In this week's reading the focus of the textbook was on support in argumentation, and not just any kind of support specifically support in the form of credibility. One section that I found very interesting was the part about the "Forms of Credibility". Reputation isn't one of these three forms, but reputations plays a big role in influencing your audience to see your claim how you see it. The three different forms of credibility are; direct, indirect, and secondary credibility. The first one, direct credibility is easily established by simply making statements directly about yourself, in order for others around you to feel more confident with your decisions. The next type was secondary credibility, which is what we as students use for our papers and in school at the U of M basically every other day. So basically secondary credibility is acquired completely through the credibility of someone else, but you're using what they've said previously to make your point stronger. Be wary of your audience when doing this, if you're discussing politics with someone that you know despises Trump, try to avoid gaining credibility by using something he has said in the past. Because this is likely to hurt your credibility with that argumentation partner rather than increase it, because they don't respect the opinion of Trump. The last form of credibility is indirect credibility. This one is a little trickier, but you develop this credibility basically through others making perceptions' of you. They judge how you form your arguments, what you say about certain topics, how you say things. The more effective you are as an arguer in their eyes the more credible you become to your audience. This as the book has stated is the most "forceful kind of credibility". But like we have discussed with values and other topics of argumentation, it all depends on your audience and how they view the discussion at hand. Their points of views may be different on the subject than yours, thus hindering your credibility, unless you change up how you approach the argument. The most effective way to gain reputation from your audience is to take a step back and see the issue at hand from their point of view. If you do this then both parties involved can see where the other is coming from in their arguments, and at the very least gain respect for their point of view even if a resolution is not reached in the argument.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Hi Alex, this is great execution of explaining the three types of credibility. I feel that you went into enough detail for all three types to effectively show the distinction between direct, secondary, and indirect credibility. As well, I really enjoyed you setting students at this university as an example for secondary credibility, and I believe we have been exposed to all three forms of credibility in one way or another in the process of receiving our individual educations.
ReplyDeleteIn writing essays, I believe our country’s education system and its curricula generally prepare us extensively with regard to secondary credibility. We often are called upon to understand how to effectively utilize what other people research or state so that we can gain adherence in our essays or other assignments. We are still learning, so I feel it is difficult for us to establish direct credibility in most cases unless we are writing narratives or procuring evidence from personal experience. In terms of indirect credibility, we have been unknowingly been establishing it in classes where we have formal discussions or debates organized by our instructor.
HI Alex,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I really enjoyed reading your discussion regarding credibility. You mention the importance of reputation when influencing an audience and to get them to see your claim like you see it. I also believe reputation is crucial when an individual is presenting an a argument and it has significant impact on their credibility. An individual with a bad reputation is considered less credible because they might not be viewed as a trusted individual by their audience. I think you bring up a valuable point when evaluating secondary credibility. I would agree that, we as an audience, must be aware of where our information is coming from. For example, when we are writing research papers we should include sources that are peer reviewed or from scholarly journals since that information usually is produced by individuals that are educated in the field. Do you believe an individual can gain an audience by forming a strong enough argument, despite having a bad reputation?