
90
Writing the Intro
Strategies for #1 Getting Attention (Graphic Organizer on Board):
1. Question your audience.
2. Arouse curiosity.
3. Stimulate imagination.
4. Promise something beneficial.
5. Amuse your audience.
6. Energize your audience.
7. Acknowledge and compliment your audience.
Functions of a Speech Introduction:
1. State your topic.
2. Establish the importance/relevance of your topic.
3. Establish your credibility as a speaker.
4. Preview the key ideas of your speech.
Exercise: Read these openers and identify the strategy # being used in each and discuss the effect.
A) “You what?...When?...Why? Here, talk to your father!
“Hey, what the hell’s the matter with you, you nuts or what?...A perfectly good
airplane for no reason at all?...What, are you crazy?
These were the initial responses I received from my mother and father when I
called to tell them that I had just gone skydiving for the first time. Growing up I
always said that you couldn’t pay me to jump out of an airplane. Well, as it turned
out, I ended up paying to jump out of one. This morning I would like to share
with you three of the things I paid for: a three-hour class, a fifteen-minute airplane
ride, and a five-minute fall to Earth
B) I can remember as a child the excitement of swinging high on the swings,
walking on the teeter totter to balance it, and playing squeeze the lemon on the
slide at recess. I can also remember breaking my nose because I was standing too
close to the teeter totter, falling off the slide to lay unconscious for half an hour,
and spraining my neck after falling off the monkey bars. All of these incidents left
me a little bruised and feeling stupid for being such a klutz, but nothing a trip to
the hospital couldn’t fix. Unfortunately, not all children are as lucky as I was.
91
C) Some of us are old enough to remember Barney Clark, the first recipient of a
permanent artificial heart, with his Jarvic-7 heart in the early 1980s. I remember
seeing him interviewed on the news periodically over the four months that he
lived. He seemed very happy talking about his family, and in the background you
could hear the loud pumping of his compressor. But how many of us knew that he
had been given a key so that he could turn off his compressor any time he wanted
to do so? Bioethicist Louis Pojman notes in his book, Life and Death: Grappling
with the Moral Dilemmas of Our Time, that Clark’s doctors reasoned that when a
person’s life had been extended artificially, that individual should be allowed to
end life any time that it became unbearable.
D) How did you spend last weekend? Watching television? Going to a movie?
Sleeping late?
Strategy:
Effect
E) Every person in this room can find a satisfying summer internship related to
your major field of study.
F) Opening to Oleana Unit:
A woman went to an attorney and said, “I want to divorce my husband.”
The attorney responded, “Do you have any grounds?”
“About 10 acres.”
“Do you have a grudge?”
“No, just a carport.”
“Does your husband beat you up?”
“No, I get up about an hour before he does every morning.”
“Why do you want a divorce?”
“We just can’t seem to communicate.”
This woman’s problem is not unique. Many husbands and wives, many parents
and children, many managers and employees, many professionals and clients can’t
seem to communicate.
92
Public Forum for "Identity, Purpose, Method"
Debate
Timing Schedule/Structure
28-33 minutes total
including 4 minutes time out between Rounds-->2 min Pro and 2 min Con
ROUND ONE
(open to engage audience, set context, and lay Purpose of premises and Method of main
arguments for social change/improvement of status quo)
First Speaker – PRO = 3-4 minutes
First Speaker – CON = 3-4 minutes
Crossfire = 3 minutes (First Speakers dispute logic with questions)
ROUND TWO
(Connect the dot of the logic: Includes 1. pre-written Evidence that refers back to 1st
speaker's premises: Statistics, Studies, Sources, Interviews, Polls and, 2. listening to 1st
Round opponent to make quick adjustments to pre-written speech)
Second Speaker – PRO = 3-4 minutes
Second Speaker – CON = 3-4 minutes
Grand Crossfire = 3-5 minutes (polite free for all--six debaters)
ROUND THREE
(Summary with 3 opponent wrongs, 3 your team rights and Identity Why it matters to me the
speaker = connection to audience through Pathos and poetic rhetoric)
Third Speaker PRO = 3-4 minutes
Third Speaker CON = 3-4 minutes
SEE SAMPLE OF THE STRUCTURE YOUR TEAM SHOULD SUBMIT TO ME IN
WRITTING BY __________ ON THE NEXT PAGE
93
Resolved: Same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.
Our team: Sara Jones, Will Fox, and Zach Wahls will argue the PRO
Speaker # 1 [Sarah Jones]
What is wrong with children of same-sex couples? Do any of you know
anybody who is being raised by a same-sex couple? I do. He's one of the
better people I've ever met.
