Directions: Watch the video below and answer the proceeding questions. The direct link to the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88.
- Who does the speaker identify as her audience?
- What is the speaker's hook? How does that hook work with her argument?
- What is the context for her argument? How does she center the audience in the argument?
- What do you imagine was her academic/thesis question? What is the argument/thesis?
- What are some of the parts of the body of the argument? What are some examples she gives to support her argument? How does she make those examples relevant to the audience?
- What is her conclusion?
Due before class on Thursday, September 25th. Be sure to perform all of your homework readings before performing this blog, through the readings from September 23rd.
Reply to a classmate: in the spirit of embracing wrongness, find a post that says something different than what you said (in any large or small way), and consider how your classmate labeled the various parts of the argument. Pick one part of your classmate's responses that you agree or disagree with and detail for your classmate why you agree or disagree. When I say detail, I mean be specific. If you and your classmates all said precisely the same thing, then consider what you all might have missed in the video and then describe that for your classmate in your reply.
Reply due before 5pm on Friday, September 26th.
Kathryn Schulz identifies our culture as her audience. Her hook is her story about her road trip and mistaking a picnic area sign for a Chinese character. This story is a great demonstration of how being wrong is not the end of the world. It didn't change her success. It didn't cause anyone to think less of her. Its actually quite funny. Her context is in 2011 the global economy was horrible, the oil spill in the Golf of Mexico recently happened. She mentions her background for the last 5yrs thinking about being wrong. Kathryn centers the audience in the argument by inviting them into the conversation. She asks them how they feel when their wrong. She appeals to their emotions. I would imagine her academic question was, how can I convince others its ok to be wrong? The thesis is that being wrong is the greatest moral, intellectual and creative leap you can make. In her body she explains why we get stuck: error blindness and grade school. She uses the cartoon and a child's paper as examples. She also talks about why being stuck in our rightness can be dangerous. She uses the example from Beth Israel to support this thought. Lastly she talks about why its ok to be wrong and why we fundamentally need it to be who we are. She uses philosophers sayings and mentions her book as examples. She makes the examples relevant to the audience by mentioning recent issues, such as the oil spill,the economy, the hospital and the radio show. She talks about how we've all thought something was going to happen but something else happened instead. Her conclusion is challenging everyone to step outside our rightness and embrace the universe by admitting maybe we are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your response, except for one point; the context for which the speaker is speaking. You believe that the context is the recent oil spill and the declining economy, but I saw those as just examples to one of her main points. I believe that the context for this speech is the conference that her audience is attending. The context also comes from the book that she has written.
DeleteThe audience that Kathryn Schulz is speaking to, is our society. The hook she uses to captivate you, is a story from her past, where she misinterpreted a picnic area sign for a Chinese symbol. Kathryn integrated this story into the rest of the argument quite well, because she argued that being wrong is acceptable. The context of her argument is right near 2011 when the global economy had not been in the best condition, and that was also around the time that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico happened. She talks and gives different examples of how people can and have been wrong. She brought her audience in the conversation by asking them how they felt when they were wrong, or rather, when they realized that they were wrong. I think her thesis question was, how can being wrong be ok? I think her argument was mainly about error blindness, how being wrong can teach people, not only to not make the same mistake again, but how to be right about things more and more often. Parts of the body in her argument were mostly just examples about different people’s errors in everyday life. She also used cartoon characters and a student’s graded paper in her argument. Kathryn relates these stories to the audience’s life by pointing out that everyone makes mistakes, many people thought that something should happen, but it turned out that something else happened instead. Her conclusion tells people that they need to step out of the world of “right” and just admit that they are wrong. Not just that they are wrong, but that everything will be OK, even though they’re wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your response to this video. I like how you thought that error blindness was one of her main arguments. I never thought that error blindness would have played a role in her argument.
