(The Essential Guide to Group Communication)
Communicating in Organizations
In Chapter 4, I found the section pertaining towards organization systems to be an incredibly fascinating topic. Important, key vocabulary terms for communicating in organizations included: systems, wholeness, hierarchy, openness, adaptability, and equifinality. It essentially covered the basis and stressed the importance of communication in organization is crucial and fundamental. Communication, and the way it happens and works in organizations, according to the text, is not a moderately easy process to grasp. It is easier and much more helpful to the reader or person attempting to understand communication in organizations to view organizations (or things of that kind that use communication in the same way) as systems. Systems, like organizations, usually stand on their own, providing for themselves, solely building themselves up; they are utterly independent.
Eventually the organization would have to attain traits that could improve their quality and quantity in people. The idea of wholeness, hierarchy, openness, adaptability, and equifinality all have related traits that lead back to people themselves. One must have openness to respect and hear other's thoughts and opinions on subject opinions that are different from the default perspective. One must adapt to change and realize the frailty and inexactitude of constants in organizations, and how easily changeable they can become in order to achieve betterment in its entirety. Equifinality is the ability to create multiple ideas and possibilities to arrive and attain its results, according to the text. All things have details that are acquired by numerous people achieving a plethora of different tasks that ultimately, in its whole, help to achieve a single result of achievement and improvement. It's very wonderful and interesting.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Discussion Question Number Two, Part Trois
Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion and Content Fallacies
Appeal to Emotion
The content fallacy of appealing to emotion deals with convincing another of their claim through their feelings, most likely feelings the other approves of, or feelings that go with their claim to prove their argument to them as right, strong, and in general. It can also be illustrated through means of associating something with more commonly good feelings (or bad) to get them on your side of the claim. "You should believe or do ___ because you feel ___", according to Epstein.
Example
Look, you don't even like to dance and hate being in overly crowded places anyway, so you'll hate going to this concert. Don't go.
The person making this claim uses the emotional pull of another's proclaimed dislike for dancing and largely crowded places to convince them in not going to the concert in order to prove that they are right, their claim is strong, and the person they are directing this claim to should, therefore, avoid attending the concert. They have no other argument or good reason for the other to believe that they shouldn't go, which makes this not as good of an argument it could be. By piling up negative, past experiences with concerts, they are more likely easily able to get their way, and to expect that because a certain experience resulted in a certain way, that it will happen the same way each and every time the other decides to re-experience that certain thing. There's too many variables that could vary the second time around that could change the other's mind about the certain thing, which could say even more about the person's claim and how it lacks more believability and good reason.
Appeal to Emotion
The content fallacy of appealing to emotion deals with convincing another of their claim through their feelings, most likely feelings the other approves of, or feelings that go with their claim to prove their argument to them as right, strong, and in general. It can also be illustrated through means of associating something with more commonly good feelings (or bad) to get them on your side of the claim. "You should believe or do ___ because you feel ___", according to Epstein.
Example
Look, you don't even like to dance and hate being in overly crowded places anyway, so you'll hate going to this concert. Don't go.
The person making this claim uses the emotional pull of another's proclaimed dislike for dancing and largely crowded places to convince them in not going to the concert in order to prove that they are right, their claim is strong, and the person they are directing this claim to should, therefore, avoid attending the concert. They have no other argument or good reason for the other to believe that they shouldn't go, which makes this not as good of an argument it could be. By piling up negative, past experiences with concerts, they are more likely easily able to get their way, and to expect that because a certain experience resulted in a certain way, that it will happen the same way each and every time the other decides to re-experience that certain thing. There's too many variables that could vary the second time around that could change the other's mind about the certain thing, which could say even more about the person's claim and how it lacks more believability and good reason.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Discussion Question Number One, Part Trois
Exercises on the Structure of Arguments
(Exercise/Number Two)
I'm on my way to school. (1) I left five minutes late. (2) Traffic is heavy. (3) Therefore, I'll be late for class. (4) So I might as well stop and get breakfast (5).
