Month: October 2020

I think David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water”, argues that we should live our life with more empathy. But maybe not more empathy in the idea of trying to donate money to a charity, or traveling across the world to build a school. I think Wallace is arguing that it starts with a mindset. We have to open up our minds to see the world in a better way. A way in which we have love and respect for the struggles for others. And that we shouldn’t be as selfish as we have become trained to do. On the other hand, Bloom argues that living a life with more empathy is really difficult, and instead of aimlessly failing to do something that is hard, and in some ways counterintuitive, we should instead live with less empathy, and perhaps be more realist. Bloom argues that empathy is counterintuitive in that it is narrow, biased, and can actually be insensitive. I think by arguing that empathy is difficult to have (Bloom says impossible), is where similarities actually come in to play. Both Bloom and Wallace express that possessing empathy is really difficult. But as Bloom argues that should mean we get rid of it altogether, Wallace argues that we should still try to have an understanding for the struggles of others. Personally, I most agree with Wallace. Although this probably comes from a bias within me as I have always thought empathy to be very important, I maintain that living with more understanding towards the ideas and struggles of others helps us become a better society in every way. I think one of the greatest shortcomings that we have in this country is that we fail to empathize with people that are different than us. If we were able to listen and show more love for others that thought differently from us, then I think our country would be a more peaceful place. A happier place. Again, its difficult. In fact, one could argue that this is one of the greatest difficulties for any human in our society possess. But I would also submit that it is essential in

[C] Although considered one of America’s smallest states, Maine is actually widely considered the best state in the country. [I] This is a common truth agreed upon by all Presidents of the United States since Maine’s inception in 1820. Even in 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln was asked about which state was the best, he shouted [Q] “Maine! Maine is the best”. [E] In other words, America’s greatest President of all time has even recognized Maine as the best state in the country. [T] Admired American Presidents are not the only ones to unanimously agree that Maine is the best state. According to Bob Loblaw, the chairman of the Commission On Which State Is The Best, he stated [Q2] “for the 200th year in a row, Maine has unanimously been voted the best state in the country by all American citizens”. [C] Through universal agreement, Maine is undisputedly the best state in the country.   

Original (Page 125):

For as writing theorists often note, writing is generally not a process in which we start with a fully formed idea in our heads that we then simply transcribe in an unchanged state onto the page. On the contrary, writing is more often a means of discovery in which we use the writing process to figure out what our idea is. This is why writers are often surprised to find that what they end up with on the page is quite different from what they thought it would be when they started. What we are trying to say here is that everydayspeak is often crucial for this discovery process, that translating your ideas into more common, simpler terms can help you figure out what your ideas really are, as opposed to what you initially imagined they were. Even Descartes, for example, may not have had the formulation “I think, therefore I am” in mind before he wrote the passage above; instead, he may have arrived at it as he worked through the writing process.

Dress It Up:

For as writing theorists often note, the writing process is not a process in which the writer commences a piece with a completed and thoroughly formed theory that is transcribed in an unchanged state onto the page. Contrariwise, actively writing enables writers to identify the central theme of the piece. For this reason, writers are repeatedly amazed when assessing their final argument, in relation to the contrast from their initial argument. Alternatively stated, common informal language is often imperative for this discovery process, thus translating themes into elementary terms assists the writer in constructing concepts, as opposed to what they were formerly believed to be. One could strongly argue that famed French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, Rene Descartes, did not form “I think, therefore I am” in his mind before writing “Discourse on the Method, Part IV”, instead, he may have generated this statement through informal writing.         

Dress It Down:

Writing theorists often say that writing is not a process in which we start with a fully formed idea in our heads that we are ready to write down. On the contrary, we actually figure out what our idea is when we start writing it down. This is why writers are often surprised to find that what they end up with on the page is quite different from what they thought it would be when they started. In other words, using everdayspeak is important in figuring out what your ideas actually are, instead of what you thought they were initially. Even Descartes may not have thought of “I think, therefore I am” before he started writing, and it instead came to him during the writing process. 

Although Paul Bloom argues that empathy is overrated, David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech, “This is Water”, argues that simple awareness for the world/people around us is essential in having the ability to choose a life with more love and inner peace.  

To some degree, I see these articles as somewhat of a dichotomy. On one hand, Bloom is arguing against empathy as it lacks sufficient advantages towards others. On the other hand, Foster Wallace argues that empathy is advantageous for one’s own self.

