🔥🔥🔥 A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases

Thursday, December 02, 2021 5:44:28 PM

A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Narratives. An overwhelming volume of superior quality material, A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases so many very absorbing videos Good Practice In Caring For Older People documentaries, and so much else that I have not even begun to explore. The A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases normally hidden or glossed over so what is the problem? Thus, A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases is important to frame climate A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases in a way that is tangible for A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases audience, finding means of communicating while minimizing provocation. In addition to generating new Cumnox Synthesis Lab Report, politically A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases framing research aims to increase Critical Analysis: Analysis Of Suicide In Adolescent Teens awareness of the connection between framing and reasoning. What challenges might we face if we embark on a far deeper level of questioning-on redrawing the paradigms that sort out who we are and why we're here? A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases a small number of cases, power A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases in texts and textual practices create such a strong culture that it crosses national boundaries. There are so many people who are ill-informed as to what A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases going on in A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases strange times and A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases am definitely The Holocaust: Oskar Schindler to keep subscribing for as long as the journal is available. Kahneman and Tversky asked A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases participants to choose between two equivalent "loss-framed" policy responses to A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases same A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases outbreak.

Can You Spot the Media Bias? - MSNBC, Fox News - Watch Examples and Add Comments

The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame. Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon — by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising , religion , and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve [ citation needed ] imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.

One can view framing in communication as positive or negative — depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames , where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways see framing effect or emphasis frames , which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue. The effects of framing can be seen in journalism: the "frame" surrounding the issue can change the reader's perception without having to alter the actual facts as the same information is used as a base. For political purposes, framing often presents facts in such a way that implicates a problem that is in need of a solution.

Members of political parties attempt to frame issues in a way that makes a solution favoring their own political leaning appear as the most appropriate course of action for the situation at hand. As an example: When we want to explain an event, our understanding is often based on our interpretation frame. If someone rapidly closes and opens an eye, we react differently based on if we interpret this as a " physical frame " they blinked or a " social frame " they winked. Them blinking may be due to a speck of dust resulting in an involuntary and not particularly meaningful reaction.

Them winking may imply a voluntary and meaningful action to convey humor to an accomplice, for example. Observers will read events seen as purely physical or within a frame of "nature" differently from those seen as occurring with social frames. But we do not look at an event and then "apply" a frame to it. Rather, individuals constantly project into the world around them the interpretive frames that allow them to make sense of it; we only shift frames or realize that we have habitually applied a frame when incongruity calls for a frame-shift.

In other words, we only become aware of the frames that we always already use when something forces us to replace one frame with another. Though some consider framing to be synonymous with agenda setting , other scholars state that there is a distinction. According to an article written by Donald H. Weaver, framing selects certain aspects of an issue and makes them more prominent in order to elicit certain interpretations and evaluations of the issue, whereas agenda setting introduces the issue topic to increase its salience and accessibility.

In communication , framing defines how news media coverage shapes mass opinion. Richard E. Vatz's discourse on creation of rhetorical meaning relates directly to framing, although he references it little. Today, many volumes of the major communication journals contain papers on media frames and framing effects. First, in terms of practices of news production, there are at least five aspects of news work that may influence how journalists frame a certain issue: larger societal norms and values, organizational pressures and constraints, external pressures from interest groups and other policy makers , professional routines, and ideological or political orientations of journalists.

The second potential influence on frame building comes from elites, including interest groups, government bureaucracies, and other political or corporate actors. Empirical studies show that these influences of elites seem to be strongest for issues in which journalists and various players in the policy arena can find shared narratives [ citation needed ]. Finally, cultural contexts of a society are also able to establish frame. Erving Goffman [2] assumes that the meaning of a frame has implicit cultural roots.

This context dependency of media frame has been described as 'cultural resonance' [10] or 'narrative fidelity'. When people are exposed to a novel news frame, they will accept the constructs made applicable to an issue, but they are significantly more likely to do so when they have existing schema for those constructs. This is called the applicability effect. That is, when new frames invite people to apply their existing schema to an issue, the implication of that application depends, in part, on what is in that schema. Therefore, generally, the more the audiences know about issues, the more effective are frames.

There are a number of levels and types of framing effects that have been examined. For example, scholars have focused on attitudinal and behavioral changes, the degrees of perceived importance of the issue, voting decisions, and opinion formations. Others are interested in psychological processes other than applicability. For instance, Iyengar [13] suggested that news about social problems can influence attributions of causal and treatment responsibility, an effect observed in both cognitive responses and evaluations of political leaders, or other scholars looked at the framing effects on receivers' evaluative processing style and the complexity of audience members' thoughts about issues.

Frame setting studies also address how frames can affect how someone thinks about an issue cognitive or feels about an issue affective. News media frame all news items by emphasizing specific values, facts, and other considerations, and endowing them with greater apparent applicability for making related judgments. News media promotes particular definitions, interpretations, evaluations and recommendations. Anthropologist Gregory Bateson first defined the concept of framing as "a spatial and temporal bounding of a set of interactive messages" A Theory of Play and Fantasy, , reproduced in his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind.

Media framing research has both sociological and psychological roots. Sociological framing focuses on "the words, images, phrases, and presentation styles" that communicators use when relaying information to recipients. Todd Gitlin , in his analysis of how the news media trivialized the student New Left movement during the s, was among the first to examine media frames from a sociological perspective. Frames, Gitlin wrote, are "persistent patterns of cognition, interpretations, and presentation, of selection [and] emphasis Research on frames in psychologically driven media research generally examines the effects of media frames on those who receive them.

