Read: Blink 176m-179b, 183t-186b, 189t-229b, 232m-244m, 266t-270t (t means top, m means middle, b means bottom). I must apologize, I've deleted the 'happy ending' from the book. It's about a 小提琴手 who can't find a job because her profession discriminates against women, but then the 交響樂隊 devise a new 'blind' selection method to thin-slice only for musical ability, and not for other applicant characteristics like gender, ethnicity, etc.
Read: They Say / I Say 78-90 (you might also watch this video, which makes a similar point)
29 (都學生!!!). Create a reply to my comments on the final draft of your essay #1, using one or more of the 'partial concession' templates on They Say - I Say 90頁. Write this in red text below my comments on the Google document. Yes, really.
30 (Esther). Search G&B's They Say - I Say book (1-90頁) for at least three instances in which they actually use the same 'internal naysayer' move that they discuss in chapter six. (You needn't search far; I count at least two in chapter six itself.) Do you find it annoying that they use their own recommended writing methods inside the textbook, or helpful?
31 (Jenny). Gladwell is, according to one of his reviewers, "an omniscient, many-armed Hindu god of anecdotes" (inside front cover). However, he has a tendency to cherry-pick his anecdotes to suit his central thesis, as well as a tendency to be overly impressed by certain kinds of professional expertise. Think of two examples of 'false expertise' that might lead us to question the model of expertly-trained thin-slicing that he describes on Blink 176m-179b & 183t-186b. How can we tell true expertise from false expertise? Are there certain kinds of questions/problems/domains that are more likely to produce false expertise than others?
32 (Ting). Is a writing teacher a false expert (see previous question, #31)? Where does a writing teacher's method of gathering knowledge map against the ones we've discussed in the class so far? (As in Moneyball, Blink, your previous question #20, etc.)
33 (Peter). Go to this website and watch the featured video. Compare to the Diallo case discussed in Blink. Do you feel this is a tragic failure of thin-slicing, or is there some other explanation? You may want to do a quick Google search to survey the controversy the video has created.
34 (Aaron). Pay close attention to the large paragraph at the bottom of Blink 267頁. For one thing, you may notice that Gladwell is using an 'internal naysayer' - not to make a concession, but in fact to make an amplification of his argument. For another, you may agree with the naysayer in this case! Summarize his point and explain why you agree or disagree with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 (Jenny). Gladwell is, according to one of his reviewers, "an omniscient, many-armed Hindu god of anecdotes" (inside front cover). However, he has a tendency to cherry-pick his anecdotes to suit his central thesis, as well as a tendency to be overly impressed by certain kinds of professional expertise. Think of two examples of 'false expertise' that might lead us to question the model of expertly-trained thin-slicing that he describes on Blink 176m-179b & 183t-186b. How can we tell true expertise from false expertise? Are there certain kinds of questions/problems/domains that are more likely to produce false expertise than others?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Gladwell, in order to have true expertise, we need to have experiences, much enough to let us have right thin-slicing ability. And to have enough experiences, consciously or unconsciously, those kinds of things have to be interesting to us so that we would pay as much as attention to every event and unconsciously know what really matters in this kind of problem.
So I think that unfamiliar things are less likely for us to have true expertise. For example, identifying UFO or aliens isn't a domain that people would give true expertise because there seems to be no one having seen enough UFOs and aliens to gather enough information. Maybe it's a strange example, but my point is that so far I couldn't come up with any other example which couldn't be practiced many times and from which we couldn't learn thin-slicing ability.
Hi, this is Ting here to answer Q32.
ReplyDeleteI think writing teachers are not false experts in a way because they also develop the kind of complex grading system similar to Civille and Heylmun's. They can easily decide which essay is better in grammar, word choice, coherence, logic, conciseness, etc (more technical but necessary elements). When all these elements are put together, the author and the readers can make better communication in writing and understanding.
However, when it comes to ideas and styles, I think writing teachers don't own such expertise. There are always some ambiguity in words, tones, etc. And usually one essay is the author's deliberate arrangement, not subconsciously at all. Therefore, if writing teachers gather knowledge from such "artificial" work, that may possibly cause false expertise.
This Esther's answer for Q30:
ReplyDelete- Conversely, if you don't entertain counterarguments, you may very likely come across as closed-minded, as if you think your beliefs are beyond dispute.
- ...some people dislike such labels and may even resent having labels applied to themselves. Some feel that labels put individuals in boxes, stereotyping them and glossing over what makes each of us unique.
- But what if you've tried out all the possible answers you can think of to an objection you’ve anticipated and you still have a nagging feeling that the objection is more convincing than your argument itself?
The naysayer method they introduce is actually a natural way for me when I am writing and talking. It seems to me that it’s an automatic reflective behavior that always being aware of weakness part/opposite side of my arguments; I tend to point out to my audience that what I say has these possible arguable angles before they think of or come to “attack” me. Therefore, I don’t think G&B use the way they use their recommended writing methods inside the textbook has anything to do with “annoying” or “helpful.” They maybe simply consider they should tell readers some opposite possibilities at that moment.
Sorry, I cannot go into the website...
ReplyDeleteHe said deliberate analysis is best. It is different from our original thinking that snap judgment wiil be superior on immediate trivial questions. For example, is the person a good guy? Do I want to eat something or not? Gladwell claims that when we have to juggle many different variables then our conscious thiught processes may be superior.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinions, I agree with him, when useing snap judgment to deal with the thing like "Do I like this person?" usually people will not think a lot, they always judge it by their like. In fact,they dont really use experiences and knowledge to judge it.
The other example, that can prove the auther is right is the firefighter's judgement. When a firefighter wants to escape from the scene of a fire. They have to choose which ways is safy immediately. In this case the firefighter will consider a lot of factors at once, the firefighter will use his or her own experiences and knowledges about the scene of a fire to make up his or her mind. Compared to "Do I like this guy?" "Whcih is the best way to escape from the scene of a fire?" is more complicated. But the truth is, we always misunderstand a person but the firefighters seldom choose the wrong and dangerous way to escape.