Nonetheless, one clear contrast between both author’s viewpoint is the value of empathy to understand the lives of a greater amount of people. Although Bloom argues that empathy is narrow and can only be applied to a small number of people, Foster Wallace submits that empathy is actually about understanding your place in this world in coexistence with all the others around you. He continues to argue that with the understanding that everybody else lives with emotions and complexities like ours, we can choose to live without the arrogance that situations are about me, and everybody is just in my way.   

One parallel that I draw from both pieces is the difficulty of possessing empathy. Both Bloom and Foster Wallace express that proactively thinking about others is hard. However, Foster Wallace differentiates himself by arguing that we should still do our best to maintain this level of consciousness, and not instead abandon it all together.

The idea that interests me most about this piece was the value of empathy in our own lives. On the surface, Foster Wallace’s argument seems to be one of altruism. However, with further consideration we reveal he is also arguing that possessing empathy is actually egoistic altruism. Wallace outlines the importance of thinking about others as a way to break from our unconscious default settings of selfishness. As Foster Wallace states, “The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing”. In other words, empathy enables us to open our minds and hearts giving us freedom to think and believe, and without it we subconsciously become prisoner to our own minds, and possessed by the world only as we see it.

One section of Foster Wallace’s speech that I am particularly drawn to is the parable about grocery shopping. I thought this section was not only engaging and relatable, but also a fantastic way of displaying his central argument. Through reading that section, I am able to relate to the idea of selfishness in my own life. I think back to my daily tasks, and how I think about myself as the center of my world, and not myself in relation to this world and the people around me.   

I notice that I use an abundance of “Repeat yourself, but with a difference”, and “Repeat key terms and phrases”, throughout these two paragraphs. I think this is because in order to create a strong paragraph in an argumentative essay, it is important to continuously go back, and reference ideas presented in the thesis statement. For example, using terms like “virtual interactions”, “social media”, and “physical relationships”, helps tie ideas back into my overall argument of the essay. I think my biggest issue is certainly at the local level. I have a tendency to cram a lot into one sentence. I think if I was to use more transition terms, then I would be better equipped to break up those ideas into different sentences, but still have them flow as if they were all in the same thought/argument.  

Although (transition: contrast) Chen argues that Megan Phelps-Roper was able to find meaningful relationships through online interaction (repeat key terms and phrases), Konnikova presents Dunbar’s physiological reasoning that proves virtual interaction (repeat yourself, but with a difference) cannot yet replace the profound nature of physical ones. According to Dunbar, people often underestimate the importance of touch in the social world. The ability to lightly touch, or even the use of body language, can communicate a deeper bond than through speaking alone, and can spark the sort of neurological and physiological response that, in turn, trigger endorphins that lead to bonding and friendship (Konnikova 258). Chen inadvertently exposes this (pointing word) truth when he informs the reader of Megan’s first physical interaction with Chad. When discussing Megan and Chad’s first date (pointing words), Chen says, “He put his arm around my waist at one point, and I just stood up so straight” (Chen 89). In making this comment (transition: cause and effect), Phelps-Roper is conceding to the argument that touch is an inimitable quality of physical relationships. Even (transition: example) when we think about the people whom we love most in this world, we all feel a natural longing to be around them, to see their face and embrace them. It is a common truth that those in-person interactions (repeat yourself, but with a difference) make relationships far more intimate, and no matter how profound a virtual connection (repeat key terms and phrases) may appear, without the element of touch, social media and virtual interactions (repeat key terms and phrases) cannot replicate the importance of physical relationships (repeat key terms and phrases).

Although (transition: contrast) “Unfollow”, is a convenient portrayal of somebody learning to understand and empathize (repeat key terms and phrases) with their community through the use of social media (repeat key terms and phrases), Konnikova instead (transition: contrast) argues that an insufficiency of physical interaction (repeat key terms and phrases) can interfere in the development of these (pointing words) social skills. Konnikova uses Dunbar’s scientific research to prove her viewpoint (pointing word) when she states, “We know that early childhood experience is crucial in developing those parts of the brain that are largely dedicated to social interaction, empathy, and other interpersonal concerns. Deprive a child of interaction and touch early on, and those areas won’t fully develop” (Konnikova 259). Konnikova is arguing that physical interaction at a young age is crucial in developing important social skills that will impact them for the rest of their lives (repeat yourself, but with a difference). This (pointing word) is also demonstrated in Nausicaa Renner’s piece in the New Yorker, “How Social Media Shapes Our Identity”, as Renner discusses the effect social media (repeat key terms and phrases) has had on the transition period for adolescents between childhood and adulthood known as a ‘psychosocial moratorium’. Renner states, “The moratorium is a period of trial and error that society allows adolescents, who are permitted to take risks without fear of consequence, in hopes that doing so will clarify a core self – a personal sense of what gives life meaning” (Renner 3). In other words (transition: elaboration, & repeat yourself, but with a difference), adolescents need to explore their passions, and make mistakes to learn from them. Renner and Konnikova’s point is that without physical interaction, there’s no forcing mechanism that makes us discover who we are; we fail to build a moral foundation and don’t know how to better empathize (repeat key terms and phrases), care for, and show love for other humans (repeat yourself, but with a difference). It should be universally agreed upon that all humans should strive to live their life in possession of these (pointing word) social qualities. And (addition) it is important to understand that many of these (pointing word) qualities are formed through physical interaction (Repeat key terms and phrases), especially at a young age. This (pointing word) is why I strongly believe that social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones (repeating key terms and phrases).

