Leonid Fridman in his article “America Needs Its Nerds” (1990) proposes that “For America’s sake the anti-intellectual values that pervade our society must be fought.” Fridman accomplishes the by first spelling out how the meaning of the terms geek and nerd are derogatory, secondly, he explains how at prestigious colleges “nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized.” Third, Fridman describes how other countries treat the intellectually serious: hold them and teacher above athletes. Through his utilization definition, rhetorical question, and contrast, Fridman attempts to convince America of why nerds are important to our society and to provide evidence as to why they should not be ridiculed. Throughout the article, Fridman employs a serious tone that is not overly scholarly with the purpose of trying to connect with the audience and causes the nerd’s importance resonates with the audience and does not go understated. …show more content…
[By introducing his article with a definition, Fridman provides logical evidence as to why the terms nerds and geeks are derogatory.] Many people call the intellectually curious nerds and geeks.
However, the word geek “according to Webster’s New World Dictionary, is a street performer who shocks the public by biting off heads off live chickens,” (lines six and seven) and has nothing to do with a person’s intellectual curiosity or ability. Therefore, to provide a logical backing to his claim and to increase his credibility to the claim of the terms being derogatory, Fridman executes this tactic. It also assists in the establishment of ethos, so it was wise to exercise this point at the beginning so that it will remain for the rest of the
article. [In order to provide evidence on how America pushes away the ideals of the intellectual, Fridman contrasts the beliefs of a nerd and American culture.] “Children who prefer to read books rather than play football” and “prefer to build model airplanes rather than get wasted at parties with their classmates” (lines 20-23) are just a few examples Fridman employs to validate how the nerd opinion contradicts the American one. Some people will deny will deny the little respect or care given to these intellectuals, so he provides examples to disband this argument. Furthermore, he includes this to demonstrate how the American culture affects every age group; especially in elementary through high school where we should be fostering and cultivating this curiosity not making others feel ashamed of it. [In the conclusion of his article, Fridman exercises a series of rhetorical questions to draw an extra emphasis on how nerds keep America and world superpower.] During paragraph eight Fridman proposes the question “How long can America remain a world-class power if we constantly emphasize social skill and physical prowess over academic achievement and intellectual ability?” In order to prompt people to think about how life would be different without nerds, he implements a rhetorical question instead of just stating it point blank. Furthermore, Friedman draws importance to the idea by not incorporating rhetorical questions anywhere else in the article. Consequently, he adds this because it is the “so what” of his argument– why we need to treat nerds with better respect. It is not just about morality, but rather it is about keeping America at the top. Throughout his article, Leonid Fridman argues for the importance of nerds if America wants to remain the top dog. During the article's introduction, Fridman describes how nerds are treated in our current culture, but wraps it up by describing how nerds and the reason our society is advanced. He provides evidence to his claim through a variety of rhetorical devices– definition, rhetorical questions, and contrast– to convince Americans that we should be cultivating a nerd’s curiosity not discouraging it by making fun of them.
When analyzing the article “Blue-Collar Brilliance,” written by Mike Rose, and the article “Shop Class as Soulcraft,” by Matthew B. Crawford, you can see several differences in the strategies they use. Rose’s text was an educational article about the intelligence gained through manual labor trades. Roses intended audience is the well educated, professional class, as well as educators, and individuals working in white collar jobs. His purpose is to prove that not all blue-collar workers need an education to succeed and to bust the stereotype that blue-collar individuals can gain the essential skills and education from their jobs. Crawford also based his article around blue-collar work, he mainly focuses on the values the craftsman, being a craftsman
The article “The Coddling Of The American Mind”, written by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, was written about how teachers are afraid of what they are allowed to say during in class because of the emotional effect on the students. While writing the article the authors have many examples of logos, ethos, and pathos. The logos of the article appeals to logic by presenting facts and statistics. The writers provide definitions of words such as microaggression and trigger warning. While explaining the definitions they go on to give real world examples to further the understanding of the words. Also statistics of the amount of mental health issues are provided to enhance the logos. Secondly to make the article more appealing is adding an emotional
Author and Harvard graduate, Leonid Fridman, in an excerpt of his article, America Needs Its Nerds, points out America’s anti-intellectualism. Fridman’s purpose is to inform the reader of the contempt held for the intellectually curious and call for a change in the country’s attitude. He adopts a condemning tone to make the reader aware of the issue and encourage them to change their mindset.
The authors of “Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, use ethos, logos, and pathos convey their negative stance regarding trigger warnings and the effect they on education. Lukianoff and Haidt’s use of rhetorical appeal throughout the article adds to the author’s credibility and the strength of the argument against increasing the use of trigger warnings in school material. The authors, Lukianoff and Haidt, rely heavily upon the use of logos, such as relations between conflicts surrounding trigger warnings and other historical conflicts impacting student ethics. Examples of the use of these logical appeals are the relation between the Columbine Massacre and the younger generations ideology. The author goes on to mention other societal turning points such
The purpose of Rebecca Solnit’s “Abolish High School” is to criticize the present high school system along with the emotional and academic strain it puts on developing minds. Solnit’s intended audience is any educated person with the opportunity to voice their opinions on the current approach to schooling.
In “Hidden Intellectualism” by Gerald Graff, the author speaks about how schools should use students’ interests to develop their rhetorical and analytical skills. He spends a majority of his essay on telling his own experience of being sport loving and relating it to his anti-intellectual youth. He explains that through his love for sports, he developed rhetoric and began to analyze like an intellectual. Once he finishes his own story, he calls the schools to action advising them to not only allow students to use their interest as writing topics, but instead to teach the students on how to implement those compelling interests and present them in a scholarly way. In perspective, Graff’s argument becomes weak with his poor use of ethos, in which he solely focuses on his own anecdote but, through the same means he is able to build his pathos and in the last few paragraphs, with his use of logic he prevents his argument from becoming dismissible.