Argument? (yes or no)
Yes
Conclusion:
They were late on leaving on time to get to school, so they might as well enjoy breakfast.
Additional premises needed?
They are not only already five minutes late, but traffic is heavy, which means it will take them even longer to get to school.
Identify any subargument?
The argument is kind of a chain of reasons and sub-arguments as the person stating it sees that because of 2, 3, and 4, he should just give up trying to do what is already done (trying not to be late) as he calculates that adding on the time it will take to get through traffic will ultimately make him late, so he might as well just enjoy the time to eat before getting to school, which is 5. Because of 2, 3 will occur, which means there is a direct relation between the two. 1, introduces the topic to which they speak of. It doesn't give any sort of argument, but is rather what sticks the rest of the sub-arguments together; it is the main point.
Good argument?
Not necessarily. The argument has a potential to be strong, however, simply stating independent clauses after another without any link to the previous clause causes the argument to become weak. Each reason does make sense and reverts back to the first sentence, however, there isn't much reason to believe (it isn't a good reason) for the person to do just go and have a good breakfast because he essentially keeps adding minutes to his tardiness, and could possibly be missing crucial information he could have known at least a little bit more if they just goes straight to school. According to Epstein, an argument drastically improves when there is a consistency or link between every sentence or reason.
I felt like this exercise could be much more helpful if there was more of a breakdown of details for the examples. I wish I had a little more help understanding what to do. I also think it'd be more helpful and useful if I had feedback, like in the examples, telling me whether I understood and analyzed the argument correctly. However, it did help me see that simply saying why certain things are bad about something, as illustrated in the text, does not immediately make it a good argument. I also learned how to look more in detail in arguments and statements in general.
(Exercise/Number Two)
I'm on my way to school. (1) I left five minutes late. (2) Traffic is heavy. (3) Therefore, I'll be late for class. (4) So I might as well stop and get breakfast (5).
Argument? (yes or no)
Yes
Conclusion:
They were late on leaving on time to get to school, so they might as well enjoy breakfast.
Additional premises needed?
They are not only already five minutes late, but traffic is heavy, which means it will take them even longer to get to school.
Identify any subargument?
The argument is kind of a chain of reasons and sub-arguments as the person stating it sees that because of 2, 3, and 4, he should just give up trying to do what is already done (trying not to be late) as he calculates that adding on the time it will take to get through traffic will ultimately make him late, so he might as well just enjoy the time to eat before getting to school, which is 5. Because of 2, 3 will occur, which means there is a direct relation between the two. 1, introduces the topic to which they speak of. It doesn't give any sort of argument, but is rather what sticks the rest of the sub-arguments together; it is the main point.
Good argument?
Not necessarily. The argument has a potential to be strong, however, simply stating independent clauses after another without any link to the previous clause causes the argument to become weak. Each reason does make sense and reverts back to the first sentence, however, there isn't much reason to believe (it isn't a good reason) for the person to do just go and have a good breakfast because he essentially keeps adding minutes to his tardiness, and could possibly be missing crucial information he could have known at least a little bit more if they just goes straight to school. According to Epstein, an argument drastically improves when there is a consistency or link between every sentence or reason.
I felt like this exercise could be much more helpful if there was more of a breakdown of details for the examples. I wish I had a little more help understanding what to do. I also think it'd be more helpful and useful if I had feedback, like in the examples, telling me whether I understood and analyzed the argument correctly. However, it did help me see that simply saying why certain things are bad about something, as illustrated in the text, does not immediately make it a good argument. I also learned how to look more in detail in arguments and statements in general.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three, Part Deux
Expectations About Relationships
Chapter three of The Essential Guide to Interpersonal Communication provides a tremendously interesting perception concerning the various expectations about relationships, particularly, the tendencies in the unrealistic and realistic expectations formed through them.