Our opponents will tell you that same-sex couples are more likely to teach
their children to also be gay. Then those children will grow up without
procreating and might become the next generation of adopters who will in
turn teach their children to be gay.
If they cite the studies funded by Catholic churches, they will have you
believe that generations of gay teaching will spike the gay population so
much that we'll have fewer and fewer heterosexuals and thus fewer births
at all: thus effectively ending our species.
Well, lube up the slip and slide and slide on down that fallacious slope. First
of all, what about the millions of gay children who were born and raised by
heterosexuals? And what about heterosexual parents who adopt and end up
raising gay children at the same percentage as the rest of the populace?
It seems to me that, if the aim is to avoid raising nothing but gay children
who won't perpetuate the species, we should ban both straight and samesex-couple parenting. More to the point, my opponents can rest easy when
my teammate, Will Fox, will later provide ample evidence that children of
same sex couples are no more likely to grow up gay than if raised by
heterosexual couples.
It is clear that we are in no danger of sliding down any slope: we're on flat
ground here.
Even if our opponents concede that the longevity of our species is not at
any risk, they'll still claim that there is plenty wrong with same-sex
parenting outcomes. They will tell you that a child of same-sex couples will
suffer psychological damage from confusing gender issues, that a male child
needs a male role model and a female child needs a female role model, that
their bullying peers will beat them up. All the legal and social discrimination
will crush their spirits. Well, perhaps we should start by lifting the
discrimination by ratifying our humane resolution.
They'll argue that, whether the child becomes gay or straight, such
hostilities and confusions from the world will make it hard for them to
concentrate in school, so they will have less chance to optimize their
intelligence. Perhaps that will lead to increased rates of low self-esteem
and depression and thus drug use or suicidal tendencies.
94
This is all nonsense. Both the American Medical Association and the
American Psychological Association agree, publicly supporting same-sex
couples adoptions. Will Fox will cite you numerous studies that debunk the
myth that their children are less well-adjusted, less intelligent, and less
productive citizens in adulthood.
Our team's PURPOSE is to ensure that loving couples, irrespective of their
sexual orientations, be allowed to adopt. Our METHOD is to expand this
right out to the 35 states that currently forbid this love. Love knows no
state boundaries. In fact, my other teammate who lives in Iowa, Zach Wahls,
will prove that at the end of our debate.
Speaker # 2 [Will Fox]
In her 2011 American Psychological Association Journal article entitled, "
Adolescents with same-sex parents: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health," Professor of Psychology, at the University of Virginia,
Charlotte J. Patterson, who teaches an introductory course in child
development every year, wrote, "When asked to identify their sexual
orientation, only 6% of the 300 children who were adopted by same-sex couples
reported as gay."
REST of 3 minute speech......
Speaker # 3 [Zach Wahls]
Video at http://lybio.net/tag/zach-wahls-speaks-about-family-text/
Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Zach Wahls. I’m a sixth-generation
Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa and I was raised by
two women.
My biological mom, Terry, told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that
the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn’t even acknowledge it.
It wasn’t until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that
they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson.
Unfortunately, neither of them lived to see her marry her partner Jackie of 15
years when they wed in 2009.
My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994. We actually have the same
anonymous donor so we’re full siblings, which is really cool for me.
Um, I guess the point is our family really isn’t so different from any other Iowa
family. You know, when I’m home we go to church together, we eat dinner, we
go on vacations. Ah, but, you know, we have our hard times too, we get in
fights…you know.
95
Actually my mom, Terry (Terry Wahls) was diagnoses with multiple sclerosis in
2000. It is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair. So we’ve had our
struggles.
But, you know, we’re Iowans. We don’t expect anyone to solve our problems
for us. We’ll fight our own battles. We just hope for equal and fair treatment
from our government.
Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same sex marriage
comes up quite frequently in classroom discussions…you know Source:
LYBIO.net The question always comes down to, well, “Can gays even raise
kids?”
In question, you know, the conversation gets quiet for a moment because most
people don’t really have any answer. And then I raise my hand and say,
“Actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I’m doing pretty well.”
I scored in the 99th percentile on the A.C.T. I’m actually an Eagle Scout. I own
and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe
I’d make you very proud.
I’m not really so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so
different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t derive its sense of worth
from being told by the state: “You’re married. Congratulations.” No.
The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other. To
work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the
love that binds us. That’s what makes a family.
So what you’re voting here isn’t to change us. It’s not to change our families,
it’s to change how the law views us; how the law treats us. You are voting for
the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our
constitution, a constitution that but for the proposed amendment, is the least
amended constitution in the United States of America.
