Category: ENG

(Integrating Ideas) – Be able to integrate their ideas with others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources. (Word Count: 360)

At the beginning of this semester, my approach to integrating an author’s voice with my own was limited to quoting. And even then, quoting was difficult and often felt unnatural. I would copy and paste an excerpt from a text into my writing and leave it there like an island. This is to say I wouldn’t add any explanation of the quote, or how it related to my argument. This hindered my ability to substantiate claims and add credibility to my writing.

The single greatest technique that helped me join an author’s voice with my own was the quote sandwich. The quote sandwich showed me how to introduce a quote, and then purposefully summarize it in a way that related it back to my own argument. This drastically improved my ability to put my arguments in conversation with the ideas of others, and therefore increased the impression of flow in my writing.   

After learning about the quote sandwich, there wasn’t a single time throughout the semester when I didn’t use it to frame a quote. In this example (Image 1), I introduce the argument that a liberal arts education teaches us to choose what to think about (blue); I then use the quote (green); and lastly, I repackage the meaning of the quote to filter it within the lens of my argument (orange).  

Thoroughly unpacking the quote in this instance allowed me to mold Foster Wallace’s claim to my own. I show how an education that teaches you how to think is an education that allows you to change the way you view the world. Continuously unpacking quotes also helped me develop an understanding of paraphrasing and summarizing. The last part of a quote sandwich is already the process of redefining the author’s words into your own. The example in Image 2 demonstrates how I come close to quoting Foster Wallace, but slightly paraphrase the quote to use him in the third person.

This use of paraphrasing allowed me to describe Foster Wallace’s argument in a way that put my voice back into the writing, and avoids the sense of summary with a barrage of quotes.    

(Recursive Process) – Demonstrate the ability to approach writing as a recursive process that requires substantial revision of drafts for content, organization, and clarity (global revision), as well as editing and proofreading (local revision). (Word Count: 535)

At the beginning of this semester, my understanding of the revision process was to proofread a piece of writing once through to look for sentence-level errors. This local revision process was usually rushed, and took place five minutes before I handed in my work. The issue here was that my essay grades in high school were strong, and therefore I didn’t see the value of revising work any other way. It wasn’t until this year when I actually started engaging with a piece of writing that I came to value, and thus develop, a complete revision process.  

My understanding of global revision developed from peer reviewing the work of my classmates. As I read through a piece of writing looking for the author’s claims, quote sandwiches, thesis statement etc., I began to think about my own work. When I went back to revise my own rough drafts, I identified areas that I thought needed to be expanded, changed, or taken out.  

When I wrote the conclusion to my first paper, I felt the need to have a short ending. I thought I was best served to quickly summarize my arguments with my thesis statement, and not introduce new ideas. The conclusion of my Paper #1 rough draft (Image 1) is nothing more than a short opening sentence and my thesis statement.

As I read through my paper a few days later, my conclusion felt alienated from the rest of my essay. I had done a good job expanding ideas and explaining quotes in my body paragraphs, but the conclusion felt short and out of place. Furthermore, it lacked the symmetry of my long introduction and therefore didn’t seem like a natural ending to the essay. When revising this paragraph I tried to implement my own voice and final thoughts on the subject, while pushing the conversation further with a question to the reader.   

Going through the global revision process helped me assess the strength of my conclusion paragraph and allowed me to identify the need for expansion. Another example of how engaging in global revision strengthened my first essay was when I looked at how my claims supported my thesis statement. As I went through the paper, I noticed my fourth paragraph didn’t have much to do with my thesis: “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”. My fourth argumentative paragraph argued that social media was used as a weapon to spread hate and mistrust.   

After assessing how unsupportive this paragraph was of my thesis statement, I decided to get rid of it completely. Instead, I used the space in my essay to introduce a naysayer paragraph (Image 4) which added credibility to my paper. Furthermore, I realized that the quote I had used from Nausicaa Renner’s, “How Social Media Shapes Our Identity”, actually supported my second argumentative paragraph about how an insufficiency of physical interaction can interfere in the development of social skills (Image 5).

---

The revision process indeed helped me improve the quality of my paragraphs. Engaging in global revision with my conclusion and fourth argumentative paragraph helped strengthen and focus my paper.

Most Improved Learning Outcome:

#2 Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources.

I believe I have improved the most on integrating my ideas with those of the authors and their writing pieces. The two major ways I have been able to improve this learning outcome has been by making my voice my present, and quote sandwiches. Eliminating the stigma around using personal pronouns while also using personal, argumentative, language has greatly helped me integrate my ideas into my writing. Before I was always told to stay away from making academic writing personal, but now I understand that argumentative writing should be personal as it is ultimately me who is trying persuade readers. Secondly, quote sandwiches have really helped me put my ideas in conversation with writing pieces. With a clear introduction and analysis of a quote, I have greatly improved my ability to naturally integrate the ideas of others with my own. This has also helped me outline what I want the reader to specifically see in the quote, and how it directly connects to my argument. Without this focused introduction and analysis of the quote, an excerpt from any piece of writing would feel like an island standing in the middle of the paragraph. This would not only hinder my ability to support an argument with sources, but also hinder my ability to put my voice in conjunction with that of somebody else.

Needs More Attention:

 #6 Control sentence-level error (grammar, punctuation, spelling).

When I assess the quality of my work so far this semester, I feel as though my sentence-level writing needs more attention. I feel as though my overall essays have been strong, but that strength has really come from paragraph structures, quote sandwiches, and strong arguments. In other words, I feel as though the greatest writing strength is at the global level. I have noticed however that each individual sentence definitely needs more attention. I often get bogged down in creating these very wordy sentences that can often times be too long. I think this is because I have a lot of ideas that I want to get onto the page, and in doing so I overcomplicate and overload a single sentence. Consequently, paragraphs can lack the impression of flow and can be difficult to read aloud (lack rhythm). I have identified four major ways in which I can improve on this learning outcome. Firstly, reading more will greatly improve my ability to naturally form strong sentences. By experiencing good writing, I’ll be able to get a better sense of how writing should sound, and will then be able to write sentences that feel more natural and sound more clear. Secondly, I think dressing down more sentences will help me create writing that flows nicer. I tend to dress up and complicate words (especially in academic writing), which ultimately hurts my ability to form easy-reading sentences. Thirdly, improving my ability to transition from one sentence to the next with transitioning terms and ideas that flow in a logical order. In other words, breaking up sentences into smaller ideas, that all flow one after the other will help sentences be compact and easier to read. This will help eliminate my problem of really long sentences that are breath-drainers. Lastly, eliminating all the fluff and redundant parts of sentences. I have a weird tendency to repeat myself a lot in sentences. By eliminating all the useless words and ideas in a sentence will also help in shortening them up. I think if I can do all of these better/more, then I will be able to improve this learning outcome by the end of the semester.

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.