In a self-reflective piece about her own writing process, Anne Lamott is saying that first drafts are more about the process, rather than the product. Lamott enlightens us with the understanding that all writers, even the most famous ones, struggle with writing. In fact, many of them do not routinely sit down and feel enthusiastic and confident about beginning a piece of writing. Because writing is not always euphoric, Lamott says the only way she can get anything written is by making really shitty first drafts. After writing a horrid first draft, she would go back and cut any parts that were unnecessary, and expand on ideas that she didn’t see before. She would continue the revision process with two more drafts: a second draft to fix it up, and the last draft to finalize the piece. I agree with Lamott’s analysis of how to best create a good piece of writing. Personally, I can strongly relate to creating overly long first drafts. When writing the first draft of Paper #1, I would be filled with so many ideas and visions that I just wanted to put them all into writing. But I would always be worried about writing too much, and I would ultimately leave out important analysis and argumentative parts, and my essay would lean more towards summary. However, after experiencing how to cut and copy I found that not only was my essay more concise, but in eliminating ideas that didn’t fully support my thesis, my essay was in fact stronger. Additionally, I always get stuck on word choice. I could be gaining some momentum, but then have to pause because I would try to form more coherent sentences. I think making a really shitty first draft allows me instead to worry about important concepts, and then go back and review the wording later.    

There is a common perception that empathy allows us to better understand others, and ultimately inspires us to form a more loving society. However, in Paul Bloom’s piece “Is Empathy Overrated?”, he argues empathy can also be narrow, biased, and surprisingly insensitive.  

Bloom argues that our empathy spotlight is in fact narrow. With the understanding that our mental capacity does not allow us to meaningfully understand the issues and perspectives of millions of people, we can recognize that our spotlight for empathy can only be shone on limited targets. Bloom argues, “empathy is a spotlight, It’s a spotlight that has a narrow focus, one that shines most brightly on those we love” (Bloom 4). In other words, because we cannot possibly understand the struggles of everybody, we instead only focus on individuals.   

Bloom continues to argue that our empathy spotlight only illuminates what it is pointed at, thus reflecting our biases. Bloom argues this as he states, “it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary” (Bloom 2). In other words, it is extremely difficult to understand a human condition that differs so drastically from our own, simply because we have no idea what other the way of life is like. Bloom is arguing that for this reason, our empathy distorts our moral judgements in a similar way that prejudice does as it is biased towards what we know and is comfortable to us (Bloom 2).  

Bloom also argues that empathy is surprisingly insensitive. Empathy guides our attention to individual tragic issues but silences the issues of masses. In doing so, we fail to act in the betterment of many simply to appease a minority. As Bloom states, “This perverse moral mathematics is part of the reason why governments and individuals care more about a little girl stuck in a well than about events that will affect millions or billions. It is why outrage at the suffering of a few individuals can lead to actions, such as going to war, that have terrible consequences for many” (Bloom 4). Bloom is arguing that using our narrow spotlight of empathy actually misconstrues our understanding of what are important issues in the world.   

Although Bloom creates some compelling arguments that empathy is narrow, biased, and insensitive, I must reject his overall position that the negatives of empathy outweigh the positives. Understanding the perspectives and struggles of others is in fact one of the greatest challenges we face as a world. And I would argue that the answer isn’t less empathy, it’s more! Bloom himself states, “the real problem is that we don’t have enough empathy for other people” (Bloom 3). He then insists that because we cannot open our minds to such an extent we must instead live with less empathy. Being narrow minded and not opening your heart to the struggles of others is certainly easier and more convenient than challenging yourself to see the world through different lenses. However, simply because it is challenging, cannot mean that we give up entirely in trying to understand and show love for others. Even if your empathy spotlight is narrow, if it is strong it can still make a big difference. All the struggles of the world will not be fixed by one person, or one government/organization. But together, when we all shine our spotlights on issues that are important to us, then we can illuminate all the darkness’s of this world.   

