Category: Discussions/Homework

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

In Bogost’s “The problem with diversity in computing” he uses different rhetorical techniques and moves to clearly and effectively get his ideas across. He is expressing the importance of diversity in computing but it is also problematic, as one can tell from the title of the article. The first point he makes stood out to me because he gives an example as to why diversity is important in computing. He explains the time that Professor Amy Webb had a hard time going through airport security because of her boot for her ankle, the underwire of her bra, and, believe it or not, her hair. She then says that the reason this happened to her and has most likely happened to other people it because “someone like me wasn’t in the room”. I found this to be important because in order to discuss what the problems with having diversity in computing are, there needs to be a point made as to why diversity in computing is important to begin with. The reader can actually see the importance of having a diversity of people creating a machine by Bogost painting a picture of what happened to Webb and why.

Another rhetorical move that Bogost used was the point he made about how “integration of women, people of color, and other underrepresented voices would mean that the behavior of the entire industry would change as a result of their presence…”. Whether the change in behavior would be positive or negative, the idea comes from the question that Charles Isbell rose: “are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?”. Integration and diversity are not the same thing, but both of them would cause issues if integrated into computing. Here Bogost uses a hypophora by posing Isbells question about integration and then explaining what the difference between the two is and going into what the goal and his point of the article as a whole is.

Bogost also uses an oxymoron to exaggerate how big of an issue diversity in computing really is. “Tech-industry is improving, buy it’s still pretty terrible”. By using the phrase “pretty terrible” he dramatizes the problem of the lack of diversity in the tech-industry and goes onto explain how that is important for computing systems.

Bogost also makes a point that “inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy”. He comes to this conclusion by identifying the goal of Google which is “to get more people in the game, not necessarily change the rules of the game”. This falls right under what Isbell asked about integration vs. diversity. Getting more people into the game is more diversity, but the issue with having diversity in computing at all is being able to make a change along with the inclusion of underrepresented voices. Here Bogost uses an antanagoge by mentioning getting more people involved and the company being diverse but following it with the idea that the company is not willing to change what they do which needs to take place along with the inclusion of underrepresented people.

Another rhetorical move that I found to be powerful was identifying what would need to happen to allow diversity or integration to happen. “But integration is much harder than diversity. Isbell thinks that two separate conditions need to be met in order to accomplish it: ‘one is that the new folks are both capable and confident. The other is that the old folks are willing'”. This is important because without both of those factors, integration might as well be impossible to achieve anywhere. By mentioning Isbells idea of what he believes needs to happen to achieve integration, Bogost is using apophasis. He identifies that these two things need to happen but does not elaborate on the idea that should one happen and not the other, it is useless.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/5

Response to 1

I truly enjoyed reading all of the Expanding the Canon posts, having so many people contributing their ideas was fantastic. With that said, I enjoyed reading the post that Sherri made on Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination?. Also, reading Bogost’s article this week makes me want to relate this to that because if you think about it, many of the people who create algorithms are white men who may have biases. They are often the only ones in the room creating the algorithms and are unaware of other people’s perspectives. Sherri did a fantastic job of making me want to dive deeper into the topic, as well as explain why machines should not be analyzing people’s every move, whether it is on their resume or in an interview, as “machines ignore nuances and context and lack of empathy”, according to Sherri. Machines do not have emotions, cannot sense if someone has autism just through the way they move, so it would be unfair to judge their personalities only using algorithms. Humans have emotions and tend not to assess every movement that another person makes, which is much more beneficial. The video that Sherri included a trailer for Persona, a series on HBO max, was also interesting. I think the trailer did a great job of illustrating that AI labels someone immediately off the bat, whether it is using a personality test, or recording movements and voice and then analyzing it. I doubt anyone could ever comprehend how much data machines collect on each one of us.