You are telling Iowans that some among you are second class citizens who do
not have the right to marry the person you love.
So will this vote affect my family? Will it affect yours?
In the next two hours I’m sure we’re going to hear plenty of testimony about
how damaging having gay parents is on kids.
But in my 19 years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who
realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.
And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero
effect on the content of my character.
Thank you very much.
96
Debate Speech Writing Content Requirements (50 points)
Pre-write:
 T-chart research with point/counter-point (EQ #s 2, 16, 17)
DUE:_____________ (10 points)
_____________________________________________________________
Before delivering your debate, each team member must turn in two TYPED
speeches (one of them a pro, the other a con). Both of those speeches when
rehearsed must last three minutes and include all of the following criteria:
Intro:
 Gets attention (EQ # 1, 3)
 Establish credibility of speaker = yourself (EQ # 2)
 State topic and establish relevancy to audience (EQ # 12, 15)
 Outline structure of speech (EQ # 1, 3)
Body:
 Develop topic with strong, researched detail (EQ # 13, 17)
 Include minor concessions to opposing side (EQ # 12, 15, 16)
 Refute opposing side without fallacies (EQ # 10)

Appropriately utilize logos, ethos, pathos to motivate (EQ # 13)
 Incorporate speech-writing techniques to engage audience and
emphasize key concepts (EQ # 1, 7)
 Utilize carefully and powerfully chosen diction, figurative language,
sentence focus (EQ # 3)
 Include a works cited page in MLA format (EQ # 2)
 Introduce researched materials appropriately to establish credibility
and avoid plagiarism (EQ # 2)
Conclusion:
 Appropriate to our class members as the audience (EQ # 12)
 Leaves audience with appropriate impression (EQ # 11, 15)
 Utilizes powerful diction and speech writing technique as appropriate
(EQ # 1, 4)
Team will turn in a pro flow and a con flow in the form on page ____
and the sample on pages ______
DUE:__________________(40 points)
97
Speech Delivery Requirements (50 points)
 Volume: audience can easily hear; voice is full and
resonant
 Articulation: words are pronounced correctly, clearly
and precisely
 Eye Contact: speaker does not rely too heavily on
notes; appears confident; looks out to audience as
speaking to establish contact
 Posture: Speaker does not slouch or lean nor does
he/she shift or move around

Controlled Breathing: Controlled breathing gives
voice resonance and power; speaker does not interrupt
sentences inappropriately to breathe
 Tone: Speaker establishes and maintains a tone
appropriate to topic and speaker; tone modulation also
used to engage audience
 Emphasis/modulation: Speaker uses voice to
highlight key points about story or argument.
 Your ethos shines and your gravitas sucks
planets out of orbit because you show passion while
still knowing how to listen to the implied opposition
in debates: retorts show that adjusting on the fly comes
from paying attention to opponent’s arguments/ refutes
fallacious reasoning
98
Watch the full debate on the Resolution: The government shall
legalize and regulate all drugs.
After you watch the debate, you will explain how each speaker
executes in both content (see page__) and delivery (see page ___).
Write your notes for each speaker on this sheet:
Pro
4. Elliot Goodman
Content:
Delivery:
5. J.P. Josi
Content:
Delivery
6. Keever Mulligan
Content:
Delivery:
Con
1. Illana Ash
Content:
Delivery:
2. Jake Hartman
Content:
Delivery:
3. Matt Healy
Content:
Delivery:
What fallacies did you spy? What counter-arguments might you
make to each side?
99
Tomorrow’s Fallacy test will ask you to write your Team’s
resolution and phrase 3 examples of potential fallacies on the
Con side and 3 examples of potential fallacies on the Pro side.
Who Wins?
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than
to settle the question without debating it”
--Joseph Joubert
I heard (NPR) a debate pondering if we
could be successful militarily in
Afghanistan today. The way they
handled it was to let the audience act
as judges; the audience voted merely on
the phrasing of the resolution prior to
hearing any arguments.
Percentages “for” and “against” and
“undecided” were calculated. The
debate is then won by the side that was
able to change the most minds to their
side based on subsequent post-debate
vote.
Polleverywhere.com for pre debate and then after:
1. For
2. Against
3. Abstain
100
Socio-Political Slam Poem
(65 points: 35 for the better of Content or Delivery/Style, 30 to the other)
Pre-Production = Analyze “Storm” and anchor with “Ryan Twins”
Content
 Use a researchable resolution (perhaps borrowed from your
formal team debate), in scope that’s not too narrow nor too broad
 Use persuasive rhetoric and evidence to explore the resolution’s
ambiguity, the resulting paradoxes (leave out fallacies and overlyindignant or righteous tones)
 Unveil the Virtue of Rationality known as Evenness (use Rogerian
Technique--Use Empathy for both sides to show that the poets have some
common ground)
Delivery/Style 3 minutes per poet




Your poems should feature voice (either yours or a character’s)
Your Poems should be performance-based, spoken-word style pieces.