For example, Iyengar explored the impact of episodic and thematic news frames on viewers' attributions of responsibility for political issues including crime, terrorism, poverty, unemployment, and racial inequality. Further, experimental results indicate participants who watched episodic news coverage of poverty were more than twice as likely as those who watched thematic news coverage of poverty to attribute responsibility of poverty to the poor themselves rather than society. Visual framing refers to the process of using images to portray certain parts of reality. Visuals can be used to manifest meaning alongside textual framing. Text and visuals function best simultaneously.

Since each mode has its limitations, they are best used together and are interlinked in forming meaning. Images are more preferable than text since they are less intrusive than words and require less cognitive load. Images can also generate a stronger emotional appeal and have high attraction value. Within the framing context, images can obscure issues and facts in effort to frame information. Visuals consist of rhetorical tools such as metaphors, depiction and symbols to portray the context of an event or scene graphically in an attempt to help us better understand the world around us. Images can have a one-to-one correspondence between what is captured on camera and its representation in the real world. Along with increasing understanding, visuals can also elevate retention rates, making information easier to remember and recall.

Due to the comparable nature of images, grammar rules do not apply. According to researchers, [21] framing is reflected within a four-tiered model, which identifies and analyzes visual frames as follows: visuals as denotative systems, visuals as stylistic-semiotic systems, visuals as connotative systems and visuals as ideological representations. Researchers caution against relying only on images to understand information. Since they hold more power than text and are more relatable to reality, we may overlook potential manipulations and staging and mistake this as evidence. Images can be representative of ideologies by ascertaining underlying principles that constitute our basic attributes by combining symbols and stylistic features of an image into a process of coherent interpretation.

One study indicates visual framing is prominent in news coverage, especially in relation to politics. Visual framing can be effective by putting emphasis on a specific aspect of an issue, a tactic commonly used in portrayal of war and conflict news known as empathy framing. Visual framing that has emotional appeal can be considered more salient. This type of framing can be applied to other contexts, including athletics in relation to athletic disability. Perhaps because of their use across the social sciences, frames have been defined and used in many disparate ways. Entman called framing "a scattered conceptualization" and "a fractured paradigm" that "is often defined casually, with much left to an assumed tacit understanding of the reader".

Wyer and Srull [25] explain the construct of accessibility thus:. The argument supporting accessibility as the psychological process underlying framing can therefore be summarized thus: Because people rely heavily on news media for public affairs information, the most accessible information about public affairs often comes from the public affairs news they consume. The argument supporting accessibility as the psychological process underlying framing has also been cited as support in the debate over whether framing should be subsumed by agenda-setting theory as part of the second level of agenda setting. McCombs and other agenda-setting scholars generally agree that framing should be incorporated, along with priming , under the umbrella of agenda setting as a complex model of media effects linking media production, content, and audience effects.

Scheufele, however, argues that, unlike agenda setting and priming, framing does not rely primarily on accessibility, making it inappropriate to combine framing with agenda setting and priming for the sake of parsimony. For example, Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley empirically demonstrated that applicability, rather than their salience, is key. In other words, while early research suggested that by highlighting particular aspects of issues, frames make certain considerations more accessible and therefore more likely to be used in the judgment process, [15] [20] more recent research suggests that frames work by making particular considerations more applicable and therefore more relevant to the judgment process.

Chong and Druckman suggest framing research has mainly focused on two types of frames: equivalency and emphasis frames. For example, Kahneman and Tversky asked participants to choose between two "gain-framed" policy responses to a hypothetical disease outbreak expected to kill people. Participants overwhelmingly chose Response A, which they perceived as the less risky option. Kahneman and Tversky asked other participants to choose between two equivalent "loss-framed" policy responses to the same disease outbreak. In this condition, Response A would kill people while Response B had a one-third probability of killing no one but a two-thirds probability of killing everyone.

Although these options are mathematically identical to those given in the "gain-framed" condition, participants overwhelmingly chose Response B, the risky option. Kahneman and Tversky, then, demonstrated that when phrased in terms of potential gains, people tend to choose what they perceive as the less risky option i. Conversely, when faced with a potential loss, people tend to choose the riskier option. Unlike equivalency frames, emphasis frames offer "qualitatively different yet potentially relevant considerations" which individuals use to make judgments.

Emphasis framing represents the changes in the structure of communication to evoke a particular cognitive schema. Emphasis framing refers to the influence of the structure of the message and agenda setting refers to the influence of the prominence of the content. Participants exposed to the public safety condition considered public safety applicable for deciding whether the Klan should be allowed to hold a rally and, as expected, expressed lower tolerance of the Klan's right to hold a rally. Preference reversals and other associated phenomena are of wider relevance within behavioural economics, as they contradict the predictions of rational choice , the basis of traditional economics. Framing biases affecting investing, lending, borrowing decisions make one of the themes of behavioral finance.

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman have shown that framing can affect the outcome of choice problems i. The context or framing of problems adopted by decision-makers results in part from extrinsic manipulation of the decision-options offered, as well as from forces intrinsic to decision-makers, e. Tversky and Kahneman demonstrated systematic when the same problem is presented in different ways, for example in the Asian disease problem.

Participants were asked to "imagine that the U. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows. The first group of participants was presented with a choice between programs: In a group of people,. The second group of participants was presented with the choice between the following: In a group of people,. Programs A and C are identical, as are programs B and D. Framing effects arise because one can often frame a decision using multiple scenarios , in which one may express benefits either as a relative risk reduction RRR , or as absolute risk reduction ARR. Extrinsic control over the cognitive distinctions between risk tolerance and reward anticipation adopted by decision makers can occur through altering the presentation of relative risks and absolute benefits.

