Prompt: SOCIOLOGY & PSYCHOANALYSIS

Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.

Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

Most societies have heroes or role models.  For the purpose of this essay, “heroes” and “role models” will be defined as equivalent terms denoting the same thing: “the person or group of people towards which a large portion of society devotes attention”.  Individually and collectively, people choose how to idolize or give attention to their heroes.  For the purpose of this essay, the scope of idolization will be narrowed to include only representations of and attending to heroes in mass media such as books, television, movies, and music.  The claim that will be endorsed in this essay is that examining the character represented by heroes and the form in which people attend to their heroes is an excellent way to reveal a societies highest ideals.

All four categories of mass media involve creators and participants—authors, producers, directors, cast, creative staff, composers, or performers, and readers, viewers, goers, or listeners, among other titles.  This division of labor between creators and participants is not strict.  For instance, as a child growing up, I was exposed to the “create-your-own-narrative” genre of literature.  The essence of these books was the presentation of a multiplicity of options for the reader to choose from at each transition point in the narrative.  In this way, the reader was enabled to create alternate stories and endings, some of which might not have been imagined by the original creators of the story.  Therefore, there is a sense in which this genre blurred the line between creator and participant, author and reader.  And it is not just books that have this element of ambiguity.  Almost all mass media deals in ambiguity.  It is this dealing in ambiguity that financiers of such creations bank on the most since if the characters are more widely relatable, then a larger portion of society will find them appealing and therefore spend more money on acquiring access to them.  Consequently, the best creators from almost every perspective but especially the financiers perspective have taken over from large groups of participants their highest ideals and transferred these onto ambiguous representations. 

So, without the commonsense division of labor between creators and participants, we are free to imagine that the heroes of mass media are in fact the productions and projections of the people that attend to them.  If this is valid, and the heroes of society are in fact projections of the people that attend to them, then examining these characters is surely an excellent way in which interested parties can come to understand something about the ideals and aspirations of the participants in society. 

End…let’s hope I don’t get that essay.

It’s almost like what I’m saying here is that the representations are ambiguous, but they can reveal something about the people that engage with them…

Prompt: EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT & CRITIQUE

The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine.

"A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising firms studied, those whose executives reported needing no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins and faster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The correlation between the two categories 1) executives that require less than six hours of sleep and 2) firms with higher profit margins and faster growth, could be explained by a number of factors.  In the conclusion, the author simply assumes that the only explanation is a causal relation between these two categories.

The author assumes that the findings of the study of the Mentian advertising executives will generalize to other businesses.  However, it may be the case that the Mentian advertising executives are different in kind from other categories of business executives.  Applying the standards of the Mentian group to other groups may turn out to harmful.

Even in the case that the findings of the study do generalize to other businesses, the author’s conclusion assumes an overly broad application of the recommended hiring criteria.  But, surely, every business with a hierarchical organization will hire different people for different kinds of positions.  In other words, even if companies benefit from having executives that need less than six hours of sleep, there is no reason to assume that this criterion be applied to janitors and secretaries.  In the event that the study turns out to be valid and reliable, the author will need to adjust his/her conclusion to reflect this fact.

Finally, the implied definition of “success” in the first half of the quoted article is “high-profit margins and faster growth”.  However, the conclusion utilizes the term “prosper”, which may or may not denote “success”.  For instance, many folk would narrowly define success as “the accomplishment of a stated goal”; whereas “prosper” has the connotations of “well-being” and “longevity”.  This is evidenced by the well known folk  idiom, “live long and prosper”.  The author of the article assumes that the definitions of his terms are clear, providing us with little in the way of a standard to resolve the ambiguity.  Without such a standard, the author’s conclusion stands as equivocal at best, and at worst, intentionally deceptive.

Prompt: EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT & CRITIQUE

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-third of what it used to be. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. I predict that modifying showerheads to restrict water flow throughout all twelve buildings in the Sunnyside Towers complex will increase our profits even more dramatically."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.

In a letter to the manager of Sunnyside towers the following prediction along with its premise was recorded.  The prediction is labeled P and premise on which that prediction is based is labeled P1.  Modifying showerheads to restrict the water flow to a third of current flow standards throughout all twelve buildings owned by the Sunnyside Corporation in the Sunnyside Towers complex will P) increase corporate profits since P1) the corporation pays for water each month.

The author of the letter does not factor into his prediction the cost of modifying the showerheads throughout all twelve buildings.  Presumably and minimally, this kind of job will require labor and parts.  Although it is feasible that profits may increase longitudinally, depending on the cost of such a job, the Sunnyside Corporation may not stand to profit immediately.  In that case, it would be advisable to evaluate the short term and long term economic goals of the Corporation and compare these with the proposed method for achieving them. 

As the author of the letter notes, actual water usage readings have not yet been reported.  In order to assess the prediction, an actual water bill along with readings for the three already modified buildings will need to be analyzed because it may turn out to be the case that water costs were not reduced by the modifications.

