Test 3 Flashcards
Inductive Reasoning
- bottom up approach
- depends on the evidence at hand
- influenced by chance or variation
- conclusions are subject to revision or possible rejection based on new info
Four Questions for Evaluating Generalizations
- Was the correct group sampled?
- Were the data obtained in an effective way?
- Were enough causes considered?
- Was the sample representationaly structured?
Coincidences
-when two or more events occur together by chance
Correlations
-when two or more events occur together several times
Causes
-when two or more events occur together and the earlier event influences the later one
Erroneous Generalization
-generalizing based on two little information
4 components of a rhetorical situation
author, audience, purpose, presentation
Voice
writing personality
Information Literacy
- ability to identify, locate, evaluate, and effectively use information
- specific types, evaluating sources
ELM and Creating a Message Questions
1) Is the target audience likely to process centrally or peripherally?
2) Can you test it on a different group before you deliver it?
3) Do you need the attitude change to stick or can it be temporary?
4) Should your message contain more cues or more arguments?
5) Create arguments from your audiences point of view
ELM And Listening Question
1) Am i motivated & able to understand this message?
2) What is my existing point of view on this topic
3) What arguments (reasoning & evidence) is the source providing?
4) What cues might sway me even unknowingly?
5) What other factors about me might affect my decision about this topic or proposition
Ethics
“The most pervasive problem approached in most discussions of ethics whether we should judge things on the basis of the ends achieved or upon the basis of the means used “ -McCroskey
Coercion
-using force or punishment to get something you desire
Amoral View
rhetorical communication has no ethical value itself
- everyone should be allowed to speak, be trained in rhetorical communication
Moral View
rhetorical communication has ethical value
-only good people should be allowed to speak or be fully trained in rhetorical commucation
totalitarian
moral ethic, restricts communication often by coercion
democratic
-amoral ethic, systematically encourages free speech
Censorship
-all societies restrict free speech, but sometimes in different ways. Totalitarian restrict with laws and force, and democracies restrict with social pressure
Advocate System
having someone speak for you
ghostwriting
skilled communicator that creates messages for another source to present
Advantages to Central Route
- required for learning
- liberates us from others thinking and authority
Advantages to Peripheral
- uses just the right amount of energy (save it for when you need it))
- usually good enough for the purpose at hand
- takes less time
two route advantages
- either route can override the other
- the pull between the 2 systems reduces the chances f making power or dangerous judgements
Central Route Thinking
- involves processing messages carefully and effect fully
- produce more thoughts about the message and thoughts are relevant
- applies critical thinking skill of self regulation
- focuses on message argument
Peripheral Route Thinking
- assumes that humans are cognitive nusers
- involves processing messages superficially and lazily
- fewer thoughts about the message and thoughts are irrelevant
- tend to use when situations are familiar and immediate is required
- quick, feels intuitive
- decisions are rationalized after the fact
Cues
anything besides the argument
-attractiveness, appearance, liking, authority, habit
Cognitive Heuristics
-natural human decision- making short cuts that we use to speed up our decisions about what to believe or do
satisficing
having found option that is good enough, we take it
-public speakers, includes only enough evidence to convince the audience
temporizing
a given option is good enough for now
-saves time, energy, and money but may not be enough in the future
affect
- (go with your gut), based on initial reaction
- advantage: easy
- disadvantage: not always right
simulation
estimating the likehood of a given of a given outcome
- advantage: increases our confidence
- disadvantage: estimations can be wrong
availibility
based on vivid memory of past experience
- advantage: powerful, easier to recall something
- disadvantage:recall may not be accurate
association
connecting ides on the basis of word association and memories, meanings, or impressions
stereotyping
-snap judgement about a group, based on limited instance
us vs them
reducing decisions to 2 options and then rejecting the opositions choice
power differential
accepting a position, belief or solution because it is proposed by a higher authority
anchoring with adjustment
picking an initial standpoint on an issue (anchor) and changing (adjusting ) relative to new evidence to form a final standpoint.
illusion of control
-over estimating the control we have over situations
optimistic bias
underestimating our risk of experiencing a negative effect
elimination by aspect
-eliminating an option from consideration based upon the lack of one desirable feature
loss and risk aversion
avoiding risk and loss by maintaining the status que
playing with numbers
misapplying statistical tests, exaggerating small numbers
false dilemma
assuming incorrectly that all options are the bad options
gamblers fallacy
improperly connecting events that happened due to chance
false cause
assuming that if B happens right after A, that A causes B
slippery slope
assuming that an event is automatically the start of a long chain of events
strengths of deductive reasoning
- -specific case
- top down approach
- they require that the conclusion must be true
Denying the Consequent
Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: Not B
Conclusion: Not A
Affirming the Antecedent
Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: Therefore B
Disjunctive Syllogism
Premise 1: Either A or B
Premise 2: Not A
Conclusion: Therefore B
Applying a Generalization
Premise 1: Every member of F is a member of G
Premise 2: Individual case x is a member of F
Conclusion: So X is a member of G
Applying an Exception
Premise 1: Every member of F is a member of G
Premise 2: Individual case x is not a member of G
Conclusion: so x is not a member of F
Transitivity
– If X has a relationship to Y and Y has the same relationship to Z, then X has that transitive relationship to Z
- If X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z
Reflexivity Relationship
- Two objects relate to each other in the same way (If A=B, then B=A)
- If Jan is married to Roger, Roger is married to Jan
Affirming the Consequent
– If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Then A must be true
Ex) If she rode a bike to school she’ll be out of breath, she is out of breath, therefore she rode her bike (But she could be out of breath for another place)
Denying the Antecedent
If A is true, then B is true. A is not true. Then B is not true.
-Why is this a fallacy? A’s non-truth does not automatically mean B isn’t true
False Classification
The false assumption that if an individual case X is part of group G, then it is automatically a part of subgroup F
Fallacies of Division
Occurs when we say what is true of the group is true of the individuals
People can drink outside of the bars on Bourbon Street. You are visiting Bourbon Street, therefore you are drinking outside
Fallacies of Composition
Occurs when we say what is true of one part is true of the group
If a runner runs faster, she can win the race. Therefore if all runners run faster, they can all win the race
Deductively Valid
Is when there is no possibility that the premises are all true and the conclusion is false
To Speak
-Whenever you believe in something you have an obligation to say something
Obstacles:Most of us fail to do this, whether we due to fear, social pressure, etc.
To speak well
Use all of our power to persuade, see that the truth and justice win out
Obstacles: Many are not trained in rhetorical communication (and think of all the fallacies we are at risk of)
Not to speak
– Do not speak when we are not sure what is right or true
Obstacles: It is difficult not to say something sometimes
To listen
listen and learn from others
Obstacles:Need to take in both sides, self-regulate, keep an open mind
Intent
the only meaningful way to evaluate the ethics of a source
- Unconscious = No judgment
- Conscious = Judge as either unethical or ethical
- How do you know which one?