Another post I found interesting was Edwards, on the lack of diversity with CEOs and HR management. He read more into whether or not the CEOs’ public versus private beliefs were the same, and if there was a difference in the two whether or not that impacted the organization.  I found that reiterating the percentage of male and Caucasian respondents, whether it was about CEO or HR management positions, illustrated that there is no diversity in the workplace, for these two positions at least. I also feel as though Edward’s use of pictures was also helpful. His last picture, a bunch of white men sitting at the table saying “congratulations on the 20th meeting of our diversity committee” really spoke volumes to me on the fact that there needs to be a larger presence of diverse individuals, whether it be in HR management positions or elsewhere. The picture illustrates a bunch of white men talking about diversity efforts, but they are not acting on hiring diverse individuals, if they were acting, there would not be so many white men sitting at the table.

For the Expanding the Canon post, people posted in different areas that are considered diverse. This included diversity in business, LGBTQIA+ experiences, gender gaps, along with others. If there is one thing that this unit has taught me is that to progress in society, I have to have an open mind about everything. So many people go through different journeys and have their own experiences, previously I did not realize how broad the term diverse was, or its applications. One thing that all of these posts shared was the fact that the world is changing, and people are becoming more accepting and welcoming of others. Diversity has a direct impact on the organizational culture, along with the success of the organization in general. Before these posts, I did not realize how much more progress needs to be made regarding the promotion and inclusion of diverse individuals within organizations.

Response to 2

For this, I walked through what the TSIS book recommended. I tried to first introduce the point that he tried to make in the article, and then where he moved his viewpoint from diversity in the workforce currently being a huge benefit to the idea that it could risk tokenization. I then gave the quote and put in a summary of how I saw the quote. After that, I gave my own viewpoint on his view, and then related it back to the tech industry as a whole. I think I did it right, but I would appreciate any feedback that anyone has.

Bogost, a writer at The Atlantic, presents the article “The Problem with Diversity in Computing” where he writes about how the tech industry needs to be more inclusive in hiring and listening to the ideas of diverse individuals, as they are not being heard. He wants change to happen now through new programs and centers to open, promoting a new generation of diverse individuals going into the tech industry. However, Bogost himself writes “But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or curly-haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems produced… But it probably will not substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.” The essence of Bogost’s argument is that although bringing in diverse individuals to work on computing technology now might have an impact on a few pieces of programming, the industry would not have diverse individuals in positions that make a meaningful impact on the industry as a whole, such as management positions. I agree that changing the industry to reflect the experiences of everyone more accurately will take time and will not happen immediately. In my experience, even at Syracuse, change happens slowly, as people need time to adjust to new ideas and situations. Hopefully, people will realize the benefits of having people with different viewpoints than their own office space and management positions, as it would benefit the collective industry.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/5

Response to #1

I really appreciated Joanna’s contribution to the Canon because she included real accounts from real people when it comes to oppression in the LGBTQIA+ community. I feel as if when exploring these issues, we often forget to include and listen to the voices of the people who are actually experiencing them. I think it is essential to include the oppressed voices because often, authors who don’t include them tend to delve into the issues as if they are experiencing the issues. This is subconscious, but ambitious writers love to take on issues themselves and solve the problem. However, you need real accounts when it comes to creating change and understanding. Caitlin’s post also caught my attention. I often forget that not only are minorities subject to oppression on a day-to-day basis but that women are also systematically seen as submissive and passive even in the workplace and the police force. Women have gotten so far in civil rights and equality, but there is still so much to be done. I recognize that I am privileged and could say I still am somewhat guarded when seeing the reality in which women are reflected. Caitlin’s TED Talk video struck me; it mentions that 13% of the police force have been women for the past twenty years. I knew most police officers were men, but I did not think the percentage of women was that low. The video actually made me pretty sad because I know how strong women are and how strong they can be if it weren’t for systematic foundations that have stayed prevalent that oppress our opportunity. After exploring the canon posts, I realized how dire the need for change really is. I always knew it, but now I know. Hearing about so many different occasions in which oppression is still prevalent, to be honest, brought my mood down, but gave me a sense of hope. I gained hope because conversations are being had; even if I just see it in our class, it is happening, and the expansion of knowledge is only going to grow.