Unrealistic expectations versus realistic expectations partake in a large portion when getting to know someone. Sometimes, we tend to form opinions and preconceived notions about what we personally hope people to be. We see the way a person dresses, the way they treat others, and in general, the way we expect them and desire them to live as in our heads. We see the good, accept the bad, and hope for the best when it comes down to those moments of sharing our most intimate secrets and thoughts with one another.
The benefits of pertaining realistic expectations can, for instance, save yourself the time of getting into a relationship that could possibly end up becoming too conflicting, in regards to opposing interests and beliefs that will ultimately turn off the motivation and joy of getting to know the person even further. Along with this possibility, by being aware of the realistic circumstances and limitations the relationship may contain, you may be able to develop and strengthen the relationship itself by presenting these circumstances and limitations as they are, accepting them, and learning from them. By inviting realistic expectations, we stray away from fantasy attributes and characteristics, and instead, really learn about the significant other we have involved ourselves with, truly, wholly, and earnestly.
Unrealistic expectations ultimate causes conflicts. We often see quite a few movies where relationships are exaggerated and dramatized to fit the plot and give interest rather than satisfy and illustrate real-life relationships and friendships. Society develops these ideas of what is deemed an important and a successful relationship, and what sometimes happens is that we all forget what might work perfectly fine with some people, won't work for everyone. However, because this is not how all us of may portray things, we feel our expectations have not been met, and therefore tend to take for granted and pass by what could have been a great relationship because of what we've learned through societal norms.
Chapter three of The Essential Guide to Interpersonal Communication provides a tremendously interesting perception concerning the various expectations about relationships, particularly, the tendencies in the unrealistic and realistic expectations formed through them.
Unrealistic expectations versus realistic expectations partake in a large portion when getting to know someone. Sometimes, we tend to form opinions and preconceived notions about what we personally hope people to be. We see the way a person dresses, the way they treat others, and in general, the way we expect them and desire them to live as in our heads. We see the good, accept the bad, and hope for the best when it comes down to those moments of sharing our most intimate secrets and thoughts with one another.
The benefits of pertaining realistic expectations can, for instance, save yourself the time of getting into a relationship that could possibly end up becoming too conflicting, in regards to opposing interests and beliefs that will ultimately turn off the motivation and joy of getting to know the person even further. Along with this possibility, by being aware of the realistic circumstances and limitations the relationship may contain, you may be able to develop and strengthen the relationship itself by presenting these circumstances and limitations as they are, accepting them, and learning from them. By inviting realistic expectations, we stray away from fantasy attributes and characteristics, and instead, really learn about the significant other we have involved ourselves with, truly, wholly, and earnestly.
Unrealistic expectations ultimate causes conflicts. We often see quite a few movies where relationships are exaggerated and dramatized to fit the plot and give interest rather than satisfy and illustrate real-life relationships and friendships. Society develops these ideas of what is deemed an important and a successful relationship, and what sometimes happens is that we all forget what might work perfectly fine with some people, won't work for everyone. However, because this is not how all us of may portray things, we feel our expectations have not been met, and therefore tend to take for granted and pass by what could have been a great relationship because of what we've learned through societal norms.
Discussion Question Number Two, Part Deux
Strong Versus Valid Arguments
The discussion in chapter three, section D in Epstein, ultimately illustrates the ideas and differences between strong and valid arguments.
When coming up with a good argument, there are usually better ways with going on about it. According to Epstein, knowing whether what is being spoken about (the premises) is true, whether we personally know if what is being spoken about is true, and whether the opinions or perceptions of the person speaking about believes his or her argument is correct, strong, or valid is partially unrelated and should not be depended on when determining the sole argument's validity or strength. Instead, a good argument should follow from beginning (premises) to end (conclusion). Also, premises should, more often than not, be better and plausible than its conclusion.
At times, it is certain that having an argument that is strong is better than having an argument that is valid (while having the same conclusion) because a strong argument has the ability to give the reader, or the person hearing about this argument, a sense of belief and trustworthiness from the argument's premises and its conclusion, as well as, leads to a more plausible claim rather than a seemingly dubious one. While a valid argument may technically achieve the same idea, a strong argument does not have the characteristic or tendency of "begging the question". Yet, it also depends on the situation given, and exactly what the person is trying to prove as well as the evidence they have in that argument to better determine if they should go along to distribute a valid or strong argument. Also be aware that simply commenting on how valid or strong your argument is, in your argument, doesn't make it so.
