What I Think About Jared Diamond's Talk

Well, for starters, the first thing I thought of once I grasped the theory is, "that makes sense."

It wasn't something that I was initially particularly excited to read. I do find his life and his passions very admirable and I envy the world experience that he's set out to have, but I did not connect to the text very well because I have not been exposed to evolutionary arguments before. I'm the type of the person that doesn't really look back. Knowing how things became is useful to human history, but whether its theory X or theory Y, either way I'm still standing here living my life.

I respect Diamond for his theory: his logical appeals, his deep thoughts, and his rationalization. The way he breaks up his sub-claims makes it very easy to read, and his tone and informal diction as well. When he talks about how animals and plants were able to spread east and west because they were "encountering the same day-length and climate to which they were already adapted," it clicked in my mind how much sense that made and it made me wonder why no one else thought of this before and instead used races to explain it? Perhaps it goes back to David Foster Wallace's claim that we are naturally selfish. So whoever did it first, was the best. It was the race against races. But the fact that Diamond is introducing the idea that it was the race against location and that people just simply took advantage of it, is, in the scientific world, perhaps risque since he is challenging an old (but outdated) theory. Excuse MY risque language but I can't seem to think of a better way to say it: Diamond's got brains AND balls.

I would have connected stronger with his theory if it was something that I was ever interested in, but I was born with a brain for writing, speaking and creativity. Science and math has never really been on my side, and I can easily prove that with my high school transcript!

Precis: This Is Water

David Foster Wallace, an American novelist, in the 2005 Kenyon commencement speech, "This Is Water", claims that the students have graduated with a degree that has taught them how to think, but it is now up to them to decide what to think, and based on that, what they think will determine how they see the world, which in the end, is "the freedom of a real education." Wallace supports his claim by telling an anecdote that follows with the illustration of a hypothetical situation or personal experience. The speaker's purpose is to remind the graduates to "stay conscious and alive in the adult world" by being aware of their surroundings and recognizing that this world doesn't revolve around them, that if they take a step outside of their "me" zone, they will experience a world less miserable, and that the power to think and make choices is a lifetime job, in order to help them learn to deal with "boredom, routine, and petty frustration" that comes along with being an adult. The author writes in casual, sometimes humorous, and sometimes blunt tone for the graduates, which appeals to their youthfulness, in addition to his tones applying in relation to his speech: sometimes life is casual, sometimes life is funny, and sometimes life is a blunt smack in the face.

Superwoman

The argument: Even Superwoman is helpless to aids.

The ad makers have placed an image of a very powerful, strong, battle-fighting figure we are all aware of as Superwoman in a setting that we are also very aware of as a room of fear, death, and weakness. The juxtaposition of the two come together to form an ad of awareness and warning for aids is a battle even Superwoman can't win. 

Many rhetorical strategies are put at play here in this ad to grip our attention. By placing Superwoman in the ad, the strategy of authorities is applied in order to make us, the ad readers, recognize that "aids make us equal"; that whether human or superhuman, we are all susceptible to aids. Cause and effect is also being used, but not so much in an obvious way. Unprotected sex can cause aids. An image of sex is not necessary for the audience to make that connection because this cause and effect is not breaking news. The ad serves as a reminder, not a scientific break through. In addition, the way that Superwoman is posed, the lost expression on her face, the gray filter placed on the picture to add grimness, the depth and darkness of her eyes, the thinness of her arms and face, the IV, the way her right hand is placed in an attempt to grip using her very last strength, the loneliness - these all serve under the description and pathos rhetorical strategy. When both used together, the purpose is to personify a Superhuman into a normal human being. It makes us think, that could be me. In addition to pathos, perhaps the reason why Superwoman was chosen instead of Superman is because women, when seen in pain and helplessness, stirs in men the desire to help, while in women, it stirs the feeling of relativity - women feel for other women's pain. As for ethos, the ad displays one little symbol that says enough - the red ribbon. The red ribbon is a symbol for AIDS.gov, and especially for it being a dot-gov website, we are given a sense of credibility and trust because this ad was created through a government organization. In relation to trust, examining the motive of the ad increases that trust. Why would the government take the time and money to invest into creating this ad? Was it to decorate the streets of America? No, the image serves to inform and remind. The motive is to inform and remind.

I was moved by this image because of the truth it speaks. As college freshmen, we are vulnerable to many college temptations. And though some nights may be the time of our lives, we should protect ourselves so that one awesome night doesn't create a living hell for the rest of our lives.