One. In the context of Caleb Crain's "The Case Against Democracy" and Ilya Somin's "Democracy vs. Epistocracy" support, defend, or complicate the argument that an uninformed public lacking adequate critical thinking skills cannot support a democracy as we tend to idealize democracies but rather, at best, maintains a democracy so flawed many would argue that it cannot be called a democracy at all, but rather some grotesque sub-version of a democracy.
Four. In the context of Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "The Case for Reparations," defend, refute, or complicate that America is morally obligated to exact qualified African-Americans reparations for America's crime of an ongoing kleptocracy, which includes slavery, Jim Crow, and their ongoing legacy today.
Five. Develop an analytical thesis that shows how Jordan Peeles' movie Get Out builds on Ta-Nehisi Coates' notion of American kleptocracy.
Six. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that recycling is a liberal white middle class religion that speaks more to Kool-Aid-drinking tribalism than it does improving the Earth. Consult John Tierney's "The Reign of Recycling," Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism is a Religion," and Stephen Asma's "Green Guilt."
Seven. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that radical changes in the job market over the next 20 years due to robots and high-tech will compel country's to provide their citizens with a Universal Basic Income. Consult the following:
One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society.
Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society.
Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver.
Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is.
Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable.
Eight. Develop a thesis that in the context of the documentary Merchants of Doubt addresses the question: Should we have faith that "reason and faith can defeat propaganda and falsehoods." Or is such a message optimistic bias rooted in delusion?
Nine: Develop an analytical thesis that in the context of Merchants of Doubt explains the fallacies behind spin and how these fallacies can be constructed to effectively cause doubt and confusion over the legitimate claims of science.
Support, refute, or complicate the argument that recycling is a liberal white middle class religion that speaks more to Kool-Aid-drinking tribalism than it does improving the Earth. Consult John Tierney's "The Reign of Recycling," Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism is a Religion," and Stephen Asma's "Green Guilt."
Identifying Claims and Analyzing Arguments from Stuart Greene and April Lidinsky’s From Inquiry to Academic Writing, Third Edition
We’ve learned in this class that we can call a thesis a claim, an assertion that must be supported with evidence and refuting counterarguments.
There are 3 different types of claims: fact, value, and policy.
Claims of Fact
According to Greene and Lidinsky, “Claims of fact are assertions (or arguments) that seek to define or classify something or establish that a problem or condition has existed, exists, or will exist.
For example, Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow argues that Jim Crow practices that notoriously oppressed people of color still exist in an insidious form, especially in the manner in which we incarcerate black and brown men.
In The Culture Code Rapaille argues that different cultures have unconscious codes and that a brand’s codes must not be disconnected with the culture that brand needs to appeal to. This is the problem or struggle that all companies have: being “on code” with their product. The crisis that is argued is the disconnection between people’s unconscious codes and the contrary codes that a brand may represent.
Many economists, such as Paul Krugman, argue that there is major problem facing America, a shrinking middle class, that is destroying democracy and human freedom as this country knows it. Krugman and others will point to a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots, a growing class of temporary workers that surpasses all other categories of workers (warehouse jobs for online companies, for example), and de-investment in the American labor force as jobs are outsourced in a world of global competition.
All three examples above are claims of fact. As Greene and Lidinsky write, “This is an assertion that a condition exists. A careful reader must examine the basis for this kind of claim: Are we truly facing a crisis?”
We further read, “Our point is that most claims of fact are debatable and challenge us to provide evidence to verify our arguments. They may be based on factual information, but they are not necessarily true. Most claims of fact present interpretations of evidence derived from inferences.”
A Claim of Fact That Seeks to Define Or Classify
Greene and Lidinsky point out that autism is a controversial topic because experts cannot agree on a definition. The behaviors attributed to autism “actually resist simple definition.”
There is also disagreement on a definition of obesity. For example, some argue that the current BMI standards are not accurate.
Another example that is difficult to define or classify is the notion of genius.
In all the cases above, the claim of fact is to assert a definition that must be supported with evidence and refutations of counterarguments.
Claim of Fact Can Support an Argumentative Thesis
If you're making the case for recycling, for example, your argument will have more power if you make a claim of fact about the state of the landfill problem as you can see in this LA Times article. This problem includes the toxic levels of landfill-released gas into the atmosphere.
Claims of Value
Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of fact is different from a claim of value, which expresses an evaluation of a problem or condition that has existed, exists, or will exist. Is a condition good or bad? Is it important or inconsequential?
In other words, the claim isn’t whether or not a crisis or problem exists: The emphasis is on HOW serious the problem is.
How serious is global warming?
How serious is gender discrimination in schools?
How serious is racism in law enforcement and incarceration?
How serious is the threat of injury for people who engage in Cross-Fit training?
How serious are the health threats rendered from providing sodas in public schools?
How serious is the income gap between the haves and the have-nots?
How a Claim of Value Affects a Debate on Recycling
No one disputes that toxic gas is released from landfills. The debate is HOW BAD is the problem? You might refer to legit studies of how toxic landfill gasses cause increased risk of cancer.
Claims of Policy
Greene and Lidinsky write, “A claim of policy is an argument for what should be the case, that a condition should exist. It is a call for change or a solution to a problem.
Examples
We must decriminalize drugs.
We must increase the minimum wage to X per hour.
We must have stricter laws that defend worker rights for temporary and migrant workers.
We must integrate more autistic children in mainstream classes.
We must implement universal health care.
If we are to keep capital punishment, then we must air it on TV.
We must implement stricter laws for texting while driving.
One. In the context of Caleb Crain's "The Case Against Democracy" and Ilya Somin's "Democracy vs. Epistocracy" support, defend, or complicate the argument that an uninformed public lacking adequate critical thinking skills cannot support a democracy as we tend to idealize democracies but rather, at best, maintains a democracy so flawed many would argue that it cannot be called a democracy at all, but rather some grotesque sub-version of a democracy.
Four. In the context of Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "The Case for Reparations," defend, refute, or complicate that America is morally obligated to exact qualified African-Americans reparations for America's crime of an ongoing kleptocracy, which includes slavery, Jim Crow, and their ongoing legacy today.
Five. Develop an analytical thesis that shows how Jordan Peeles' movie Get Out builds on Ta-Nehisi Coates' notion of American kleptocracy.
Six. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that recycling is a liberal white middle class religion that speaks more to Kool-Aid-drinking tribalism than it does improving the Earth. Consult John Tierney's "The Reign of Recycling," Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism is a Religion," and Stephen Asma's "Green Guilt."
Seven. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that radical changes in the job market over the next 20 years due to robots and high-tech will compel country's to provide their citizens with a Universal Basic Income. Consult the following:
One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society.
Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society.
Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver.
Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is.
Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable.
Eight. Develop a thesis that in the context of the documentary Merchants of Doubt addresses the question: Should we have faith that "reason and faith can defeat propaganda and falsehoods." Or is such a message optimistic bias rooted in delusion?
Nine: Develop an analytical thesis that in the context of Merchants of Doubt explains the fallacies behind spin and how these fallacies can be constructed to effectively cause doubt and confusion over the legitimate claims of science.
Essay based on Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations" (considered the essay of record by liberals who celebrate the essay and by conservatives who critique the essay; it's the essay of record by people from both sides of the political aisle)
Essay Option Four. In the context of Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "The Case for Reparations," defend, refute, or complicate that America is morally obligated to exact qualified African-Americans reparations for America's crime of an ongoing kleptocracy, which includes slavery, Jim Crow, and their ongoing legacy today.
Essay Option Five. Develop an analytical thesis that shows how Jordan Peele's movie Get Out builds on Ta-Nehisi Coates' notion of American kleptocracy.
Kleptocracy Argument
A kleptocracy is a government that steals from its citizens and essentially exploits its citizens for personal gain. Ta-Nehisi Coates is arguing that America has imposed a kleptocracy on black Americans since the days of slavery.
Ongoing Injustice Argument
The ongoing injustice argument defends reparations on the claim that while slavery and Jim Crow happened in the past, the injustices against African-Americans continue in the present with a legacy of segregation in job deserts, education deserts, and mass incarceration, part of the prison industrial complex's money-making system built on the backs of people of color. See Adam Gopnik's "The Caging of America."
Moral Statement Argument
Even if one cannot draft a reparations program that will be a "game-changer," the argument goes, societies must make moral statements for the betterment of the society as a whole. For this reason, for example, America gave reparations to the Japanese for the injustice of the internment camps.
If we base reparations on injustices to an oppressed people, where do we stop? What about American Indians? What about migrant and restaurant workers who are abused and exploited to this very day? What about women who make 83% of for every dollar a man makes? Where does this end? We'll tax our way into bankruptcy.
This is a weak argument. Why?
Band-Aid Argument
Reparations does not address the roots of systemic racism. Rather, it is just a Band-Aid. The commonly estimated 20K per qualified citizen won't be a game-changer. Even 40K won't be a game-changer. At what point does money make this a game-changer? Is this a road we want to go down? Is this a road we can go down?
The injustices that happened to African-Americans happened so long ago that it is absurd and unjust to give payment to the descendants of the exploited.
This argument doesn't work if you believe that mass incarceration is "The New Jim Crow."
Proxy Argument
The billions the government has spent on welfare programs are a proxy, that is substitute, for reparations. In other words, reparations have already been rendered by welfare programs.
Unfair Burden on the Innocent Argument
All Americans will have to pay taxes for reparations, but many, if not most, Americans don't even have white ancestors who engaged in the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow. Moreover, many Americans, people of color, will be paying taxes and not receiving any benefits even though they were never accountable for crimes of the past. Nor are they enjoying the "white privilege" of the present.
Victimization Argument
As Shelby Steele contends, the reparations movement encourages victimization, dependence, and infantilization in the black community, traits that contradict the heroism and warriorhood of great Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King.
Rebuttal of Victimization Argument
But the above could said to be a Straw Man Fallacy. Some might counter by observing that too many whites are playing "victims" to "reverse racism," too many whites show an unhealthy dependence on their white privilege, and too many whites are "infants" in their refusal to accept responsibility for America's original sin: a country whose wealth and identity were built on racism, slavery, and Jim Crow.
Class Argument
We should help people based on economic class, not race.Reparations blindly gives to race with no consideration of how rich the recipient is. Economic injustice is better remedied through class reparations.
Accountability Argument is Euphemism for Collective Guilt Argument
It is impossible to impose collective guilt on diverse Americans, many of whom had nothing to do with slavery, racial injustice or white privilege.
Counterfactual Argument (considered an offensive and racist logical fallacy even by some people who oppose reparations)
Some make this offensive argument against reparations: "African-Americans are owed nothing because they are better off living in America than they would be in Africa." This fallacy is discussed in the following essay: Cutting Through the Nonsense (refutation of logical fallacy against opponents of reparations from writer who is against reparations)
To underscore his point that the kleptocracy, the systematic stealing from the lives of African-Americans, compels us to consider reparations, Coates quotes Yale historian David W. Blight: “In 1860, slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America’s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together.”
Coates writes, “The vending of the black body and the sundering of the black family became an economy unto themselves, estimated to have brought in tens of millions of dollars to antebellum America. In 1860 there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country.”
This wealth was built on crimes against humanity, specifically crimes against black people. As we read:
When the wife and children of Henry Brown, a slave in Richmond, Virginia, were to be sold away, Brown searched for a white master who might buy his wife and children to keep the family together. He failed:
The next day, I stationed myself by the side of the road, along which the slaves, amounting to three hundred and fifty, were to pass. The purchaser of my wife was a Methodist minister, who was about starting for North Carolina. Pretty soon five waggon-loads of little children passed, and looking at the foremost one, what should I see but a little child, pointing its tiny hand towards me, exclaiming, “There’s my father; I knew he would come and bid me good-bye.” It was my eldest child! Soon the gang approached in which my wife was chained. I looked, and beheld her familiar face; but O, reader, that glance of agony! may God spare me ever again enduring the excruciating horror of that moment! She passed, and came near to where I stood. I seized hold of her hand, intending to bid her farewell; but words failed me; the gift of utterance had fled, and I remained speechless. I followed her for some distance, with her hand grasped in mine, as if to save her from her fate, but I could not speak, and I was obliged to turn away in silence.
In a time when telecommunications were primitive and blacks lacked freedom of movement, the parting of black families was a kind of murder. Here we find the roots of American wealth and democracy—in the for-profit destruction of the most important asset available to any people, the family. The destruction was not incidental to America’s rise; it facilitated that rise. By erecting a slave society, America created the economic foundation for its great experiment in democracy. The labor strife that seeded Bacon’s rebellion was suppressed. America’s indispensable working class existed as property beyond the realm of politics, leaving white Americans free to trumpet their love of freedom and democratic values. Assessing antebellum democracy in Virginia, a visitor from England observed that the state’s natives “can profess an unbounded love of liberty and of democracy in consequence of the mass of the people, who in other countries might become mobs, being there nearly altogether composed of their own Negro slaves.”
One. How were black slaves equated with property?
Coates writes:
The consequences of 250 years of enslavement, of war upon black families and black people, were profound. Like homeownership today, slave ownership was aspirational, attracting not just those who owned slaves but those who wished to. Much as homeowners today might discuss the addition of a patio or the painting of a living room, slaveholders traded tips on the best methods for breeding workers, exacting labor, and doling out punishment. Just as a homeowner today might subscribe to a magazine like This Old House, slaveholders had journals such as De Bow’s Review, which recommended the best practices for wringing profits from slaves. By the dawn of the Civil War, the enslavement of black America was thought to be so foundational to the country that those who sought to end it were branded heretics worthy of death. Imagine what would happen if a president today came out in favor of taking all American homes from their owners: the reaction might well be violent.
We see to this day, especially in the South but not limited there, that there are sympathizers of the Confederacy who erect the Confederate flag and talk about “state rights” and “Northern aggression” in the context of slavery. For them, their white identity rests on the “right” to have slavery. For them “state rights” really means the right to own slaves. To discuss this topic in front of these sympathizers to this day is to endanger one’s own life.
