Rebecca Solnit’s experience at a party is used as a prime example some of the societal issues when it comes to how women are treated. I personally have never experienced any sort of experience with confident ignorance that is primary focused on one gender as he put’s it. Though, I cannot speak on behalf of women personally though I don’t doubt the existence of an abundance of male silencing thing or over voicing them, overconfidence as he describes is kind’ve a male stereotype within modern day and since they say stereotypes exists for a reason. I’d be hard press to doubt Solnit. Though this is a much more nuanced topic that I’m not too experience to go into yet.
During the topic of the internet, one of the more convincing arguments I heard was the story of Megan Phelp’s Roper Chen’s Unfollow. What’s the most unexpected part of the paper is that the internet as a whole is infamous for people never changing their minds on it especially the types of extremist groups like the Westboro baptist church. While yes these internet arguments won’t generate usual empathy because of the lack of emotion behind texting. The lack of emotion here is what drove Megan to rethink her position since the conversation took place at any time where each party is in a better condition to debate without emotionally shutting off the opposition and doubling down.
One that I generally don’t see as typically worthwhile is Carr’s stance. Since the internet distracting us is a thing, it’s not something exclusive to the internet. And while it’s true that knowledge coming from the internet is properly absorbed like from study, that convenient knowledge isn’t something that we would be dedicated to before the internet. If someone really wanted to get smarter via the internet on a topic they’ll do it the same way as someone before but with easier access to materials. It’s not like before the internet everyone knew every single minute fact about life like the back of their hand.
I think the idea of technology is going to be merely contextual. Most people who have close friends with conversation can probably still make it with texting and technology. But there is a hint of truth to that when talking to complete strangers, having a meaningful live debate with someone on opposing views is going to be less civil and meaningful in say, a twitter argument. Also making posts online for people who you barely met is definitely not build as much empathy, than some other people. Though like I said texting online is really contextual and varies a lot on what the conversation/platform is, which in a specific, and I’ll admit common context could or not prove what Sherry Turkle’s point.
One of Gladwell’s criticism of social media activism is the lack of organization. There isn’t much planning nor strategizing with social media networks, which leads to disorder and conflict where progress is less likely to happen. I think I personally agree to this. By going on social media for a movement where things are more impersonal, it’s much more harder to establish any sort of strategy or leadership. But this is definitely an obstacle to overcome with social media, which can be overcome by being personal and establishing leadership.
Cosmopolitans would be the idea of a global understanding and opening up of and to the many different viewpoints of all different types of people across the world. In a way he advocates for it is taking examples from the opposite of cosmopolitanism with Hitler and Stalin, isolated from and villainized outside views to the point it lead to extreme acts. How it lead to change is how outside views on a culture could lead to the culture taking in some of the views and adjusting, Chinese foot binding for example.
I was a bit confused about the hypothetical time traveling child but I got the point after a second read through.
After listening to this podcast from this American Life . I have concluded one of the best cases of changing someone’s mind is with a very personal and emotional conversation and helping lead the person talking into finding out for themselves that the topic at hand, given is in fact something that lines up to their morals. Preventing the “backfire effect” in where straight up facts about the subject would, for lack of a better word backfire and leading them to changing their mind themselves instead of forcing them. I’ve heard many claims the best way to win an argument is to be more emotional and appeal to the human side of the other, this does help me understand it more. But it also shines light the downside against it, it specifically how manipulative it is and the fact that people on the other side of the argument can use this method as equal, personally though I can’t imagine what it would sound like I can imagine it happening. There should also be the fact it won’t work on people who have an even more fundamentally different outlook on life accounted for. Like someone who’s fundamental beliefs are against aspects like abortions and gay marriage. This shows it’s one effective way to change people’s minds but has its clear downsides, and shouldn’t be the only way to convince an argument.
Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. It is a sample to show of a post in this theme. Delete it, then start blogging!
