Firstly, this revision corrects most (well, all that I could find!) of the grammatical and awkward transitional errors I made in the last draft. Sometimes, having nine-and-a-half fingers causes me to make small typos, but I suppose that’s a lame excuse for such simple mistakes. It took more effort to correct some instances when I wasn’t concise, or when I was too wordy. I’ve found that it is helpful for me to review my writing a couple of weeks after I’ve looked at it last, since I can read it more objectively.
In my last draft, I also left out a key part of the Toulmin argument—rebuttals. I went back and deleted some needless sentences and added a criticism of Thompson’s claim, and how it could have been more successful.
However, in comparison to the last third draft of the last assignment, this revision went relatively smoothly. Perhaps my mistakes were easier to fix this time? I went through all the criticisms I got for my second draft and adjusted my paper, yet I still feel not as confident as I would like to be about my paper. I know that this draft is definitely better because of the errors I corrected, but is it good enough? I don’t really know what “good enough” is. Because I know that it probably can’t reach perfection under every criticism, but I can keep working on it.
While I feel like my thesis is definitely clearer and directly supported in this draft, I’m not sure if my paper can suddenly go from “able” to “masterful” in one go. I guess that depends on the reader’s opinion.
Supergeeks
Clive Thompson’s column, titled Count on Geeks to Rescue the Earth, in Wired’s September issue defends and supports the geek mystique. Using a variety of rhetorical techniques, Thompson argues successfully for geeks’ capacity to help millions of people rather than simply focusing on individuals, due to their problem solving skills, even with mass amounts.
The article begins with a description of a geek’s role model, the utterly rich, famous, and smart Bill Gates. In this description, Gates symbolizes the quintessential geek, a “nerd’s nerd—someone who seems perennially uncomfortable around people and only at ease dealing with the intricacies of software code” (Thompson 62). How then could such a person uncomfortable around others be able to help millions? Perhaps Thompson assumes that Gates isn’t directly interacting with people, handing them packages of food or building their schools, but rather the rich, wise icon behind the dollar, the mastermind behind the plan. In Thompson’s eyes, Gates is “practically a social cripple,” but also a geek who isn’t overwhelmed by large numbers as normal people are when they hear millions crying for help. This example of Gates, the quintessential geek and philanthropist, supports Thompson’s main claim through the Toulmin model that geeks are capable of saving the world.
By directly relating Bill Gates with the term “geek,” Thompson uses a warrant to assume the reader’s knowledge of geeks. In other situations, such as in more scholarly articles and texts outside of “geeky” magazines such as Wired, the term “geek” might need to be defined clearer. However, Thompson chooses to draw a from a warrant of the reader’s assumption of the term in a culture where a geek is defined as intelligent yet lacking social skills. This warrant works so well that Thompson doesn’t even need to explain the definition of “geek,” as geek is implicitly defined synonymously with Bill Gates.
Other than Bill Gates, Thompson does not show other real-life examples of geeky philanthropists. Thompson’s argument could have been more successful had he identified other examples of rich geeks saving the world. There are also other flaws in Thompson’s argument. Thompson also assumes that Wired’s readers are geeks themselves, since he creates a claim that many geeks probably won’t challenge (since the claim is favorable to them). Perhaps more scholarly readers would question his assumption of geeky characteristics, yet Thompson doesn’t address this, as he also avoids rebuttals in his essay.
Since Thompson doesn’t address rebuttals in this article, one wondered if geeks, with all their social incapability, would typically be people likely to be empathetic for starving and disease-ravaged peoples across the globe. Actually, Thompson is supported by other sources on this issue—geeks really do harbor aspirations to promote positive change in the world. According to Warren Bennis and Robert Thomas in Geeks and Geezers, geeks (defined by the same stereotype Thompson uses) typically want to make a difference in the world as found through interviews with geeks between the ages of 25 and 30. A lot of people aspire to be successful and rich, but “personal wealth carries real social obligations” (Bennis and Thomas 59). Thompson is also supported by Bennis and Thomas’ argument that innately designed in the geek is the aspiration to financial success (possibly to outdo their brawny high school counterparts), but once that success is achieved, a sort of obligation or duty appears on the geek’s shoulder: to educate, feed, and heal the world.
Evidence from Geeks and Geezers also supports Thompson’s claim through logos. Within the article, Thompson also employs logos to further develop his claim. If the reader wasn’t convinced before, Thompson also goes into more detail, using facts and opinions from the psychologist Paul Slovic’s research in human empathy. The facts described show that people are 50% more likely to give to one starving individual than to a group of people with the same problem. This statistic brings more factual credibility to Thompson’s argument, simultaneously using logos and ethos. Thompson goes on to say that “we’ll break the bank to save Baby Jessica, but when half of
Using words such as “dying” and “mass tragedy,” Thompson also uses pathos to invoke empathetic emotion in readers for the needy and struggling people worldwide. Thompson descriptively notes the conditions of disease-ravaged peoples and naturally, readers feel sorry for these people and want to give, yet know they cannot help people as rich geeks can.
Monetary gifts to the world, such as those given by Bill Gates, have helped to tackle long-term social problems such as AIDS, hunger, and poverty. According to Thompson, only geeks like Gates can view the large numbers and determine solutions for such huge problems, solving them with a “moral algorithm: Preventable death=bad; preventable death x 1 million people= 1 million times as bad.” Though Thompson could have made his argument more successful by providing more examples and addressing rebuttals, he is successful in his argument, warranting the reader’s understanding of the term “geek,” supporting his ideas with the instance of Bill Gates and the research of Paul Slovic. Thompson is convincing using Toulmin arguments to show how geeks have another potential, more than just solving mathematical problems, the potential to improve and change the world.
Works Cited
Bennis, Warren G, and Robert J. Thomas. Geeks & Geezers.
Thompson, Clive. "Count on Geeks to Rescue the Earth." Wired
September 2007: 62.
No comments:
Post a Comment