Skip to main content

Chapter 9

I found this chapter to be one of the most informational ones I have read. I like the idea of credibility in argumentation because it is one of the core concepts when creating an argument. I find it difficult personally to relate with people who are not so credible and they lack of credibility. One of the ways that someone can be credible to people is through having similar ways of thinking and being. This is called homophily, the textbook says "When you are dealing with person or persons whom you perceive to be similar to you in one or more ways, you may find them more credible" (Pg. 142). This could be true with influencing decision makers on deciding whether or not a person or an argument is credible. For example, if I am a person who supports gun control and cares for the poor, and there is a politician that will ban all guns in public areas and help make living more affordable for people, I may find that person to be credible. I won't question their credibility because of the values that we both share and opinions as well. I feel like it can almost cause a bias, so this can be potentially dangerous when making decisions. But overall, being persuasive while also being credible is important when relating with others who have the same view points as the person who is making an argument. I think that it is important for decision makers to make sure that they don't have any bias when deciding if someone is credible or not. This can hurt the decision making process as the credible source may possibly not be credible.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 7, 2018 at 6:49 AM

    I think you provide a strong example for the concept of homophily through talking about a politician that holds similar values and ideas as you. Homophily does focus on similarities, but not explicitly having similar values. I interpreted the term homophily as the degree to which a decision maker sees the arguer as comparable to oneself. Like you said, this does increase credibility, however I thought a lot more about physical characteristics. When an arguer is the same race, gender, etc as the decision maker, they are more likely to perceive the source as credible, but that leaves a lot of room for implicit bias to fall into an argument regarding those physical similarities. In my opinion, if a politician is providing the values that they stand for, they will need to provide several more aspects of credibility than just homophily to persuade decision makers. Although feeling a sense of similarity may increase the arguers validity or reliability, the arguer should also be using the other characteristics of credibility like dynamism, goodwill, and more to advance their argument and influence decision makers.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more