A bad argument would be considered an argument that does not give good enough reason to believe what is happening is necessarily truth. It can also be less plausible, rarely likely to occur, than the conclusion to be considered a bad argument.
Example One (strong): The door is locked to my dorm; my roommate never locks the door if she's there and is rarely inside when the door is locked. Therefore, no one is in our dorm.
Example Two (valid): The door is locked to my dorm, therefore, no one, not even my roommate, is in our dorm.
Both of these arguments are exactly the same. Yet, with a strong argument, you receive that extra comfort of having that bit more believability, and have a lesser chance of "begging the question" of other possibilities that could lead to a locked door.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Discussion Question Number One, Part Deux
Epstein, "The Tests for an Argument to Be Good"
My laptop was in my room this morning, but now it's in the living room. It's now dark and my sister is the only other person in the house besides me, therefore my sister moved the laptop.
This argument has some validity and promise, however, to essentially jump to the conclusion that my sister has moved the laptop because she is, at the time, the only other person in the house besides me, ultimately weakens the argument. There is the gap of hours from morning to evening that have been left without question, where anyone could have entered in the home and moved the laptop toward a different area without my knowledge, but I chose to believe otherwise. In another instance, there could be the possibility that I had moved my laptop to the living room that morning and simply forgotten.
"The premise are plausible": Laptop being moved from bedroom to living room. Very likely and plausible. Eventually, the laptop will be moved from a completely different area from where it originally is. This event is safe to say that it happens very frequently as numerous people, especially students, acquire laptops for convenient use when studying, doing homework, or simply surfing the web. If at college, specifically in a common commuter school, as there are plenty of college students who take their laptops from their dorms to their homes, and vice versa. It makes sense, and there's not much to argue with otherwise since everything seems logical and plausible.
"The premises are more plausible than the conclusion": The fact that the laptop was moved from one place to another is plausible, and a strong, reasonable argument. There is physical evidence of the change in area of the laptop, and because of that, there is no question that someone had to have moved it. The only thing stopping from the argument becoming solid is the interpretation that of my sister being the person having moved it, simply because she is the most convenient person to say had moved it, is a little out of place and unreasonable. The way the conclusion is formed is not entirely well thought out and very rash.
"The argument is valid or strong": In consideration, if one simply looks at what is written without looking into it, one can say that this argument holds valid and strong. According to Epstein, the premise cannot be true and the conclusion false simultaneously, and because of that, the argument is fine and/or strong with validity. My laptop was in my room this morning. Now it's not. My sister is the only person here. I believe I did not move it. Therefore, she did. Done. Evidently, if the hours from the morning to evening come into factor, then the conclusion of the argument having promise is no longer there, but in fact the opposite. Depending how one chooses to look at it, one can see the distinction of how the argument can be flawed.
The perception taken into this statement is what truly makes whether or not I or someone else besides my sister moved my laptop, or if in fact, my sister did herself.
My laptop was in my room this morning, but now it's in the living room. It's now dark and my sister is the only other person in the house besides me, therefore my sister moved the laptop.
This argument has some validity and promise, however, to essentially jump to the conclusion that my sister has moved the laptop because she is, at the time, the only other person in the house besides me, ultimately weakens the argument. There is the gap of hours from morning to evening that have been left without question, where anyone could have entered in the home and moved the laptop toward a different area without my knowledge, but I chose to believe otherwise. In another instance, there could be the possibility that I had moved my laptop to the living room that morning and simply forgotten.
