Disclaimer: This isn't sincerely meant to offend. If you read this, Austin, I'm just giving my paper some flair. I don't think you're an idiot.
In his rebuttal of the bloggingheads video, titled Babbling Heads, Austin Page goes on a seven-paragraph tirade about how he thinks he knows more than the two incredibly qualified professors from the video. Clearly, his credentials are greater, thus giving him the right to say that these men are wrong. Their hour-long discussion can be dismissed by a single snarky title that implies that these guys are just babbling, like idiots. Mr. Page's response is not only incredibly insolent, but the majority of his essay is based on an incorrect assumption that makes his argument seem incoherent and confused.
A large part of the problem he seems to have with the video seems to be with the usage of the terms “leader” and “thinker”. Page brings up dictionary definitions of the words, as if that is supposed to strike the professors' arguments down. “Ironically”, he says, “the Dictionary's first example of the use of [leader] is 'as in: The leader of a protest or group.' The professor's [sic] definition in no way relates to how a leader is usually defined.” In response to the use of “thinker”, Page asks, “Is this to say that if someone uses their mind to think, it can only mean that they're a cynic, hoping to point out every noticeable flaw?” He claims that terms like “followers and cynics” are much better, again demonstrating his superior knowledge over these esteemed professors. Page is right, in some respects. If you look at the traditional definitions of the words, “leader” and “thinker” are not the most applicable terms to use, and if Page's understanding of the professors' arguments was correct, “followers” and “cynics” would indeed be much better.
However, his lack of understanding makes him wrong. The professors might as well be discussing apple pie for all the relevancy Page's argument has. The traditional definitions debunk the professors' usages, yes. The difference, however, is that they are not using the traditional definitions. The whole point of that entire section is that they flip the norms on their heads. A thinker is generally thought of in a good light, and by changing the meaning, the professors make a profound observation about the nature of our world here in college.
Obviously a thinker isn't the only one who uses their brain; not only would this be a ridiculous suggestion to make, but the professors never implied this in any way, shape, or form. Page suggests that the terms used are not good enough, because the ones chosen should “inform the listener almost immediately what the expression was referring to.” This sentence clearly demonstrates how right I am. The professors were using a subtle argument, one that clearly went right over Austin Page's head. He would prefer a hatchet where they use a scalpel, so it's no wonder he doesn't exactly understand their point.
Page also brings up the argument that the professors seem to be relegating all students to the two groups, with no in-between. If the two of them were suggesting that only thinkers think and only leaders lead, as Page incorrectly argues that they do, then this could be a strong point. Yet, again, it falls flat in the face of reality. To claim this would be as foolish as claiming that only teachers teach and only students learn, when clearly many students teach not only other students but teachers as well. In the same way, thinkers can lead, and leaders can think, but that does not exclude them from their section. Page clearly despises the idea that he could be put into a category; he wants to be a beautiful unique snowflake. This immature and unrealistic attitude blinds him to the reality that yes, people can be put into categories, and can be classified. The “snowflake” mentality needs to stay in kindergarten where it belongs.
One of the biggest problems with this “rebuttal” is that almost the entire paper is held back by a deadly fault; it is guilty of the logical fallacy of false authority. Who is Mr. Page to debunk the theory of these two great men? When did being a college student qualify you to talk like you're an equal to long-time college professors? It's one thing to say you disagree, but to claim they are completely wrong, and then insult them by claiming they are merely “babbling” is another altogether. This is even disregarding the fact that the entire premise of his argument is ridiculous, as it is based on an incorrect assumption.
Page seems to be under the impression that the professors' terms are mutually-exclusive. In other words, he argues against them claiming that leaders “[blindly follow the school]”, and thinkers “[only complain]”. However, again, this is a straw-man argument that he sets up for them, and is an incredible misrepresentation. Whether this is an intentional – though clearly ineffective - tactic or he simply couldn't grasp their concepts is up for debate, but it doesn't change the fact that Austin Page is wrong, and it does a disservice both to those who read his paper and the professors who spawned this argument.
2 comments:
Nice, it's a good paper I have to admit :)
However, just as you're adding flair for effect, I in the same way don't really think those professors are incompetent. I was just raising the contrast i my essay to make for a stronger argument, if that makes any sense.
But honestly, I do still think that using the term leader and thinker isn't that great, because if their point really was to 'subtly' redefine them, either it didn't really come across to many viewers, or that's not what they meant. And because the terms are already so common, people are naturally going to confuse the two.
I think both of our arguments are valid none the less, and each point of view is acknowledging an interesting point in the topic.
Anyway, I'm glad to see an opinion that disagrees directly with mine, cause you did a good job.
yea!
Okay, the disclaimer is funny but it totally disrupts what you’re trying to actually accomplish and also limits your audience to this class, rather than the entire internet community. Also, you have to learn to write about your subjects in a way that gets your point across without offending them, since you’re going to write about many other people on the internet and you can’t personally apologize to every one.
Wow. The sarcasm is dripping.
Very internet-type writing, but I’d encourage you to temper your words a bit more. After all, you’re critiquing someone for going on a “tirade” but you’re on the verge of one yourself.
Good critique of the Denotative vs. Reassigned Definition of the words, but you could do so in much less space (about half).
Avoid the ad hominem attacks, and you’ll actually have a decent, well-reasoned article.
one that clearly went right over Austin Page's head. He would prefer a hatchet where they use a scalpel, so it's no wonder he doesn't exactly understand their point.:::: Cut all this and focusing on skewering Logically. Show how words don’t immediately have to refer to what they mean, that that is the point.
beautiful unique snowflake::::: I’m sorry, but is this a Fight Club reference? Kudos if it is.
Look, when you have such good arguments, trashing the opponent is a little like kicking a puppy. You’ve already skunked him, so why beat him down more? (This is not to say Page doesn’t actually have good arguments, just that you do an excellent job arguing against him).
I disagree on the False Authority. The first time you tackled this idea, high up in the essay, you were right. This time, you overlook the fact that they are talking about professors/students, which does give students the right to talk about it from their perspective.
Post a Comment