People generally prefer the absolute certainty inherent in a positive framing-effect, which offers an assurance of gains. When decision-options appear framed as a likely gain , risk-averse choices predominate. A shift toward risk-seeking behavior occurs when a decision-maker frames decisions in negative terms, or adopts a negative framing effect. In medical decision making , framing bias is best avoided by using absolute measures of efficacy. Researchers have found that framing decision-problems in a positive light generally results in less-risky choices; with negative framing of problems, riskier choices tend to result. Further questioning of the patients suggested that, because the subjects ignored the underlying risk of disease, they perceived benefits as greater when expressed in relative terms.

Researchers have proposed [29] [36] various models explaining the framing effect :. Cognitive neuroscientists have linked the framing effect to neural activity in the amygdala , and have identified another brain-region, the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex OMPFC , that appears to moderate the role of emotion on decisions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging fMRI to monitor brain-activity during a financial decision-making task, they observed greater activity in the OMPFC of those research subjects less susceptible to the framing effect.

Framing theory and frame analysis provide a broad theoretical approach that analysts have used in communication studies , news Johnson-Cartee, , politics, and social movements among other applications. According to Bert Klandermans, the "social construction of collective action frames" involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action".

Word-selection has been a component of rhetoric. Most commentators attribute the concept of framing to the work of Erving Goffman on frame analysis and point to his book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Goffman used the idea of frames to label "schemata of interpretation" that allow individuals or groups "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions. These works arguably depend on Kenneth Boulding 's concept of image. Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements. Sociologists deem the mobilization of mass-movements "successful" when the frames projected align with the frames of participants to produce resonance between the two parties.

Researchers of framing speak of this process as frame re-alignment. Snow and Benford regard frame-alignment as an important element in social mobilization or movement. They argue that when individual frames become linked in congruency and complementariness, "frame alignment" occurs, [41] producing "frame resonance", a catalyst in the process of a group making the transition from one frame to another although not all framing efforts prove successful. The conditions that affect or constrain framing efforts include the following:.

Snow and Benford propose that once someone has constructed proper frames as described above, large-scale changes in society such as those necessary for social movement can be achieved through frame-alignment. Frame-alignment comes in four forms: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation. When this happens, the securing of participants and support requires new values, new meanings and understandings.

Goffman , pp. Two types of frame transformation exist:. Although the idea of language-framing had been explored earlier by Kenneth Burke terministic screens , political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers first published work advancing frame analysis framing analysis as a rhetorical perspective in His approach begins inductively by looking for themes that persist across time in a text for Kuypers, primarily news narratives on an issue or event and then determining how those themes are framed. Kuypers's work begins with the assumption that frames are powerful rhetorical entities that "induce us to filter our perceptions of the world in particular ways, essentially making some aspects of our multi-dimensional reality more noticeable than other aspects.

They operate by making some information more salient than other information In his essay "Framing Analysis" in Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action [43] and his essay "Framing Analysis as a Rhetorical Process", [44] Kuypers offers a detailed conception for doing framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. According to Kuypers, "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner.

Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea. Curing the problem is not rhetorical and best left to the observer. Climate Activism is constantly shaped and reshaped by dialogue at the local, national, and international level pertaining to climate change as well as by evolving societal norms and values.

Beginning with the 19th century transcendental movement in which Henry David Thoreau penned his novel On Walden Pond detailing his experiences with the natural environment and augmented by the work of other transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson , climate activism has taken many forms. John Muir , also from the late 19th century, advocated for the preservation of Earth for its own sake, establishing the Sierra Club.

The first Earth Day took place on April 22, The decades following witnessed the establishment of Greenpeace , Earth First! Climate activism has been reinvigorated by an insurgence of young people on the frontlines of dialogue and advocacy. Greta Thunberg , a young Swedish woman, founded the initiative Fridays for Future which now has active chapters in scores of countries around the world. Individual motivation to address climate change is the bedrock on which collective action is built. Decision-making processes are informed by a myriad of factors including values, beliefs, and normative behaviors.

In the United States, individuals have been most effectively motivated to support climate change policies when a public health frame has been employed. This frame reduces the sense of ambiguity and dissociation often elicited by talk of melting ice sheets and carbon emissions by placing climate issues in a local context for the individual, whether in their country, state, or city. Climate change , as an issue that has yet to be established as a normative belief, is often subject to dissent in the face of activism and advocacy. Climate activism manifests itself through a range of expressions. One aspect of climate change framing that is commonly observed is the frame of dire messaging that has been criticized as alarmist and pessimistic, resulting in a dismissal of evidence-based messages.

The just-world theory supports the notion that some individuals must rely on their presupposition of a just-world in order to substantiate beliefs. A study shows that fear motivates action through raising awareness of the threat of climate catastrophe. Research has shown that dire messaging reduces the efficacy of advocacy initiatives through demotivation of individuals, lower levels of concern, and decreased engagement.

Research contends that prognostic framing —which offers tangible solutions, strategies, targets, and tactics—coupled with motivational framing is most efficacious in moving people to act. The four main tenets of motivation as elucidated by Positive Psychology are agency, compassion, resilience, and purpose. When applied to climate action, the 4th edition textbook Psychology for Sustainability, further expands upon these tenets as they relate to sustainability and as catalysts of action: [51].

Hope augments a sense of purpose and agency, while enhancing resilience. For climate activists, it is infeasible to decouple hope from fear. Another approach that has proven to be efficacious is the projection of a future utopian society in which all pressing issues have been resolved, offering creative narratives that walk individuals from current problems to future solutions and allow them to choose to serve as a bridge between the two. This intergenerational, positive approach generates a sense of excitement about climate action in individuals and offers creative solutions that they may choose to take part in.