Assignment for “The Limits of Friendship,” by Maria Konnikova (pp. 255-261, in Emerging, also linked on syllabus)

1. Read and annotate the Konnikova piece, including the introduction beneath her name on p. 255, up until the “Notes” section. Notice and become familiar with the >TAGS: beneath her introduction. This will help you connect Emerging readings to larger themes for synthesis in your own work. As you read and annotate, consider the impact of social media on your own friendships, and friendships in general/on a more global scale. Mark up the text with your own thoughts, questions, connections, points of confusion, etc.

• Now read the piece a 2nd time. Mark passages where the author defines the Dunbar number and the rule of three. Then explain these two terms in your own words, referencing specific passages from Konnikova to support your response. Write your explanation of these terms as a paragraph or two in a Google Doc, to be shared with me upon completion of the entire assignment.

The Dunbar number is a collection of numbers that outline the cognitive limitations of social relationships that any one person can have. The numbers classify the quality of friendships from intimate to casual, and quantify the degrees of friendship based on physical size. The largest group is in the range of 100-200 people, referred to as ‘casual friends’. This circle of friends are people you could certainly put a name to their face, and you know well enough to see at a party or around other friends in this same circle. Each subsequent group of friends thereafter becomes more intimate, and is roughly a third the size of the previous circle. This is also known as the rule of three. The next group consists of 50 people, and is considered to be ‘close friends’. You would see these friends often, and perhaps be the type of people you would invite to a group dinner. Although they are close, they are not quite intimate friends. The next group down is the circle of fifteen: the close friends you confide in about most things and can turn to for sympathy. The smallest, and most intimate group, is again a third of the size with around five people. This is your best friend group. The people who are dearest to you, and you to them. The companions in this cohort are often family members. While the sizes of all of these groups are commonly stable throughout one’s life, their compositions are fluid and can change. In other words, the friends in a circle may change as do you, and your endeavors.

• What do you think makes a good friend? Write a cohesive paragraph (placed after the paragraph or paragraphs that answer part 2), detailing the qualities of close friendship you most value. Include your thoughts on Konnikova’s statement: “So what happens if you’re raised from a young age to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones?” (p. 259)

The qualities of close friendship that I value most are intangible qualities. Firstly, a good friend is somebody who is non-judgmental, and accepting of you. No matter the circumstances and similarities, a good friend must be accepting of your true self. You must be confident in being yourself around them, true to your genuine interests and hobbies. Similarly, the next quality of a good friend are shared values. Personally, I believe a good friend shares similar moral and ethical conviction. Somebody with a similar definition of respect, and acts similarly towards others. A good friend is also somebody who is trustworthy and dependable, somebody that can be reliable with secrets and sensitive matters. These qualities allow the relationships to grow and become more profound. The amalgamation of accepting and trustworthy is loyalty. In my eyes, loyalty is not constant allegiance and fidelity towards me, but instead somebody who is true to our friendship and has equal devotion to the relationship. Somebody with unwavering support no matter the peaks or troughs of my life. These qualities are in my opinion the most critical and foundational aspects in any good friendship. From these qualities grows love, humor, and the likeness of interpersonal qualities. In the closing paragraphs of the text, Konnikova argues: “early childhood experience is crucial in developing the parts of the brain that are largely dedicated to social interaction, empathy, and other interpersonal concerns”. She continues to write that humans are not born with full social awareness, and our ability to learn right from wrong by observing others and acting on our observations is undermined by too much virtual interaction. I agree, and would continue to argue that the effect on children who are raised to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones may be harmful in the development of their interpersonal and social foundation.

• Write one paragraph in which you argue that your social media and/or online connections will benefit your acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. In a following paragraph, make a case for how social media connections might negatively impact your acclimation. Be specific. Take note of which argument feels most authentic to you.

