Weekendness!

One thing I know at the end of this week that I didn't know at the beginning of the week: 

I know what debate is, and I know that I still dislike how it is portrayed in Crossfire.

One question I still have:

I still feel quite lost as to what rhetoric is.  It seems rather broad to me, and I'm afraid that this is posing the problem--it's really hard for me to wrap my head around this.

Classtines!

Rhetoric--brings attention to social criteria, when used by technical writers; brings attention to "a broad array of concern"; "social impact of the papers".

Faigley reading--

the nurse blurb:

1) the nurse assumes that the text is being read by someone who understands what the nurse has written.  A member of the medical profession is most likely the desired audience.  The nurse photocopied a template of sorts in order to communicate to others in his profession.

2) this perspective is trying to discover what the patient is suffering from, and what might be something to use to help him in the process of recovery.

3)why study this?  to be able to help others understand the text, in order for everyone to be on the same field

Textual/individual/social perspectives:

Textual perspective--study the text to see how people approach the text, and then how the text itself explains things

Individual perspective--removed from the rest of the world; focuses on how one person makes sense of a writing prompt

Social perspective--cultural values, appeal to a certain type of readers, how it (the text) applies to society; try to find out what people want to know more about, thinks about the purpose of the document, who will be reading, and what you want them to do with it

Faigley--states that the document is part of a continuum, not a starting point; as opposed to the statement in the previous blog post.

What happens before? the people need to know what led up to that point, like the patient coming to the hospital, the hospital needs to know what led up to that point; the environmental-impact statement writer used a template made up by someone years ago; need to know the purpose of the document, who it will reach, and what the document needs to say.

People prefer facts over opinions.  The scientific facts, rather than the opinions, are favored.  There is a lot more to learn than just "x, y, and z".

Audience/Discourse Community:

Au: rhetorical triangle, English 101 

Writer/Speaker

/\

Audience--Topic

What does the audience know about the topic, what is their attitude toward the topic, and such.  This is seeing it too narrowly--need to see social roles, community organization, worldview (What does company one believe about this topic as opposed to company two?)

three types of criteria in thinking of a proposal, for example

DC: restricted traits that define them as a group (literate in the same language, e.g. terminology/concepts)

DC: particular usages of certain languages (Spanish/English speakers) (culture!) 

There is a lot we can do to understand than what Faigley suggests.  Rhetoric can help us with this.

Bloggingness!

I love making up new words. But sometimes, new words just don't work. They have a particular context, perhaps, but most of the time people just don't understand the meaning assigned to these new words.

Anyways, I am here to blog for class.

A document in the workplace is "a moment in the continuous process of communication".
What, then, does a PW need to know and be able to do in order to participate effectively in the process?

I think that PWs need to be able to communicate effectively. This includes being able to communicate clearly. Oftentimes, a person will be speaking, and, while he or she is able to understand the conversation, others around the speaker are not following along. This happens countless times in written communication as well.

A PW needs to be able to understand the material. Without a previous knowledge about what is going on, the PW will (normally) not be able to write something communicating the information. Unless, of course, the PW is really good at making up ideas.

PWs need to know the topic well enough to help others understand it. If they cannot do this, they are trying to communicate and are failing. In the end, this helps no one.

Post #2, Notes! They pass from blog to blog

What is rhetoric?

Theatrical--scripted, attacks to the "enemy", questions prepared in advance, stock answers, expected outcomes to questions posed; real rhetoric--real

What is not rhetoric?

It can be made up of stigmas, meaning people believe that rhetoric is bad, simply because they conjure up images of politics and such.

What is debate?

Debate is arguing for the purpose of changing someone else's views on a subject.  Occasionally, though, this branches over into the next question.

What is debate that is not really debate?

Debate is not really debate when people yell and fight about technicalities.  Debate is to defend one's position; people get defensive and upset with one another.

Motivation--what is the motivation for this?  Is it to get the truth out, or is it just to argue and debate?  Interested in the solving of community's problem, or defending one's position.  Benefits are for the audience; they can go away from hearing a debate and make decisions.  But the people debating are not open to change one's opinion or even interested in listening to the other person.  Crossfire--if one changes position, one is a loser.  Stewart was enforcing the rhetoric idea, but Crossfire debated.  Debate now is trying to unbalance your opponent, not to hear the other person's side.  They only ask small-point questions, they need to ask questions that bring out detailed answers.  Listening only to make their own points, or just to deflect from the ideas being spoken.  "Communally beneficial" is not "everyone wins"; it's compromise.

