NYT article analysis

FIRST NAMES Chabris and Simons cite scientific reports and their own experience using the rhetorical devices of ethos, logos and pathos, to report on the problem of relying on memory alone.WE KNOW THAT. THIS ISN’T A THESIS. WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? HOW DO THEY USE THE RHETORICAL TRIANGLE?

The problem with relying on memory is that one’s memory oftentimes recalls broken down facts. FIRST NAMES Chabris and Simons brought up an experiment conducted by Sir Frederic Charles Bartlett where one subject passes a message to the next, until the content of the message changes from its origin. The longer the passage of time from the origin of the memory the more hazy the memory becomes. Chabris and Simons also make a connection on the problem of overconfidence. A lot of the audience is guilty of this as we become too self-relying on memory. Many times when recalling a memory we act on emotion. Chabris and Simons state that we see ourselves as right and everyone else must be wrong. Chabris and Simons cite a couple of scientific studies to back their claims. They used a paper that was published by psychologists Henry L. Roediger III and K. Andre Desoto. The experiment conducted by Roediger and Desoto showed that the higher the confidence the lower the accuracy. They even cited the National Academy of Sciences report to the courts, on how courtrooms should rely more on initial statements and not later recalling’s in the courtroom. Chabris and Simons relied on facts and studies to support their claims. But they do play with the audiences emotions a bit when they stated that, “…experiences have led to false convictions and, even death sentences.” They show the audience the dangers of relying entirely on memory and not bringing in more reliable sources. To be able to express all of this, Chabris and Simons use an objective tone throughout the entirety of the article. They cite a numerous amount of scientific sources and even have themselves been a part of a panel on the topic of witness recollection making them credible writers on the topic.

The top three comments up voted by readers relied mostly on logos and ethos than pathos. Neil Degrasse Tyson, who was a subject in the paper, chimes in with his own briefings on the topic. It was refreshing for readers to see his perspective on the topic of memory, as he was someone who was directly tied to the article. He presents both logos and ethos giving his own account on memory. Another commenter, fact checked Chabris and Simons’ claim of “Mr. Bush… intelligent, educated people”, made the other comment. Using logos he showed Bush’s incompetence, which brought out ethos in the ay that many of the audience are not fond of Bush’s presidency, invoking bad memories. The last commenter used ethos mainly to show a sympathetic side to those who don’t recollect correctly. Many readers sympathize with having hazy memories. New York Times picked comments that directly use ethos, with commenters being self reflective on the topic, with mostly them discussing how we should do more to reduce false recollections. Readers were interested with the facts of the article while the New York Times picks were interested in how the readers view memory failure. The New York Times are effective in splitting reader rated comments and editor rated comments. It shows two sides to what matters most to the different reader.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: