I was very interested in this week's chapter's discussion of credibility. Early on in the chapter, the text talked about how credibility is oftentimes more of a perception than anything else. Someone can be very credible in one person's eyes and not credible at all in someone else's. Trustworthiness is a huge determining factor in credibility. I think the way that people decide whether or not to trust someone is very interesting, as it is often based on snap judgements. Additionally, if someone seems similar to someone else, we may deem them as trustworthy. The text defines this as homophily. Homophily can also apply to how similar you perceive someone to be to you. Obviously, in their own minds, people think that they are credible. If someone is similar to you, you are more likely to identify with them and deem them credible and/or trustworthy. Also, I think one of the most understated yet important forms of credibility is secondary credibility. This is used all the time, especially in advertising. This reminded me of an in class example from a few weeks ago. Often, in toothpaste advertisements, it will say something like "99% of dentists recommend this toothpaste!". Dentists are seen as credible medical professionals when discussing oral health. However, the dentists were presented with the option of using x toothpaste to brush teeth or not brushing teeth at all, so the statistic is incorrect and the secondary credibility initially thought to be there does not have the same effect.
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, ...
Homophily can create a lot of problems in argumentation. Often times people give credibility where it is not due simply based on the appearance or evident characteristics of the presenter. If a wise presenter is aware of this phenomenon and the following bias of it, they can easily exploit this by highlighting the parts of themselves that are similar to their audience. Homophily also leads, although often subconsciously, to otherism against presenters when they don't physically or characteristically match the audience. By awarding less credibility to people who are unlike them, an audience is inadvertently disadvantaging the presenter before they have even heard their argument. Being aware of the problems with homophily, how can presenters ethically use this to their advantage regarding credibility, without contributing to the bias against presenters and their credibility that is enforced by homophily.
ReplyDeleteI was also extremely intrigued by the topic of credibility, especially given how we are in the midst of an election. I agree that trustworthiness and homophily are important factors in determining whether someone is credible in the eyes of the audience. You mentioned that trustworthiness is based on snap judgements, which may indicate that people often decide if someone if trustworthy on the spot. While I agree that some people might decide on a person’s credibility in such a hasty fashion, I believe that a significant number of people also use reputation as a way to award credibility, which goes beyond “on the spot” decisions. The text defines reputation as “the credibility you have with decisions makers before you argue” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 146). In addition, the text mentions that people who enter an argument with a favorable reputation are at an advantage over those who do not (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). Reputation takes time and effort to build. People who recognize someone’s reputation might have been exposed to them prior to the argument, or have interacted with them before. Hence, while decision-making can still be hasty due to people blindly trusting another person due to their reputation, I would argue that the process of gaining reputation is still, nonetheless, a lengthy process. For example, a politician might have a strong reputation in her district which allows her constituents to trust her without giving much thought to her arguments. However, her reputation took time to build, through her advocacy for her community or by campaigning.
ReplyDeleteSources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson.
I like this chapter too and how it talks about credibility. I think it is very interesting that even if someone is highly credible, just because of certain beliefs, someone could not see them as a very credible person regardless of their accomplishments, but based on who they are. Trustworthiness is also a huge component as well, if you are seen as a highly credible person in a certain field or in the public's eye, doing something that would be inconsistent or be seen as unacceptable, it could have severely damaging reputable effects and cost them their job or the ability to be taken seriously in that field. Not only in that field, if it is bad sever enough, it may bleed through into other fields or as a professional as a whole because for many people, being credible in one field gives you credibility in another, which is a mistake but saturates media everywhere. For example, athletes, Hall of famer Brett Favre sponsored wrangler jeans to be the toughest and most durable jeans, because people see him as credible for his accomplishments in football does not mean he is a jeans expert. It is out of his of expertise, however this example shows just how powerful someones credibility in one field can have in a completely unrelated field as well.
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog post and the way you talked about the different concepts of credibility. You talked about homophily that we deem people who are similar to us as more credible. I think it is also important to recognize the bias that comes from homophily. Because similarities tend to make us believe that someone is credible doesn’t always mean that person is credible. An example that comes to mind is that the party system in the United States when it comes to voting. People will often vote their affiliated party because of some common similarities in policies. But often especially in this mid-term election the focus of people was voting for red or blue rather than the actual policies the candidates had because they wanted to change or wanted their party to stay as a majority in Congress. Which might help them achieve the results but the credibility their might be lacking.
ReplyDelete