DeleteThe speaker in the video is talking to not only her current audience but society as a whole. She grabs our attention with a funny narrative. The narrative is relevant because it is about a personal experience with being wrong which a lot of people can relate to. The context of the video is 2011 when there were some major problems with the economy and there had been an oil spill. She invites the audience in to the conversation by asking them how it feels to be wrong. Bringing the audience into it makes it personal. Her thesis question was probably Is being wrong bad? Her thesis for this question would be Being wrong isn’t so bad, it’s part of being human. For the body of her argument, she starts with why we think being wrong is bad. She uses the example of graded work. She also uses quotes from some influential people in history. Her conclusion asks the audience to accept that they are wrong sometimes and that it’s fine to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said except, the context. I thought that was an example that she use in order to crass her point.
DeleteThe speaker Kathryn Schulz identifies her audience as us as a culture. Her hook was that she and a friend went on a road trip across country. She called a symbol that she kept seeing a ‘Chinese symbol’ which her friend pointed out that it was the symbol for picnic bench. The hook worked with her argument to show that we think that we are right until we are shown or realize that we are wrong. The context for her argument is that us as a culture are stuck thinking we are right. She centers the audience in the argument by showing/explaining to them moments when they think they are right and what happens. I that her thesis question is, Is it bad being wrong? The argument is, “Why do we think being wrong is bad?” Some parts of the body of the argument are that a lot of people that think they are right have really negative assumptions of others that think that what the other person that thinks they are right that they are wrong, the oil spill, and the failing economy. Her conclusion to her seminar was that we love stories even though they are wrong just like our lives are really like this. It is okay being wrong because life is not what you expect it be. She stated that we should go relook at the world around us and see we are not in control and to state to yourself “Maybe I am wrong.”
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your response, I watched the video again because we disagreed on a couple things. I thought the hook was to relate to the audience and show that we can all be wrong. You mentioned that it shows that "we think that we are right until we are shown or realize that we are wrong." I hadn't considered it that way, and after she mentions that being wrong feels like being right, I can see where you are coming from with it.
DeleteThe speaker identifies her audience as the people who read her book, the people that are at that conference, and society in general.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker's hook is her story about a time when she went on a road trip with her friend and mistook the picnic signs as Chinese characters. This works with her argument because she is able to show her audience that she too is sometimes wrong about things. By doing this, she can relate to her audience.
The context of her argument is from the book that she has written and about the conference about rediscovering wonder. She centers the audience by asking them questions and speaking directly to them, inviting them into the conversation.
Her thesis question could be "why is it such a big deal for people to admit they are wrong?" Her argument is that people are afraid of being wrong because of the way it would make them feel, but if they could admit to the wrongness, then they would be able to open their eyes to the world around them and see so much more.
The speaker states that her three main points are why people get stuck in the feeling of being right, why it is such a problem, and to convince her audience that it is possible to step outside of the feeling of being right. For her first point, she uses the coyote and road runner as an example. She makes this relevant because she relates how the coyote is fine while he is running, even though he has run off the cliff, until he looks down and realizes he is in trouble to how people don't realize they are wrong until it is pointed out to them. She gives an example for her second by telling the story of the surgeon that performed surgery on the wrong side of a patient. She makes this relevant by explaining how it is dangerous to trust too much in the feeling of being right, because you could be wrong.
Her conclusion is that life and the world are astonishing and things never happen the way we except them to. She challenges the audience to step out of their feeling of rightness to experience the complexity of the world around them.
I agree with your response, You explained everything that happens in the video, and if i did not watch this video i already have the gist of what it's all about because you explained in details. After i read your response i realize i left some point out in my response.
DeleteI agree with your response.You explained everything that happens in the video, if i did not watch this video i can have the gist of what it's all about because you explained in details. After i read your response i realized i left some point out in my response.
DeleteI agree with your explanation of examples. Everyone is perfectly fine until they realize they are wrong and that when they believe they are always right it does affect them as well. I feel like her point might have been is not to care what other believe, you are who you are and that will not change the outcome of your future just because you are right or wrong.