Your poems should not be teen-angst diary entries, elevate the rant content to art
Your poems should exhibit elements of metaphor, simile, parallel structure,
internal- rhyme that surprises, and propulsion!
 You should be able to perform with clear flow, and dynamic energy—own the
stage!
 Your poems should build tension; they should take us from familiar to somewhere
new! A great way to augment the narrative is to elevate repetition to reincorporation!
 Your poems should be performed with music in your voice, the
truth in your gut, and the audience in your heart. Have fun, but
not at the expense of the truth!
101
Copyright Infringement Debate (Slam Style from da Ryan
Twins)
Share the music
Cause I don’t care to lose it due to profit pursuin’ business men in suits
Who’d sooner see restrictions to who can listen than to let it loose
Cause when you gotta read between the lines of dollar signs to find the rhymes
It means that poetry’s been privatized
And art is stylized as a means to an end
Instead of as a breath:
Natural and necessary, inherently
Cause artists make music for the joy
And if they don’t then they’re in the wrong employ
I believe that recognition should be given where it’s due
That why when I listen to my music I’m influenced
To show my support in the form of buying tickets to the live show
Download it for free and pay forty dollars when I go
Art in this way is sustained an perpetuated
Still the property of those who made it
But made available to the greatest number of people that can play it
With the touch of a button
Now isn’t that somethin’ to be strived for?
Counterpoint {see iprcenter.gov for piracy arguments}
Well, while I adore your sentiment
Free music doesn’t pay the rent and it
Doesn’t buy me business suits
I’m not in pursuit of profit outcomes
But how can I afford to make an album
When my intellectual property is managed by ineffectual policy
That allows my every song to belong to anyone who wants it
Without putting even a dollar back into my pocket?
I worked nine to five for the studio time that I dedicated to the making of this C-D
And of course I want people to see these songs
It’s been the purpose all along to spread the product of my passion
Cause with a pen in my hand I’m like Jordan scorin’ baskets
It’s less braggin’ than it is the fact that I’m ecstatic when I’m in the heat of
creation
But nothing’s free for the taking
I want to continue making music
But I can’t do it
102
Unless people start respecting the laws protecting copy written material
Concert ticket sales are not immaterial
But neither can they perpetuate lyrical flows like serial shows
The evidence is empirical
What’s lost in downloaded music, on top of the cost of producing
Can’t sustain itself
So while I respect your view and your right to explain yourself
Take a minute to listen to my concern
For the long term of the music industry
While I likewise accept the fact that in reality we haven’t seen the end of these
Shoots and loop-holes to scoop up new albums whole
But maybe there’s a mid-way between free and costly
Where I don’t lose you, and you don’t rob me
At least, this is the dialogue we should set into motion
Cause this cassette tape is broken
But I’m analogue hopeful that we can go
Back to the brochure
Back to the basics
Back to when a man heard a fair price and he paid
103
After the 2nd Post-Debate Debrief on Friday
1. Are you more persuaded by a team zeroing-in on, and handling well,
one or two crux arguments, or more dissuaded by the same team’s
use of a few fallacies?
2. Which shows that a team has done better research: well-phrased
crux arguments or fallacy-free arguments?
3. If a team gets a chance to debate again, which is easier to fix: poorly
chosen crux arguments or fallacies?
104
HOW NOT TO BE A DICK TO SOMEONE WHO JUST LOST A FAMILY
MEMBER
On January 7th, 2013, a little over six months ago, my older sister Tamar died of injuries she
sustained in a bus crash a few days earlier. She was 20.
Liat Kaplan
Sep 17, 2013 at 2:00pm
It’s an awkward situation. Someone you know has just lost a close friend or family member or
significant other, and because you are a kind and decent human being, you want to express to
them that you’re sorry for their loss. What do you say? What do you do? Nothing feels quite
right. I’ve been in this position before, and it’s difficult.
Recently, my sister’s sudden death put me on the receiving end of these sympathies, and I
can officially tell you that there is no one right thing to say. However, I have compiled a list of
things not to say, which I present today for your education/so you can be less of a dick.
On January 7th, a little over six months ago, my older sister Tamar died of injuries she
sustained in a bus crash a few days earlier. She was 20. She had just finished a college
semester abroad in Ecuador, and was touring South America with friends. In Bolivia, they
visited some remote mountain salt flats, and on the way back to the city, the bus crashed into
another vehicle. On the day she was due back from her trip, we received a box of her ashes
instead.