Response to #3

When reading Bogost’s article, I first noticed how clean his transitions were. They were so clean that one could have missed them. An example of this would be when Bogost notes that by increasing the diversity of representation among the people who make the systems, the world would be better. However, he then writes that this is just an “aspirational” hope. At the moment, this transition looks like he is shutting down the idea of change and will move on. However, this transition sets the whole tone of the rest of the article. Bogost then writes, “That makes diversity a necessary but insufficient solution to social equity in computing systems.” This sentence on its own dictates what will be said in the paragraphs to come. Bogost wants the readers to realize the real issue is the computing systems that have been set into place and that they need to be redone with diverse teams and thinking to support a diverse workforce and world. His point is very evident through this transition and is made without too many words to deliver it. Bogost then explains how certain people acquire jobs within the tech industry, seamlessly transitioning yet again. In my rhetorical exercise regarding Bogost’s article, I mentioned how he “shows and doesn’t tell.” He shows the readers what he is trying to say without writing it out word by word. He uses previous remarks to transition, and these remarks embody a point that he wants to use again. This method is very effective for the efficiency of his writing and for creating a relatable body of work. As mentioned in my analysis of TED talks last week, the most important way to successfully deliver a message, I believe, is to connect with the audience and have them believe that they are a part of the conversation. Bogost does this through his transitions, whether that being satire or mentioning relatable situations with which readers can connect.

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

In Ian Bogost’s “The Problem with Diversity in Computing,” from The Atlantic, Bogost’s rhetorical writing is very effective and delivers his messages perfectly. His rhetorical moves clearly hit the tech industry and even some people within it. The first line of text that caught my eye as a reader was, “computers have started issuing prison sentences.” That is because one wouldn’t think of an object dictating someone’s future, so it makes you really think. Bad technology can ruin someone based on the lack of knowledge and representation the systems in place has. This reminded me of Heffernan’s point of needing inefficiency instead of efficiency that still fails time and time yet again. This sentence also hits the lack of diversity representation in fundamental programs in our country, without even saying it. Showing and not telling clearly is a strong suit of Bogost.

Another rhetorical move I found successful in the article was when Bogost wrote, “In this line of thinking, inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy.” Through this line, Bogost shows the reader that tech companies will introduce diversity but won’t alter the corrupt systems in place but will still assume that they will get a pat on the back for short-term change. The industry does not really care about long-term amendments, Bogost explains. Using the slang term “gravy” as well, Bogost adds a bit of humor through sarcasm. This causes readers to probably laugh to themselves and acknowledge the audacity the industry has.

Another rhetorical move noted is when Bogost wrote, “But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or a curly-haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems that produced Webb’s experience at airport security. But it probably won’t substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.” He gets his point across here very clearly. Still, he does it with relating to his opening paragraph. By using the “curly hair” reference, he does not need to explain what he means, because he already has. It creates almost a short cut for the reader. It again provides the “show not tell” method he used before.

Bogost also writes, “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons.” This statement is completely true and has no sarcastic metaphor included, which shows the reader how insane these systems are. So a bra, a needed garment for most women, can’t even be differentiated from a weapon? Oh, because most men created these technology systems. Got it.

Bogost finally closes his article by writing, “‘Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests is not being represented,’ Webb said. If she’s right, then the problem with computing isn’t just that it doesn’t represent a diverse public’s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing.” Here, Bogost is taking a direct hit at Webb and does not need to explain what is so wrong with her thinking. He uses sarcasm when saying “the problem with computing is computing,” and does not need to explain that he knows this is not true. Through his voice in his article, the readers know that he believes the problem with computing is much bigger and leaves it.

Overview for Week of 7/5

Apologies for the delay in posting this–I spent the weekend celebrating my newly-minted teenager (my youngest turned 13 yesterday), and it was a day full of grandparents and cousins and cake and swimming and rockets and no computer time whatsoever.