"The premise are plausible": Laptop being moved from bedroom to living room. Very likely and plausible. Eventually, the laptop will be moved from a completely different area from where it originally is. This event is safe to say that it happens very frequently as numerous people, especially students, acquire laptops for convenient use when studying, doing homework, or simply surfing the web. If at college, specifically in a common commuter school, as there are plenty of college students who take their laptops from their dorms to their homes, and vice versa. It makes sense, and there's not much to argue with otherwise since everything seems logical and plausible.
"The premises are more plausible than the conclusion": The fact that the laptop was moved from one place to another is plausible, and a strong, reasonable argument. There is physical evidence of the change in area of the laptop, and because of that, there is no question that someone had to have moved it. The only thing stopping from the argument becoming solid is the interpretation that of my sister being the person having moved it, simply because she is the most convenient person to say had moved it, is a little out of place and unreasonable. The way the conclusion is formed is not entirely well thought out and very rash.
"The argument is valid or strong": In consideration, if one simply looks at what is written without looking into it, one can say that this argument holds valid and strong. According to Epstein, the premise cannot be true and the conclusion false simultaneously, and because of that, the argument is fine and/or strong with validity. My laptop was in my room this morning. Now it's not. My sister is the only person here. I believe I did not move it. Therefore, she did. Done. Evidently, if the hours from the morning to evening come into factor, then the conclusion of the argument having promise is no longer there, but in fact the opposite. Depending how one chooses to look at it, one can see the distinction of how the argument can be flawed.
The perception taken into this statement is what truly makes whether or not I or someone else besides my sister moved my laptop, or if in fact, my sister did herself.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three
Prescriptive Claims vs. Value Judgments
In Chapter two of Epstein, the reader learns about the differences from a prescriptive claim towards a descriptive one, as well as how value judgments can come into play in a discussion for someone's reasoning on a descriptive claim, and if one might deem if it "right, wrong, better, or worse" (essentially turning it into a prescriptive claim by demanding that something is different from what it is).
According to the text, the difference between the two terms comes from illustrating if something is simply said (descriptive), versus how something one personally believes what is being spoken should be (prescriptive). Prescriptive claims are more commonly used when illustrating moral claims because when they explain their reasoning, they reveal if they are against or for something, which is based from their morals rather than what already is. Moral claims are initially too ambiguous or vague because it is subjective rather than objective---possibly coming from feeling instead of factual evidence.
Example One: Johnny's cereal bowl is empty.
This is a descriptive claim because it shows what is, which in this case, being that Johnny has an empty cereal bowl. He can do nothing about it, and he is not proposing to change that.
Example Two: Lucille believes drinking wine is terrible and unhealthy.
This is a prescriptive claim because Lucille is illustrating her views on wine, and imposing that how it is now isn't right, as drinking wine in her view is something bad and essentially negative. This is her value judgment, being that she would more commonly equate wine drinking with the perspective and personal morals/standards that it is wrong or worse than not doing so (which would be the right or better decision in judgment). Her statement also shows ambiguity and vagueness which can be seen in prescriptive claims.
It's very handy and fascinating seeing the differences between descriptive and prescriptive because it helps to realize where in some situations (as mentioned in the book) you might learn about someone who sees something a certain way without having a good reason to do so, for example. But also, in general, to distinguish between simple statements of either kind.
In Chapter two of Epstein, the reader learns about the differences from a prescriptive claim towards a descriptive one, as well as how value judgments can come into play in a discussion for someone's reasoning on a descriptive claim, and if one might deem if it "right, wrong, better, or worse" (essentially turning it into a prescriptive claim by demanding that something is different from what it is).
According to the text, the difference between the two terms comes from illustrating if something is simply said (descriptive), versus how something one personally believes what is being spoken should be (prescriptive). Prescriptive claims are more commonly used when illustrating moral claims because when they explain their reasoning, they reveal if they are against or for something, which is based from their morals rather than what already is. Moral claims are initially too ambiguous or vague because it is subjective rather than objective---possibly coming from feeling instead of factual evidence.
Example One: Johnny's cereal bowl is empty.
This is a descriptive claim because it shows what is, which in this case, being that Johnny has an empty cereal bowl. He can do nothing about it, and he is not proposing to change that.
