Chapter 9 discussed the concept of ethos. Ethos is the credibility associated with the person presenting information or an argument. Most people learned about ethos in middle school or high school when we first started learning to analyze and form arguments using ethos (credibility), pathos (appeal to emotion) and logos (facts). I believe that this was also introduced in an earlier chapter, but now the book goes more in depth.
When evaluating ethos, one looks at the credibility of the speaker. People may perceive a speaker as credible for different reasons. When I'm analyzing a piece, like I had to do for the annotated bibliography, I looked at how educated the author was in the subject that they were talking about. I also looked to see if there was any reason they could be biased: could they get something out of persuading people a certain direction or if they have a clear moral tie to one side of the argument that may blur a fair argument?
However, in everyday life events and scenarios, I find my mom credible. If she were to write a paper on the political climate of South Korea, I probably wouldn't find her credible because I know that she hasn't studied that topic. However, when she gives me advice on how to deal with stress or how to maintain healthy relationships, I find her credible because I know she's lived through those scenarios. Additionally, I think that you're more inclined to find someone that you trust and love credible. I think that's based off of the "good-will" concept, which characterizes someone who is open minded, kind, friendly and caring. Building off of that, if someone has lied to you often in the past, you wouldn't give them high credibility because they aren't trustworthy (another topic the book discusses).
I think that credibility is the source of a lot of problems in the United States right now. Usually, the President is suppose to be someone who is credible. While some may view Donald Trump as credible, possibly using the concept of dynamism to support this due to his showmanship, enthusiasm, and forcefulness. However, many people don't view Trump as credible because there have been too many instances of him not showing good will, he doesn't have any political background to support his role, he doesn't show much competence (wisdom) through his outbursts and tweets, and his back and forth on stances has made some people view him as untrustworthy. Additionally, Trump has marked scientists in a variety of fields, like scientists who speak of the dangers of global warming, as not being credible. he does this by ignoring their warnings and claiming that everything is fine and that global warming is a hoax. However, most people view scientists as credible and by Trump disagreeing with that, they are more likely to find Trump not credible. The shared idea that the President should be credible and the contrast of that in our society has caused a lot of tense times and uneasiness.
When evaluating ethos, one looks at the credibility of the speaker. People may perceive a speaker as credible for different reasons. When I'm analyzing a piece, like I had to do for the annotated bibliography, I looked at how educated the author was in the subject that they were talking about. I also looked to see if there was any reason they could be biased: could they get something out of persuading people a certain direction or if they have a clear moral tie to one side of the argument that may blur a fair argument?
However, in everyday life events and scenarios, I find my mom credible. If she were to write a paper on the political climate of South Korea, I probably wouldn't find her credible because I know that she hasn't studied that topic. However, when she gives me advice on how to deal with stress or how to maintain healthy relationships, I find her credible because I know she's lived through those scenarios. Additionally, I think that you're more inclined to find someone that you trust and love credible. I think that's based off of the "good-will" concept, which characterizes someone who is open minded, kind, friendly and caring. Building off of that, if someone has lied to you often in the past, you wouldn't give them high credibility because they aren't trustworthy (another topic the book discusses).
I think that credibility is the source of a lot of problems in the United States right now. Usually, the President is suppose to be someone who is credible. While some may view Donald Trump as credible, possibly using the concept of dynamism to support this due to his showmanship, enthusiasm, and forcefulness. However, many people don't view Trump as credible because there have been too many instances of him not showing good will, he doesn't have any political background to support his role, he doesn't show much competence (wisdom) through his outbursts and tweets, and his back and forth on stances has made some people view him as untrustworthy. Additionally, Trump has marked scientists in a variety of fields, like scientists who speak of the dangers of global warming, as not being credible. he does this by ignoring their warnings and claiming that everything is fine and that global warming is a hoax. However, most people view scientists as credible and by Trump disagreeing with that, they are more likely to find Trump not credible. The shared idea that the President should be credible and the contrast of that in our society has caused a lot of tense times and uneasiness.
I really like your blog post and I find it to be very relatable. When I am analyzing statements, I too look at how educated the author is and consider if the statements are potentially biased. Also, I like your example of how you find your mom to be credible but that you would not turn to her for help on the political climate of South Korea. So, it is interesting to think about how one can be credible in one field of study, but not in another. I also agree with your statement of being more inclined to find loved ones and those that you trust to be credible. I often see this statement occurring in my daily life as I am more likely to find those that I have known for a while to be credible and trust what they are saying over people that I just met.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job on summarizing this chapter, and I agree with your thoughts about credibility based on my own experience. When I was doing the bibliography assignment last week, I spent a lot of time on analyzing the credibility of each source from different aspects like publication, author, relevance, and date. I think when we are looking for information online, the top two factors that we mostly use to decide whether the information is credible are author and publication. If the author is a doctor or professor, people would tend to trust what s/he says. People would also prefer news from popular publications like The Wall Street Journal or CNN than other sources from individual websites. I also relate to your idea about how we are more likely to trust people that we have known well over people that we are unfamiliar with. When I need advice about my academic planning, I always first reach out to my friends and families, and then I would consider making an appointment with my advisor, even though I know that the advisor is probably the best solution.
ReplyDelete