We begin Unit 2 this week, during which each of you will identify and begin to plot out your research path and assemble a body of sources to carry your inquiry along. For many of you, this will mean continuing to build on something you learned in Unit 1, but you are not limited to that topic. Our work will continue to unfold beneath the big umbrella of “diversity and organizational culture,” but as you’ve seen from how your classmates have taken up this work, there are a whole lot of possibilities to explore. Read on for an overview of this week’s assigned work.

Readings

Writing Assignments

Blog post in which you list at least 5 rhetorical moves you see Bogost making in “The problem with diversity in computing”–in other words, 5 different places in the text where you see that how he says something helps you as a reader understand what he is trying to say. Think about how he works to make a connection with the reader, how he introduces key ideas/evidence, how he tries to make a point stick.  Quote these briefly so we know what you’re talking about, and try to name/explain what you see him doing there (due on blog by Wednesday, 7/7). Categorize this as Discussions/Homework, and Tag it with “weekof7/5,” “unit2,” “bogost,” and [your name].

Complete the Focusing Flowchart exercise on Blackboard (due in Unit 2 dropbox by Sunday, 7/11)

Discussion work on blog. See this post for the prompts and instructions (due by Thursday, 7/8)

Discussion prompts for Week of 7/5

As we move forward into Unit 2 this week, our focus will be twofold:  identifying and practicing rhetorical strategies (thinking about how we say what we do) and working to articulate the specific issues we’re interested in exploring further beneath this big umbrella of organizational culture. This will be foundational to the larger work of Unit 2: exploring.

For this week’s discussion work, please respond to question 1 and either of the other questions. Your posts are due by Thursday, 7/8–an extension from the original date, as you have a brief analytical exercise due by Wednesday (see the Unit 2 schedule of assignments and the associated dropbox on Blackboard).

  1. Our primary purpose in Unit 1 was to expand the body of shared knowledge on the subject of diversity and organizational culture, and each of you has made an individual contribution to that effort. Now I’d like you to review your classmates’ contributions to see what they’ve added–click on “canon” in the tag cloud to read these. What have you found interesting and significant in what you’ve read in their posts? Please be specific in naming the issues that have stood out to you and in pointing us toward 1 particular media element (graphic, video, link, etc.) that really made an impression on you. Taking these contributions as a set, how are you seeing the idea of “diversity and organizational culture” differently?
  2. “Flashpoint” is one of those buzzwords used in lots of different ways, in fields as far removed as management and gaming and exercise and chemistry. And since it’s proven to be so flexible, in rhetoric, too. For our purposes, it refers to a sort of rhetorical spark, a moment in the text when we see an important genesis or shift—when something important suddenly becomes clear. Pick such a flashpoint in “The Problem with Diversity in Computing,” and walk us through your chain of thought using one template from TSIS that’s designed for presenting the reaction you want to capture. (Chapters 4 and 5 of TSIS offer lots of ideas)
  3. Crafting effective transitions can be a real challenge for writers, but we can learn a lot from examining how others approach the task. Consider how Bogost uses transitions to develop his argument by focusing on a specific passage—the movement between one paragraph and another or between one section and another. How does he lay the groundwork for the move? How does he pick up on one of those pieces to move forward with? Be specific—quote and analyze in detail.

Please categorize your posts as “Discussions/Homework,” and Tag with “unit 2,” “weekof7/5,” and [your name]. Read through your classmates’ posts later this week, and respond where you see fit.

Response 6/28


QUESTION 1 RESPONSE 

Although I do not agree with all of Fried’s beliefs with regard to workplace productivity, I was able to clearly follow his argument throughout his presentation. I find the rhetoric that Jason Fried used in hisTed-talk very interesting. The way he maps out his argument in order to keep the audience engaged plays an important role on the impact of the statements he makes. Fried also engages directly with the audience by asking them questions regarding their personal experiences with productivity in different environments. Based on the response that Fried received from the audience, it seemed as if he knew that most of the people were employees rather than manager’s and would relate with the examples he gave. By using stories and vivid language, Fried seems to make use of Pathos in his presentation. Tactics like these work well with both public speaking and writing. Although breaking the 4th wall might not be appropriate in all forms of writing, including relevant anecdotes can engage not only the reader but also strengthen your argument. 

