Practice Peer Review Session

follow the guidelines in the word file.

Goodwriter1

Ima Goodwriter

Professor Bass

English X

2 February 2017

Flat Brain [better title still pending]

During the last, highly contentious election cycle, I learned something interesting about

the boyfriend I thought I knew everything about: He is a Republican. Strike that. His family is

VERY republican, and so he thinks he is too. I found this out one day when he stated, very

strongly, that he would never vote for “Shrillary!” When I asked him why he said, because of

what she did with Benghazi. Now, full disclosure, I don’t have any idea what Benghazi was, but

I was certain that he didn’t either. So I asked him, “Who is he, this “Ben Ghazi?” I at least knew

this wasn’t a person, but he did not call my bluff. Without even knowing the most basic facts

about his position, he still asserted it with a tone that says “No one better dare question me.”

How do we get here? My boyfriend’s behavior is very similar to what is described in an

article in The Atlantic on this very topic. In “This Article Won’t Change Your Mind,” author

Julie Beck argues that people sometimes don’t treat information like information, but as markers

of their identity. When my boyfriend said he would never vote for Hillary Clinton, what he was

really saying is “I belong to a tight group of people who feel this way, and I trust their opinion

enough to go along with it without giving it any further thought.” Was he unique? I had to find

out. And now, after some research, I am sad to report that Beck’s assertion that information is

tribal is right. I now have witnessed several instances where people do not deal with information

logically, but tribally.

Goodwriter 2

The concept of tribalism is described in Beck’s article. When tribalism occurs, people do

not deal with new information in rational, analytical ways. Instead, they tend to respond in a way

that goes along with the group. I witnessed this in a YouTube video called, “We Believe the

Earth Is Flat: Conspiracies Uncovered.” This video follows a man named Nathan as he attempts

to debate and “inform” people about what he believes to be the shape of the earth. In this video,

viewers can clearly see many of the elements of tribalism that are described in the article from

The Atlantic.

In Julie Beck’s article, she says people stand their ground because “there are more

valuable things than knowing and accepting truth” which suggests that truth isn’t always the

right path to human understanding. Beck illustrates this with an example of a man named Daniel

Shaw who found peace and enlightenment at a Yoga Meditation Center. After hearing

accusations against the leader of the organization for physical abuse, Shaw realized he was being

deceived but still supported the organization because the benefits he received from being part of

the group were worth more to him than knowing whether or not the accusations were true. If he

admitted to himself that he believed the accusations, he would have to leave the group, and he

did not want to do that. Despite Shaw knowing the truth, there were things like reputation and

having a sense of belonging that mattered a lot.

Beck’s idea of belonging being more important than truth is connected to the YouTube

video, and Nathan’s claim that the earth is flat. Nathan confronts a scientist to argue about his

claim, and while doing so, he is supported by a group of followers that allow him to do most of

the talking. Even though during the discussion, it’s clear the scientist easily proves that Nathan’s

claim is invalid and lacks empirical evidence, Nathan keeps on adding unrelated support to his

claim that kind of goes off track. He felt he had kind of special knowledge, fame, and

Goodwriter 3

superiority. He couldn’t bear to deny and accept defeat with respect to false belief. He didn’t

want the risk of losing reputation and his pride, or losing the place he had within this group.

Nathan was able to continue “supporting” his view using a tribalistic behavior described

as “motivated reasoning.” Julie Beck defines motivated reasoning as “how people convince

themselves or remain convinced in what they want to believe.” Beck illustrates this concept by

citing a study that was done where they brought in students with different beliefs to listen to

some pre-recorded speeches about certain topics. Each topic the student favored, they listened to,

and anything that the students did not favor, they let go to static. This research shows just how

selective people can be with what they choose to believe, or in this case listen, in their favor.