DeleteThe speaker Kathryn Schulz identifies society, as a whole, as her audience. Her hook is describing a personal experience on how she has been wrong before. She had mistaken a highway picnic area sign for a Chinese symbol. By describing her story she is demonstrating that even though sometimes you may get things wrong, that the world is not going to end in that moment. Her context of the video is around 2011 when there had been an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as well as some major problems in the economy. She then brings the audience in by asking them a question and then giving her opinion on why they feel this way. By doing this she is making the conversation more personal to her audience. I imagine that her thesis question was, how do I show people that being wrong is acceptable? Her argument then is trying to prove to her audience that it really is okay to be wrong, she is trying to reach out to people and affect their emotions a little so that they are able to relate to what she is trying to prove. She mentions the cartoon road runner because most people watched that cartoon when they were younger. The coyote in the cartoon is constantly chasing the road runner and just can’t seem to catch him because he is doing everything wrong. Even thou he is finding the wrong ways to catch the road runner he still continues to find new and different ways to catch him. The coyote is accepting that he did something wrong, but is still more than willing to get back out there and try again. By pointing this out to her audience she is continuing to bring them in and convince them that being wrong is okay. Kathryn decides to end the conversation by inviting everyone to take a step back and not be afraid to admit that sometimes you may be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. I think that error blindness was one of her main points, and you just seemed to gloss over that. I thought that explaining how the road runner and coyote interact was unnecessary as well.
DeleteThe speaker in the video identifies her audience as the one she is speaking in front of as well as our society as a whole. The speakers hook is a funny personal story that demonstrates being wrong. This hook works for her argument because it is relatable and proves that even when we find out we are wrong that it’s okay, and that it isn't going to be the end. The hook even conveys that being wrong can be funny and a learning experience. The context of the video is around 2011 when the economy was down and the oil spill happened in the Gulf of Mexico. The speaker brings the audience in by asking them how it feels to be wrong, and making it more personal for them. I imagine her academic question/ thesis was “Why is out society so afraid of being wrong? And why is being wrong, wrong? Her argument is being wrong is okay, and is actually what makes us all human. Parts of her body argument include the reasons why we as a society think it is so bad to be wrong. Examples she uses in the video to support her argument were of a graded homework, a cartoon, and a story of a surgeon all making mistakes. She makes all these examples relatable to the audience by making a statement about how sometimes we plan on something happening one way and instead it happens differently. The speaker concludes her argument by inviting the audience to step out of always being right, and to accept being wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe speaker Kathryn Schulz’s identifies her audience as a society and us as a culture. Her hook was about her experience when she went on a road trip with her friend, and she mistook a Chinese character for the picnic area sign. This works with her argument by showing her audience that she made a mistake before and it wasn’t the end of the world and it did not affect her success. The context of her argument was how she reflects her circumstantial for the last 5years thinking about being wrong. She centers her audience by inviting them into the conversation by asking them how they feel when they were wrong. Her thesis question is, is being wrong the end of world? Her argument is why do we feel bad when we realize we were wrong? .The body part of her argument talks about how being wrong in our rightness could be wrong, and how we get stuck in our feelings of being right. She makes the examples relevant by mentioning the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. She also states the public radio show and the Beth Israel hospital by using a surgeon who did a surgery on the left side of a patient. Her conclusion states that being wrong is acceptable, but people should step outside of their rightness and admit the fact of being wrong.
ReplyDeleteI like your ideas but I do not agree with what you think her thesis question could have been. You think it is "is being wrong the end of the world" but when I watched the video I took all of her statements and stories as her asking a possible thesis question of "Why are people so afraid of being wrong". Because in the video she only said that being wrong isn't the end of the world, but that wasn't the point she was trying to make or prove. The whole video she is trying to argue that in today's society we are all afraid to make mistakes and be wrong, but she is arguing that making those mistakes and being wrong is actually what makes us human and that we should accept being wrong more often.