QUESTION 3 RESPONSE

I do agree with Margaret Heffernan’s perspective regarding robustness over efficiency but  I believe it holds more value with respect to diversity in the work place. Current Organizational leadership skills are rooted in efficiency in an attempt to reach the goals an organization has set. However, by switching focus to preparing for the future through the cultivation of a uniquely diverse staff, any circumstance that may arise can be quickly assessed and have the best course of action taken against it. This Ted talk relates closely with the “Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage” text due to its comparison of efficiency and robustness. In the Austin and Pisano text, the authors strike a contrast between the actual value that members of the neurodiverse community can add to a workplace and the perception of their abilities by employers and colleges alike. This same comparison takes a different form in Margaret Heffernan’s argument regarding the supermarket task allocator. The commonality between these arguments seems to be that while placing value in the things that are viewed as “normal” and efficient can be advantageous in certain circumstances, utilizing a wide variety of skills through a diverse group of people can help prepare for the future in ways unthought of.

Responses 6/28

  1. I think the Frieds topic is engaging from the beginning because of how relatable it is. He starts off his talk by posing a problem: why people can’t seem to get work done at work. He then discuses a question : where do you need to go when you need to get something done? These two statements caused me to think and reflect about my own personal experiences which continued to keep me focused. He then argues that this is because people are trading in a workday for “work moments”. I think it is interesting how he builds his argument by walking us through a “typical workday” that is filled with distractions and commitments that result in unproductivity. He also has a funny and sarcastic tone when he talks about manager and meetings which furthers his argument about how disruptive they  both are. He proposes suggestions for offices to change, such as silence for more efficient workdays. By the end of this video, I was very supportive of his ideas because his arguments were very logical, organized, and personable.

2.

After watching Heffernan TED talk, I was torn between claiming her evidence to be anecdotal (stories with a point) or analogical (comparison to different things) (maybe it is both or neither). Heffernan walks us through multiple stories (touching upon how predicting epidemics as well as forecasting wildfires is unrealistic) with the same themes: technology is unreliable, the world is unpredictable. She then argues that society is growing dependent on technology. She compares different instances where we utilize technology too much, that we are lacking somewhere else where it is more important. She lists real life examples (no sources, no numbers), but it is compelling and logical. For example, she discusses how the more time we use parenting apps, the less we know about our kids and how the more time we spend with people that we are predicted and programmed to like, the less we can connect with people who are different from ourselves.

She does a great job tying very different stories together with the same underlying themes and ideas. I think she has a great ability to make connections and “points” which is an effective way to engage viewers. The organization and  structure of her arguments caused me to accept and understand everything she said without sources or data. I also think she is so persuasive because of her confidence.

Discussion 6/28

  1. I absolutely love the way that Heffernan approached her TEDtalk.  She was able to get her main theme across to the listener, that efficiency is not always the best work aspect, by way of storytelling and setting different scenes.  In the beginning of her talk, when she first mentioned the supermarket method to have each worker come to be assigned a task and then return for another when finished, I personally thought it was a very good idea.  It was not until she made her point that there are always unpredictable aspects to the day when I realized that she was right.  The way Heffernan was able to bring forward her argument in a small easy to understand way and then follow it with much bigger real-world examples was brilliant.  She also included some very well-timed anecdotes that became very memorable for the audience members.  One in particular was around minute 12:50 when she remarked about when efficiency and productivity are the only things valued.  Heffernan then stated, “What gets left out? Anything that can’t be measured—which is just about everything that counts”.  This made the viewers, especially me, realize that being efficient is not everything and that there are sometimes much more important things than work.
  2. For question number two, I chose to analyze Renata Salecl’s TEDtalk titled Our Unhealthy Obsession with Choice.  It was clever of her to start out with a bunch of quotes about choices and then stating that she was unable to choose the best one.  It led into her main idea very well, that humans are very caught up in the need to make the best possible choice and then becoming overridden with anxiety or guilt on whether it was the correct one.  She then led into very compelling real-life examples of the anxiety and the fickleness of the human unconscious.  The first story she told was perhaps the most memorable to me.  When Salecl mentioned her friend at the car dealership who would plant ideas into her customers head and encourage them to make decisions they most likely would not have made on their own.  It just goes to show that human choices are impacted by their surroundings and upbringing.  She then connects her next two stories by using the idea of anxiety and its connection to predictability, which in turn connects us back to our main idea of choices can be scary but we know we will always be making them.  Each of Salecl’s stories blend into each other seamlessly and further proves the point from before while still introducing a similar but new idea.  I personally thought it was very well done and created a lot ideas to further ponder.