Tamar at the salt flats. It’s surreal to think that she was only a few hours away from the accident.
Since then, I’ve received just about every possible reaction, some of which were deeply dicktastic (I know that sounds like a good thing, but in this scenario it’s bad). Here’s how not to
105
be a dick to someone who has just suffered a loss. “Suffered a loss.” Gross. I sound like a bad
pamphlet on dealing with death. (Trust me, I’ve been given many).
Don’t expect them to be sad at the “right” times.
We held two memorial services for my sister; one in our hometown and one at her college. I
gave the eulogy at both, and didn’t cry at either. In fact, by the second one, I was so sick of
people looking at me like a freak for not crying that I faked it. I thought that because I hadn’t
cried at her memorial, ostensibly the saddest part of the whole process, it meant I was done
crying. This proved to be wholly untrue.
A few months later, when I started to cry in the AT&T store because we had to drop her
phone number from our family plan. Your friends may be sad at times you don’t expect them
to be, and less sad at times you do expect them to be. It doesn’t mean they’re not grieving or
healing properly, it just means that everyone is different. YOU GOT THAT, MOM?
Also, if I am having a good time, please don’t take the opportunity to wrap me in a ribcrushing hug and tell me you’re so sorry and you loved my sister so much and you miss her
every day. I’m not happy that often (see: recently dead sister), and it really truly sucks to have
one of the few times I’m not thinking about Tamar spoiled by someone who’s really sad. I’d
love to talk to you another time, but not now. I don’t care how drunk you are.
People seem to have this weird need to grieve with me at a moment that’s convenient for
them, and it really bums me out. Frankly, it’s kinda selfish. You may be sad too, but I can
only take care of so many people and I need to prioritize myself.
Don’t say you can relate if you can’t.
I’m sorry (actually no, I’m not), but your fucking pet is not the same thing as my sister. One
woman I knew told me that she could understand what I was going through because she had
recently lost her beloved cat to feline AIDS. I’m sure she loved her cat a lot, but I just don’t
believe the death of her cat was as traumatizing as that of my sister. It’s also insulting to
compare my feelings for my sister to yours about your great-great-grandcousin-in-law Marv
or whoever who you never met.
It’s OK to not be able to relate. Just say, “I’m sorry, I can’t imagine what you’re going
through.” Don’t minimize your friend’s experience or exaggerate yours. And don’t compare
their loved ones to animals.
106
Tamar (right) when I visited her at college in winter 2012. Please note that she is a human, and not a
fucking cat.
Don’t make it OK (and don’t make it religious unless you know for sure).
The single most annoying thing that anyone has said to me since Tamar died is, “Everything
happens for a reason.” If you say this to me, I will fucking deck you, and I don’t care if you are
my great aunt. I understand that people are trying to convey something about how good
things can come from dark times, but it sounds like they’re saying “Your sister died?
KARMA, BITCH!” Don’t try and see the positive in it, or make it seem OK. It will never be
OK.
Similarly, a girl I know told me the story of a friend she had as a little girl. Her friend had
childhood cancer and died a few years after they met. She told me, “I believe that that she
was put on earth to teach me about death.” I’ve dealt with a lot of aggravating bullshit since
Tamar died (for example, my abusive ex-boyfriend showed up to the funeral 15 minutes late
and high and disturbed the whole thing by marching up to sit in the front row), but the
solipsistic “…to teach me about death,” was the single worst thing anyone has said to me.
People are not metaphors or life lessons. They exist outside of your selfish reasons.
Another thing people say a lot is, “She’s in a better place now.” I don’t care if that place is all
popcorn and puppies and new episodes of "Homeland" and never having to clean your room
(Tamar’s version of Heaven), I would rather have her here. Here was good enough. She
doesn’t need to be somewhere better. “Better place,” also has a religious ring to it that
bothers me. I’m sure many people are comforted by their religion or spirituality after a loss,
but not me. Someone told me that, “Jesus picks the prettiest flowers first.” This was deeply
weird because a) Jesus that is creepy of you to have a bouquet of human flowers put those
down; Dude, one of those flowers is my sister b) my family is not religious at all and c) if we
were, we’d be Jewish. In my opinion, it’s fine to say, “I’m praying for you,” but don’t take it
more religious than that unless you know for sure how they feel about it.
Don’t police how they talk about it.