Leonid Fridman’s article,”America Need Its Nerds”, published in the New York Times, conveys American society’s unpleasant perception towards intellectuals. Fridman asserts the issues of American society's evaluation of people in order to convince readers of the New York Times to acknowledge educated individuals. He employs logos, ethos, and pathos to contribute to his goal if the readers of the New York Times recognizing the value of intellectuals.
Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill in the book They Say/ I Say “Should everyone Go to College” have an informative tone throughout their passage. The authors apply their findings and reasoning to real situations and probability’s. Looking at how the author applied pathos, ethos, and logos, you’ll find that the authors did an exceptional job of applying pathos and logos to enhance their arguments to be more persuasive and accurate. They provided logos in their augments by providing statistical rates and data charts to back up their statements. They apply pathos buy examining real scenarios and showing that sometimes it’s a personal determination that will make you successful in college
The journey begins at the heart of the matter, with a street smart kid failing in school. This is done to establish some common ground with his intended audience, educators. Since Graff is an educator himself, an English professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago, he understands the frustrations of having a student “who is so intelligent about so many things in life [and yet] seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work” (380). Furthermore, Graff blames schools for not utilizing street smarts as a tool to help improve academics; mainly due to an assumption that some subjects are more inherently intellectual than others. Graff then logically points out a lack of connection “between any text or subject and the educational depth and weight of the discussion it can generate” (381). He exemplifies this point by suggesting that any real intellectual could provoke thoughtful questions from any subject, while a buffoon can render the most robust subjects bland. Thus, he is effectively using logic and emotion to imply that educators should be able to approach any subject critically, even non-traditional subjects, lest they risk being labeled a buffoon.
Intellectuality needs to be redefined; what does the word intellectual mean? Typically one would describe someone as either “street-smart” or “book-smart,” in other words someone who knows how to live in the real world versus someone who has knowledge about academics. But is one more “intellectual” than the other? In the article “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff addresses this issue and brings to the audience’s—the audience being experts about the subject along with himself—attention that schools are missing the opportunity to fuse together street-smarts and book-smarts to increase overall academic performance. Graff definitively presents his opinion on this topic by manipulating ethos, pathos, and logos. Through ethos his credibility
American culture has evolved, and Society tends to ostracize people for their intelligence, and our culture has been giving these intellectuals derogatory names like nerd and geek. Leonid Fridman believes that these anti- intellectual values that pervade our society must be fought and should stop for the sake of America. The author supports this position in the passage “America Needs It’s Nerds” through the use of rhetoric by giving definitions of terms such as geek, offering comparisons through juxtaposition, adding a tone shift, and posing rhetorical questions to the reader.
Graff begins by talking about the educational system, and why it flawed in many ways, but in particular, one: Todays schools overlook the intellectual potential of street smart students, and how shaping lessons to work more readily with how people actually learn, we could develop into something capable of competing with the world. In schools, students are forced to recite and remember dull and subject heavy works in order to prepare them for the future, and for higher education. “We associate the educated life, the life of the mind, too narrowly and exclusively with subjects and texts that we consider inherently weighty and academic. We assume that it’s possible to wax intellectual about Plato, Shakespeare, the French Revolution, and nuclear fission, but not about cars, dating, fashion, sports, TV, or video games.” (Graff, 198-199) In everyday life, students are able to learn and teach themselves something new everyday. It is those students, the “young person who is impressively “street smart” but does poorly in school” (Graff, 198), that we are sweeping away from education and forcing to seek life in places that are generally less successful than those who attend a college or university.
“Hidden Intellectualism” written by Gerald Graff, is a compelling essay that presents the contradicting sides of “book smarts” and “street smarts” and how these terms tied in to Graff’s life growing up. Graff felt like the school was at fault that the children with more “street smarts” were marked with the reputation of being inadequate in the classroom. Instead of promoting the knowledge of dating, cars, or social cues, the educational system deemed them unnecessary. Gerald Graff thought that “street smarts” could help people with academics. In his essay, Graff confessed that despite his success as an “intellect” now, he was the exact opposite until college. Where he grew up in Chicago, Illinois, intelligence was looked down upon around peers
Street smarts are intellectual resources that are ignored by schools. It is the most informal version of intellect, generally relating to hobbies that seem anti-intellectual. Gerald Graff’s journal article Hidden Intellectualism shows that everyone is an intellectual whether they are aware of it or not. Using mainly ethos, he describes how sports can be a form of intellectualism because of the use of logic. He says it beautifully here, “I see now that sports provided me with something comparable to the saturation of life by argument… that my preference for sports over schoolwork was not anti-intellectualism so much as intellectualism by other means.”
Co-author of “They Say/I Say” handbook, Gerald Graff, analyzes in his essay “Hidden Intellectualism” that “street smarts” can be used for more efficient learning and can be a valuable tool to train students to “get hooked on reading and writing” (Graff 204). Graff’s purpose is to portray to his audience that knowing more about cars, TV, fashion, and etc. than “academic work” is not the detriment to the learning process that colleges and schools can see it to be (198). This knowledge can be an important teaching assistant and can facilitate the grasping of new concepts and help to prepare students to expand their interests and write with better quality in the future. Graff clarifies his reasoning by indicating, “Give me the student anytime who writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue in Source over the student who writes a life-less explication of Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology” (205). Graff adopts a jovial tone to lure in his readers and describe how this overlooked intelligence can spark a passion in students to become interested in formal and academic topics. He uses ethos, pathos, and logos to establish his credibility, appeal emotionally to his readers, and appeal to logic by makes claims, providing evidence, and backing his statements up with reasoning.