Two. How did terrorism afflict black Americans?
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Radical Republicans attempted to reconstruct the country upon something resembling universal equality—but they were beaten back by a campaign of “Redemption,” led by White Liners, Red Shirts, and Klansmen bent on upholding a society “formed for the white, not for the black man.” A wave of terrorism roiled the South. In his massive history Reconstruction, Eric Foner recounts incidents of black people being attacked for not removing their hats; for refusing to hand over a whiskey flask; for disobeying church procedures; for “using insolent language”; for disputing labor contracts; for refusing to be “tied like a slave. . . . “
Terrorism carried the day. Federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877. The dream of Reconstruction died. For the next century, political violence was visited upon blacks wantonly, with special treatment meted out toward black people of ambition. Black schools and churches were burned to the ground. Black voters and the political candidates who attempted to rally them were intimidated, and some were murdered. At the end of World War I, black veterans returning to their homes were assaulted for daring to wear the American uniform. The demobilization of soldiers after the war, which put white and black veterans into competition for scarce jobs, produced the Red Summer of 1919: a succession of racist pogroms against dozens of cities ranging from Longview, Texas, to Chicago to Washington, D.C. Organized white violence against blacks continued into the 1920s—in 1921 a white mob leveled Tulsa’s “Black Wall Street,” and in 1923 another one razed the black town of Rosewood, Florida—and virtually no one was punished.
Such criminal and terrorist activities were condoned because of the "fake news" about black Americans, painting them in hateful terms that justified their exploitation.
Three. How has the plunder of black Americans continued after slavery?
We read:
The federal government is premised on equal fealty from all its citizens, who in return are to receive equal treatment. But as late as the mid-20th century, this bargain was not granted to black people, who repeatedly paid a higher price for citizenship and received less in return. Plunder had been the essential feature of slavery, of the society described by Calhoun. But practically a full century after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the plunder—quiet, systemic, submerged—continued even amidst the aims and achievements of New Deal liberals.
Other examples of the plunder, in addition to predatory lending, are the profits made from mass incarceration, and the criminalizing of poverty, which leads to municipal violations.
Four. What are the two main reasons Coates champions reparations?
The first is lost money. As we read:
Scholars have long discussed methods by which America might make reparations to those on whose labor and exclusion the country was built. In the 1970s, the Yale Law professor Boris Bittker argued in The Case for Black Reparations that a rough price tag for reparations could be determined by multiplying the number of African Americans in the population by the difference in white and black per capita income. That number—$34 billion in 1973, when Bittker wrote his book—could be added to a reparations program each year for a decade or two. Today Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School professor, argues for something broader: a program of job training and public works that takes racial justice as its mission but includes the poor of all races.
To celebrate freedom and democracy while forgetting America’s origins in a slavery economy is patriotism à la carte.
Perhaps no statistic better illustrates the enduring legacy of our country’s shameful history of treating black people as sub-citizens, sub-Americans, and sub-humans than the wealth gap. Reparations would seek to close this chasm. But as surely as the creation of the wealth gap required the cooperation of every aspect of the society, bridging it will require the same.
**
The second reason is intangible: The much needed history lesson to correct the Myth of American Innocence. As we read:
Perhaps after a serious discussion and debate—the kind that HR 40 proposes—we may find that the country can never fully repay African Americans. But we stand to discover much about ourselves in such a discussion—and that is perhaps what scares us. The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world.
Five. Why does Coates bring up the reparations debate in Germany?
Coates writes:
We are not the first to be summoned to such a challenge.
In 1952, when West Germany began the process of making amends for the Holocaust, it did so under conditions that should be instructive to us. Resistance was violent. Very few Germans believed that Jews were entitled to anything. Only 5 percent of West Germans surveyed reported feeling guilty about the Holocaust, and only 29 percent believed that Jews were owed restitution from the German people.
“The rest,” the historian Tony Judt wrote in his 2005 book, Postwar, “were divided between those (some two-fifths of respondents) who thought that only people ‘who really committed something’ were responsible and should pay, and those (21 percent) who thought ‘that the Jews themselves were partly responsible for what happened to them during the Third Reich.’ ”
Germany’s unwillingness to squarely face its history went beyond polls. Movies that suggested a societal responsibility for the Holocaust beyond Hitler were banned. “The German soldier fought bravely and honorably for his homeland,” claimed President Eisenhower, endorsing the Teutonic national myth. Judt wrote, “Throughout the fifties West German officialdom encouraged a comfortable view of the German past in which the Wehrmacht was heroic, while Nazis were in a minority and properly punished.”
Konrad Adenauer, the postwar German chancellor, was in favor of reparations, but his own party was divided, and he was able to get an agreement passed only with the votes of the Social Democratic opposition.
Coates continues:
The reparations conversation set off a wave of bomb attempts by Israeli militants. One was aimed at the foreign ministry in Tel Aviv. Another was aimed at Chancellor Adenauer himself. And one was aimed at the port of Haifa, where the goods bought with reparations money were arriving. West Germany ultimately agreed to pay Israel 3.45 billion deutsche marks, or more than $7 billion in today’s dollars. Individual reparations claims followed—for psychological trauma, for offense to Jewish honor, for halting law careers, for life insurance, for time spent in concentration camps. Seventeen percent of funds went toward purchasing ships. “By the end of 1961, these reparations vessels constituted two-thirds of the Israeli merchant fleet,” writes the Israeli historian Tom Segev in his book The Seventh Million. “From 1953 to 1963, the reparations money funded about a third of the total investment in Israel’s electrical system, which tripled its capacity, and nearly half the total investment in the railways.”
Israel’s GNP tripled during the 12 years of the agreement. The Bank of Israel attributed 15 percent of this growth, along with 45,000 jobs, to investments made with reparations money. But Segev argues that the impact went far beyond that. Reparations “had indisputable psychological and political importance,” he writes.
Reparations could not make up for the murder perpetrated by the Nazis. But they did launch Germany’s reckoning with itself, and perhaps provided a road map for how a great civilization might make itself worthy of the name.
Assessing the reparations agreement, David Ben-Gurion said:
For the first time in the history of relations between people, a precedent has been created by which a great State, as a result of moral pressure alone, takes it upon itself to pay compensation to the victims of the government that preceded it. For the first time in the history of a people that has been persecuted, oppressed, plundered and despoiled for hundreds of years in the countries of Europe, a persecutor and despoiler has been obliged to return part of his spoils and has even undertaken to make collective reparation as partial compensation for material losses.
Something more than moral pressure calls America to reparations. We cannot escape our history. All of our solutions to the great problems of health care, education, housing, and economic inequality are troubled by what must go unspoken. “The reason black people are so far behind now is not because of now,” Clyde Ross told me. “It’s because of then.” In the early 2000s, Charles Ogletree went to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to meet with the survivors of the 1921 race riot that had devastated “Black Wall Street.” The past was not the past to them. “It was amazing seeing these black women and men who were crippled, blind, in wheelchairs,” Ogletree told me. “I had no idea who they were and why they wanted to see me. They said, ‘We want you to represent us in this lawsuit.’ ”
Six. Can we put a price tag on these reparations?
Coates writes:
Perhaps no number can fully capture the multi-century plunder of black people in America. Perhaps the number is so large that it can’t be imagined, let alone calculated and dispensed. But I believe that wrestling publicly with these questions matters as much as—if not more than—the specific answers that might be produced. An America that asks what it owes its most vulnerable citizens is improved and humane. An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders.
Summary of Coates' Reasons for Supporting Reparations
One. Predatory, discriminatory housing laws plundered African-Americans’ money in the past and present for lining the coffers of white people.
Two. Black lives—including the very body—were plundered as part of America’s Kleptocracy in which white slave owners and business people became millionaires at a rate faster than in any part of the world.
Three. Reparations are not a radical, fringe idea but have historical precedent in mainstream thought from the Colonial period in America, to post WWII Germany, and to post WWII America (we gave reparations to Japanese Americans who suffered in the internment camps in 1988).
Four. Centuries of racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws have created “ecologically distinct” poverty communities that perpetuate poverty. These communities are deserts of opportunity, nutrition, jobs, education, health care, etc., and no one in their right mind would want to live in these places. They are hell on earth, places long abandoned and ignored by the rest of America.
Five. Four hundred years of racial discrimination have created a social stigma in which blacks are perceived as being the lowest on the totem pole. It is difficult to measure the psychological effects of this demonization and social stigma. It is difficult to measure the plunder of identity of a people taken here on ships and told for centuries that they are subhuman and mere pieces of property to be bartered and sold like cattle. In contrast, African blacks who immigrate to America navigate the American Dream in the absence of this incomprehensible psychological baggage.
Six. The powerhouse of the American economy that made it a dominant economy in the world before the Civil War and made whites in the South the richest people in the world was built on the blood of slavery.
Seven. The plunder of African-Americans continues centuries after slavery. They are demonized, left in the inner city opportunity deserts, and plucked off the streets into the Industrial Prison Complex, part of a privatized multi-billion-dollar business that employs over 2.5 million Americans and has created an immoral economy on the backs of people of color.
Eight. Reparations are superior to Affirmative Action whose aims remain vague and wishy-washy. In contrast, reparations have a clear objective: To recompense African-Americans for money lost and to correct the Myth of American Innocence.
Nine. Reparations are a corrective to America’s Great Lie: Its Myth of Innocence and Equality. Destroying this Myth is an essential part of a moral reckoning and spiritual awakening.
This Great Lie is so deep that millions of white Americans, especially in the South, still worship the lie of White Supremacy and believe they have the “right” to own slaves and that slave ownership is essential to their “white identity” and the “legacy of honoring their white ancestors.” These white people engage in all sorts of mythologies, erecting statues of white Confederate generals in front of government buildings, waving Confederate flags, and re-enacting the Civil War in which the Confederate Army is venerated of a noble mission. All of these romantic mythologies sweep the evils of slavery under the carpet and are therefore a lie and a moral abomination.
Student Who Opposes Reparations
While I concede that Coates’ analysis of America’s racist history is both true and morally compelling, his defense of the US government’s obligation to make financial reparations to qualified black Americans fails when we consider the slippery slope argument (where do we stop?), the Band-Aid argument (20k per citizen is just a Band-Aid), the distant history argument (slavery ended 160 years ago), the proxy argument (billions of dollar spent to subsidize poor communities have already been in effect proxies for reparations), and the unfair cost argument (millions of non-whites who had nothing to do with slavery will have to spend tax dollars on reparations and receive nothing).
Student Who Defends Reparations
While I concede that reparations are a messy, imperfect “pay-back” for the injustices of slavery and racism, we are morally compelled to heed Ta Nehisi-Coates’ call for reparations when we seriously look at the kleptocracy argument (racial injustice didn’t stop 160 years ago but continues today), the moral gesture argument (reparations is a moral announcement that society will not tolerate racism and this gesture has a huge effect on cultural mores), the education argument (reparations could be targeted to help black Americans’ education, which would redress the injustices of educational opportunities), and the legal argument (unpaid services demand payment; in a court of law this is never open to debate).
Argument for "Individual-Based Reparations"
Opposition to Coates
Opposition #1: We should help people based on economic class, not race.
This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates. Housing discrimination, historical and present, may well be the fulcrum of white supremacy. Affirmative action is one of the most disputed issues of the day. Neither are addressed in the “racial justice” section of Sanders platform.
Sanders’s anti-racist moderation points to a candidate who is not merely against reparations, but one who doesn’t actually understand the argument. To briefly restate it, from 1619 until at least the late 1960s, American institutions, businesses, associations, and governments—federal, state, and local—repeatedly plundered black communities. Their methods included everything from land-theft, to red-lining, to disenfranchisement, to convict-lease labor, to lynching, to enslavement, to the vending of children. So large was this plunder that America, as we know it today, is simply unimaginable without it. Its great universities were founded on it. Its early economy was built by it. Its suburbs were financed by it. Its deadliest war was the result of it.
One can’t evade these facts by changing the subject. Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts. But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy. Jim Crow and its legacy were not merely problems of disproportionate poverty. Why should black voters support a candidate who does not recognize this?
Opposition #2: A trillion-dollar payment would result in $20,000 for every African-American. This would make a symbolic statement, but not be enough to make a significant difference in changing the power hierarchy. Not even a 3 trillion dollar payment would make a real difference.
We could concede that the above is true; however 20K could help someone go to college and make a small dent in helping that person. That is better than nothing.
But overall, the sad truth is that even a trillion-dollar payment is a "drop in the bucket" and that "The Man" will still be the "shot caller."
Opposition #3: "Distant harm from centuries ago does not affect African-Americans today."
We could counter argue that segregation still exists, environmental deserts still exist, the wealth gap still exists, and mass incarceration, a form of profit for the government and big business built on mostly people of color flourishes today.
Opposition #4: If we give reparations to African-Americans, where does all this reparations business end? What about migrant workers who are exploited in the fields and forced to work for a subhuman wage? What about the stolen wages from immigrants in the restaurant business? Is it fair to give reparations to one disadvantaged group but not another?
We should give reparations to ALL people. Coates' argument is not to give reparations to one group at the exclusion of another. To say so is to commit a Straw Man fallacy.
Opposition #5: As Shelby Steele contends, the reparations movement encourages victimization, dependence, and infantilization in the black community, traits that contradict the heroism and warriorhood of great Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King.
But the above could said to be a Straw Man Fallacy. Some might counter by observing that too many whites are playing "victims" to "reverse racism," too many whites show an unhealthy dependence on their white privilege, and too many whites are "infants" in their refusal to accept responsibility for America's original sin: a country whose wealth and identity were built on racism, slavery, and Jim Crow.