107
When I was at my sister’s college for the memorial service there, her roommate Haley took
me to a party and was introducing me to people. She just told them my name, which left
people looking confused. They had no idea who I was because I am not (yet) a one-name
celebrity. I clarified to a few people by saying I was, “Tamar’s sister,” but Haley found that a
bit morose.
Instead, I started introducing myself by saying, “Hi! I’m Liat, you may know me from my
sister being dead,” which I thought was hilarious. Because Haley is awesome, she also found
it kind of funny, but most people were really weirded out. (I don’t blame them though, I
would be too).
I’m not saying you should encourage your friend to do weirdo shit like that all the time, but
sometimes they’ll need to joke about it. It’s fine. I personally find joking about it really
healing. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll be comfortable with you joking
about it too. Pretty much just have some common sense and manners and don’t be a total
dickbasket.
After someone dies, people have a tendency to put them on a pedestal and extol and
exaggerate all of their best traits. It’s natural and I understand the temptation. However,
sometimes I like to talk shit about my sister. It doesn’t mean I don’t love her more than
anyone or any thing it means that sometimes I get sick of her being deified and want to think
of her as she actually was: occasionally an asshole.
Our relationship was complicated and often difficult. At the time she died, I was incredibly
angry with her. I can’t pretend that everything was great and that I didn’t hate her
sometimes, because it wasn’t and I did. Plus, I was always living in her shadow when she was
alive. I don’t like feeling like she’s better dead than I am alive. I mean, come onnnnnnnnnnn.
She’s made of fucking ashes now you guys. I’m prettier than ashes.
Don’t not talk about it.
I know that with all these rules it may seem like the easiest thing to do would be to not say
anything at all. But this is the NUMBER ONE WRONGEST THING YOU COULD POSSIBLY
DO. Trust. Nothing bothers me than people who I know know about it (the principal sent out
an email telling my whole high school), but never said anything to me.
No, “I’m sorry,” no, My sympathies,” no nothing. Even if you aren’t close with someone, you
should still at least say you’re sorry. Even all the jocks who would soon bully me into quitting
school all showed up to the memorial service (wearing their letter jackets. Who does that?).
Even if you don’t talk about it that much, I do. I knew my sister for 17 years and was very
close with her. I have a lot of stories and anecdotes about her. So don’t act like it’s all weird
108
and taboo for me to mention her in casual conversation. Don’t gasp and act all shocked like I
just admitted to being a murder or liking Macklemore. You try never mentioning one of the
biggest influences on your whole life again. Don’t change the subject, either.
Even if you follow all of these rules, it might still be awkward. That’s the nature of the beast.
It’s impossible to talk to someone about their dead loved one without some amount of
awkwardness. Don’t let that stop you, though. You just need to know the rules. And bring
them brownies. They’ll need them.
_______________________________________________________________
Writing and Performance Assignment: “Grace Speech”
To teach GRACE to Christopher John Francis Boon from The Curious Incident of the Dog in
the Night-time or “Big Bang Theory’s” Sheldon Cooper
First, you must pick a socially awkward situation other than “Loss of a Loved One”
CHOICE: You can pick from the topics on the next page or brainstorm up one of your own.
109
On___________ you will turn in your typed 2-page, double-spaced speech for 20 points
On____________ you will deliver this speech for another 20 points (based on page 10 criteria)
Grading Criteria for the written speech

Wisdom (ETHOS or credible source)—know and share from experience how to “best” handle
the situation(s), especially warning us away from awkward clichés/platitudes

Structure--follow Liat Kaplan’s structure with sub-sections, or loosen up for a slam-style—
balance the advice and experiential story ratio = one-third advice mixed in with two-thirds bits
from your life

VOICE--What counts most is that your advice does not feel disembodied from your tone, it should
not read like a bullet-point list or manual, it should sound like a human being who explains
context (how you came to know what you know) in rich tones without coming off too preachy or
mean.
Possible Topics or BRAINSTORM Awkward
Situations that you remember:
1) Too broad = not good: “How not to annoy your child”… = narrow the situation
BETTER = add specifics such as “…while meeting a new boy/girlfriend”
2) Too narrow = “How to close the bedroom door when you leave, Mom!”
Your topic should be robust (broad) enough to divide into an outline of sub topics, for
example:

How to talk through, stand in, enjoy the hallways at Redwood as a freshmen
while:
a) Alone
b) In mass crowd
c) Instead of shouting the cliche, “Get a room!” to PDA…try asking to join in…


How not to be stiff during group work with unfamiliar classmates
How to teach a skill you do well, but are not quite sure how to explain (e.g.
Whistling with fingers)
How to ask out a hottie and/or handle rejection (warning: if you aren’t smooth,
don’t fake this one!)