Maybe you live in the beautiful Appalachian mountains of West Virginia, where the coal industry became supplanted by massive hubs for green energy jobs and innovation. You can commute easily to DC or New York. Your food is locally grown and distributed through the Urban Agricultural Co-op that educates children about how to grow food, the importance of localization, and how to be more sustainable.

In recent decades, climate change has become deeply politicized and often, initiatives to address or conceptualize climate change are palatable to one contingency, while deeply contentious to the other. Thus, it is important to frame climate activism in a way that is tangible for the audience, finding means of communicating while minimizing provocation. A study examining various predictors of public approval for renewable energy usage in the Western United States used seven varying frames in order to assess the efficacy of framing renewable energy.

Neoliberal frameworks that are often echoed by conservatives, such as support for the free market economy , are posited against climate action interventions that inherently place constraints on the free economy through support for renewable energy through subsidies or through additional tax on nonrenewable sources of energy. The framing of climate change varies according to the intended audience and their perceived responses to various approaches to activism.

In Sweden, research evaluating sustainability in the male-dominated transportation sector suggests that the norms provided by femininity are more likely to advance sustainability endeavors, while subsequently lowering the overall CO2 emissions of the sector. Edward Zelinsky has shown that framing effects can explain some observed behaviors of legislators. The role framing plays in the effects of media presentation has been widely discussed, with the central notion that associated perceptions of factual information can vary based upon the presentation of the information. Kuypers examined the differences in framing of the War on Terror between the Bush administration and the U.

Kuypers looked for common themes between presidential speeches and press reporting of those speeches, and then determined how the president and the press had framed those themes. By using a rhetorical version of framing analysis, Kuypers determined that the U. To the contrary, when taking into consideration how themes are framed, [Kuypers] found that the news media framed its response in such a way that it could be viewed as supporting the idea of some action against terrorism, while concommitantly opposing the initiatives of the President. The news media may well relay what the president says, but it does not necessarily follow that it is framed in the same manner; thus, an echo of the theme, but not of the frame. In Robert M.

Afterlife - Take Me Inside. What is Your Nature? Why Are You Here? What is Your Unique Path? And the more you advance, the more you will be tested. Experience Outside The Physical Body: Toward Our Natural State of Being The ability and experience of this nature is not something everyone can do, or be successful with , unless it happens to be part of your existing path and incarnational experience. Everyone has incarnations which are involved with this, at one time or another in our experience. The goal of the Matrix V project was to unleash your individuality and assist you in rediscovering who you really are. It is about providing the keys necessary for those who need them to spiral out and graduate from the Game. The material was always meant for those with very advanced incarnational perspectives which not only take into account the larger reality we live in, but the why and how of it all, based on experiential activities of a very high order over a period of time.

By definition it would not be something that most would understand, coming from a strictly cultural perspective. It was written by an Author who underwent 12 years of shamanic training, went to the Monroe Institute, and has achieved a vast amount of very very unique first hand observational experience which far exceeds the norm. He relates the nature of the larger context of reality and the nature of what all individuals and the planet are going through at this time. It eventually turned out that the implications of the project far exceeded anything that anyone could ever have imagined.

The main thrust and examination of the original Matrix V Trilogy was an examination of the nature of the Higher Self, and incarnational 3rd density experience. The material is NOT written for the general public, but for those with advanced thought patterns and interests who resonate along those lines. It details understandings about the actual existential context in which all beings exist and have their experiences, and has produced a continuing commentary with an ever-increasing knowledge base resulting from experiential observations, not from non-experiential belief systems , using a time-tested dynamic of exploration out of body travel shared by many people who have those abilities.

Matrix 5, starting with Quest of the Spirit - The Ultimate Frontier , is the ultimate self-help material. If you are a subscriber to Leading Edge Journal Online , you have a special Matrix 5 panel to access material from earlier volumes and basic explanations of elements of the context, to begin with, which is useful because that's the observational perspective of the website. As of August 31, , the entire body of work until July 27, , all volumes, are at the library on Focus 27, available to countless individuals. A summary , with select segments from the first three printed volumes, is on the LE Online Journal and explains the perspective, terms and definitions , and then perhaps what is discussed in the later online volumes will make more sense conceptually.

Email received Aug 21, : " M5 has very big influence in Bulgaria. There are many 'wanna be the Author' writers here, most of them just repeat him and spill bullshit, but some have interesting insights. There're also a lot of translations of M5 in Bulgarian, most of the translations are crappy with twisted meaning mostly because a lot of translators couldn't grasp M5 properly in my opinion ". Note : That figures, and it's not like it was unexpected Since the project is completed, nothing can be done to reverse the impact and ongoing higher level events It happens in two phases, we're moving toward the first as we speak. Given the progression and velocity of events, I'd say that sometime before there's no one here.

Everyone including the individual who managed all life on Earth as the 'nature spirit' on that path , so there's no necessity or reason to 'save the planet' has left, taking their experiences with them, and left their bodies including the physical planet behind. By the surface of the planet has been burned off by an eruption on the Sun that's what it looks like and the planet is a dead husk.

For others, The Game will continue for some on other worlds until their Higher Self graduates from 3rd density experience and, finally achieving balance, moves into other densities and fantastic experiences. Remember : "In observer status, you do not move against the Game, but you most definitely can point out the Game's mechanics to other interested observers. Share what you see. Remember, you don't escape by fighting the Game, but by removing yourself from it.

Remember what the word 'observer' means - a non-participant in events, but someone who takes note and evaluates. You must give your power away to appease the Game. As long as your power is given away, you cannot discover who you really are. You won't make a choice that will cancel any experience that your Higher Self requires , but there is plenty of latitude in 'other' experiences. The more Advanced you become is due to how you handled decisions for your incarnation. Without those experiences, you won't appreciate Balance. This is part of the Game. Light-siders do not follow this law and neither do Dark-siders.