Opposition #6: Kevin Williamson observes that Coates' argument isn't really for reparations but for America to expose the truth about the depths of racism in American history. We read from Williamson's refutation essay:
Mr. Coates does not make the case so much for reparations as for a South Africa–style truth-and-reconciliation commission. “The crime with which reparations activists charge the country implicates more than just a few towns or corporations. The crime indicts the American people themselves, at every level, and in nearly every configuration. A crime that implicates the entire American people deserves its hearing in the legislative body that represents them.” The purpose of a debate on a reparations bill of the sort being offered by John Conyers Jr. is not so much to construct a program of economic compensation as it is to have another verse of that Democratic hymn, an honest conversation about race. (As though we ever talked about anything else.) And this gets to the real defect in Mr. Coates’s approach. The purpose of public policy in this area can be one of two things. The first is a program focused on trying to improve in real terms the lives of those who are poorly off and those born into circumstances that are likely to lead to their being poorly off adults, proceeding with the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that such programs will disproportionately benefit black Americans, as they should. The second option is a symbolic political process designed to confer a degree of psychic satisfaction on relatively well-off men and women such as Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Opposition #7: Williamson charges that Coates' reparations arguments encourages tribalism, which is anti-liberal and anti-democratic:
Once that fact is acknowledged, then the case for reparations is only moral primitivism: My interests are inextricably linked to my own kin group and directly rivalrous with yours, i.e., the very racism that this program is in theory intended to redress. Mr. Coates also, I think, miscalculates what the real-world effects of converting our liberal conception of justice into a system of racial appropriation might mean. There are still, after all, an awful lot of white people, and though many of them might be inclined to make amends under some sort of racial truce following the process Mr. Coates imagines, many of them might simply be inclined to prevail. The fact is that the situation of African Americans in the United States has improved precisely to the extent that whites have begun to forgo tribalism and to genuinely commit themselves to the principles of liberalism, the long march toward a more perfect Union. The alternative — a system of exclusive interests in which black and white operate effectively in opposition — is not only morally repugnant, but likely to undermine the genuine political and economic interests of African Americans.
Coates' Rebuttals to Williamson
Rebutal #1: Williams charges that reparations are a form of racial apportionment, but according to Coates reparations are not about racial apportionment; they are about injury apportionment. As Coates argues:
Williamson says he is opposed to "converting the liberal Anglo-American tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment." He then observes that, in fact, that tradition, itself, has always been deeply concerned with "racial apportionment." Thus within the second paragraph, Williamson is undermining his own thesis—if the Anglo-American tradition is what he concedes it to be, no "converting" is required. We reverse polarity for a time, and then we all live happily ever after.
Or probably not. That is because Williamson's entire framing is wrong. Reparations are not due because black people are black, but because black people have been injured. And the Anglo-American tradition has never been a system of "racial apportionment," but of racist apportionment. Like most writers and public intellectuals (liberal and conservative) Williamson's reply is rooted in the idea of "race" as constant—i.e. there is a "black race" that can be traced back to Africa, and a "white race" that can be traced back to Europe. There certainly is such a thing as African and European ancestry, and that ancestry is not entirely irrelevant to our world. But ancestry is tangential, and sometimes wholly unrelated, to racism, injury, and reparations.
We know this because there is no constant idea of "black" or "white" across time or space. We know this because Charlie Patton fathered the blues, and Alessandro de Medici ruled in Venice. Black in America is not black in Brazil, and black in modern America is not even black in 18th-century Louisiana. Nor are people we consider "white" today any sort of constant. Throughout American history it has been common to speak of an "Italian race," an "Irish race," a "Frankish race," a "Jewish race" even a "Southern race." One might take a hard look at Williamson's agreeable portrait, for instance, and note the problem of assigning anyone to a race. "Race," writes the imminent historian Nell Irvin Painter, "is an idea, not a fact."
In this country, at this moment, "African-Americans" are an ethnic group comprised of individuals of varying degrees of direct African ancestry. Nothing about this fact necessitated plunder or injury, and it is the injury—through red-lining, black codes, slaves codes, lynching, ghettoization, fraud, rape, and murder—with which reparations concerns itself. The point is not "racial apportionment," which is to say giving people things because they are black. It is injury apportionment, which is to say restoring things to people who have been plundered.
Rebuttal #2: Williamson and others point out that reparations money won't make a difference in the distribution of wealth. Coates' reply is this:
Racism, and its progeny white supremacy, is concerned with dividing human beings, on the basis of ancestry (which is very real) and slotting them into a hierarchy (which is an invention). "Race" is that hierarchy—and any study of the word across history bears out its relationship to assigning value and scale across humanity. In polite society we've moved past overtly hierarchal ideas about "race," but the problem of imprecise naming remains with us. Let us bypass that imprecision—the Anglo-American tradition which Williamson extolls has, as he concedes, sought to erect and uphold a racist hierarchy. Reparations seeks its total and complete destruction.
**
Here is perhaps a weakness in Coates' essay: If we agree with Coates that, "Reparations seek its [racial hierarchy's] total and complete destruction," we did not see such a plan in Coates' essay. He needs to explain how reparations, the kind he wants, will achieve this.
Rebuttal #3: To Williamson's point that not all African-Americans should get reparations because not all African-Americans have been victimized by racism, Coates rebuts:
Williamson believes that reparations must either boil down to a "symbolic political process" or a series of polices that helps America's poor and disproportionately aids African-Americans. How, Williamson asks, can one make a claim on behalf of Sasha and Malia Obama, in a world of poor whites? In much the same way that a factory which pumps toxins into a poor neighborhood is not indemnified because a plaintiff rises to become a millionaire. Taking Williamson's argument to its logical conclusion, a businessman brutalized by the police should never sue the city because, well, homelessness.
People who are injured sometimes achieve great things—this does not obviate the fact of their injury, nor their claim to recompense. Warren Moon achieved more than the vast majority of white quarterbacks. Had racism not forced him into the CFL for the first five crucial years of his career, he might have had more success than any quarterback to ever play the game. Satchel Paige enjoys an honor which the vast majority of white baseball players shall never glimpse—induction in the Hall of Fame. What might Paige achieved had he not been injured by white supremacy for the vast majority of his career? Mr. Clyde Ross is a homeowner, and considerably better off than many of his North Lawndale neighbors. To achieve this he worked three jobs and lost time that he should have been able to invest in his children. What might Mr. Ross have been had he not endured racist plunder from Clarksdale to Chicago?
Rebuttal #4: Williamson says that economic injustice should address poverty, not race, but Coates counters:
The problem of racism is not synonymous with the problem of the poverty line. Indeed, it is often in the fate of the most conventionally successful African-Americans that we see the full horror of a corrupt social contract. The injury of racism means many things, virtually all of them bad. It means making $100,000 a year but living in neighborhoods equivalent to white people who make $30,000 a year. It means belonging to a class whose men comprise some eight percent of the world's entire prison population. It means, if you do go to college, still enjoying lesser employment prospects than white college graduates. It means living in a family with roughly a 20th of the wealth of those who do not suffer your particular ailment. In short, it means quite a bit—and these effects do not merely haunt the poor. My heart bleeds for the white child injured by the departure of parents. But God forbid the injury of racism be added to the burden.
The pervasive effects of the injury should not surprise—the injuring and exploitation of black people regardless of economic class has been one of the dominant themes of American history. It is only the obviation, or ignorance, of history that allows us to escape this. The result must be an especially tortured specimen of reasoning:
Some blacks are born into college-educated, well-off households, and some whites are born to heroin-addicted single mothers, and even the totality of racial crimes throughout American history does not mean that one of these things matters and one does not. Once that fact is acknowledged, then the case for reparations is only moral primitivism.
Williamson's "fact" can not be acknowledged because, even by Williamson's crude measures, it is artifice. There are—at most—1.5 million people who use heroin in this country. The ranks of the African-American poor are roughly eight times that.
Rebuttal #5: Reparations are not "anti-white," or intended to divide the country racially. As Coates explains:
More importantly, the claim of reparations does not hinge on every individual white person everywhere being wealthy. That is because reparations is not a claim against white Americans, anymore than reparations paid to interned Japanese-Americans was a claim against non-Japanese-Americans. The claim was brought before the multi-ethnic United States of America.
Rebuttal #6: It doesn't make sense to make current whites who didn't enforce slavery pay black Americans who weren't slaves. To this point, Coates counters:
There seems to be great confusion on this point. The governments of the United States of America—local, state and federal—are deeply implicated in enslavement, Jim Crow, redlining, New Deal racism, terrorism, ghettoization, housing segregation. The fact that one's ancestors were not slave-traders or that one arrived here in 1980 is irrelevant. I did not live in New York when the city railroaded the Central Park Five. But my tax dollars will pay for the settlement. That is because a state is more than the natural lives, or occupancy, of its citizens. People who object to reparations for African-Americans because they, individually, did nothing should also object to reparations to Japanese-Americans, but they should not stop there. They should object to the Fourth of July, since they, individually, did nothing to aid the American Revolution. They should object to the payment of pensions for the Spanish-American War, a war fought before they were alive. Indeed they should object to government and society itself, because its existence depends on outliving its individual citizens.
Rebuttal #7: Reparations are useless since black Americans are doomed to be economically behind whites, even in a world without racism. Coates' replies:
Williamson then posits that black people would still be poor because they'd be far behind the native white population. Williamson never considers that the two groups might intermarry—because he believes in "race," which is to say creationism. For that same reason he ignores the fact there was no "New World" with "native whites" to come to without the labor of African-Americans. Europeans did not purchase enslaved Africans because they disliked the cut of their jib. They did it because they had taken a great deal of land and needed bonded labor to extract resources from it. Africans—aliens to society, existing beyond the protections of the crown—fit the bill.
"The people to whom reparations were owed," Williamson concludes. "Are long dead." Only because we need them to be. Mr. Clyde Ross is very much alive—as are many of the victims of redlining. And it is not hard to identify them. We know where redlining took place and where it didn't. We have the maps. We know who lived there and who didn't.
This was American policy. We have never accounted for it, and it is unlikely that we ever will. That is not because of any African-American's life-span but because of a powerful desire to run out the clock. Reparations claims were made within the natural lifetimes of emancipated African-Americans. They were unsuccessful. They were not unsuccessful because they lacked merit. They were unsuccessful because their country lacked the courage to dispense with creationism.
So it goes.
Sample Thesis Statements with Concession Clauses
Student Who Opposes Reparations
While I concede that Coates’ analysis of America’s racist history is both true and morally compelling, his defense of the US government’s obligation to make financial reparations to qualified black Americans fails when we consider the slippery slope argument (where do we stop?), the Band-Aid argument (20k per citizen is just a Band-Aid), the distant history argument (slavery ended 160 years ago), the proxy argument (billions of dollar spent to subsidize poor communities have already been in effect proxies for reparations), and the unfair cost argument (millions of non-whites who had nothing to do with slavery will have to spend tax dollars on reparations and receive nothing).
Student Who Defends Reparations
While I concede that reparations are a messy, imperfect “pay-back” for the injustices of slavery and racism, we are morally compelled to heed Ta Nehisi-Coates’ call for reparations when we seriously look at the kleptocracy argument (racial injustice didn’t stop 160 years ago but continues today), the moral gesture argument (reparations is a moral announcement that society will not tolerate racism and this gesture has a huge effect on cultural mores), the education argument (reparations could be targeted to help black Americans’ education, which would redress the injustices of educational opportunities), and the legal argument (unpaid services demand payment; in a court of law this is never open to debate).
One. In the context of Caleb Crain's "The Case Against Democracy" and Ilya Somin's "Democracy vs. Epistocracy" support, defend, or complicate the argument that an uninformed public lacking adequate critical thinking skills cannot support a democracy as we tend to idealize democracies but rather, at best, maintains a democracy so flawed many would argue that it cannot be called a democracy at all, but rather some grotesque sub-version of a democracy.
Four. In the context of Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "The Case for Reparations," defend, refute, or complicate that America is morally obligated to exact qualified African-Americans reparations for America's crime of an ongoing kleptocracy, which includes slavery, Jim Crow, and their ongoing legacy today.
Five. Develop an analytical thesis that shows how Jordan Peeles' movie Get Out builds on Ta-Nehisi Coates' notion of American kleptocracy.
Six. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that recycling is a liberal white middle class religion that speaks more to Kool-Aid-drinking tribalism than it does improving the Earth. Consult John Tierney's "The Reign of Recycling," Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism is a Religion," and Stephen Asma's "Green Guilt."
Seven. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that radical changes in the job market over the next 20 years due to robots and high-tech will compel country's to provide their citizens with a Universal Basic Income. Consult the following:
One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society.
Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society.
Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver.
Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is.
Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable.
Eight. Develop a thesis that in the context of the documentary Merchants of Doubt addresses the question: Should we have faith that "reason and faith can defeat propaganda and falsehoods." Or is such a message optimistic bias rooted in delusion?
Nine: Develop an analytical thesis that in the context of Merchants of Doubt explains the fallacies behind spin and how these fallacies can be constructed to effectively cause doubt and confusion over the legitimate claims of science.
While Twitter is a legitimate way to receive news from our favorite journalists and while I support maintaining a Twitter account with the caveat that we’re not being bombarded by trolls, I would agree with the argument that for those Twitter users who are in a collision course with the troll community, it would be better to delete their Twitter account for several reasons.
Some Reasons to Delete One's Twitter Account
For the undisciplined, Twitter can be, as Lindy West has noted, a bottomless “time suck” in which people start arguing endlessly back and forth just for the sport of arguing. This time suck becomes unpaid work.
Going on Twitter for “stress relief,” as Liny West observes, can quickly become a reversal and afflict the user with even more stress than before.
Arguing with a troll becomes a waste of time and exercise in futility. In fact, trolls want to argue. Arguing back with them is their nourishment. We are “feeding” them, as Lindy West points out.
We can’t even report threats from trolls, Lindy West chronicles, without being called “censors” by the Twitter community.
Twitter cannot stop trolls who are creating pollution on the site. Lindy West has concluded that in a way Twitter is enabling trolls, so it’s best to bail from this toxic landscape altogether.
Twitter makes you more vulnerable to people who can be hateful toward your political views. In contrast, you can manage your Facebook page to create a cozy bubble in which you converse with like-minded souls.
