Blog Post #3 - Is Google Making Us Stupid?

1. What's the author's intent? - To help us see that in an effort to become smarter by using virtual intelligence, we are actually causing harm to ourselves. These electronic 'helpers' are really hurting us.
What is the author trying to persuade the audience to think/do/feel? - To feel just how machine-like and autonomous we become as we use and depend more and more on technology.

2. What are the specific rhetorical tools the author is using?
-Personification = ""Dave, my mind is going," HAL says, forlornly. "I can feel it. I can feel it.""
-Imagery = "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski."
-Metaphor = "we risk turning into "'pancake people' - spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.""
-Pathos = "I'm haunted by that scene in 2001...its childlike pleading with the astronaut - "I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm afraid" - and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL's outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they're following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That's the essence of Kubrick's dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence."

3. What is the audience reaction? - Wow! This is true! The more I use electronic 'helpers,' the more impeded I become. The more dependent we become on technology, the less human we remain.
Does the reaction correlate with the author's intent? - Absolutely!
Was the article effective of ineffective? - Very effective

4. Bonus

Nicholas Carr writes about technology, culture, and economics.

Nick has been a columnist for The Guardian in London and has written for The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, The Times of London, The New Republic, The Financial Times, Die Zeit and other periodicals.

Nick is a member of the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial board of advisors, is on the steering board of the World Economic Forum's cloud computing project, and writes the popular blog Rough Type. He has been a writer-in-residence at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a sought-after speaker for academic and corporate events. Earlier in his career, he was executive editor of the Harvard Business Review. He holds a B.A. from Dartmouth College and an M.A., in English and American Literature and Language, from Harvard University.
- http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/info.shtml
The article was published in The Atlantic Monthly 302.1, July/August 2008

My Views on Peer-Editing

Alrighty folks, here's the dealeo,
I like it most of all when people who grade my papers are just honest about it. I appreciate people that don't want to be offensive...but please understand that if you don't tell me what my mistakes are, I can't fix them. So please just be open and honest with me. :)
With that being said, I do still appreciate it when you can show me something that I did correct, and not just show the multiplicity of errors. But of course, if there are nothing but errors, then please just be blunt and rip the band-aid off. I may be upset for a moment, but in the end I'll be grateful. :)
Thanks! You guys rock! As one member on my mission told me (in a little broken English): You are [all] stud and legit in one glass! ;)

5 Grammar/Punctuation Errors in my Op Ed Draft

1.  I use my Facebook to help me keep track of people from my Mission in Russia...
- The error is that "Mission" should not be capitalized.
- I use my Facebook to help me keep track of people from my mission in Russia...

2.  General Authorities have recently even started saying how important it is that we share the gospel with Social Media.
- The error is that "Social Media" should not be capitalized.
- General Authorities have recently even started saying how important it is that we share the gospel with social media.

3.  notice that several in your class aren’t paying attention, and instead have the blue glow of a computer screen on their faces.  
- After the word "attention" there should be a semicolon. The following line after "instead" is an independent clause.
- notice that several in your class aren't paying attention; instead, they have the blue glow of a computer screen on their faces.

4.  I have a Professor, who will not let ANYONE in a class of 600 use a computer.  
- The comma after "Professor" is not necessary.
- I have a Professor who will not let ANYONE in a class of 600 use a computer.

5. Why? I’m sure it’s because he has caught so many students getting distracted with tweeting or facebooking, and because they’re not paying attention they’re not doing well in the class.  
- The error is the sentence structure following the comma after "facebooking." It's a jumbled phrase that doesn't sound right. It would be better if the comma was replaced with a semi-colon.
- Why? I'm sure it's because he has caught so many students getting distracted with tweeting or facebooking; as a result, students are not paying attention and are therefore not doing well in the class. 

Fallacy Example...from Sesame Street :)

Burt walks into a room to find Bernie holding a banana in his ear. Burt asks him what he's doing.
Burt: Bernie why is that banana still in your ear?
Bernie: Listen Burt, I use this banana to keep the alligators away.
Burt: Alligators! Bernie there are no alligators on Sesame Street!
Bernie: Right! Doing a good job isn't it Burt!

This is an example of Post Hoc Fallacy, because Bernie is superstitious and believes that holding a banana in his ear will keep alligators away. When Burt points out that there are no alligators, Bernie simply attributes that fact as proof that his banana theory works.

To see this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTQi7vVsI    

Ethos, Pathos, Logos Examples from Pride and Prejudice

Ethos:
1. "My dear cousin, being, as I am, to inherit all this estate after the death of your father, I could not satisfy myself without resolving to choose a wife from among his daughters."
2.  "My dear Miss Elizabeth, my situation in life, my connection with the noble family of de Bourgh, are circumstances highly in my favour."

Pathos:
1. "Believe me, my dear Miss Elizabeth, that your modesty adds to your other perfections. But you can hardly doubt the object of my discourse, however your feminine delicacy may lead you to dissemble. For, as almost as soon as I entered the house, I singled you out as the companion of my future life!"
2. "I must attribute it to your wish of increasing my love by suspense,  in the usual manner of elegant females."

Logos:
1. "My reasons for marrying are:

  First, I think it a right thing for every clergyman to set the example of matrimony in his parish.

  Secondly, that I am convinced it will add very greatly to my happiness.

  And thirdly, which perhaps I should have mentioned first..."
2. "Consider that it is by no means certain that another offer of marriage may be made to you. You cannot be serious in your rejection."