There is no right or wrong, just different experience, BUT the best choices are made with greater information, so you are less likely to be suckered in. As with everything else, by the time you reach VERY Advanced stages, things will be made clearer to you. A daily selection of Matrix 5 material is presented below: A good daily reminder of the reality behind your daily experiences. The Control Paradigm Posing as a "Philosophy". The dumbing down - becoming less than who we are - brings us face to face with one of the control paradigm's most powerful devices for achieving control.

The control paradigm presents itself as a "philosophy", as if it's innocently telling us what's what. It even insists that its mechanistic, materialistic, control-measured picture of reality depicts the "real world" and tells us how to be practical in the world of facts and things, dogs eating dogs and sharks eating whatever. The more our reality can be reduced to objects, this "philosophy" tells us, and the less we trouble ourselves with ideas, values and other intangibles, the more we understand the "realities" of the control universe. Adopting this philosophy as "the most practical way to maximize our personal sphere of control", we don't notice that we're made controllable in the process. To "buy into" the "philosophy" is to become controllable by its "values" of external rewards and suggested into a view of ourselves that is not true to our nature and potential as True Human Beings.

But, the control paradigm isn't philosophy. It doesn't encourage free thought or dialogue. It doesn't develop our minds or souls. It doesn't invite inquiry into its core assumptions, strategies, responses and goals. Instead, it functions as a mind-control trance. The control paradigm comes across as "the one way" to experience reality, and it doesn't make room for alternative perspectives. To do so would go against the control agenda. As a result, the control paradigm in truth has little in common with philosophy and much in common with propaganda and mind control methods - trance inducers. Responding to the need for balance in society doesn't work using closed-system thought patterns , because the nature of the game:.

Maintains a toxic order: First, if the system equilibrium is already toxic, it gets reinforced. Bad "norms" are simply perpetuated, since closed systems "run on automatic". They don't have the power of discernment. They don't evaluate systems in light of personal needs, human evolution or planetary health. Their one mandate is to "preserve the established order", even if that "order" is toxic for the people and planet. Puts systems above people : Achieving "social order" through closed-system methods put systems above people - system needs over personal needs. Systems come first. That's the message we hear in social systems, namely, preserving systems is more important than nurturing people.

Closed systems say to people, "You are part of us, therefore we own you. Who you are is incidental. You must perform the roles we assign you in the ways we require. We won't allow you to deviate. If you changed, we'd have to change, and that we won't allow. Our 'social order' would collapse". Putting the rigid structure of social systems first costs all of us. People get "chewed up" by systems. The idea of "sacrificing ourselves for the greater good" may be a laudable idea if the greater is good. But, what if it isn't? Features Control and Abuse : Closed social systems don't work because they keep order through control - force, punishment, and other power-over methods of enforcement.

But, can social harmony be forced? Is top-down control the way to achieve "social order"? Threats and intimidation cannot be the fabric of healthy social systems. They do too much violence to our inner lives, costing us our freedom. How healthy can our social system be if the people are psychological wreaks? When we are deprived of out essential powers as free, creative beings, our social systems reflect our emptiness. When do we get in return for "submission"?

Not security. Being one-down in a control hierarchy isn't a secure place. When people get deprived of freedom and security while at the same time they are bound by control systems, they behave like caged animals. Intelligent beings don't do well in cages. The Nature of Reality isn't closed : Another reason closed social systems don't bring social order is that reality itself isn't a closed system.

The old scientific belief systems such as closed-entropy energy systems, also used to reinforce closed-system social control patterns, are rapidly becoming transparently false as scientific research has shown over the last few decades. No matter how much closed systems try to control variables and shut out change, reality won't be shut out. We can't make our social units into "islands of no-change", because the greater reality the context on which our systems depend is dynamic.

The best way to make our paradigm "armor" invulnerable is to make it invisible. What can't be detected by the population can't be shot down. When invisible, our paradigms avoid the risk of attack. We hide our paradigm's filtering processes under acceptable cloaking devices - and many such covers will do the trick. One way to make paradigm filters invisible is to surround ourselves with people who share our set. We align ourselves with groups who take the same paradigm for granted. Surrounded by people whose filters are familiar, ours blend in. Paradigm filters stay invisible, and we ask "What filters? When paradigm issues do manage to surface, it's to reinforce how "successful" and "right" the group's paradigm is. The official lines get repeated and the catchphrases echoed.

Those who question the paradigm and don't speak its "language" are out. It is because of this that cliques permeate paradigm-rigid societies, with each group accusing the other of being "cultish". Paradigm dynamics, or dogmatics of each group resemble what goes on in mainline churches, corporations, schools, universities, governments, labor unions and non-profit organizations. The strategy of keeping filters invisible under the cover of a group-shared paradigm turns out not to be considered aberrational behavior, but the "required norm". When Groups Support Growth - There are groups that support growth and evolution, and group-shared paradigms can be useful if they are exploring these areas involving full potential.

Working with people of like mind takes us forward by leaps and bounds. As we work with others in this way, developments emerge greater than any one person could produce. Whether group involvement supports "filter evolution" or "filter fixedness", therefore, is a matter of paradigm development. Compartmentalization of Paradigm Filters. Mechanism : Another way to keep paradigms invisible is to split our lives into compartments and to design paradigm filters for each "box".

When we are convinced to split our perceptive world into separate pieces, we protect the paradigm filters we use for each piece. In a fixed area, certain paradigm filters don't apply, and we don't mix them with filters we use for a different box. That way, we never have to ask how it all adds up; it just doesn't, and no one expects it to add up. Social Result: Lack of Consistency. We don't ask whether the values we use at work are the values we'd like our children to live at home.

