Skip to main content

Chapter 9


Every argument will contain information that needs to be credible. Credibility is how trustworthy a person is on a certain topic with accurate and reliable information. It varies from case to case and one person with a lot of credibility in one subject may not be credible at all in another so it is important to think about the situation you are in and the questions you are trying to ask. Trustworthy people are seen as people that tend to have “good will” in mind. If you think that someone else has similar tendencies and decision making skills as you, you may consider them very credible which would be referred as homophily. Homophily is used especially in online health information because of how distant doctors are perceived as. People seek out information and terms they are used to more likely than receive information from a qualified professional. It is important to note that in most cases, being credible is a process. Almost always, you do not become credible instantly, but build your reputation with evidence and consistency to build how credible you are seen as. Credibility can also come from two types: direct and secondary. Direct is talking about yourself, where you came from, who raised you, etc. and secondary is tying you with someone else that is seen as credible. The third way is indirect. The claims and evidence that you provide decision makers produces an image they have of you, and indirectly making a credible profile of you. All three ways of credibility are important and can build off of one another, but the most important take away from credibility is that it takes time to build, and committing an act that can jeacoradize your credibility can be catastrophic to your reputation. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM

    Hey Scott! I thought that your blog post did a good job of covering the main concepts of credibility. I especially liked how you stressed that credibility takes time to form but can be ruined by one false move. I often related this to politicians who lose credibility by flip-flopping on their stances regarding important issues.
    As I was reading your blog, I had a moment where I paused and thought that you had made a mistake. This came when you said that there were two bases of credibility: direct and secondary. Instantly, I thought that you had forgotten indirect, but you mentioned it in the next sentence.
    I think that you did a really good job explaining direct credibility and how it ties to statements that an arguer makes about themselves. I think that, when explaining secondary, I would have gone into a bit more depth regarding how one can make a tie to someone who is credible. For example, quoting a statistic or statement by a high profile scientist while making some sort of scientific argument. Finally, I think I would have built onto the concept of indirect credibility a bit more. I think that you did really well in explaining that the claims and evidence you provide in an argument can add to (or subtract from) your credibility! I would have just built onto that a bit to specify that it's also about how the argument is articulated and developed. Indirect credibility can be viewed as synonymous with the credibility of the message.

    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