Discussion Questions Week of 6/28

1) Jason Fried does a great job explaining in an engaging manner “Why work doesn’t happen at work”. His goal appears to convince people that productivity occurs everywhere but at the office. I should be upfront as I analyze this talk I believe in certain circumstances I agree with him.  Did he write this after the pandemic…he should have because it’s can be so true. It is clear from the audience reaction that they can relate to his story of workers attempting to find time and a place to accomplish work.

The strategy that he uses to explain his ideas is one of folksy stories. One of the big laughs that he got from the audience is “You don’t have workdays anymore…you have work moments.” He points out that special creative people need long stretches of uninterrupted time, well I’d point out that all workers may need longer stretches of uninterrupted time to accomplish effective work.

Jason is invoking the audience’s emotion to gain acceptance and approval for the ideas expressed. He stirs the emotions of many employees who might have simmering resentment of their supervisors by noting, “Managers jobs are to interrupt people and make sure people are working.” While that got a chuckle from the audience, I think a grain of truth was in the statement which caused the reaction.

He ends the talk with three provocative ideas that are intended to generate strong emotions.

1) Instead of casual Fridays…“No-talk Thursdays.” Just one Thursday a month with a period of “quiet time” prohibiting coworkers from talking to each other and limiting distraction. It’s better than a new computer.

2) Replacing active communication such as face to face conversation, with passive forms such as email, IM and collaboration tools.

3)If you have a meeting coming up…go ahead and cancel the meeting.

Throughout his talk, Jason speaks in a calm, relaxed manner. He walks across the stage with authority and confidence. He uses pauses effectively as he describes the stories, makes his point, but is not too wordy (thus losing his audience’s attention). By using a full, resonant voice, Jason conveys an air of knowledge and I am drawn to his talk as the audience was.

2) Margaret Heffernan’s talk is one of a speaker working with evidence. The overall theme of her TED talk is about the unstable planet that we exist in…how prophetic!  In an engaging talk, Heffernan provides numerous examples of skills that should be developed in our unpredictable world along with examples of companies and almost frightening predictions of what occurred since she made the speech in 2019.

As evidence she mentions the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, CEPI.  At the time of the talk, she commented that there will be more epidemics in future, although we don’t know the specifics so all we can do is prepare. Vaccines can be developed, knowing that we can’t predict which vaccines are going to work or which diseases will break out. However, some of those vaccines will never be used. While there’s a certain inefficiency to that it does mean that we have choices. Those choices mean the system is strong and healthy. I’m sure if she did the talk in 2021 she’d note the choices in vaccines that are available.

The bottom line according to Heffernan is the human skills are important in solving the problems of our unpredictable age. Margaret Heffernan walks the audience through her argument with examples from supermarket chains to the Bank of England to climate change. This talk was easy-to-understand and Heffernan conveyed the information with a passion that was clear to the audience.

Margaret Heffernan’s perspective is that of an entrepreneur, CEO, and writer. She is presently a Professor of Practice at the University of Bath School of Management in the UK. She teaches entrepreneurship, as well as mentors executives.