If we adhere to one religion or belief, we don't want to hear about the views of another. By putting walls between our filters, we protect our overall filter arrangement. We avoid filter comparisons which would inevitably bring our paradigm out into the open and subject it to revision. Some of the greatest leaps in knowledge and art - cultural paradigms - occurred when two or more societies interacted.

Control paradigm isolation of societies prevents these leaps. Box-category thinking, valuable as it is for producing specialized knowledge, prevents this type of exchange. It forbids us even to attempt to integrate our filters with wider contexts - a process which paradigm evolution demands. Another way to keep paradigm filters hidden is to "appear to be filter-free", as if "we have no paradigm, no filters, and no covers for them either. For decades, scientists and social engineers hid filters behind claims of objectivity, pretending to be "unbiased observers".

Claiming to be "open" and "skeptical", while rigidly adhering to paradigm dynamics, are other ways of hiding paradigms we're not keen to question. Sometimes, claiming to be "open" is used as a strategy to make us appear paradigm-free, which guarantees that neither we nor anyone else has a chance to look at our filters. By appearing to be "big-minded", we keep our paradigm close to the chest and off limits. Use of Covers to Block Paradigm Awareness. If we are to evolve, we need to know what paradigm we're using, so we can change it.

Defensive covers block this awareness. How far are people willing to go to protect their paradigm? History shows that people will kill to protect what they "believe" to be the case. Changing paradigms, ways of thinking and perceiving the universe based on new information, can be scary for some people. No wonder the strategies for keeping paradigms in place are more developed than strategies for changing them. One of the most potent paradigm cloaking devices individuals and societies have is the taboo.

A taboo prevents the questions we dare not raise, the things we dare not do, and the ways we dare not think. When members of a society obey taboos, they pretend that aspects of their lives do not exist. Problems are not problems, and obvious sources of trouble remain off-limits for discussion, and people are manipulated into not speaking of them. People let the social system throw walls of silence around them, so the system is not threatened by hearing the truth about what we're experiencing. Most current social systems on the planet are maintained in a status quo state in this way.

Taboos About Sex - The actual function of the taboo on sexual matters in Western countries, which paradoxically exists at the same time as the maintenance of a strong focus on sexual matters, is to supplement and increase the focus on sexual matters in society. The same principles holds for gender-specific taboos, which also have the function of suppressing different factors relating to wholeness of being and expression. Many of these taboos have the function of introducing the socially complicating factors of "guilt" and "shame", and are also included in some religious paradigms.

Taboos About Feelings - There is also another taboo which exists that makes feelings off-limits in some social system. People are programming "to be in control" of emotions. Even the words "emotion" and "emotional" are cast in negative connotations, and are often used to discredit a persons viewpoint. In fact, the process of socially programming the factoring-out of emotions is highly convenient for control paradigm systems, because if we cut ourselves off from how we feel under a situation of domination, we tend to "tolerate" it more readily, and we are programmed to disregard the pain when we witness control-system abuse to others. Control system abuse is seen on television 24 hours a day and termed "entertainment", which goes to show how deeply some paradigm elements are buried.

Another phenomenon that arises is that the control paradigm feeds people with rationalizations, judgments and the ultimate ultimatum: "Things must be done this way or chaos will follow". Science Taboos - Many of the social control taboos in our society have in fact been inherited from science - what's "real" and what is not, what we can "talk about intelligently" and what is considered "superstitious" or "pseudo-science". In general, the rule is this - "if you can measure something, manipulate it, predict its function and then replicate it control the outcome of experiments on it - "it's scientific and real; if not, it's imagination or illusion. Unfortunately, this strategy reduces the idea of "knowledge" down to a matter of "control".

We are led to believe that "knowing something" means being able to "control" it -- which is the control-paradigm epistemology. We are led to grant science this "authority" and we are programmed not to question it, even if it stands in the face of mountains of observed but not reproducible, and therefore "anecdotal" evidence. Defining knowledge in terms of control raises questions. What kind of "control" does science give us? Control paradigm science inevitably disregards wider contexts, because wider contexts aren't easily "controlled". To "gain control", scientists "eliminate variables" and "constrict the field".

In fact, scientists learn early in their programmed training to think in narrowly focused ways and to disregard broader contexts, thus, the most defensible Ph. A result of this process is that using narrowed control thought processes, we find ourselves faced with wider-context problems. For example, we are stuck with nuclear waste with a half-life of , years and clouds of acid rain that kill forests. If the same money went into researching new evolutionary technologies, as the impression was given to the public in the early 's that it "would be", we wouldn't have the problems we have today. But, a public programmed to think along the same lines has simply ignored this simple idea.

A very important point to make is that the taboos that insulate control-science from its impact on society also hide its values. The directions that science and technology take involve decisions based on values - control values. Nonetheless, taboos place science above ethics. In other words, control-science taboos hide its decision-making process and the values that guide them.

These values and decisions affect the course of science. The fact that some scientific research gets screened out while other research receives both funding and publication is attributed to "the natural course of scientific development", as if there is no paradigm-based filtering going on. In fact, "there's a whole lot of filtering going on". Various "experts" dominate each field of "inquiry" and also dominate the direction and "limits" of research.

They give their "positions" at "conferences", where "reputations" may be "made" or "broken", and they edit the journals. Even more telling is the funding of research by industry. There is an unspoken but real incentive to present projects that support the agenda of work being done in various industries. Combinations of industrial, academic, and political interests influence, and even control, what should otherwise be open scientific research, in many cases research that could potentially save lives.