How to respond to someone who tells you about their relationship problems
How to give or react to “The Talk” (imagine a 7th-grade audience)
How to “Dump” Someone…First off, instead of “dumping” them, think of how to
“remarket” them
How to respond when your teacher is crying





110
Agree/Disagree
“A society made up of individuals who were all capable of articulating original
thought would probably be unendurable.” H. L. Mencken
Innovation Days
Dan Pink’s research proved that the best innovation comes when
workers have three things: 1. Autonomy (self-direction), 2. Mastery,
and 3. Purpose.
Peter Poutiatine’s (a teacher at Marin Academy) main problem with
most current learning models is how much management teachers
enact and how little self-directed curiosity students are encouraged to
pursue. If you have dormant ideas and under-used skills that outstrip
what you are being taught, then you’re going to feel the way Brave
New World’s Alpha-Plus Stud, Helmholtz Watson feels; that school is
as Khari Haynes says, “like training wheels left on too long before
adulthood.”
But can we take the training wheels off? Can Mr. Franklin stop micromanaging you, for the remainder of the semster and still maximize
student learning?
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/what-connected-education-looks-like-28-examplesfrom-teachers-all-over/?nl=learning&emc=edit_ln_20131003&_r=1
Poutiatine says that students can be trusted with their education. Can
you? I’ll admit that I’m nervous about trying this AUTONOMY thang
out.Partially I’m nervous because you’ve all been in school, mostly
doing what teachers tell you to do, for twelve years. Wouldn’t it be
tempting to just socialize or rest rather than work hard and challenge
yourself to the point of MASTERY?
To quote Nedda Massoumi, “We’ve been doing it the same way all
these years and I can’t think where I’d even start.” Maybe this
innovation opportunity fits the better-late-than-never saying.
Poutiatine says that if you want to be managed (told what to study,
what to build, and how) then you are going to find it hard to find a job
that is creative, innovative, and part of positive or PURPOSE-driven
change for the future. Where will you start? And where will you end? Well,
the next page will provide some answers (Please note that I’d love input
from all of you to make this working-draft about our process better)
111
Questions you must start to answer and immediately take action on:
1.
What is/are your general areas of curiosity?
2.
Are there others in room 155 who share your general area of curiosity?
3.
Are there people outside of room 155 you could consult?
4.
Collaboration? With whom in 155 will you work and how much and why? or
will you work alone and why?
5. How will I/we master the content and skill sets to learn in this area? What
do you (or each of you if you’re in a group) want to learn? What will be your
process? And what will success look like for you and how will we measure it?
6. What purpose (real world impact) will your study and application lead to?
7. Authentic audiences of evaluators? To whom will my/our understandings
be shared after feedback from the class? How will you persuade them,
phrase your value to help you seed your purpose?
8. Predict potential Pitfalls/Problems: Failure along the way can be a sign
that you’ve challenged yourself and will build GRIT without major penalty
(as long as you work hard, your participation grade will not suffer): What
rules will you follow to make sure that you minimize impediments to
your learning all you can?
Laptop Discovery/Research/Study/Building Dates: _____ thru _________
Rhetorical Presentations with Ethos and Pathos and Logos 2 to 3 minute
speeches to the class about your study, your progress on Mastery and
your intended Purpose with feedback from peers and Mr. Franklin on how
to continue: ________ (with full business plan/prototype/product)
Mr. Franklin’s Role I won’t lecture during discovery; I’ll mentor, guide,
coach, and spot failures along the way, in fact I hope so, but students
won’t look to me for answers to the questions they pose.
112
Group Work Policy
 When it comes to graded assignments that are presented to the
class, sometimes collaboration can augment the learning
process and improve the final product. So, if you feel that it is in
your best interest, invite others (as many as you like) to share in
the process.
 Please know that you never have to collaborate on graded
assignments. Solo artists are welcome too.
 If you do sign up with a group, and find it difficult to meet with
members or feel that others are not contributing, feel free to cut
them loose at any time because you are each individually
responsible for meeting the criteria of the project by the
deadline—that may mean you present something solo even
though you attempted, for whatever amount of time, to work
with group members.
 If you present as a group, 10% of you grade will be accounted for
in turning in individual write ups to turn in separately. You will
write about 1) your product—one sentence how it shows your
intent to meet each criterion = one sentence per criterion and 2)
about the process your group used and how you individually
approached each piece of the assignment’s criteria.
113
Biding Time
Who among you feels that your logic has fallen on your parents' deaf ears?
"Lack of logic annoys.
Too much logic is boring.
Life escapes logic.
