In Chapter 9 of the textbook we are taught about the last form of support which is credibility. The authors argue that people accept propositions partly because they have trust in the individual presenting them and their competency. Trustworthiness is further defined with value words such as sincere, honest and safe. In other words, if a presenter comes off in that manner, they will likely be perceived as trustworthy by the decision maker. Competence is defined as expertise and knowledge of the subject they are talking about. These two qualifications have been outlined as the groundwork for credibility that is accepted by all writers. Two other qualifications that are a bit more controversial are goodwill and dynamism. Good will is associated with being kind and friendly toward a decision maker. Dynamism is how dynamic someone's delivery is of the proposition. According to the authors, there is research showing that dynamism in a speaker increases the audience retention of an idea. Also chapter outlines three major forms of credibility. Direct credibility, secondary credibility and indirect credibility. Direct credibility is basically making direct statements about yourself. This can be where you went to school, how long you have been in the field, what you have accomplished, etc. Secondary credibility is when someone uses another person’s credibility to strengthen their own. The book talks about health websites that are backed by medical institutions are seen as more credible than if the authors just wrote health articles on their own using only their credentials. Lastly, there is indirect credibility. This is when you become credible based on the way you argue and present you claims. So, in this case you do not make any statements about your accomplishments or who you associate with, but are rather judged on the strength of your presentation and knowledge. Connecting some of these principles to real life, if I wanted to propose a major change in the university policy in regard to grading - something like all classes should have the same grading scale and curves - I would not be able to get adherence on my own. However, if I use secondary credibility and structure the proposition with the help of numerous, well respected, professors in the school my chances would drastically rise. In addition, if my presentation is dynamic and engaging it will benefit my cause even further.
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, ...
I like how you go in depth about credibility and what the book has to offer. Credibility is huge even when shopping at the local food market or at the mall. We tend to go for food brands or clothing brands with good credibility. Back in the day, Abercrombie and Fitch had good credibility. They're store and designs had a good name and lot of people wore their things because of it they had a lot competence. They were designers that knew what people liked and were good at it. However, Abercrombie and Fitch ruined their credibility with their racism. This immediately caused distrust which credibility is built on. People didn't trust them anymore with their close and their brands as they've been lying racist the whole time. In addition, their image of good will got completely erased when people heard what they were doing and to the colored models. That isn't good will and really damaged their credibility.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for the Peter Pan Peanut Butter that got tons of people really ill, it ruined their credibility and the way people saw them. Same for Chipotle, they don't have the same credibility anymore as they use to have before all the incidences. These aren't really examples in argumentation but if these company were brought up to be used as a source they'd have low credibility and would not be taken seriously.