Joel Stein makes excellent point that Twitter, and other social media, produce the online disinhibition effect: Without face-to-face interaction and hiding behind anonymity, people who are normally cowards feel emboldened to unleash their inner demons of hate, rage, and obnoxious bullying so that online discourse becomes a toxic environment stripped of ethical mores and civil decorum.
Trolls and others can engage in “doxxing,” the act of stealing people’s personal data and publishing it.
Joel Stein observes that trolls are not just losers on the fringe; they are mainstream people who, frustrated, and shackled by Internet addiction, including the need for attention, develop into trolls.
Reminder: You need at least one counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.
Should We Delete Our Facebook and Other Social Media Accounts?
Facebook and all social media are enemies to our intelligence, dignity, and well-being evidenced by ___________________, ______________________, _______________________, _________________, and ___________________________.
Frank Bruni points out that Facebook is a place where we lose our intellect and critical thinking. In their place, we indulge in cognitive bias: reinforcing our foregone conclusions by conversing with other like-minded people.
Reinforcing our opinions with others in our Echo Chamber, we use Facebook, Bruni observes, as what McMahon calls a "Mutual Sycophant Society," in which we kiss each other's butts and feel empowered by our bold political beliefs.
Matthew Warner points out that Facebook makes us brain-dead because it's a default setting for killing snippets of time rather than being comfortable with being alone with ourselves and focusing on our deepest thoughts.
Kim Lachance Shandow criticizes parents for posting photos of their children and violating their children's privacy.
Shandow observes the stupidity of the FOMO effect, the fear of missing out as we see Facebook friends curate their staged happy lives, what is in fact contrived BS.
We tell our children to avoid strangers, Shandow points out, but Facebook's "friend suggestions" encourages us to accept strangers into our Facebook orbit. Even if these strangers are safe, they represent potential lost time as we may have to comment and deal with messages from these strangers.
Bosses and potential employers can snoop on your Facebook page, Shandow warns, to judge your character and credibility.
Oversharing is embarrassing. Shandow wants us to spare our dignity and get off Facebook before we're seduced by the false need to share.
Reminder: You need at least one counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.
The Addictive Effects of Facebook and Social Media
“Never Get High on Your Own Supply”
Adam Alter in his book Irresistible makes the point that even as Steve Jobs wallowed in glory of making the greatest Internet device ever, the iPad, he refused to use one or let his children use one.
Likewise, other tech avatars refuse to let their children use iPads. They sent their kids to expensive private anti-technology Waldorf schools.
The point is that drug dealers stay strong and rich by not getting high on their own supply.
Alter asks a great question: Why are all the world’s greatest public technocrats also in private the world’s greatest technophobes?
Clearly, they know the dirt. They know the hell that is at the end of the iPad journey. They’ve seen the darkness, and they don’t want to go there. They don’t want their kids to go there.
But they want you and me to go there. They want our money. Their moral integrity is seriously lacking.
Alter is making the point that we might reconsider embracing technology made by people who have no moral integrity and who secondly wouldn’t privately use the gadgets they make so seductive to the rest of us.
Adler asks: Could you imagine the outcry if religious leaders didn’t let their children practice the religion they preach to you?
This book introduction is piece of rhetorical brilliance as it drives home the point that the technology that is being foisted upon us is by its very nature addictive. It’s not built to help us. It’s built to manipulate us. The technology makes money for its creators after all.
Video game designers avoid World of Warcraft.
An Instagram engineer admits Instagram is designed to send its users down a bottomless pit of addiction.
Smartwatches, Facebook and Netflix, like Instagram, are designed to maximize addiction and obsession.
The smartphone is an opium-drip gadget you carry around with you 24/7.
Normal people succumb to addiction.
Because addiction is about immersion into environment and circumstance.
Steve Jobs and other successful technocrats know the secrets of addiction, and the addiction model is what fuels their designs.
Making irresistible tools to ensnare us is the formula for success in the crowded tech space.
Therefore, technocrats are in the addiction business.
“Design ethicist” Tristan Harris says even normal people with strong levels of willpower will succumb to addiction when “there are a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job it is to break down the self-regulation you have.”
New York Times journalist Nick Bolton, who doesn’t allow himself or his children to use an iPad, observes that the environment and circumstances for addiction in the digital age have no precedent in human history.
We can be snared by many digital hooks:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Porn
Email
Online shopping
The list goes one until we’ve lost the very core of our being.
In the early 2000s, tech was slow and “clunky,” but now it’s fast. It has to be fast if it’s to have sufficient addictive powers.
Tech engineers do thousands of experiments to make the visual experience appealing and addictive. They’ve created a sort of digital Las Vegas to seduce us.
Newer and newer versions of these digital Las Vegas seductive machines keep coming out until they’re “weaponized.”
“In 2004, Facebook was fun. In 2016, it’s addictive.”
Behavioral psychologists say everyone has an addiction, even successful, educated people, and they learn to compartmentalize, which means be functional addicts, like the teacher who has $80,000 debt from online shopping.
Our substance addictions and behavioral addictions are similar.
Both stimulate the same area of the brain. But there’s a big difference. If you’re a speed or alcohol addict, you can do a lot to change your environment to avoid speed and alcohol.
But technology is different. It’s part of who we are, where we work, and how we connect with others. It is ubiquitous, meaning it is everywhere.
We can create boundaries and minimize digital addiction if we understand how behavioral addiction works.
6 Ingredients technology uses to create behavioral addictions:
One, it creates compelling goals just beyond our reach. We can never have enough likes or followers, for example.
Two, it gives us irresistible and unpredictable feedback.
Three, it creates a sense of incremental progress and improvement.
Four, it creates tasks that slowly become more difficult over time.
Five, it creates unresolved tensions that demand resolution.
Six, it provides a sense (delusion?) of strong social connection.
Smartphone screen time a day:
About 3 hours. We can infer that people who don’t use Moment are on a lot more. Not knowing how much we use something, and not wanting to know, contributes to behavioral addiction.
In the same way, food obsessives are asked to keep a food journal in which they write down everything they eat. This cuts down on eating.
Most smartphone users are addicts. They spend over a quarter of their life on the smartphone. And they don’t even know it.
Addiction is not passion:
Addiction is deep attachment to an experience that is harmful and difficult to do without.
Addictions arise when a person can’t resist a behavior (compulsion), which, despite addressing a deep psychological need in the short-term, produces significant harm in the long-term.
Addictions bring promise of immediate award, or positive reinforcement.
Original use of the word addiction was in ancient Rome, and it meant a strong bond to something like slavery. So the first sense of the word addiction was to be enslaved to something.
Passion is different than addiction.
Passion is a strong drive for an activity that is important and valued as bringing meaning to one’s life. Because this passion is valued, it is worth the time and energy devoted to pursuing it.
Whereas we feel free to choose our passion, we are slaves to addiction, which is a form of compulsion.
Internet Addiction Test (IAT)
The Internet Addiction Test (IAT) is the first Validated measure of Internet Addiction described in theIAT Manual to measure Internet use in terms of mild, moderate, to several levels of addiction.
For more information on using the IAT and building an Internet Addiction treatment program in your practice, visit RestoreRecovery.netfor our comprehensive workbook and training programs.
Based upon the following five-point likert scale, select the response that best represents the frequency of the behavior described in the following 20-item questionnaire.
0 = Not Applicable 1 = Rarely 2 = Occasionally 3 = Frequently 4 = Often 5 = Always
___How often do you find that you stay online longer than you intended?
___How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time online?
___How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner?
___How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?
___How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you spend online?
___How often do your grades or school work suffer because of the amount of time you spend online?
___How often do you check your e-mail before something else that you need to do?
___How often does your job performance or productivity suffer because of the Internet?
___How often do you become defensive or secretive when anyone asks you what you do online?
___How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
___How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go online again?
___How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be boring, empty, and joyless?
___How often do you snap, yell, or act annoyed if someone bothers you while you are online?
___How often do you lose sleep due to late-night log-ins?
___How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when off-line, or fantasize about being online?
___How often do you find yourself saying “just a few more minutes” when online?
___How often do you try to cut down the amount of time you spend online and fail?
___How often do you try to hide how long you’ve been online?
___How often do you choose to spend more time online over going out with others?
___How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you are off-line, which goes away once you are back online?
After all the questions have been answered, add the numbers for each response to obtain a final score. The higher the score, the greater the level of addiction and creation of problems resultant from such Internet usage. The severity impairment index is as follows:
NONE 0 – 30 points
MILD 31- 49 points: You are an average online user. You may surf the Web a bit too long at times, but you have control over your usage.
MODERATE 50 -79 points: You are experiencing occasional or frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life.
SEVERE 80 – 100 points: Your Internet usage is causing significant problems in your life. You should evaluate the impact of the Internet on your life and address the problems directly caused by your Internet usage.
Personal Score
I took the test and scored a 57, which is a low moderate addiction.
University Students
We see that 48% of university students suffer Internet addiction.
Worldwide, Internet addiction is about 40%.
Game-changing study radically alters our view of addiction:
In 1954, Olds and Milner discovered that stimulating the pleasure centers of rats’ brains made them addicts.
Before this experiment, it was believed that certain people had a predisposition to addiction.
But juxtaposing the Olds and Milner Study with Vietnam Vets (20% developed heroin addiction), we saw that addiction was based on environment and circumstance.
You could have a healthy “non-addict” disposition, but still be a victim of addiction if your brain’s pleasure centers were stimulated effectively.
In a 1,000-word essay, typed and double-spaced, support, defend, or complicate Adam Alter’s assertion that morally dubious, entrepreneurial technocrats are imposing addictive technologies on consumers and that these technologies have deficits that far outweigh their benefits. Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 2:
In a 1,000 word essay, typed and double-spaced, develop an argumentative thesis that explains how Adam Alter's book informs the pathologies rendered in Andrew Sullivan's online essay, "I Used to be a Human Being." Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 3:
A crucial life lesson is that we aren’t hard-wired to get hooked to the Internet and fragment our attention with social media and smartphone addiction. To do so is to be miserable knowing we wasted our life on nonsense. In contrast, we are hard-wired to have the humility and wisdom to know our time is limited and we must manage our time wisely working hard at tasks that are meaningful to us and that require great effort than should not be diminished by social media distractions and the like. Drawing from both Cal Newport’s Deep Work and Adam Alter’s Irresistible, develop an argumentative thesis that supports the above theme. Your essay should be 1,000 words and have 3 sources for your Works Cited.
One. How long would you stay on Facebook or any other social media site if your posts were ignored?
These social media sites would die except that they give feedback. For example, one of the most popular sites, Reddit, uses up and down arrows to show approval or condemnation of posts.
Feedback is a reward system that stimulates the brain.
Social media works in part because of what we might call the Mutual Sycophant Club: I scratch your back and you scratch my back. We like each other’s posts, no matter how insipid, unremarkable, and mediocre, in order to fuel the feedback loop.
Getting caught up in this loop is a huge time suck, a huge distraction, a huge waste, and a huge diversion from meaningful pursuits. But its draw is peer pressure and the tyranny of Technology: Don’t live in the common currency of technology and be irrelevant, invisible, and essentially dead.
It takes a lot of courage to live off the grid.
Many people cannot do it. They are so dependent on the sense of community, however fake, that they derive from their social media accounts. To delete their accounts would result in a feeling of terrifying, primal aloneness, for which there is no word in English. We have to look to German:
Mutterseelinallein: complete abandonment, the sense that your mother's soul has left you.
People with tattered, undeveloped, needy selves will be too scared to go off the grid because they will become possessed by the terror of mutterseelinallein.
Feedback Loop Can Be Explained by Pigeon Experiments
In 1971, researcher Michael Zeiler did pigeon experiments in which he found they pecked more ravenously when their pellet rewards were inconsistently given because the inconsistency was analogous to gambling’s dopamine effects.
Decades later, Facebook did an experiment with a “like” button, the first of its kind on the Internet, and the “like” button had the effect of crack cocaine. It was a game-changer. Suddenly Facebook grew exponentially, not just in users, but in the amount of time users spent on Facebook.
Getting “likes” was like gambling. Your uploaded photo might win a lucky strike or it might be a dud, but when you got a “full house,” as it were, you received a huge dopamine hit.
Facebook users got addicted. They experienced euphoria when they enjoyed a hailstorm of “likes”; they experienced shame and anguish when their posts were ignored or not liked.
Think about it: Adults with higher degrees of education, with high-ranking jobs, with family responsibilities were sitting at their computers in their robes drinking their green Matcha tea or eating their Hot Pockets while obsessing over their Facebook ranking. They had been reduced to experimental pigeons. They had become needy and pathetic.
But here’s the thing: Users were on Facebook LONGER than before. And that’s the point. Website creators want you on their site, the longer the better. They need to find ways to get you hooked. They don’t like you. They don’t respect you. They look at you as a potential addict, and they’re the pusher.
They actually look at you as a dumb rat or a dumb pigeon. They are rich, and they are laughing at us.
In fact, Mark Zuckerberg is on record for having said that “trusting Facebook users are dumb *****.”
Two. What is the Human Self-Inflicted Distraction Principle?
Studies show that humans can’t sit still. They can’t be alone with their thoughts. They settle into a life of easy because, ironically, settling into the good life, a life full of comfort and non-conflict, drives people crazy.
People will induce their own problems out of nothing, they will create new challenges, they will sink into a hole, just so they can create a solution to a problem that never had to exist in the first place.
Rich movie stars do nose dives into self-destruction, we are told, because the thrill of success can’t be enjoyed unless interrupted by challenge.
In other words, we’re incurably stupid.
We operate on the Self-Inflicted Distraction Principle.
The drug pushers of the Internet know this all too well.
The makers of games know this all too well.
Tetris and World of Warcraft are built for people who need constant challenge and distraction.
People are addicted to setting never-ending goals to avoid being still.
Karoshi
They play games, try to improve their social media status, wear fitness watches, take their work home on laptops to “get ahead of the curve,” and the final summation of this never-ending treadmill is the Japanese term karoshi—“death from overworking.”