In today’s world, a strong social media presence and online connection can positively benefit one’s acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. As a Freshman living on a socially distanced campus, it can be especially difficult to meet classmates and feel connected within the UNE community. Social media can act as a stimulus by encouraging students to visually connect with peers and classmates while still adhering to school policy. With platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook etc., one can interact and stay connected with the UNE community. Although I personally do not have an Instagram account, close friends of mine have already detailed people following them and reaching out on social media. For reasons related to academics or otherwise, it also allows students to cast a wider social network in the UNE community which I believe to be an invaluable resource. Throughout orientation we constantly heard UNE’s self-asserted accreditation of being a large family. Being able to connect to our peers is an important aspect of school life that helps students feel a part of this family. I would continue to argue that stronger networking is also valuable for professional relationships as well. The ability to have a personal profile that can be more than words on a page is beyond beneficial, and especially relevant as students gear up for a life in a post-pandemic world. 

There are also many negative impacts a comprehensive social media presence and online connection can have during one’s acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. First and foremost is of course the sensitive moments that are unexpectedly shared with thousands of people that otherwise would have been private. It only takes a few Instagram or Snapchat stories to taint somebody’s reputation. A distant mutual friend of mine was enjoying herself at a bar one evening, when a popular song came on. She sang along and articulated some words that were offensive and inappropriate for her to say. The person who filmed the short clip uploaded it to her Snapchat story and the fallout was swift and harsh. Her actions were of course wrong, but likely a drunken mistake that probably did not have genuinely maleficent derivatives, and one she wished could take back. This bridges to the next arguments that you really have no control over who views the content, and of course the timeless saying “once it’s up there, it’s there forever”. There is such a danger of exposing personal sides of yourself that were only meant to be shared with friends. Whether it’s a picture online, your location, or a personal profile, there really is no control over who views your content. Lastly, in the text Dunbar argues that the amount of social capital anybody has is “pretty fixed”. Those of us who exhaust too much energy scrolling through social media can hinder our ability to form personal relationships with others, and distant ourselves from real people. There is of course so much more to somebody than what meets the eye of an online presence that cannot be explored through a screen.     

Final Thesis Statement:

Although I agree with Chen up to a point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that social media creates lasting and meaningful interpersonal connections. Using the concrete psychological and physiological research of Robin Dunbar, Maria Konnikova convinces me that social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones.  

I think the strengths to this thesis statement is my stating of the opposing piece, and the position that I have on it. I believe I introduce the ‘they say’, and in doing so I introduce and outline the argument that I will be discussing in this paper. I think the thesis is somewhat long, but I do believe it is concise and specific to my topic. So I do like the length, I believe it to be a strength as it clearly outlines the topic of my paper, and the argument I will be making. I think one of the weaknesses of my thesis statement is that although it is specific to my topic, perhaps it is not all too specific to my arguments. By adding “using the concrete psychological and physiological research of Robin Dunbar”, I think I added a bit of a lense to what my arguments will be about, however I’m not sure if it is specific enough.

What I was reminded of about my writing process was how I have an instinct to write a lot. I think I form a lot of really interesting ideas and feel the need to explain them in depth. The issue here, is that some of those interesting ideas about the topic are not really supportive of my thesis. In other words, those arguments may be interesting arguments about social media, but not really about how social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones. I was also reminded of my ability to get stuck on ideas and get jammed into a paragraph, or even a sentence. I’m not going to call it writer’s block, but I think in an academic paper, the writing flow doesn’t come as easy, and I have to be more methodical in forming ideas.

The aspect of global revision that I focused on most during my revision was eliminating arguments that we not directly supportive of my thesis. When I went back and tried to tie everything in to my thesis statement, I found that some the arguments didn’t really fit all that well into what I was trying to argue. In doing so, I eliminated all of the ideas that could be considered confusing to the reader, and shortened my essay. This allowed me to expand on the other ideas that were much stronger and helped support my thesis. Specifically, I eliminated a paragraph that argued that social media can be used as a tool to spread hate. Although I thought parts of this argument helped explain why social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones, it certainly didn’t directly connect to that argument. So instead I took the parts that I thought were most strong and added them to another paragraph where I thought they could better support my argument.

I think I will approach Paper #2 differently by looking over the essay prompt before I start reading the pieces. I want to have an idea of what I need to take out of the readings before I begin so I can analyze and annotate with a purpose. Secondly, when forming my arguments, I will make sure they all support my thesis before I begin writing them. As mentioned before, I ended up deleting two full paragraphs because I realized they didn’t really fit into my essay. Writing out these arguments and my thesis beforehand will allow me to make sure everything I’m saying ties back nicely into the thesis statement. Lastly, I’ll be sure to interrogate my sentences and confirm they aren’t wordy. Not only was my rough draft really long, but there were also sentences that almost danced around a subject and were not very direct, and some sentences were useless altogether. Eliminating this ‘fluff’ will allow my writing to be more clear and concise.