How to tie this in to Professional Writing and Writers?

Worksheet!

Brainstorm!

How does an editor keep the author's voice in items that have to be highly edited?  How do you approach the subject with the author?

How does an editor decide to buy the publication rights from an author?  How do they go about doing this?

--How does a specific editor organize his or her area?  Does this help or hinder the work being done?  Do they need things out in site to help them write or concentrate?

How do they manage their time?  Do they have specific times in which they do things, or are their actions random?  (i.e., time to check e-mails, answer clients or superiors, do their "heavy" work, etc.)

Questions posed by others:

How does a PWE stay motivated while working on topics not particularly interesting?

When two or more PWEs collaborate on a given project, how do they divide the work and avoid "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome?

How does a technical writer sort through their info to decide what is worth publishing and what can be discarded?

How do editors deal with controversial subject or things they don't believe in?

How much knowledge should a PW have on a subject before writing about/working with it?

How does the editor know what the audience wants?

Rhetorical Activities

The following are my answers to the rhetorical activities, numbers 2 and 4, on pages 29 and 30 of the book Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students:

1. (being number 2) In a particular sketch of the comedian Jon Stewart, he made a "point about the state of argument in America today". What Stewart said was that argument is not really argument. I have encountered this on numerous occasions. I'll overhear two people discussing the exact same point, with little difference, but each will say the other is wrong, thus completely missing the fact that they are both on the same side. To me, this is an argument-that's-not-really-an-argument. A theatrical sort of argument, I believe, is set apart from the rhetorically engaged argument because it seems either staged or put on. It's only for show, whereas a rhetorically engaged argument is one where the people actually care about making a point--they aren't just doing it for show.
2. (being number 4) Persuasion in my community--this is rather difficult to answer. I would say, or type, rather, that persuasion in my community is when a friend begins talking to me on a topic that I share the opposite view. If he or she poses the point in an easily-understood way, I will most likely agree with the way the friend is thinking. When this occurs, I find myself being swayed because I have been thinking of the topic in a new way. If I can see both sides of the issue, I can understand how people come upon that assumption, and I can argue for both sides.

The following is a list of arguments that seem convincing in certain cases:

1. The people I know changing their minds--this normally happens, I think, the way I outlined above. Once they hear the other side of the issue, it is normally easier to understand why someone believes a certain way. Other cases, though, it's easy to see the faults in a person's argument. When this occurs, the people I know take it upon themselves to correct the person. Depending on how this is handled, the person being corrected might listen and could very well change his or her views.
2. Religious conversion--this happens when one person asks another person about his or her beliefs. I've had many conversations with people just to discuss what the other person believes. If the person has no real belief system (?) then it is normally pretty easy for them to hear what I'm saying. If the person does have adamant beliefs on certain issues, though, the person is generally very caught up in believing only what he or she already believes. The opposite can be true in both cases, too. I fault myself in being easily swayed. Not everyone is like me. Yes, I can take a stand on a few things, but if I completely understand the arguments, I'm swayed because I think it's a fault in my thinking. This gets rather frustrating.
3. Convincing people to stop smoking or go on a diet--two very different things. The people I know who have gone on diets for health reasons are very similar to those who stop smoking because of health reasons--they are stopping because it will benefit them, or they are eating less or eating better because they will benefit from the decision. These happen many different ways. Some may be swayed by a doctor, others are swayed by friends. Sometimes, though, one person may convince him or herself that the decision is better.
4. Racists--I think that this either happens or doesn't solely based on the people one hangs around with. (Ah! Preposition!) The more and more one stays around people that believe in racism (can one believe "in" it?), the more that person is going to be seeing things from a racist perspective. The opposite is also true.
5. Presidents and wars--presidents are, by very nature, persuasive...how do you think they became president? Presidents can convince their people that a war is right based on several things. The number one way is to show the people that their own safety is threatened. The number two would be to show them that other places they have strong feelings about are threatened. The list can be endless for how presidents persuade their people. If there is a president, he or she is persuasive and will either tell the truth or not.

I've been trying to go back through the previous post and make it understandable. It was done in class on the computer, so I took notes quickly and didn't look too closely for mistakes or complete sentences. I will try to change this soon.