Getting on the Internet treadmill becomes a neurosis and a disease. People lose their essential self, and they don’t know it because it feels normal.
Three. What is the Zeigarnik Effect?
Incomplete experiences occupy our minds and stay in our memories more than completed ones.
This is analogous to a cliff hanger for a TV show. If it ends on a cliff hanger, we are more likely to become obsessed and watch subsequent shows.
Cliff hangers can create compulsive binge-watching.
“Post-play” maximizes the cliff hanger principle. Breaking Bad from Netflix becomes a 13-hour nonstop movie punctuated with cliff hangers.
The Assist
The Netflix binge became a phenomenon, and the binge works because in addition to cliff hangers, Netflix has your programming defaulted so that if you do nothing but just sit in front of the screen the next episode will begin automatically. This is called an “assist” in the industry.
Four. What is the “bad is stronger than good” principle?
No matter how good the reviews on Yelp, Amazon, and Rate My Professor, it’s the bad reviews that stick out and have the biggest influence on people.
This principle applies to social media. You may get lots of good feedback on your channel, but it’s the mean ones that punch you in the gut and make you forget the positive feedback.
Always wanting to overcome negative feedback with greater and greater positive feedback feeds social media addiction.
Five. Why are children more vulnerable to Internet addiction than adults?
Children don’t have the natural boundaries that mature people have.
And just as dangerous, if we let children do easy things like using the Internet at the expense of more difficult albeit rewarding things like reading books, we deprive children of an important principle: Hardship inoculation.
The younger we experience tough tasks and learn how to overcome their difficulty the more we will embrace meaningful, challenging tasks later in life. For example, we may be tragically raising a generation of non-book readers.
Six. What is gamification?
Gamification is taking a non-game experience like fitness, nutrition, or social media abstinence, and turning it into a game with points and opportunities to beat personal records and so on.
Alter writes: “Gamification is a powerful business tool and if harnessed appropriately it also drives happier, healthier, and wiser behavior. “
In a 1,000-word essay, typed and double-spaced, support, defend, or complicate Adam Alter’s assertion that morally dubious, entrepreneurial technocrats are imposing addictive technologies on consumers and that these technologies have deficits that far outweigh their benefits. Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 2:
In a 1,000 word essay, typed and double-spaced, develop an argumentative thesis that explains how Adam Alter's book informs the pathologies rendered in Andrew Sullivan's online essay, "I Used to be a Human Being." Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 3:
A crucial life lesson is that we aren’t hard-wired to get hooked to the Internet and fragment our attention with social media and smartphone addiction. To do so is to be miserable knowing we wasted our life on nonsense. In contrast, we are hard-wired to have the humility and wisdom to know our time is limited and we must manage our time wisely working hard at tasks that are meaningful to us and that require great effort than should not be diminished by social media distractions and the like. Drawing from both Cal Newport’s Deep Work and Adam Alter’s Irresistible, develop an argumentative thesis that supports the above theme. Your essay should be 1,000 words and have 3 sources for your Works Cited.
Study Questions
One. What determines successful elimination of an addiction?
We read that 95% of heroin addicts have relapses even after going through an excruciating detox.
But Vietnam vets had 95% successful addiction cessation after they returned to America because they had removed the thing that matters most:
Environment
Try all you want to stop an addiction, but once you immerse yourself in the people and places of that addiction with all the requisite triggers and you’re hooked again.
Alter points to a dramatic case study of a brilliant student Isaac who goes on a 5-week binge and ignored hundreds of phone calls before he answers his mother’s and undergoes an intervention.
He leaves his “Addict Environment,” Washington, DC, and returns to Seattle for reStart intervention. He had greasy hair, he had gained 60 pounds, he looked like a monster.
The lesson is that smart, good people, not “addictive personalities,” can become addicts if in the right environment and circumstances.
Drugs used to be the addictive substance that snared us.
But in the digital age addictive behaviors are the new danger, and addictive behaviors, generated from the internet, are everywhere, even our pocket.
Two. Why are internet-driven behavioral addictions so dangerous?
For one, the internet is everywhere. How do you avoid it?
For two, many internet behaviors result in fast feedback. Fast feedback stimulates dopamine in the brain’s pleasure center.
Remember, learn to stimulate the brain and you can take anyone and make them into an addict.
A stimulated brain produces dopamine, but then the brain quickly shuts down the dopamine to “dam the flood of euphoria.”
In the absence of euphoria, the brain becomes uneasy, restless, uncomfortable and the person is compelled to get another dopamine fix.
Repeatedly returning to the Internet for emotional, stress, and dopamine-depletion relief results in severe addiction.
Three. What malady is rising in adults?
Sleep deprivation afflicts two thirds of adults and is growing thanks to email, smartphones, and other gadgets.
Sleep deprivation is an addict’s partner, the result of “over-engagement” with a behavior or substance.
60% of adults keep their phones close when they sleep.
Screen light kills melatonin, the hormone that helps us sleep.
Four. How is addiction a form of misguided love?
We are hardwired to love. Learning to love is a survival mechanism. We find unity, connection, and loyalty through the art of loving.
We want to love. We want to experience the full immersion of losing ourselves entirely into this force greater than ourselves we call love.
When we surrender to this greater force, we experience wonderful brain sensations, including dopamine.
Addictive behavior seeks to have the same brain stimulation as someone who is deeply engaged in this power we call love.
In the absence of real love, we seek substitutes: We seek Facebook friends, Instagram followers, and we have an insatiable appetite for likes and comments. We became addicted to this social media matrix, but we do not find love.
We find anxiety and depression, and of course, we find ourselves addicted.
Five. Why was Stanton Peele marginalized for so many decades by the scientific community?
Contrary to Alcoholics Anonymous and other organizations, Peele didn’t believe addiction was a disease, an orthodox belief of many treatment programs.
Nor did he believe addiction required complete abstinence.
Instead, Peele believed addiction is the association between an unfulfilled psychological need and a set of actions that assuage or cure that need in the short-term but that have destructive long-term consequences.
After four decades, Peele’s addiction model has slowly gained credibility in the mainstream.
Six. How does an addict suffer from a divided soul?
An addict can hate his addiction intellectually because he can understand how the addiction is destroying him. He can hate his dependence on constantly going one Facebook, for example. But here’s the split: His brain still craves Facebook. Social media sites are feeding his brain something his brain craves. And yet he knows social media is his devil, if you will, his source of self-destruction. He’s divided.
My brain knows that chocolate cake, the huge slices I crave, are bad for my weight control, but my brain craves the dopamine explosion provided by chocolate cake.
Seven. Why does goal-setting in the social media age lead to emptiness and despair?
We are never good enough. We can never project the “hologram of the superpowered self” (to take language from Kristen Dombek in her essay “Emptiness”) to our ideal of perfection.
We are encouraged to partake in a sort of megalomaniacal narcissism, which leaves us emptier and emptier even as our avatar self wallows in an attention bath of thousands of likes and followers.
In the past, having goals was about survival.
But now goal-setting is an artificially-created ego device.
The goal of reaching 5,000 followers is more important than reaching 5,000 followers because in world of social media addiction we have to stay distracted and always be pushing ourselves.
“Wearable tech” has exacerbated our obsession with goals. We must reach 10,000 steps a day; we must have at least 10,000 “engagements” on Twitter and at least 10,000 followers.
After a Facebook post, we need at least 100 likes within an hour or else our self-worth will not have been validated sufficiently and we will send the rest of the day sullen and pouting.
We must chronicle our “journey” from having a “fatty belly” to having a “six pack” with video posts on Facebook or YouTube and gain thousands of followers in the process.
We must unbox yet another piece of gaudy jewelry or some newfangled tech device so that our subscribers can drool and burst in violent paroxysms resulting in yet thousands of more likes and comments so we can wallow in our sense of relevance and validation.
We have smartphone apps that can count calories when we photograph our meals and then these calorie counts can be posted on dozens of social media sites so we can be lavished with praise for our outstanding dietary discipline and fortitude, which will result in more likes and followers.
This self-obsession contributes to narcissism, which results in disconnection from one another.
Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked by Adam Alter
Essay Assignment (Choose One):
Option 1:
In a 1,000-word essay, typed and double-spaced, support, defend, or complicate Adam Alter’s assertion that morally dubious, entrepreneurial technocrats are imposing addictive technologies on consumers and that these technologies have deficits that far outweigh their benefits. Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 2:
In a 1,000 word essay, typed and double-spaced, develop an argumentative thesis that explains how Adam Alter's book informs the pathologies rendered in Andrew Sullivan's online essay, "I Used to be a Human Being." Be sure to use the Toulmin structure in which you include a counterargument-rebuttal section before your essay’s conclusion. You must include 3 credible sources in your Works Cited page.
Option 3:
A crucial life lesson is that we aren’t hard-wired to get hooked to the Internet and fragment our attention with social media and smartphone addiction. To do so is to be miserable knowing we wasted our life on nonsense. In contrast, we are hard-wired to have the humility and wisdom to know our time is limited and we must manage our time wisely working hard at tasks that are meaningful to us and that require great effort than should not be diminished by social media distractions and the like. Drawing from both Cal Newport’s Deep Work and Adam Alter’s Irresistible, develop an argumentative thesis that supports the above theme. Your essay should be 1,000 words and have 3 sources for your Works Cited.
Study Questions
One. How does “Never Get High on Your Own Supply” pertain to Steve Jobs?
Adam Alter is making the point that even as Steve Jobs wallowed in glory of making the greatest Internet device ever, the iPad, he refused to use one or let his children use one.
Likewise, other tech avatars refuse to let their children use iPads. They sent their kids to expensive private anti-technology Waldorf schools.
The point is that drug dealers stay strong and rich by not getting high on their own supply.
Alter asks a great question: Why are all the world’s greatest public technocrats also in private the world’s greatest technophobes?
Clearly, they know the dirt. They know the hell that is at the end of the iPad journey. They’ve seen the darkness, and they don’t want to go there. They don’t want their kids to go there.
But they want you and me to go there. They want our money. Their moral integrity is seriously lacking.
Alter is making the point that we might reconsider embracing technology made by people who have no moral integrity and who secondly wouldn’t privately use the gadgets they make so seductive to the rest of us.
Adler asks: Could you imagine the outcry if religious leaders didn’t let their children practice the religion they preach to you?
This book introduction is piece of rhetorical brilliance as it drives home the point that the technology that is being foisted upon us is by its very nature addictive. It’s not built to help us. It’s built to manipulate us. The technology makes money for its creators after all.
Video game designers avoid World of Warcraft.
An Instagram engineer admits Instagram is designed to send its users down a bottomless pit of addiction.
Smartwatches, Facebook and Netflix, like Instagram, are designed to maximize addiction and obsession.
The smartphone is an opium-drip gadget you carry around with you 24/7.
Two. Why can “normal” people succumb to addiction?
Because addiction is about immersion into environment and circumstance.
Steve Jobs and other successful technocrats know the secrets of addiction, and the addiction model is what fuels their designs.
Making irresistible tools to ensnare us is the formula for success in the crowded tech space.
Therefore, technocrats are in the addiction business.
“Design ethicist” Tristan Harris says even normal people with strong levels of willpower will succumb to addiction when “there are a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job it is to break down the self-regulation you have.”
New York Times journalist Nick Bolton, who doesn’t allow himself or his children to use an iPad, observes that the environment and circumstances for addiction in the digital age have no precedent in human history.
We can be snared by many digital hooks:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Porn
Email
Online shopping
The list goes one until we’ve lost the very core of our being.
In the early 2000s, tech was slow and “clunky,” but now it’s fast. It has to be fast if it’s to have sufficient addictive powers.
Tech engineers do thousands of experiments to make the visual experience appealing and addictive. They’ve created a sort of digital Las Vegas to seduce us.
Newer and newer versions of these digital Las Vegas seductive machines keep coming out until they’re “weaponized.”
“In 2004, Facebook was fun. In 2016, it’s addictive.”
Behavioral psychologists say everyone has an addiction, even successful, educated people, and they learn to compartmentalize, which means be functional addicts, like the teacher who has $80,000 debt from online shopping.
Three. Is Adam Alter guilty of making an oversimplistic, paranoid anti-technology rant?
No, the concedes that technology has many virtues and advantages, and he has used tech to stay in touch with his family from Australia.
His book is not an anti-technology screed. He writes that technology is neither good nor bad until it’s designed for mass consumption.
Four. How our substance addictions and behavioral addictions similar?
Both stimulate the same area of the brain. But there’s a big difference. If you’re a speed or alcohol addict, you can do a lot to change your environment to avoid speed and alcohol.
But technology is different. It’s part of who we are, where we work, and how we connect with others. It is ubiquitous, meaning it is everywhere.
We can create boundaries and minimize digital addiction if we understand how behavioral addiction works.
Five. What 6 Ingredients does technology contain to create behavioral addictions?
One, it creates compelling goals just beyond our reach. We can never have enough likes or followers, for example.
Two, it gives us irresistible and unpredictable feedback.
Three, it creates a sense of incremental progress and improvement.
Four, it creates tasks that slowly become more difficult over time.
Five, it creates unresolved tensions that demand resolution.
Six, it provides a sense (delusion?) of strong social connection.
Six. What is the smartphone screen time average for people who use the app Moment because they are concerned about how much time they’re using their smartphones every day?
About 3 hours. We can infer that people who don’t use Moment are on a lot more. Not knowing how much we use something, and not wanting to know, contributes to behavioral addiction.
In the same way, food obsessives are asked to keep a food journal in which they write down everything they eat. This cuts down on eating.
Most smartphone users are addicts. They spend over a quarter of their life on the smartphone. And they don’t even know it.
Seven. What’s the difference between addiction and passion?
Addiction is deep attachment to an experience that is harmful and difficult to do without.
Addictions arise when a person can’t resist a behavior (compulsion), which, despite addressing a deep psychological need in the short-term, produces significant harm in the long-term.