The author of the letter makes note of a “few” complaints raised concerning low-water pressure in the modified buildings.  When one or two people complain, it may be easy to brush aside these complaints as the expression of discontent from a small minority.  However, if all twelve buildings are modified without concern for and thorough review of these complaints, the number of complaints may grow beyond imagination.  Grassroots campaigns begin with a small number of people, and eventually grow into entire political movements.  This is exactly the way in which the American democracy staged its rebellion against British rule.  In order to assess whether or not low-water pressure poses a significant problem for the proposed plan of action, the modification of shower heads, it would be advisable to analyze the complaints, and perhaps even administer a survey to the proposed affected people in the remaining buildings. 

Prior to the presentation of the requested information, it is advised that the manager withhold adjudication on the decision to modify the showerheads of the remaining buildings.  Although, in principle, the prediction, and methods for achieving the prediction may work, a prudent company requires more information. 

Prompt: SOCIAL & POLITICAL

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Contrasting points of view in a discussion are neither necessary nor sufficient for progress.

For instance, consider the claim that contrasting points of view are necessary for progress.  Logically, this would be stated as the following conditional.  If there are no contrasting points of view in a discussion, then there is no progress.  But, there is progress when there are no contrasting points of view.  Therefore, the claim is false.  This is easily seen by considering what might happen in a nuclear power plant.  Imagine that there are five supervisors with keys that would  deactivate the plant in the case of a meltdown.  Furthermore, imagine what would happen if all of the supervisors were required for some reason to discuss prior to the turning of their key their reasons for deactivating the plant.  Furthermore, imagine what would happen if an unanimous vote were required in order to deactivate the plant.  If this situation actually did come to pass, and one supervisor held a contrasting point of view concerning what they ought to do in this situation, then the power plant might melt down.  Clearly, then, progress does not require contrasting points of view. 

Now, consider the claim that contrasting points of view are sufficient for progress.  Logically, this would be stated as the following conditional.  If there are contrasting points of view in a discussion, then there is progress.  This might appear to be true at first glance.  But, there are instances in which contrasting points of view lead to stalemates, and therefore, no progress.  Consider present-day American politics concerning global warming.  One side of this debate believes that global warming is not a real phenomenon, and that climate change is best thought of in terms of normal climatic variation throughout history.  The other side of the debate believes that human industrial progress is largely responsible for the warming of the globe.  Currently, there is no consensus, and therefore, all efforts to enact legislation to protect our environment are mired in debate.  What is worse still is that climate scientists are warning the public that time is running short: the earth is warming, and we must change our lifestyles.  Clearly, contrasting points of view have not lead to progress on this very significant issue.  Therefore, contrasting points of view in a discussion are not sufficient for progress. 

If contrasting points of view in a discussion are neither necessary nor sufficient for progress, than what are some criteria for progress?  This is a good question.  But, unfortunately, the very concept ‘progress’, as is demonstrated by the climate-change example, is steeped in controversy and debate.  Some people think that ‘progress’ is the ending of all human labor, with machines to replace the most tedious aspects of the labor process.  Other people think that progress is represented as a “return to our roots” as farmers perhaps, and simple people living from the land.  It is likely that this debate is something that does not benefit much from contrasting points of view, since to make progress as a group, we need to first agree to what kind of progress we aspire. 

Prompt: EPISTEMOLOGY

It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Compromise, attenuate, balance, agree to disagree, alter, change, invade, spy, compromise security, destabilize

Commit, adhere, stick with, stick to, discipline, rule following, principles, rigidity, adaptability,

The integrity of a single belief is based on its openness to change.  This is a complex topic that requires us to understand something about the nature of beliefs.  Philosophers have distinguished between two kinds of beliefs.  There are beliefs about the world and there are beliefs about beliefs.  Suppose you believe that ‘grass is green’.  This is a belief about the world.  Suppose, on the other hand, that you believe that ‘beliefs are mental states about the world’.  This second belief is a belief about a belief, and philosophers are keen on calling these types of belief, meta-beliefs.  If we begin asking questions about beliefs, and not about what those beliefs are about, their content, then we are engaged in a meta-analysis of belief.  Some people have argued that it is more harmful to compromise a belief than to adhere to it.  While this might seem plausible at first glance, a simple meta-analysis of belief will reveal that beliefs that are not open to change are, in fact, much more dangerous than are beliefs that are open to change. 

Suppose that you believe that ‘all killing of human beings is wrong’.  In that case, if you were to witness a human being brutally attacking a child, then any force you might employ to halt the criminal would, in order to not compromise your belief, stop short of murder.  But, suppose that the criminal is determined beyond all measure to kill the child.  In that case, surely, you must either compromise your belief or act wrongfully, that is, you must kill the criminal.  If your belief were from the start open to compromise, then an immediate application of force might save the child any further suffering. 

Some might argue that acting against a belief is not necessarily not adhering to a belief.  This was already mentioned.  Suppose that you kill the criminal in the previous example, but still judge yourself according to your belief to have wrongfully acted.  In this case, you have not compromised your belief, you have just acted against it.  Adherence to your belief would only entail that you judge actions as wrong that are actions that result in the killing of a human being.  But, if you judge actions as wrong that are actions that result in the killing of a human being, then you would….

FUCK FUCK FUCK….30 minutes up