Example Two: Lucille believes drinking wine is terrible and unhealthy.
This is a prescriptive claim because Lucille is illustrating her views on wine, and imposing that how it is now isn't right, as drinking wine in her view is something bad and essentially negative. This is her value judgment, being that she would more commonly equate wine drinking with the perspective and personal morals/standards that it is wrong or worse than not doing so (which would be the right or better decision in judgment). Her statement also shows ambiguity and vagueness which can be seen in prescriptive claims.
It's very handy and fascinating seeing the differences between descriptive and prescriptive because it helps to realize where in some situations (as mentioned in the book) you might learn about someone who sees something a certain way without having a good reason to do so, for example. But also, in general, to distinguish between simple statements of either kind.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Discussion Question Number Two
A recent vague statement I've heard would definitely have to be a friend of mine who seems to utter completely ambiguous things all day, every day, which she's all the more wonderful and hilarious for doing so. This statement:
"I don't want to go first--you...go first...".
We were just calmly eating our food, talking to each other in the Dining Commons when she came out with this.
I don't know what this means.
I think everyone else at the table was just as, if not, more confused than I was at that moment when she uttered that, but one thing for sure was that she made me cackle like nobody's business. Just a few moments before, two other friends were speaking about their Chemistry class, and how they were struggling to light their Bunsen burner for hours, this same friend surprisingly exclaimed:
"YOU COULDN'T BURN A FIRE FOR THREE HOURS?"
This guy. Her expression was flawless, as serious as could be, and on point, which of course made me laugh so much.
I would say this first statement from my friend constitutes as vague and/or ambiguous because there is no possibly way to dissect her reasoning as to why she felt she needed to express this or what it concerned. She refused to tell us why she'd said it, furthermore leaving the ambiguity of the statement. Going first could lead to a plethora of things for one. It could be going first to leave the table after we were done eating so she wouldn't be the one to walk in front of us, but that wouldn't be too plausible as we hadn't planned on leaving just yet. Who knows, only she does. I just understood that she wanted to, at the very least, do whatever she had in mind in doing, as long as she wasn't the first to do so--that was very clear. I simply didn't, and still don't, know what to make of it. And the others at the table, from what I could tell, did not know either. A few more words of clarification at the end of her sentence could have resulted in an understanding sigh of relief which, in the end, she did not give. The reaction of confusion along with not being able to distinguish a single conclusion helps in supporting the common reaction when dealing with ambiguity, which in this case, proved to be present.
"I don't want to go first--you...go first...".
We were just calmly eating our food, talking to each other in the Dining Commons when she came out with this.
I don't know what this means.
I think everyone else at the table was just as, if not, more confused than I was at that moment when she uttered that, but one thing for sure was that she made me cackle like nobody's business. Just a few moments before, two other friends were speaking about their Chemistry class, and how they were struggling to light their Bunsen burner for hours, this same friend surprisingly exclaimed:
"YOU COULDN'T BURN A FIRE FOR THREE HOURS?"
This guy. Her expression was flawless, as serious as could be, and on point, which of course made me laugh so much.
I would say this first statement from my friend constitutes as vague and/or ambiguous because there is no possibly way to dissect her reasoning as to why she felt she needed to express this or what it concerned. She refused to tell us why she'd said it, furthermore leaving the ambiguity of the statement. Going first could lead to a plethora of things for one. It could be going first to leave the table after we were done eating so she wouldn't be the one to walk in front of us, but that wouldn't be too plausible as we hadn't planned on leaving just yet. Who knows, only she does. I just understood that she wanted to, at the very least, do whatever she had in mind in doing, as long as she wasn't the first to do so--that was very clear. I simply didn't, and still don't, know what to make of it. And the others at the table, from what I could tell, did not know either. A few more words of clarification at the end of her sentence could have resulted in an understanding sigh of relief which, in the end, she did not give. The reaction of confusion along with not being able to distinguish a single conclusion helps in supporting the common reaction when dealing with ambiguity, which in this case, proved to be present.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Discussion Question Number One
Subjective Claim: A way of saying that opinion or perspectives on a certain subject matter may vary among person to person. You take your own lessons or morals from that idea, which will focus more on feeling and preference than of the logical persuasion, therefore, it is impossible to be declared to be true or false.