Addictions bring promise of immediate award, or positive reinforcement.
Original use of the word addiction was in ancient Rome, and it meant a strong bond to something like slavery. So the first sense of the word addiction was to be enslaved to something.
Passion is different than addiction.
Passion is a strong drive for an activity that is important and valued as bringing meaning to one’s life. Because this passion is valued, it is worth the time and energy devoted to pursuing it.
Whereas we feel free to choose our passion, we are slaves to addiction, which is a form of compulsion.
Eight. How common are Internet-based behavioral addictions?
Internet Addiction Test (IAT)
The Internet Addiction Test (IAT) is the first Validated measure of Internet Addiction described in theIAT Manual to measure Internet use in terms of mild, moderate, to several levels of addiction.
For more information on using the IAT and building an Internet Addiction treatment program in your practice, visit RestoreRecovery.netfor our comprehensive workbook and training programs.
Based upon the following five-point likert scale, select the response that best represents the frequency of the behavior described in the following 20-item questionnaire.
0 = Not Applicable 1 = Rarely 2 = Occasionally 3 = Frequently 4 = Often 5 = Always
___How often do you find that you stay online longer than you intended?
___How often do you neglect household chores to spend more time online?
___How often do you prefer the excitement of the Internet to intimacy with your partner?
___How often do you form new relationships with fellow online users?
___How often do others in your life complain to you about the amount of time you spend online?
___How often do your grades or school work suffer because of the amount of time you spend online?
___How often do you check your e-mail before something else that you need to do?
___How often does your job performance or productivity suffer because of the Internet?
___How often do you become defensive or secretive when anyone asks you what you do online?
___How often do you block out disturbing thoughts about your life with soothing thoughts of the Internet?
___How often do you find yourself anticipating when you will go online again?
___How often do you fear that life without the Internet would be boring, empty, and joyless?
___How often do you snap, yell, or act annoyed if someone bothers you while you are online?
___How often do you lose sleep due to late-night log-ins?
___How often do you feel preoccupied with the Internet when off-line, or fantasize about being online?
___How often do you find yourself saying “just a few more minutes” when online?
___How often do you try to cut down the amount of time you spend online and fail?
___How often do you try to hide how long you’ve been online?
___How often do you choose to spend more time online over going out with others?
___How often do you feel depressed, moody, or nervous when you are off-line, which goes away once you are back online?
After all the questions have been answered, add the numbers for each response to obtain a final score. The higher the score, the greater the level of addiction and creation of problems resultant from such Internet usage. The severity impairment index is as follows:
NONE 0 – 30 points
MILD 31- 49 points: You are an average online user. You may surf the Web a bit too long at times, but you have control over your usage.
MODERATE 50 -79 points: You are experiencing occasional or frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life.
SEVERE 80 – 100 points: Your Internet usage is causing significant problems in your life. You should evaluate the impact of the Internet on your life and address the problems directly caused by your Internet usage.
Personal Score
I took the test and scored a 57, which is a low moderate addiction.
University Students
We see that 48% of university students suffer Internet addiction.
Worldwide, Internet addiction is about 40%.
Nine. What is the purpose of Alter’s long exposition on Freud’s research into cocaine?
Freud and others believed cocaine as safe. Coca-Cola sold cocaine to its consumers because cocaine was considered a safe and natural ingredient. We look back at this as foolishness because now we have a body of research that exposes the dangerous addictive forming nature of the drug.
In the same way, Alter wants us to see social media as early cocaine, something seen as safe or benign in the absence of massive research.
Alter’s book is one of the first comprehensive books about internet and social media addiction.
But we see evidence that tech gadgets are like cocaine. Psychologist Catherine Steiner-Adair observes that many children see their parents as “Missing in Action” as these parents are lost zombies, their noses deep in the screens of their iPads even while they sit with their children at the dinner table.
Parents claim they love their children, but they are mentally absent and are back-seating their children in favor of their gadget addiction.
“Wait, honey, I have to check my phone.”
“Not yet, honey, I have to check this text.”
These common words evidence twisted priorities of a nation of addicts.
And what’s worse is this behavior seems normal because everyone does it.
Ten. What game-changing study radically altered our view of addiction?
In 1954, Olds and Milner discovered that stimulating the pleasure centers of rats’ brains made them addicts.
Before this experiment, it was believed that certain people had a predisposition to addiction.
But juxtaposing the Olds and Milner Study with Vietnam Vets (20% developed heroin addiction), we saw that addiction was based on environment and circumstance.
You could have a healthy “non-addict” disposition, but still be a victim of addiction if your brain’s pleasure centers were stimulated effectively.
In a 1,000-word essay, defend, refute, or complicate Cal Newport's argument that Deep Work is an invaluable asset to your personal and professional life while Shallow Work and the mindless Internet habits that accompany it is a liability that results in mediocrity and nihilistic despair.
Option #2
In a 1,000-word essay, write a persuasive essay to someone you know who is shackled to mindless social media habits that they must replace their Internet addiction by radically transforming their brain hard-wiring, which could only be accomplished through the habits of Deep Work.
For both options, you must have 3 sources. You can use the book, and 2 sources from Cal Newport's Study Hack website.
Study Questions
One. How do we reach eudaimonia (our state of full potential)?
Since being in prolonged states of intense focus on meaningful goals gives us deep happiness and helps us achieve our potential, we should learn how to create a Deep Work Station.
We must be “a disciple of depth in a shallow world.”
We achieve this by creating rituals and routines because we cannot rely on willpower alone.
The more we use our willpower the more our willpower diminishes in strength. The solution is to rely on routines and rituals that cut down on our need to use willpower.
An example of a routine is adhering to a daily time block to your deep work.
Two. What is a Depth Philosophy?
You create rituals and routines that suit your life.
Creating a Depth Philosophy is Rule #1.
For example, you may choose a Monastic Philosophy in which you eliminate non-deep work activities from your life. You “minimize shallow obligations” like returning marginal emails and social media comments, or you eliminate social media accounts altogether.
Newport points to novelists who don’t answer emails because if they did, they wouldn’t have time to write their novels.
You shun shallow work. Monasticism may work for some, but not all.
Most people would probably be more suited to a rhythmic strategy in which one carves a daily time block of 3-4 hours of deep work.
Jerry Seinfeld told a comedian to write a joke every day and put it on a calendar so that he was making a “chain” of jokes throughout the year. This rhythmic philosophy is about creating a daily ritual of time blocks devoted to deep work.
A bimodal philosophy means you divide your time in the bustle of society but find a retreat for your deep work, as did Carl Jung.
Rituals are the rule, not “inspiration.” If you wait for inspiration, you’re doomed to a life outside the world of deep work.
To have an effective deep work ritual, you must have a set time and place with set rules to avoid distraction.
Make Grand Gestures
J.K. Rowling stayed in an expensive hotel to write her last novel.
Another Grand Gesture could be to delete your Facebook account, as I did. Or remove social media apps from your smartphone.
Three. What are the 4 Disciplines of Execution?
To achieve deep work, Newport quotes Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen who came up with the 4 Disciplines of Execution.
Discipline #1 Focus on the Wildly Important
You can only focus on so many things. If you try to do too much, you’ll engage in shallow work. Deep work results in finding what you’re wildly passionate about.
Discipline #2 Focus on Lead Measures, Not Lag Measures
Lag measures are areas you’re trying to improve. By the time you work on your lag measures, it’s too late to change your behavior.
For example, working on student evaluation scores is based on my past behavior.
Instead, I should work on lead measures, behaviors that will create success from my lag measures. I should focus on doing deep work on things I’m wildly passionate about, not go into the past and see what I did that rendered my performance scores at that time.
Discipline #3 Keep a Compelling Scoreboard
This means keep measurable goals or objectives. For example, if I’m playing piano for two hours, I must complete the major and minor harmonic scales without looking at the piano three times in succession, and I must write at least part of a song composition.
Or you must learn X amount of computer code every day if you’re a computer science major.
Discipline #4 Create a Cadence of Accountability
This means you regularly meet with peers or a mentor (or boss) to get feedback from the performance of your deep work.
When You’re Not in a Deep Work Time Block, Shut Everything Down
Shut everything down.
“Be lazy.”
Ideas grow while you’re on shut down.
Newport says you gain insights during your downtime.
Downtime helps recharge energy for the next day of deep work.
Rule #2: Embrace Boredom
Undistracted focus becomes a habit like flossing one’s teeth.
Suppose you’re reading a book for class, and some of it’s interesting, but then you hit a boring passage. You’re tempted to check your email or social media “activity.” Big mistake. You just broke your concentration and the myelin “muscle” in your brain isn’t getting stronger. It’s getting weaker.
Newport compares deep work to being an athlete. An athlete must be consistent with getting his or her “reps” in whether it be doing squats in the gym or running around the track. Failure to get in these “reps” results in atrophy and general breakdown. You need to build up your “mental muscle” with time block reps of uninterrupted focus on your deep work.
“Attention switching” makes you “a sucker for irrelevancy” and shallow work. Attention switching and distraction make you a bottom-feeder, not an apex predator at the top of the food chain.
To improve your focus, make huge offline blocks. Learn to be comfortable staying off the grid.
Too many people, seduced by the lies of technology, fear that unless they’re connected to social media and internet they won’t remain visible and relevant. They’ll experience a death, so to speak.
But the opposite is true. When you become dependent on the internet, THAT is the death, that is the condition of someone who got manipulated by the lies of technology.
Learn to stay off the grid for longer and longer amounts of time as you find your happiness and fulfilled potential in deep work.
Rule #3 Quit Social Media
Newport observes Baratunde Thurston’s experiment called “#UnPlugged” in which he goes off the grid. At first, it’s scary, but over time he feels less addicted to news and other people’s shares and he’s less addicted to sharing to feel relevant and alive.
He experiences life more deeply with more focus. He becomes happier.
Newport makes the case that the alleged benefits of social media are far outweighed by the liabilities.
Newport argues that network tools, like any tools, should be evaluated from the point of view of a craftsman, a person who cultivates his or her craft through deep work.
We should only use online internet tools if they are in service to our deep work.
Sharing on Facebook is shallow work.
Maintaining contact with your fans or followers will take away your time blocks to achieve deep work and be the person who created a fan base in the first place.
Newport proposes the Quit Social Media for 30 Days Test and see if you’re life isn’t better. He predicts your life will be better after 30 days and that you will be compelled to delete your social media accounts.
When You Do Deep Work, You Realize How Limited Your Time Is
That’s why people who go on Internet to be entertained go down a rabbit hole of wasted time. Newport argues you should not go to Internet for entertainment. It’s a time suck that steals from your deep work.
Rule #4 Drain the Shallows
A 4-day work week of 32 hours engaged in deep work is far more productive than a 5-day work week of 40 hours largely consisting of shallow work.
Deep work is exhausting, so it’s more suited to 4 days of 32 hours total.
This lesson teaches us to “drain the shallows.” You drain the shallows by scheduling every minute of your day. Too many people spend their day on autopilot, meaning that they are mindlessly wasting hours of their day.
Conquer your mindless autopilot default setting by time-blocking your daily schedule. Know what you’re going to do every hour.
Time Blocking Helps Us Quantify Depth [and Shallowness] of Every Activity
We can know how much of our day is wasted on shallow work only by time blocking our daily schedule.
Review of Shallow Work Definition:
Noncognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted. These efforts don’t create value and they are easily replicated.
These tasks are not unique or high-quality; therefore, if we define ourselves by shallow work, we are replaceable in our career occupations.
Drain the shallows by becoming less available online and on social media.
In a 1,000-word essay, defend, refute, or complicate Cal Newport's argument that Deep Work is an invaluable asset to your personal and professional life while Shallow Work and the mindless Internet habits that accompany it is a liability that results in mediocrity and nihilistic despair.
Option #2
In a 1,000-word essay, write a persuasive essay to someone you know who is shackled to mindless social media habits that they must replace their Internet addiction by radically transforming their brain hard-wiring, which could only be accomplished through the habits of Deep Work.
For both options, you must have 3 sources. You can use the book, and 2 sources from Cal Newport's Study Hack website.
Study Questions
One. What is the Principle of Least Resistance?
Too many corporate environments scatter-brain their employees by making them do a lot of shallow work. Why? Because of the Principle of Least Resistance:
Without clear feedback on how shallow work affects the bottom line, companies surrender to a shallow work environment, not because it’s most effective, but because it’s the easiest of all available options.
Additionally, getting a quick response creates the illusion of productivity. “Constant connectivity” creates the illusion of professionalism and efficiency. “Constant connectivity” is an example of an Easy Stupid Thing.
Another Easy Stupid Thing is forwarding emails. It’s super easy to forward an email to everyone in your office, but then you make them sweat and labor over your half-baked thought for hours while you did nothing. These half-baked forwarded emails ruin productivity, but they are easy to do.
As a corollary, we can postulate that on a personal level we do the same thing with social media, allowing the smartphone to be the slow-opium drip machine hooked up to our brain: We don’t question the damage this does to our personal and professional life. We simply “fall” into it because it’s easy, peer pressure dictates a certain conformity, and social media brands itself effectively as a way of being hip, now, sexy, and successful when in fact it’s a complete lie.
Another seduction of shallow work is that we think we’re productive when we’re busy, but we’re not. We can be “human routers” of busy work, but not producing high-quality deep work.
Newport warns us to not let busyness be a proxy for deep work.
Another seduction of busyness that can drain our capacity to deep work and suck us into shallow work is the grand lure of “having an internet presence” on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.
While such a presence may be important for a lot of people, too many people find these social media presences a “time suck” that takes away from deep work.
Fear of Being Invisible and Irrelevant in the Technopoly
We get sucked into the shallow work of having a social media presence (and constantly responding to comments and messages) because in the technopoly, the blind worship of technology for its own sake, we fear that not having an internet presence will render us invisible and irrelevant.
Two. What profound purpose is Cal Newport trying to achieve in his book?
