Once reading the term
“oversimplification” I began to think of issues and ideas of what one would
consider an oversimplification. As human beings, it is in our nature to be
demanding and ask for facts for evidence and truth, we tend to oversimplify and
think a lot about our decisions. Our beliefs in racism or even being
stereotypical towards a certain stereotype, oversimplification is something one
will never be able to turn away from. In Lazere’s article, chapter 10,
“Avoiding Oversimplification and Recognizing Complexity,” she mentions that
oversimplification is the essence of generalities such as advertising, talk
radio, TV programs, propaganda, etc. However, Lazere taught me that
oversimplification isn’t something as valuable as rhetoric. Where as rhetoric
gives the best dialectical discourse and connection between audience and
speaker and oversimplification gives the lowest result of that. Congressman
Newt Gingrich quoted, “You have to give them confrontation.” Something to work
through their (the audience’s) thinking to get them to oversimplify.
If there is such thing as
oversimplifying then overgeneralizing has to quickly follow. Overgeneralizing is
when a speaker does not fully prepare their facts, evidence and/or cases to
back up their claim. For example, “people who drive Mercedes are rude because
people who drive Mercedes are rude.” For Corbett and Eberly’s theory this one
quote stuck out to me:
“You can spot discourses that beg the
question by looking for such words as obviously… any defense lawyer would say “objection!”
if the prosecution were to say to the jury, “obviously, she is guilty.”
Below is a photo I have attached to my
blog post as an easier way to understand Corbett’s and Eberly’s article. When
they mentioned false analogy, immediately I knew there had to be an image to
where I can show my audience and my followers exactly the point I am arguing. The
definition of an analogy is knowing something by knowing a similarity like it. Resulting
in analogies may not be the smartest tactic but, if one enjoys analogies like
myself, you can really grab your audiences attention.
I think you make a strong statement when you announce your overall understanding of the reading. "However, Lazere taught me that oversimplification isn’t something as valuable as rhetoric. Where as rhetoric gives the best dialectical discourse and connection between audience and speaker and oversimplification gives the lowest result of that." I think this coincides to my understanding of the articles as well, but as you also stated, it comes naturally and we will never be able to turn away from it and avoid it. I think your blog has a strong opinion but could benefit from some more information to an outside reader. You make great points from the text, but if I were not in the class, I would have a difficult time arriving at the over all content of the pieces. I like the direction you have gone in, but more from the text would have made it that much stronger! But great job!
ReplyDeleteIn your opening paragraph, I have to agree with you when you say “…oversimplification is something one will never be able to turn away from.” It is unfortunate (wouldn’t it be great to overcome stereotypes) but it is human nature.
ReplyDeleteBoth Corbett’s and Eberly’s Becoming a Citizen Critic and Lazere’s Oversimplification relate to many of our previous course readings. The two readings work in tandem: Corbett and Eberly describe to us what a citizen critic is, and ways that reasoning is intentionally or unintentionally diverted, while Lazere goes in depth about oversimplification, or “overgeneralization,” a specific diversionary tactic brought up in Corbett’s and Eberly’s article.
Corbett and Eberly begin their article by giving us two examples of young people writing to invoke social action. The paramount difference between these two letters is the faith the writer has in the public or audience being addressed. To be an effective citizen critic, a person must have faith that his/her discourse will make a difference, and that the audience will listen. In the second letter, the student uses diversions of reasoning, which only hinder his purpose and the potential for a changed outcome. These diversion tactics remind me of Rebecca Jones’s ten rules for productive argumentation because breaking those ten rules results in using these tactics.
Corbett and Eberly’s first diversion of reasoning is overgeneralization, which they define as “[drawing] a conclusion about all the members of a class of things or persons or cars…on the basis of a very limited sample” (124). This is similar to Lazere’s oversimplification, which includes, but is not limited to: stereotypes and prejudices, causal reductionism, and either-or thinking. In your example, “people who drive Mercedes are rude because people who drive Mercedes are rude,” I think you are referring to circular reasoning, which is considered begging the question. Overgeneralizing is not necessarily lacking facts or evidence to back up claims, but instead just makes a broad statement about a group from a limited number of that group. This can be avoided by simply qualifying the statement: an important tactic is Toulmin’s Model.
Something that I find important in Corbett’s and Eberly’s article is the disparity between spectators, or consumers, and citizen critics. Spectators are passive, while citizen critics are active. With entertainment being such a large part of our culture, more and more people are becoming spectators. Corbett and Eberly state that “combined with the increasing emphasis on entertainment and consumption, our relative dearth of public spaces and our relative lack of experience in reasoning together in public endanger our democracy” (131). The “lonely crowd” cannot interact in the public sphere.
Another important aspect of the “citizen critic” is that “citizen” takes on a new connotation. It is not limited to geographical, or national, boundaries. Taking a term from Marshall McLuhan, our world has become a “global village,” more interconnected than ever before. A citizen critic can be anyone that comes into contact with an issue that feels that he/she can make a difference. Citizen critics remind me of citizen journalists: both are free to make any comment they want, and are investigating issues as well as searching for solutions.