The cancer and AIDS industries are good examples. In a paradigm of externals, externals call the shots. Instead of allowing us to be guided from the inside out a formula for anarchy, the control paradigm claims , the paradigm controls our behavior through rewards and punishments. We come to think and act like Pavlov's dog, salivating over the next bonus, a bigger kennel to call home, a fancier collar to sport, or a top dog position.

The paradigm isn't about developing our talents, abilities, or potential; it's about making us controllable by giving or withholding external rewards. To achieve this control, the paradigm grades each "thing" in a hierarchy of externals. The inner life means nothing compared to the outward characteristics indicated by our species, race, gender, age, status, group affiliation, and income. If dogs possessed the wealth of Bill Gates, for instance, they wouldn't suffer in medical experiments, just as people who have money don't work in sweatshops or sell their children into slavery. That's the problem with externals: they're fine until they become the means for enslavement, which unfortunately they do almost immediately.

When a paradigm puts external values first, consciousness dimensions are dismissed out of hand. Small wonder that the potentials of our minds and hearts-and all the values that go with them, e. A control paradigm has neither use nor place for them. Naming paradigms and their power for good or ill isn't a new insight; it's as old as philosophy. It is, however, an overlooked insight in an age that can't seem to shake a materialistic, control-obsessed paradigm-and for good reason.

Reflecting on paradigms is the stuff of change, and changing paradigms is the most fundamental and powerful change we can make. To a paradigm of control, that's not welcome. The sum total of our experience contingent on something as invisible and changeable as a philosophy? Change by paradigm shifts, which anyone can make? Powers of perception and creativity that defy rigid material boundaries? Humans as beings of immense powers and abilities? Once you let these cats out of the bag, there's no telling what mindsets and institutions might be made obsolete. Obsolete is precisely what established institutions of power and control don't want to be. They learned from the fate of carriage and buggy whip manufacturers when cars came along.

Established interests now make sure that questioning the neanderthal paradigm of burning things for energy triggers "War-of-the-Worlds" panic about destabilizing the world economy. Even the call for improved public transit systems borders on subversive. Stiff challenges face a paradigm shift on the simple level of out-there technology, frozen at a stage that Captain Picard sometimes finds among the more primitive human civilizations he encounters. What challenges might we face if we embark on a far deeper level of questioning-on redrawing the paradigms that sort out who we are and why we're here?

If the cultural paradigm's purpose is not to honor human potential but rather to make it an obedient servant to existing social structures, then nothing could be more threatening to the established order than a paradigm shift regarding our self-conceptions. We fit into society as it is now only as long as we don't remember that we're more and here for more. The agenda for traditional psychoanalytic therapy, for instance, isn't to develop human potential; it's to keep people functional in established social structures, however miserable their lives may be and however abusive or wrong-headed the social structures. But if someone is well-adjusted to being an SS officer in Nazi concentration camps, is that person mentally healthy? If we don't conform, adjust, fit in, and measure up, something must be wrong with us.

And psychotherapy has its truth: we may well be frozen in grief or shock and not functioning at our best, but don't the social systems that shape us deserve equal scrutiny, equal critical analysis? Thankfully many therapists reject this paradigm and venture forth with their clients on the forbidden territory of meaning and human potential as well as of critiquing social structures, but it's no easy task persuading insurance companies to come along. Control institutions pay insurance companies to pay health professionals to keep people in their place, serving the established order.

Nor are school systems committed to developing the more that we are. Schools are an arm of social structures, whether religious, governmental, or economic. According to the paradigm-defined needs of those structures, tapping human potential doesn't create enough Dilberts to ensure the "efficient" running of corporate, governmental, religious, and educational hierarchies.

In this century, business interests have dictated the structure of schools. Henry Ford quickly noticed that creative genius and intuitive knowing aren't useful on factory lines. So he pioneered the "modern" school system that inculcates values and skills appropriate for 20th century work life: being punctual, obeying orders, enduring hours, weeks, and years of boring, repetitive tasks, not talking while working, not resting, keeping to the schedule at all costs. Our minds become casualties of industrialization. Our souls end up casualties as well. Trusting our own judgment, thinking for ourselves, adhering to our values, and having confidence in our innate worth don't make us good foot soldiers for my-way-or-the-highway bosses.

Only people with low self-esteem are sufficiently insecure to tolerate abusive work environments. Insofar as we believe we don't deserve better, we adjust, becoming the kind of person that's required to "do the job. Obligingly, school systems produce people with precisely the low self-esteem that's needed for worker "flexibility. That's the percentage who are required not to get A's by the bell curve system, guaranteeing that 90 percent of everyone coming out of school believe that they're incapable of excellence. Schools mirror back to students the mass message that "you're just not good enough, but if you do what you're told without question, you may get better and be rewarded.

All this modern schooling goes against what we know about the human mind and how we learn-and have known for decades. Studies in learning show that we learn best when we're most relaxed, yet schools maximize stress through fear of failure. Studies show that children learn most easily through cooperative learning, yet schools impose a competitive model. Studies also indicate that students' beliefs about their own learning abilities affect their performance-if they believe they're good learners, they learn easily; if not, learning the simplest things becomes difficult-yet schools systematically undermine students' confidence.

In these and many other ways, school systems perform virtual lobotomies on our psyches, producing graduates who've long since lost their joy in learning, who believe they must be right all the time and "know it all" or be condemned to outer darkness, and who experience post-traumatic stress symptoms at the thought of having to learn new things on the job. On Cultural Non-Commitment to Potential. Alice Miller, a champion of the potential we all possess from birth, pulls no punches in her books- For Your Own Good in particular analyzes the social, cultural agenda of shutting down our potential.