Newport is trying to show us that a life hooked to social media, internet, and the technopoly is one of fragmentation, scatter-brained disorientation, soulless mediocrity, depression, shallow work and emptiness.
In contrast, a life of deep work in the service of becoming a master craftsman results in personal distinction that is valued by others, performance of high-quality work that cannot be easily replicated by others, deep satisfaction, and deep meaning in both one’s personal and professional life.
It’s like the difference between heaven and hell.
Focus, Not Desirable Circumstances, Lead to Happiness
Referring to the wisdom he finds in Winifred Gallagher’s book Rapt, Newport makes the point that a life of focus, not desirable circumstances, lead to happiness.
Focus helps unify our thoughts and makes us feel whole, complete, and happy.
The opposite is also true then: Attention-fragmentation makes us feel scattered, incomplete, empty and depressed. This emptiness and depression can afflict us even in the most desirable circumstances imaginable.
He quotes Gallagher:
“Who you are, what you think, feel, and do, what you love—is the sum of what you focus on.”
If you love “sharing” on social media photos of your fish tacos from Rubio’s or your bread sticks from Olive Garden and in general your “happy” life with your friends at restaurants, then that’s you who are. But remember that your focus is shallow; therefore, you’re not experiencing meaning and happiness.
If you focus on honing your craft at the piano, or singing, dancing, acting, math, or architecture, to give a few examples, your mastering your craft and your focus and you will be happier than if you’re constantly “sharing” and doing shallow work.
Deep Work Equals Happiness
Citing the psychological studies of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on happiness, Newport quotes the researcher:
“The best moments usually occur when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile.”
The above quote is an excellent reiteration of what it means to do deep work, and it leads to happiness no less.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi concludes that life is easier when we’re focused on deep work than when we’re lollygagging through free time. Deep work causes intense happiness called “flow.”
Piddling away several minutes or hours in a waiting room or on an airplane or in a classroom is a form of misery, yet we’ve been manipulated into believing by the social media industry that we’re having “fun.”
When we’re plugged into the slow-drip opium drug of our smartphone, we’re in hell, but we’re in denial of this fact.
Philosophical Argument for Deep Work
For centuries, educated humans knew there were two kinds of time: sacred and profane time and the two time zones should never mix.
A caveman telling a fable about the meaning of life to other cavemen around the campfire would be in sacred time.
A man and a woman contemplating the idea of spending the rest of their life with each other are in sacred time.
The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a story about sacred time.
The story of Adam and Even being expelled from Paradise is a story about leaving sacred time and entering profane time.
Listening to music at a concert is entering sacred time.
Watching a movie is entering sacred time.
Walking along the beach with your children and pointing at the waves is sacred time.
Sitting at the table with your family and discussing how your daughter spoke her first words is sacred time.
Getting a speeding ticket from a cop is profane time.
Playing a computer game is profane time.
Chatting on social media is profane time.
Doing deep work and improving your craft so that you can be a master of what you do is entering sacred time.
We Are Elevated as Human Beings When We Keep Sacred and Profane Time Separated
But in the technopoly, we’ve worshipped technology above all else and we’ve lost sight of the very notion of sacred time.
We live in profane time, shallow work, and rude interruptions of sacred events. People text inside churches and at funerals.
People take selfies at concerts.
Deep Work is a return to sacred time.
Shallow Work is to live in profane time and suffer the nihilism of a shallow, empty, meaningless existence.
Newport’s Conclusion
We don’t become happy because we find some amazing “rarified” job. We become happy because we establish a “rarified approach” to our work. We value the sacred time of deep work and find meaning from becoming master craftsmen.
We transform from Opium-Drip Smartphone Zombies to “Homo Sapiens Deepensis.”
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like a cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is every day foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
In a 1,000-word essay, defend, refute, or complicate Cal Newport's argument that Deep Work is an invaluable asset to your personal and professional life while Shallow Work and the mindless Internet habits that accompany it is a liability that results in mediocrity and nihilistic despair.
Option #2
In a 1,000-word essay, write a persuasive essay to someone you know who is shackled to mindless social media habits that they must replace their Internet addiction by radically transforming their brain hard-wiring, which could only be accomplished through the habits of Deep Work.
For both options, you must have 3 sources. You can use the book, and 2 sources from Cal Newport's Study Hack website.
Study Questions
One. What is Deep Work and why is it important?
Definition
Deep Work is distraction-free concentration on professional activities “that push your cognitive abilities to your limit.”
To give us a clear grasp of the focus required for deep work, Newport quotes Antonin-Dalmace Sertillanges:
“Let your mind become a lens, thanks to the converging rays of attention; let your soul be all intent on whatever it is that is established in your mind as a dominant, wholly absorbing idea.”
Deep Work’s 3 Important Results
Deep Work has 3 important results: It creates new value, improves your skill, and creates unique work that is hard to replicate.
Science Supports Claims About Deep Work
Only through deep work can we maximize our intellectual capacity and see how far we can go with what skills and talents we have.
Neurological and psychological studies support the claim that pushing yourself in non-distracted focus and enduring mental discomfort in pursuit of your goals is the only way to improve your skills.
What Should be Obvious and Commonplace No Longer Is in the Social Media Age
It should be obvious that you need prolonged focus attention to maximize the quality of your work, and it should be commonplace that people follow such a principle.
However, in the age of social media, emails, messaging, and texting, we live in an age of Attention Fragmentation.
Shallow Work
The activities done in a state of multi-tasking and attention fragmentation amount to what Newport calls shallow work.
Shallow work has become the norm, the commonplace. We think it’s natural because everyone else does it.
But shallow work results in mediocrity at best, and more often than not shallow work results in us becoming “bottom feeders” in the competitive economy.
If we want to be on the top of the food chain, we have to engage in Deep Work, which means committing ourselves to losing our distractions.
It’s difficult to commit to deep work because we live in a culture that encourages shallow work. We work in multi-tasking work environments in which were required to instantly respond to email, text messages, not to mention people who are playing games and uploading images on social media sites.
Most people are in a fragmented state and are performing shallow work. What they do is easily replicated.
Shallow work also makes us unfocused, unhappy, depressed, and hollowed-out versions of ourselves.
Recent studies even show that huge declines in teen drug and alcohol use might be explained by drugs and alcohol being substituted with smartphone and social media addiction.
Two. What is the difference between influential people and most people who are employed in the “knowledge work” industry?
Influential people have one thing in common: They make deep work a priority. In contrast, most knowledge workers or white-collar workers do shallow work.
Three. What is shallow work and why is it so dangerous?
Shallow work is non-demanding busy “logistical” work that anyone can do. Shallow work is done in a state of distraction and multi-tasking.
In other words, shallow work is meaningless work, and we can safely conclude that meaningless work, while easy, will bore and depress us.
The vicious cycle of shallow work is the more we’re bored and depressed by our shallow work the more we crave distractions like social media sharing, so that we become trapped in a cycle of shallow work and depression.
When we get jobs that require shallow work, we reduce ourselves to “human routers,” and as such we are very replaceable by new software and new machines. Does anyone want a job that reduces them to a “human router?”
What adds to this tragedy is that as teens we become acclimated to being addicted to our smartphones, social media sharing, and multi-tasking so that at a very young age we are conditioning ourselves for shallow work and depression.
Another tragedy is that shallow work can cripple us so that we may never be able to deep work. As Newport writes: “Spend your time in a state of frenetic shallowness and you permanently reduce your capacity to perform deep work.”
Four. What practical career matter does Cal Newport want to address in his book?
Newport is observing that as fewer and fewer people are engaging in deep work, deep work is becoming more and more prized so that to be able to perform deep work in this new environment makes one more sought after for the most desirable jobs.
In other words, committing yourself to deep work gives you a huge competitive advantage over shallow workers.
Newport presents this idea in his “Deep Work Hypothesis”:
The Deep Work Hypothesis: The ability to perform deep work is becoming increasingly rare at exactly the same time it is becoming increasingly valuable in our economy. As a consequence, the few who cultivate this skill, and then make it the core of their working life, will thrive.
Newport uses the example of Jason Benn who was a replaceable worker doing spreadsheets. He did shallow work and found himself addicted to distraction like checking his emails all the time. When he got replaced by a computer program, he forced himself to learn computer programming, a task that only deep workers can do.
He had to re-condition himself, unplug himself from his “drug”: smartphone distractions, and go into deep work. Only after becoming a deep worker did he surpass others in his field of computer science.
Your friends who think they’re cool, hip, and sexy being plugged in to their smartphones all day and night are conditioning themselves to be bottom-feeders, depressed members of the Shallow Work Society. Do you want to join their ranks or be a Deep Worker? It’s up to you.
Five. Why is deep work more important than ever?
Newport observes that we entering the Intellectual Machine Age, also called The Great Restructuring, in which robots and high-tech are replacing a significant amount of jobs. This job loss if very scary to the workforce.
However, there are 3 fields that will provide “lucrative” income to the American workforce and all 3 fields require deep work.
Being a superstar and a venture capitalist are 2 fields, but those fields are not realistic for most of us. However, Newport points to a third field that should interest us: Being able to work with Intelligent Machines.
The types of majors that allow us to work well with Intelligent Machines are computer science, math, and statistics.
All 3 of these majors require deep work. You’re not getting anywhere if you’re on your smartphone all day and night.
Six. What is deliberate practice and why is it important to deep work?
To do deep work, one must engage in deliberate practice, which requires two things:
One, is prolonged focus and this strains the mind. However, the longer you do prolonged focus the more you develop the myelin plasma shafts in your brain, which become thicker like bigger broadband. They are fatty tissue that allow brain circuits to fire in your brain. The stronger these brain circuits become the more they can fire effortlessly and effectively.
Later Newport explains that oligodenrocytes wrap layers of myelin around the neurons “cementing the skill.” Only intense focus achieves this.
Shallow work, in contrast, weakens the myelin brain circuits. Transforming yourself from a shallow to deep worker requires a re-hardwiring of your brain circuits.
Two, deliberate practice requires that you receive feedback so that you can correct and improve your approach.
Deliberate practice produces higher quality work. As Newport writes:
High-Quality Work Produced= (Time Spent) x (Intensity of Focus)
(The above formulation applies to students’ essays as well)
Seven. What is the relationship between multitasking and “attention residue”?
When we switch back and forth between Task A and Task B (and maybe Task D and C?), we suffer from attention residue in which the previous task is soaking our brain with residue that we’re not focused on the task at hand.
The result is loss of focus intensity, and this leads to mediocrity. We’re drifting into becoming “human routers” and bottom-feeders.
Critical Writing
Applying your critical thinking to academic writing
You will find that your task as a writer at the higher levels of critical thinking is to argue.
You will express your argument in 6 ways:
One. You will define a situation that calls for some response in writing by asking critical questions. For example, is the Confederate flag a symbol of honor and respect for the heritage of white people in the South? Or is the flag a symbol of racial hatred, slavery, and Jim Crow?
Two. You will demonstrate the timeliness of your argument. In other words, why is your argument relevant?
Why is it relevant for example to address the decision of many parents to NOT vaccinate their children?
Three. Establish your personal investment in the topic. Why do you care about the topic you’re writing about?
You may be alarmed to see exponential increases in college costs and this is personal because you have children who will presumably go to college someday.
Four. Appeal to your readers by anticipating their thoughts, beliefs, and values, especially as they pertain to the topic you are writing about. You may be arguing a vegetarian diet to people who are predisposed to believing that vegetarian eating is a hideous exercise in self-denial and amounts to torture.
You may have to allay their doubts by making them delicious vegetarian foods or by convincing them that they can make such meals.
You may be arguing against the NFL to those who defend it on the basis of the relatively high salaries NFL players make. Do you have an answer to that?
Five. Support your argument with solid reasons and compelling evidence. If you're going to make the claim that the NFL is morally repugnant, can you support that? How?
Six. Anticipate your readers’ reasons for disagreeing with your position and try to change their mind so they “see things your way.” We call this “making the readers drink your Kool-Aid.”
Being a Critical Reader Means Being an Active Reader
To be an active reader we must ask the following when we read a text:
One. What is the author’s thesis or purpose?
Two. What arguments is the author responding to?
Three. Is the issue relevant or significant? If not, why?
Four. How do I know that what the author says is true or credible? If not, why?
Five. Is the author’s evidence legitimate? Sufficient? Why or why not?
Six. Do I have legitimate opposition to the author’s argument?
Seven. What are some counterarguments to the author’s position?
Eight. Has the author addressed the most compelling counterarguments?
Nine. Is the author searching for truth or is the author beholden to an agenda, political, business, lobby, or something else?
Ten. Is the author’s position compromised by the use of logical fallacies such as either/or, Straw Man, ad hominem, non sequitur, confusing causality with correlation, etc.?
Eleven. Has the author used effective rhetorical strategies to be persuasive? Rhetorical strategies in the most general sense include ethos (credibility), logos (clear logic), and pathos (appealing to emotion). Another rhetorical strategy is the use of biting satire when one wants to mercilessly attack a target.
Twelve. You should write in the margins of your text (annotate) to address the above questions. Using annotations increases your memory and reading comprehension far beyond passive reading. And research shows annotating while reading is far superior to using a highlighter, which is mostly a useless exercise.
An annotation can be very brief. Here are some I use:
We begin by not worrying about being critical. We brainstorm a huge list of ideas and then when the list is complete, we undergo the process of evaluation.
Sample Topic for an Essay: Parents Who Don’t Immunize Their Children
Most parents who don’t immunize their children are educated and upper class.
They read on the Internet that immunizations lead to autism or other health problems.
They follow some “natural guru” who warns that vaccines aren’t organic and pose health risks.
They panic over anecdotal evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous.
They confuse correlation with causality.
Why are these parents always rich?
Are they narcissists?
Are they looking for simple answers for complex problems?
Would they not stand in line for the Ebola vaccine, if it existed?
These parents are endangering others by not getting the vaccine.