This type of selective behavior is also obvious in Nathan. Although logical points are

brought up by Spencer, the scientist he is debating, Nathan appears to not be listening to

understand, but listening to respond. In an interview, Spencer says that you can’t start with a

conclusion and then look for support for that conclusion, but that to really learn, we have to look

at the evidence first, and then follow where that leads. This is not the way Nathan behaves. He is

not taking advantage of the opportunity he has to expand his knowledge by learning from a

knowledgeable source.

Nathan’s inability to trust Spencer as a source of reliable information points to another

important concept introduced by Beck’s article: particularized trust. According to Beck, this

happens when we assign more credit to sources that agree with our worldview, and

distrust/discount those who disagree. In her article it says that the problem with particularized

trust [find the quote] is that it destroys generalized trust. People are no longer looking around at

what multiple sources have to say, but look only to those in their group.

Goodwriter 4

In addition to discounting Spencer’s knowledge, he also accuses the CIA, NASA

astronauts, and the government of being part of a large conspiracy, spreading falsehoods and

working for the devil. (He even calls world leaders psychopaths and pedophiles.) Instead, he

places credibility in celebrities that share his world view: Kyrie Irving, B.O.B., and Tila Tequila.

The fact that these people make ridiculous “sources” is beyond the point. The important thing is

that he is not looking outside of the group of people who agree with him, and this only allows

him an echo chamber of ideas.

There is a very significant difference, however, between the tribalistic behavior of

Nathan, and the behavior of the people described by Beck. In the article, many of the people she

describes are followers of well-established groups. Once people find a sense of belonging as a

cult member, Republican, Democrat, etc., they adopt the beliefs of this group wholeheartedly.

They lose all sense of skepticism in fear of losing their position in the group. Nathan is different

in that he is not a follower, but a leader of his small group of “flat-earthers.” In the YouTube

video, he admits that he first approached this idea with a great deal of doubt (cite this), but now

his behavior shows that he has accepted it full on.

Although Nathan’s position in the group differs from those shown in Beck’s article,

Nathan’s behavior still shows that his beliefs are not led by logic and truth, but by his desire to

meld his viewpoint to that of the group. Because of his status, his beliefs are tied even more so to

his desire to hold on to his position and reputation. Being able to “prove” that the earth is flat is

who he is, and to accept any information that proves otherwise is to lose that power.

I do not have a conclusion paragraph yet, but if I did, this is where it would go : ) I need

to find a way to leave readers with something that leads them to further thought. Now that I have

proven to them that Nathan’s actions support Beck’s conclusion, I need to let readers know how

Goodwriter 5

they can apply that information to their lives. I don’t know how I will do this yet, but it might be

giving a suggestion of how to deal with the “Nathans” in their lives. We can see that arguing

with them or providing them with facts won’t help. If their goal is truly a sense of belonging and

acceptance, then maybe the answer is to give them a hug? [I am still working on this.

Suggestions are welcome!]

 PART ONE:

compose a message to the author of the sample paper, providing helpful advice for revising this draft. You do not have to respond to every element covered by the workshop questions, but the more helpful feedback you can provide, the better! What do you think this author needs to know? 

( the essay is in the PDf file)

PART TWO:

After reading several of your classmates’ reviews, choose two to respond to.

As a reply to each thread, give feedback on the feedback:

· Compare your feedback to your peer’s

· Comment on the feedback. What did your peer do well? What did you like about not just the advice that was presented, but the way it was presented?

Review’s one

Ima Goodwriter did good by giving an example of a real life situation the beginning. I feel like that showed prove of understanding the essay and being able to understand what the Beck’s article was about. I do believe paragraph 1 should have had more details it’s too short and doesn’t explain too much. The thesis statement may should have been included with another sentence or so. Did really good explaining Beck’s points of views and the way everything was in detailed.

My respond :

Review’s Two

The attention grabber for this essay was incredible. I enjoyed the comparison to the boyfriend’s conservatism was more so a marker of how he is rather than it actually being an opinion. What I did not enjoy were the examples; some were okay but they felt very lackluster in some areas. It made a good claim and the essay had good points comparing ideas to Julie beck’s but to me it seemed rushed towards the end. Good draft but needs improvement.