As she explains, the traditional rules of child-rearing passed down from generation to generation have nothing to do with developing our potential, either emotionally, intuitively, psychologically, or intellectually. Their one agenda is control: control the child as soon as possible by any means, whether it's by punishment, humiliation, intimidation, beatings, grading, whatever it takes to break the child's will and autonomy. The justification for this agenda is that children raised any other way won't fit into society when they grow up. According to this cultural paradigm-expressed in the rules of child-rearing-learning to forget who we are and to become what others want and expect us to be is the most important survival skill.

Our potential as human beings is irrelevant, a side issue, compared to our ability to conform. Of course we're supposed to believe that social systems have our best interests at heart and that obeying them is indeed "for our own good. But is this so? As we've seen, schools and therapy-two systems that you'd think would be committed to developing human potential-have no such commitment.

In what system or area of the culture might such a commitment exist? Governments are fully occupied with who has power over whom, who has the biggest budget, where money can be found, who wins which election or vote, etc. Developing the human potential of its citizenry is not a priority. If anything, it's not on the agenda at all. The insider's view that "the masses are asses" is music to ambitious politicians' ears, who then believe it's their manifest destiny to expand their personal power and become benevolent dictators. Dumb masses are easy to manipulate with slogans and half-truths. For their purposes, the less human potential the better. As much as we value spiritual teachings, we can't say that religious organizations have much commitment to developing human potential either, though granted there are exceptions.

Adhering to fixed doctrines, building congregations, raising money, meddling in the personal affairs of members, running down sectarian competitors, and using fear and guilt to exact obedience and tithing keep them busy enough. Businesses and corporations certainly don't concern themselves with human potential, even though they sometimes pay lip service to it in the hopes of making employees more "productive. Scanning the culture, we frankly can't find any system that's consistently committed to exploring human potential. If anything, our social systems regard human potential as an impediment, an annoying feature of human beings that gums up the systems' otherwise efficient workings. If people would just learn their roles and stick to them, everything would work so much better.

If we didn't know the paradigm behind these systems, we may find this lack of interest in human potential odd. Developing human potential seems crucial to keeping human civilizations vital and evolving, up to speed with the challenges that continually arise. Technology per se can't save us, since we're not using the alternative technology we already have to remedy social and environmental ills. What we lack is the the wisdom and foresight, the honesty, the sense of meaning, justice, integrity, and the good to manage human affairs well. These aren't technology issues but paradigm ones. Wisdom and foresight are precisely the potentials that a paradigm geared to domination and control factors out of us. Sadler discusses fallacies falling under the broad rubric of Appeal to Emotion.

He also discusses the nature of emotions, the role emotional intelligence plays, and outlines the structure of fallacious arguments appealing to emotions. Sadler discusses fallacies falling under the broad rubric of Appeal to Popularity, distinguishing the closely connected fallacies of appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, and appeal to tradition. He provides a number of examples for his students.

He provides examples for his students, and also discusses the variant of Red Herring termed Smoke Screen. Sadler discusses fallacious arguments that work by attacking opponents or their arguments: varieties of Ad Hominem, the Genetic Fallacy, and the Straw Man. Sadler discusses two additional fallacious arguments: False Dilemma and Slippery Slope. He treats both of them as valid but unsound arguments, i. Sadler discusses two additional fallacious arguments: Appeal to Ignorance and Begging the Question. He discusses the associated concept of the burden of proof and provides examples of appeals to ignorance and begging the question.

Sadler discusses the structure of complex arguments, how "premise" and "conclusion" are relational terms, and how conclusions can function as premises. He also discusses unstated or implicit premises and conclusions and why we rely upon them. Sadler discusses what sort of structure sets of claims must have in order to be arguments. He distinguishes arguments from other non-argument sets of claims, including narratives and explanations.

Portions of President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech are used to provide examples for the class. Sadler discusses several fundamental concepts and how they are connected with each other. He also points out some misconceptions common among students approaching this material for the first time. Sadler introduces important distinctions between different classifications of deductive and inductive arguments, providing examples to illustrate concepts such as validity, strength, soundness and cogency of arguments. Sadler returns thematically to the concept of argument forms, providing some examples, distinguishing content and form, and discussing how looking at the form can help students determine whether and argument is deductive or inductive.

Sadler introduces several rhetorical devices used to produce persuasion and to skew perceptions positively or negatively. He addresses euphemism, dysphemism, rhetorical definitions and explanations, stereotypes, and innuendo. Sadler introduces several additional rhetorical devices used to produce persuasion and to skew perceptions positively or negatively. He addresses loaded questions, weasel words, downplayers, and the use of humor, satire, or sarcasm. He addresses hyperbole, proof surrogates, and misleading analogies or comparisons. Sadler discusses some basic issues with information sources. He addresses why we need to be critical in our reliance on sources, why we should proportion belief to evidence, and examines some of the sources of our information.

This is a preliminary introduction to the topic which will lead into further, more technically focused lectures. Identifying "poor judgment," or more precisely, a "deviation in judgment," requires a standard for comparison, i. In scientific investigations of cognitive bias, the source of "good judgment" is that of people outside the situation hypothesized to cause the poor judgment, or, if possible, a set of independently verifiable facts. The existence of most of the particular cognitive biases listed below has been verified empirically in psychology experiments. Cognitive biases, like many behaviors, are influenced by evolution and natural selection pressure.

Some are presumably adaptive and beneficial, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions, when faster decisions are of greater value for reproductive success and survival. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, i.

Is the Eudora Welty Research Paper of the historian to A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases the A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases as nihilist? Log in Social login does not work in incognito and private browsers. Of course, if I were to read something that did not resonate with A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases, I would not accept A Rhetorical Analysis Of Media Biases as fact.

Web hosting by Somee.com