Thesis that is a claim of cause and effect:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children tend to be narcissistic people of privilege who believe their sources of information are superior to “the mainstream media”; who are looking for simple explanations that might protect their children from autism; who are confusing correlation with causality; and who are benefiting from the very vaccinations they refuse to give their children.
Thesis that is a claim of argumentation:
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be prosecuted by the law because they are endangering the public and they are relying on pseudo-intellectual science to base their decisions.
To test a thesis, we must always ask: “What might be objections to my claim?”
Prosecuting parents will only give those parents more reason to be paranoid that the government is conspiring against them.
There are less severe ways to get parents to comply with the need to vaccinate their children.
Generating Ideas for Our Essays
How do we prepare our minds so we have “Eureka” (I found it) moments and apply these moments to our writing?
The word eureka comes from the Greek heuristic, a method or process for discovering ideas. The principle posits that one thought triggers another.
Diverse and conflicting opinions in a classroom are a heuristic tool for generating thoughts.
Here’s an example:
One student says, “Fat people should pay a fat tax because they incur more medical costs than non-fat people.”
Another student says, “Wrong. Fat people die at a far younger age. It’s people who live past seventy, non-fat people, who put a bigger drain on medical costs. In fact, smokers and fat people, by dying young, save us money.”
Another heuristic method is breaking down the subject into classical topics:
Definition: What is it? Jealousy is a form of insanity in which a morally bankrupt person assumes his partner is as morally bankrupt as he is.
Comparison: What is it like or unlike? Compared to the risk of us dying from global warming, death from a terrorist attack is relatively miniscule.
Relationship: What caused it, and what will it cause? The chief cause of our shrinking brain and its concomitant reduced attention span is gadget screen time.
Testimony: What is said about it by experts? Social scientists explain that the United States’ mass incarceration of poor people actually increases the crime rate.
Another heuristic method is finding a controversial topic and writing a list of pros and cons.
Consider the topic, “Should I become a vegan?”
Here are some pros:
I’ll focus on eating healthier foods.
I won’t be eating as many foods potentially contaminated by E.coli and Salmonella.
I won’t be contributing as much to the suffering of sentient creatures.
I won’t be contributing as much to greenhouse gasses.
I’ll be eating less cholesterol and saturated fats.
Cons
It’s debatable that a vegan diet is healthier than a Paleo (heavy meat eating) diet.
Relying on soy is bad for the body.
My body craves animal protein.
Being a vegan will ostracize me from my family and friends.
One. Checklist for Critical Thinking
My attitude toward critical thinking:
Does my thinking show imaginative open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity? Or do I exist in a circular, self-feeding, insular brain loop resulting in solipsism? The latter is also called living in the echo chamber.
Am I willing to honestly examine my assumptions?
Am I willing to entertain new ideas—both those that I encounter while reading and those that come to mind while writing?
Am I willing to approach a debatable topic by using dialectical argument, going back and forth between opposing views?
Am I willing to exert myself—for instance, to do research—to acquire information and to evaluate evidence?
My skills to develop critical thinking
Can I summarize an argument accurately?
Can I evaluate assumptions, evidence, and inferences?
Can I present my ideas effectively—for instance, by organizing and by writing in a manner appropriate to my imagined audience?
One. In the context of Caleb Crain's "The Case Against Democracy" and Ilya Somin's "Democracy vs. Epistocracy" support, defend, or complicate the argument that an uninformed public lacking adequate critical thinking skills cannot support a democracy as we tend to idealize democracies but rather, at best, maintains a democracy so flawed many would argue that it cannot be called a democracy at all, but rather some grotesque sub-version of a democracy.
Four. In the context of Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "The Case for Reparations," defend, refute, or complicate that America is morally obligated to exact qualified African-Americans reparations for America's crime of an ongoing kleptocracy, which includes slavery, Jim Crow, and their ongoing legacy today.
Five. Develop an analytical thesis that shows how Jordan Peeles' movie Get Out builds on Ta-Nehisi Coates' notion of American kleptocracy.
Six. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that recycling is a liberal white middle class religion that speaks more to Kool-Aid-drinking tribalism than it does improving the Earth. Consult John Tierney's "The Reign of Recycling," Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism is a Religion," and Stephen Asma's "Green Guilt."
Seven. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that radical changes in the job market over the next 20 years due to robots and high-tech will compel country's to provide their citizens with a Universal Basic Income. Consult the following:
One. A dependent society is a dysfunctional society.
Two. A lack of self-reliance diseases the soul and corrupts society.
Three. Acute dependence leads to totalitarianism and dehumanization. See The Giver.
Four. Acute dependence breaks down the family unit. Parents aren't responsible for their children; the government is.
Five. Being "off the grid" makes one chronically depressed, non-productive, and unemployable.
Eight. Develop a thesis that in the context of the documentary Merchants of Doubt addresses the question: Should we have faith that "reason and faith can defeat propaganda and falsehoods." Or is such a message optimistic bias rooted in delusion?
Nine: Develop an analytical thesis that in the context of Merchants of Doubt explains the fallacies behind spin and how these fallacies can be constructed to effectively cause doubt and confusion over the legitimate claims of science.
Also known in its longer form: Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "After this therefore because of this"
Also known as Faulty Causal Assumption
Events happening in time don't necessarily have a causal connection.
The rooster crows and the sun comes up. The rooster does not cause the sun to rise. But some tribalistic cultures have a rooster god attributed with the rising of the sun.
Placebo Effect does not equal causation:
You drink an "energy drink" and you workout with more intensity at the gym because you're "psyched up," not because of your energy drink.
Correlation is not to be confused with causation:
You take a medicinal cocktail for your cold an your cold eventually goes away. But that's what colds do: They go away.
Post Hoc Fallacy Perpetuates Mythologies and Dangerous Ideas
The Post Hoc Fallacy as a dangerous idea is masterfully chronicled in Cal Newport's book So Good They Can't Ignore You.
One of the most dangerous lies of the last 40 years in America is that to find a career that makes you happy, you "should follow your passion" or "follow your bliss."
Cal Newport writes about how Steve Jobs of Apple perpetrated this lie famously in a video that went viral.
Rule #1: Don’t Follow Your Passion
Steve Jobs, as we know him, is a myth.
Not only is Steve Jobs a myth, he perpetuated a myth: “The only way to be great at your work is to love what you do. Don’t settle. Keep searching until you find your passion.”
“Follow your passion. Life is for the living.”
“Passion is the engine to living a life.”
Steve Jobs’ words are a disingenuous, empty clichés; they are false; they are dangerous; and he didn’t even apply those words to his life, his real life, not the mythical one people have been led to believe about him.
"Follow your passion" is sanctimonious BS, a lie, and a canard.
Steve Jobs is a perpetrator of the Passion Hypothesis, which says the following: The key to occupational happiness is to first figure out what you’re passionate about and then to find a job that matches this passion.
What is the real Steve Jobs story?
He never followed his passion to create Apple computer. Before Apple, he was living as a hippy on a commune and doing work with Atari. He travelled as a sort of nomad or vagabond, dabbling in Zen Buddhism, but really he lived the life of a dilettante, doing casual work here and there.
But then he needed money, and he Steve Wozinak who helped Steve Jobs sell model-kit computers at $500 a piece. Steve Jobs had no passion and no vision for some giant company that would take over the world. He wanted quick cash. That was it.
Once he saw an opportunity to make even bigger money, Steve Jobs busted his butt doing deep work to make himself competitive against the other people trying to make money in the same computer space.
Had Steve Jobs followed his passion, to be a lazy Buddhist monk living in Zen communes and travelling here and there, he would have never been able to compete against the burgeoning computer engineers.
He would have floundered.
He would have been a nobody.
He would have been a professional bum.
He would have been an annoying quasi-spiritual Zen-cliché-larded mountebank.
Steve Jobs Became Successful Because He Didn’t Follow His Passion
Steve Jobs didn’t follow his passion. He followed an opportunity and delivered by developing in himself a unique ability that made him valuable to others.
Following your passion is a lie.
Following your passion is canard.
Following your passion is the kiss of death.
Following your passion is an empty cliché spewed by sanctimonious, brain-dead mediocrities.
Cal Newport points out that Steve Jobs became passionate AFTER he mastered his craft, AFTER he honed his talent, AFTER he developed unique skills that allowed him to navigate a world-dominating computer company.
To attribute Steve Jobs' success to passion is Post Hoc Fallacy.
Passion is not something you feel when you're just starting out.
First, you’re going to suck at what you do. You have to go through the drudgery and mental strain of moving through your suck at it phase and reach a point of mastery.
It’s the endurance and drive to move past your “I suck at it” phase and reach a higher level of expertise that accounts for success and happiness.
Cal Newport goes on to explain that we can’t know what our passion is in the beginning. It’s rare that people have a clearly defined passion at a young age.
Complex Career Origin Principle
Cal Newport writes: “Compelling careers often have complex origins that reject the single idea that all you have to do is follow your passion.”
Real Passion Principle: Time and Mastery
“Passion takes time.” You have to cultivate it with deep work, undistracted focus on your craft.
To support the above, Yale researcher Amy Wizesniwski wanted to look at job happiness. She divided jobs in 3 ways:
One. A job is a way to pay the bills.
Two. A career is a path toward increasingly better work.
Three. A calling is work that is an important part of your life and a vital part of your identity.
Having a “dream job” wasn’t the key to happiness, AW found. She found that it was time spent on the job and mastery of the job.
Her findings contradict the lame Passion Hypothesis, that childish, infantile myth that all you have to do is find your passion and as soon as you get the job you are instantly happy. “You followed your bliss! Oh happy you!”
No Passion without Mastery
No Mastery without Deep Work
Deep Work is prolonged, distraction-free focus that causes mental discomfort.
Fewer and fewer people are doing deep work, which means it's becoming more rare and valuable.
“Passion is a side effect of mastery.”
Develop your mastery first. Then the passion comes as a natural result.
This reminds me of something Viktor Frankl writes: Don’t aim to be happy. Aim for a life of purpose and meaning and then happiness will be an unintentional byproduct.
How is the Passion Hypothesis harmful?
Newport argues if people believe there’s a right job out there waiting for them, they will never be happy. Such a job does not exist.
You don’t make the shoe fit you. You make yourself fit the shoe. You need to change. You need to develop the character of a master craftsman. That requires deep work. That requires shunning shallow work and distraction.
The real path to follow is not your passion, but a road of discipline, focus, and hard work that makes you so good they can’t ignore you.
And here we’ve arrived at the book’s title. “Be so good they can’t ignore you.” The quote is taken from Steve Martin when he’s asked to give advice on how to “make it.”
What two approaches can you have regarding your career?
You can have the craftsman mindset, which asks how much value you can produce for your job.
Or you can have a passion mindset, which asks how much your job can give you. This is an infantile orientation.
Essay Option about Democracy or Epistocracy
One. In the context of Caleb Crain's "The Case Against Democracy" and Ilya Somin's "Democracy Vs. Epistocracy," support, defend, or complicate the argument that an uninformed public lacking adequate critical thinking skills cannot support a democracy as we tend to idealize democracies but rather, at best, maintains a democracy so flawed many would argue that it cannot be called a democracy at all, but rather some grotesque sub-version of a democracy.
Uninformed populace: one-third of Americans believe that the Marxist adage "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is in the US Constitution.
Democracy is built on the assumption of a well-educated populace that has critical thinking skills: power to discern, judge, and interpret data effectively; a sense of historical context to make better judgments.
But there is evidence that millennials have no sense of history, and have no idea of the tyranny that created the Two Great Wars over a thirty-year period in world history.
Even worse, we read that only 30% of American millennials value democracy. If millennials had an acute understanding of the evils of fascism, they might be more passionate about democratic government, but without that historical context democracy is seen as just another corrupt oligarchy designed to help the 1%. But to compare defective democracies to fascism is a logical fallacy: fallacy of false moral equivalence.
Pro-rated voter meritocracy: the higher your education the more votes you get. For example, a non-college degree voter would get one vote in this system; a PhD would get 10 votes, to give an arbitrary example.
Epistocracy: government of the knowledgable: only the educated get to vote. But who's educated? The privileged. And will the privilege vote for self-interest rather than the nation.
Jason Brennan's defense of epistocracy: Educated voters are less racist than than non-educated voters. He speculates that 80% of uneducated white voters support racist policies such as mass incarceration for people of color. In an epistocracy a lot of racist policies would lose support.
Jason Brennan's 3 Voters:
hobbits: apathetic ignoramuses who are hooked to their smartphones so they can live a life of entertainment and "sharing"
hooligans: biased politically motivated trolls who don't consider opponents' views but simply live in their biased hate bubble; they're prone to reading fake news orchestrated by Russian operatives.
Hobbits and hooligans are not compatible with democracy because they can easily be manipulated by demagogic political hacks and mountebanks.
Vulcans are rational, educated, fair-minded critical thinkers, the only specimen compatible with democracy. Tragically, democratic society has en ever-shrinking populace of Vulcans.
Conservatives object to Jason Brennan's book largely in part because Brennan portrays Vulcans as people who, having no preconceived political biases, learn to embrace naturally-occurring liberal beliefs and policies.
Roslyn Fuller rejects Brennan's case for epistocracy in LA Review of Books. You can use this source.
Sample Thesis from a Liberal Who Agrees with Jason Brennan's Liberal Point of View
In a society degraded by hobbits and hooligans, we would be well served to embrace Jason Brennan's epistocracy, which would encourage the fair-minded power of the Vulcans and make for a more fair and just society evidenced by ____________________, ____________________, ___________________, and _________________________-.
Sample Thesis from a Conservative Who Disagrees with Jason Brennan's Liberal Point of View
While I concede that our society is "polluted," to use Brennan's term, with hobbits and hooligans, Brennan's argument for empowering a rational, educated Vulcan society through an epistocracy is no epistocracy at all but an elitist liberalocracy in which the only Vulcans Brennan will entertain are liberal, NPR-listening, yoga-practicing, organic vegetarian Vulcans evidenced in his book by ______________, _______________, ________________, and _________________.