Anything built on logic alone speaks not to the heart."
--Andre Gides
Dear Humanities Student,
At the end of a semester of Oral Rhetoric, a student of mine said she frequently
felt frustrated that she would ask her parents for things by writing letters that laid
out irrefutable logic and she would still get the "No," response from her parents.
Why? "Because we said so." How frustrating it is to write pages and not have
them provide a single counter-point. It makes one suspect that they have no
counter-argument, no reasoning at all. But here is what I suspect is happening (if
not in her case, then in many teen-parent relationships): lack of love--maybe in
both directions.
If my student treated her parents as aggressively as she dealt with me that
semester in Oral Rhetoric, then I don't blame her parents for not explaining their
rejections of her letters. See, often, a few minutes after the bell, with everyone
properly settled, I'd be ready to start class with all 28 students and right as I was
about to speak, she would come up to me with some urgent question about an
assignment clarification, or due date, or update on her grade. Despite my
requests that she seek me out at better times (office hours, break...), she would
abuse my time day after day. She may have had very logical things to say to me,
but I wouldn't know because I felt her dismissal of my valued time, rather than
her biding her time, deserved my dismissal of her. I'd send her away and she
would frown in her seat. When attempting to get other people to treat us well--to
tend to our desires and needs--it is better to check in with people than to pounce.
Her logic may have been sound, but the sub-text of her message before I heard
her words was give me give me give me. The next semester in Humanities, she
seemed to have been around me long enough to learn that if I felt she was
treating me as though I were a servile robot, I would not respond. She certainly
approached me at better times and we even had a few laughs, like humans do,
as she explained her latest concerns and how I could help her. She could
probably even get more of what she wants from her parents if she appeals to
them more the way she started to with me--with pathos--through a humane
connection, through their hearts.
Humans in general, but especially most family and friends do not enjoy feeling as
though they are merely a means to an end, as though all interactions are
business transactions. It is difficult for a teen to wear their parents' shoes, but
think what it would be like to be seen as a giant purse, merely a provider of
things, rather than a cherished and loved person. The key to family and friends is
love. If love feels absent, listening to reason is less likely. The longer love is
absent, the more it feels lost for good, and the harder it is to rekindle. If your
114
modus-operundi with your parents is give me give me give me, you'd better be
under eight years old if you hope to get anything. After a certain age you have to
show some love along with your increasing capacity for logic. Another word for
love is respect.
Now, of course, faking love or respect so you can get what you want is an option,
but that will blacken your heart and blackened hearts make gestures see-through
and words rattle and wheeze. Though nothing in my job-title requires students to
show me love, I do like some sort of connection in any interaction, connection
shows some level of respect, it says, "Hey, we're humans." However, since I hold
the purse of grades, I often hear the rattling and wheezing of anxious
disconnection, de-humanization. I roundly reject grade-grubbers who flick out
small talk and leap to false flattery and calculated manipulation; all empty words
drop like lead balls on my toes. If connection is lacking, I bide my time until it
comes around. Parents, even the densest ones, see through insincerity too.
Sincerity tends to beget others giving to you without your even asking, though,
after years of speaking from a blackened heart, it sometimes takes years for
levels of trust in your actual sincerity to kick up. Ultimately though, in dealing with
others over a significant stretch of time, the less you ask what is in it for you, the
more you receive. Both sides must bide their time.
"Mr. Franklin, you chump," you say, "You Pollyanna, you! Isn't biding your time a
naive move in a world overrun with opportunists, cynics, and those who lack
compassion, who themselves try to take advantage of your sincerity? Shouldn't
you wear a hard shell? Wasn't old Zebedee right when he yelled at Jesus, "But
can I love my enemy? Can I love the beggar who roams outside in my yard, just
itching to break down the door and rob me? Love? Just listen to the cock-brain!
Three cheers for the Romans! Even if they're heathens [less than human], they
keep order!" To you I say No. No, I am not naive because, again, these are the
easiest people to see through and it is better to bide your time until they warm up
to you. Bide your time and keep them at a safe distance until they warm up.
How? Arm yourself with two powerful skills: meditation and recollection. These
will help you soften your edge and bide time until those creeps around you
change. See what Aldous Huxley said about these two skills in his essay
"Beliefs." He explains it well, but if you aren't the reading type, just try not only to
project less urgency and desperation, also live less with them inside of you; if you
want to connect with a parent or most human beings, check your give me give
me give me sub-text at the door and when you leave you'll probably get more
than you want given--the desire-trumping parting gift of love.
Another funny version of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvKnq5XTg&feature=share “I’m Worried About My Grade”
Bide well,
Mr. Franklin
115