As Corbett and Eberly conclude, “what you assert in your reasoning must be true—that is, it must be based on conjectures, definitions, causal connections, and value judgments whose validity you can vouch for and whose import you know is not merely diversionary” (135). It seems that Corbett and Eberly are channeling the idea of stases (conjectures, definitions, causal connections, and value judgments) described by Fahnestock and Secor.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn Lazere’s article, he discusses how oversimplification is prominent in political campaigns, propaganda, TV programs, etc. This means that we encounter oversimplification in our daily persuasions. Stereotypes are all around us. When you mention the Gingrich quote about confrontation, it reminds me of Killingsworth’s Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media article because the media is interested in four things: drama, disaster, debate, and dichotomy. The media wants to sell, to entertain—they are not solely interested on informing the public.
In order to avoid oversimplification, Lazere poses that we must recognize complexity. Lazere says that “higher-order thinking” necessitates developing beyond a literal-minded mentality that absorbs only what appears on the surface of things; it is related to an understanding of multiple viewpoints, irony, and the difference between literal and figurative language and other levels of meaning” (245). Lazere continues to say that “many of us even as adults remain overly credulous and literal-minded, at least in areas of belief in which we have a strong emotional investment;…” (248). This statement is an overgeneralization in itself, and a presumptuous one at that. I think that people who are emotionally invested in something generally have viewed multiple vantages, and therefore are passionate about their stance.
Another interesting part of his article, in my opinion, is when he describes how extremes are actually more similar than dissimilar. It is ironic that people try to demonstrate their points by polarizing, and end up becoming more alike.
Both of these articles continue our discussions on what it means to argue effectively, and how to achieve deliberation that invokes both change and understanding.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComing from the standpoint of a classmate, I knew what you were talking about, but if I weren't in this class, I wouldn't know exactly what you meant by "Oversimplification." Though you give your thoughts on it, you don't give a definition or too much background from the readings. (Though the word seems like it should be easy to understand, a definition is always nice for those special few who need it.)
ReplyDeleteThe few excerpts which you included were great and were also the ones that stuck out to me. This quote was my favorite: “You can spot discourses that beg the question by looking for such words as obviously… any defense lawyer would say 'objection!' if the prosecution were to say to the jury, 'obviously, she is guilty.'”
I feel like though oversimplification & overgeneralization are similar, they aren't exactly the same, and you focused more on overgeneralization. I would have liked to read more about oversimplification.
The informal tone of this blog post worked well considering how it touches upon the importance of human nature in regards to oversimplifying and overgeneralizing. Just looking into history unravels a lineage of issues that were caused by generalizations. Thankfully, rhetoric is not an advocate of generalizations and can be used as a tool to teach others the importance of being specific and supporting ones arguments.“Overgeneralizing is when a speaker does not fully prepare their facts, evidence and/or cases to back up their claim.” I find that this issue is concurrent due to the wide availability of content on the Internet. Pseudo rhetors believe that throwing semi relevant facts at their arguments yield sound ideas. Avoiding generalizations and oversimplifications can help avoid these pitfalls and enforce discourse.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the visual aid for false analogies. What I find interesting is how analogies have become a useful tool in advertisements. People do not look down on them, rather they find them to be more entertaining. Writers who find themselves oversimplifying and overgeneralizing can learn to use this skill.
I totally agree with your ideas about the term “oversimplification”. This term is something that we can use to relate to our everyday life. As you stated that oversimplification is overgeneralized through advertising, talk radio, TV programs, and etc., it made me realize that this is something that will never fade away. I like how you touched on the examples of Lazare’s reading and it made me think more about the example he used when he stated that politicians aren’t artists. This closely related to your explanation of false analogies and how if someone isn’t familiar with a certain situation or has the same viewpoint as the presenter, the information presented could be lost. This will forever be an issue because we as a people all think differently. Presentation is key for any situation and the way people perceive information could either have them agree with your claim or have them thoroughly confused. I believe Corbett and Eberly did an excellent job by using sub topics to shoe examples of oversimplification in our everyday lives. Both writers show how a complex statement can be viewed from several different viewpoints due to the audience. The picture you posted on your blog was a great example because I was quite lost the first time I read it. Since I have no particular background at the subject at hand I did create a false analogy of the image and realized that we as people all think differently.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your grasp of the concepts of oversimplification and over-generalization. At first it's easy to recognize it from a non-rhetorical view. We oversimplify and over-generalize incessantly in our daily lives; I really like how you addressed that. You then tie in Corbett and Eberly's multiple concepts through the comic you added at the end, and it really did help me understand the connection even further than I did in my own blog post, I think!
ReplyDeleteThese two articles are going to be very important to consider while creating our Wikipedia project, in the hopes that we, as well as our audience, can avoid oversimplifying, overgeneralizing, and addressing the multiple enthymemes.
This post is concise and straight to the point with regards to the articles purpose. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteWhat’s really troubling is the often use of sweeping generalizations. As Corbertt and Ederly put it in their article Becoming a Citizen Critic, “One very common diversion of reasoning is generalizing without looking at enough cases to support a sweeping conclusion. Everyone does this. (Just kidding: Hear the overgeneralization?)” As you mentioned in your blogpost about the topic, this is used in broadcasts mediums such as the radio and TV.
Lazere also writes in Reading and Writing in Civic Literacy, “Oversimplification has pervaded American public discourse as a characteristic of mass media aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator of critical thinking skills.” Again, I could not have put it better myself as you put this quote into words: “Where as rhetoric gives the best dialectical discourse and connection between audience and speaker and oversimplification gives the lowest result of that.”
“There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”, as quoted in Joel Best’s Telling the Truth About Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics. Drawing on today’s discussion towards oversimplification and statistics, there is a connection seen in which the line is muddled between what the fact was, and then being misconstrued as to what the claim was.