DeleteThe speaker Kathryn Schulz identifies her audience as everyone in general, the human race. Schulz hooked her audience by sharing a personal experience of being wrong. The time she confused a picnic area sign for a Chinese symbol. She made the audience laugh which made us want to keep listening to the story because we know she is going to keep humoring us. The main topic is being wrong and how we are scared to be wrong. We are trapped thinking being wrong is wrong. I believe her argument is why are we scarred to be wrong or why are we scared to discover we are wrong. Her thesis is that being wrong feels right until we discover we are wrong. She uses an example of the roadrunner and the coyote. Every time the roadrunner runs off the cliff her comes the coyote running of the cliff too and makes it half way or so until he realizes there is no more ground and falls immediately. Her conclusion is challenging her audience to step out of the bubble and don’t care if you are wrong or right. Life will continue regardless if you’re wrong or right.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your analysis. I noticed we have a different opinion on the thesis. I never took into consideration that statement she made about how it feels being wrong. The only problem I see with that, is if this argument were on paper the middle doesn't mention feelings. She talks about why its a problem and demonstrates how dangerous it can be.
DeleteThe speaker at the convention wanted to convince her audience that it is natural to be wrong about certain situations. Her audience were very educated astrophysics who probably relied on facts and was certain of almost everything. The speaker’s hook of the lecture was a sign for picnic area that she misinterpreted as a Chinese character. She worked this element into her point that people want to be right. She asks her own thesis questions like “Why we sometimes misunderstand the signs around us? How we Behave when this happens?” The argument that was presented is that that some people will exempt the possibility of being wrong. It is possible to be wrong or uncertain about some things in life. The speaker reasons that at an early age young people are taught that getting something wrong implies there is something wrong with that person. By this principal people insist that they are smart because it keeps them safe. The relevance to the audience is that scientist for the most part are very intelligent, however, most of them rely on facts. Facts itself are hardly ever wrong. She is trying to persuade her audience to believe that being right is nothing but a safety zone. The conclusion of the argument is that stepping out of being right and realizing the possibilities of everything life has to offer can suggest not only one idea; it provides many. Thinking that one solution is correct in itself is wrong and being wrong is ok.
ReplyDeleteI think her audience was probably the conference in specific and culture in a more generalized way and the astrophysicists were more of an example used to prove her argument to that audience.
DeleteThe speaker in this video identifies that not only the people who attended her conference, but all the human community on the earth. Her hook is her own story about going on a road trip with her friend, where she realized that a picnic area sign was a Chinese symbol. Her short story became applicable because it tells more about individual experience we as human beings relate to making mistakes. For her context, she motioned about oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the economy in the country went down. She brings the audience into the argument by questioning them how it feels when they are wrong. I think her thesis is to prove that everybody makes mistakes. Her thesis question came as thinking how did being wrong become acceptable? I think her argument was mostly about how being wrong is what every human being faces in real life. For the body of her argument she uses more examples on how we make mistakes in our everyday life. She uses the grading and the cartoons parts in order to prove how our minds work. She also uses some important people, such as George W. Bush invading Iraq in order to establish democracy in the Middle East, and Hosni Mubarak ruling Egypt for his life but their thoughts did not work. Her conclusion is a message to the world that we should step out of our rightness and explore the world. We are wrong in every step we take, and will always learn by making mistakes.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Shulz gives the speech "On Being Wrong" on this particular occasion at a TED conference and her audience is anyone that has had the experience of being wrong. She uses a personal experience about a recent camping trip and examples of "error-blindness" to draw attention to her argument that nobody can be perfect and also to culture's "obsession with fallacy". The context of her argument included recent cultural shifts such as America's viewpoints on the economy, the oil-spill, and the Egyptian protests that led to the deposing of leadership and she centered her argument using a list of how assumptions can be dangerous. She also mentions that "being wrong is constantly on her mind" and has been for years, which leads to the belief that her academic thesis was probably something along the same lines as her current argument. In her conclusion she comes back to her original argument that being wrong is necessary in order to eventually be right, saying that discussion must be ongoing in order to achieve the innovations they do each year at the conference and in life.
ReplyDelete