Subjective Example: I was on a train the other day, and heard a conversation of how light eyes (or for that matter any other lighter eye color) tend to be favorited, raved about more, or be considered far more attractive than, let's say, a person with brown, or darker, eyes. They talked about how in high school people immediately thought of other people with light eyes for yearbook's "Best Eyes" This statement would be considered subjective because the origin of this thought would come from a person's own idea of attraction and preferences and what they consider to be beautiful because, of course, there are plenty of people who might prefer other, "less popular" eye colors. Although, it can be understandable, since having light eyes is something a bit more rare to see (depending where you live), and because it's different, it grabs more of an interest---it's sometimes more striking. With lighter eyes, you are able to see more of the details in the iris of the eye. But even with all this, there is no scientific evidence or fact of being able to conclude whether the conversation of light eyes and its possibility of being the "best" kind of eye color has validity or not.
Objective Claim: Forming a claim based on factual evidence or ideas, not involving feelings but rather mere logic and fact, making it impersonal and able to be said as true or not.
Objective Example: A friend of mine was talking to me recently about how he learned through the internet how 50% of people have the tendency to yawn shortly after coming in contact with a conversation being held about yawning or, more often, seeing someone else yawn. Funnily enough, this conversation occurred quite late in the day, as well as, on the phone, which triggered a yawn from myself, in which he later did the same. I have recalled other events, and have asked other friends before of this statistic, and they have recalled at one point in their life to have experienced this. The fact that he wasn't giving his personal opinion that people yawn in these occasions, but was illustrating a reliable source proved to be impersonal and more factual. This example is an objective claim because it has been proven as fact and has evidence to support that this approximate percentage has done as the statement has suggested. There is validity to be proven, and this statement does not come from personal preference or feeling about the topic, making it unable to be seen as a subjective claim, and in result, becoming objective.
Subjective Example: I was on a train the other day, and heard a conversation of how light eyes (or for that matter any other lighter eye color) tend to be favorited, raved about more, or be considered far more attractive than, let's say, a person with brown, or darker, eyes. They talked about how in high school people immediately thought of other people with light eyes for yearbook's "Best Eyes" This statement would be considered subjective because the origin of this thought would come from a person's own idea of attraction and preferences and what they consider to be beautiful because, of course, there are plenty of people who might prefer other, "less popular" eye colors. Although, it can be understandable, since having light eyes is something a bit more rare to see (depending where you live), and because it's different, it grabs more of an interest---it's sometimes more striking. With lighter eyes, you are able to see more of the details in the iris of the eye. But even with all this, there is no scientific evidence or fact of being able to conclude whether the conversation of light eyes and its possibility of being the "best" kind of eye color has validity or not.
Objective Claim: Forming a claim based on factual evidence or ideas, not involving feelings but rather mere logic and fact, making it impersonal and able to be said as true or not.
Objective Example: A friend of mine was talking to me recently about how he learned through the internet how 50% of people have the tendency to yawn shortly after coming in contact with a conversation being held about yawning or, more often, seeing someone else yawn. Funnily enough, this conversation occurred quite late in the day, as well as, on the phone, which triggered a yawn from myself, in which he later did the same. I have recalled other events, and have asked other friends before of this statistic, and they have recalled at one point in their life to have experienced this. The fact that he wasn't giving his personal opinion that people yawn in these occasions, but was illustrating a reliable source proved to be impersonal and more factual. This example is an objective claim because it has been proven as fact and has evidence to support that this approximate percentage has done as the statement has suggested. There is validity to be proven, and this statement does not come from personal preference or feeling about the topic, making it unable to be seen as a subjective claim, and in result, becoming objective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)