Rhetorical Analysis Of Malcolm Gladwell's 'Brain Candy'

There is no doubt that television holds a purpose in our society today, but is that purpose brain-numbing or actually beneficial to our brain development? The television, also known as: TV, the boob tube, the idiot box, as well as many other nicknames, has been around for almost a hundred years. Ever since cable TV became popular in the 1950’s, there has always been a worry that people watch too much TV. Most people believe that with exorbitant exposure to the popular media both dumbs us down as well as makes us more likely to tolerate acts of violence. Dana Stevens’ “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” argues that television does not make you smarter, directly

Accredited journalist, Malcolm Gladwell, delves into the hidden truth behind the subconscious mind and explores the psychological process of intuitive thinking, both good and bad, in the novel Blink. Gladwell’s purpose is to exploit how the unconscious works and to expose the connection between your intuition and the real world which helps educate the reader on how to develop advanced decision making skills. He adopts an informative and passionate tone in order to establish credibility with his older audience and emphasize his dedication toward his works. Through the use of rhetorical questions and repetition, Gladwell demonstrates that a thin-slice of information can be used to deduce deeper comprehension.

Pop culture has been seen in the past to be a main ingredient in making our country’s I.Q. drop, or well, that the overall population is going to become dumber because of its rise. However, Malcolm Gladwell has felt differently, and decided to produce an article on how pop culture has effected the smarts of our country. In Malcolm Gladwell’s article “Brain Candy”, Gladwell effectively uses rhetorical appeals to prove his argument.

Technology nowadays always use to have so much information at our fingertips, but is this a good thing? That is what Jamais Cascio’s “Get Smarter” and Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?” both discuss; they specifically address the effects that new technology, such as the internet, has on the way humans think. The difference is that Carr argues that this new technology is making us stupid while Cascio argues that it is making us smarter. Nicholas Carr’s article discusses the negative effects of the internet and technology like it. It specifically mentions slight changes in the way people do things because of the influence of technology and gives many historical and anecdotal examples. Jamais Cascio’s article is about the advancements of technology and how it is makes people smarter. Cascio talks about Twitter, mental enhancement drugs and AIs, focusing a lot on the benefits of the advancements.

In the article “Watching TV Makes You Smarter," Steven Johnson argues why and how television can make you smarter. In another article, “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box," Dana Stevens contradicts everything Steven Johnson said in his article about television making people more intelligent.

In chapter one of The Dumbest Generation, Mike Bauerlein makes several statements about our generation and comes to a conclusion that helps set the groundwork for the entire book. His analysis of today’s youth states that the current generation is lacking when it comes to intellectual knowledge. He provides evidence that states that today’s under-thirty population in the United States does not have adequate knowledge, and their lack of knowledge with affect them greatly in their adulthood years.

Along with the progression of society, major advances have been made in hundreds of different fields — particularly technology. Controversy has risen, and debates ensued over whether today's young Americans are really “the dumbest generation,” due to their “money, media, e-gadgets, and career plans” [Source A]. While advances have been made, they have brought with them resources to benefit off of, and ultimately assist in the overall intellect and intelligence of the human race.

Gladwell opts for the discussion of playing with the readers emotions, each of which affects a different demographic group. Thus, he succeeds in effectively creating a relationship between the audience and pathos using emotional appeal from the beginning to the end of his article. Gladwell uses “real world” problems to create a bond between his article and the reader, such as the racial profiling of terrorist and everyday people of the same descent. After meeting with New York City’s police commissioner, he states, ““We have a policy against racial profiling,” Raymond Kelly, New York City’s police commissioner, told me. “I put it in here in March of the first year I was here. It’s the wrong thing to do, and it’s also ineffective. If you look at the London bombings, you have three British citizens of Pakistani descent, in that case, who is going to be profiled?” If you guessed the British citizens of Pakistani descent, then you are correct. Most of the readers were likely not aware of New York City’s policy of racial profiling or any profiling laws and the negative effect it has on ethnic people for that matter. Gladwell is really toying with your emotions because he is using these metaphors to inhibit the feeling of being dejected within his audience. We tend as people to not worry about the sadness that is present in society, but Gladwell makes it a priority to bring out the sadness within the effects of racially profiling.

Rhetorical Analysis After reading “10,000 Hours”, by Malcolm Gladwell, I see some flaws in the writing of his argument. At the beginning, he talks about it being obvious that there is such a thing as innate talent but by the end he disagrees with that. There is a difference between practicing and being born with talent and all he really covers is practicing and being great from the practicing. I believe there are two ways to be successful: practice and being born with talent.

Few people have the ability to look at someone and tell exactly what they are thinking, and whether or not they are lying. Author Malcolm Gladwell, uses the stories of famous psychologist Paul Ekman and others gifted with the ability to "read people well" to argue that people can be naturally born with this ability, gradually develop it, or learn it purposefully later on. In his essay, "The Naked Face", Gladwell suggests that there could be more to this skill than what meets the eye through complex appeals to logos, pathos, ethos.

It is believed by many that younger generations, those under the age of thirty are the “dumbest”. Apparently, technology has now influenced and molded people into less-intelligent individuals who lack the knowledge and skills that people of the same age once acquired. Though if we look at more aspects of their learning capabilities, millennials do have the potential to be bright beings, now seen through more creative, non-traditional ways. And because of this, younger generations cannot be undermined as they have high levels of cognitive abilities, the help from technology, and how technology makes them write more and be more involved with their interests. Younger generations are not limited in their cognitive abilities, rather these abilities are expanding as time progresses.

In life, people tend to overthink and overanalyze certain situations and events that occur around them; in reality they should be focusing more on their instincts and quick decisions. This is exactly the point that Malcolm Gladwell makes in the intro to his book, Blink. In order to successfully get this point across, Gladwell blends together a number of different strategies and devices. This is a common practice for established authors, using literary and rhetorical devices in order to keep the audience interested in what they are saying. In the intro to Blink, Gladwell uses the rhetorical devices of plot progression, allusion, and narration to present his beliefs in a way the reader can easily understand.

A highly debated topic that has recently appeared in the headlines is the question: Do TV shows stimulate cognitive development? In his article, Watching TV Makes You Smarter, author Steven Johnson vouches for the acceptance of TV as an effective cognitive enhancement for both children and adults. His main contention hinging on the fact that TV story lines have increased in complexity and ambiguity over the years, Johnson argues that watching modern shows like 24 and The Sopranos challenges our minds to track multiple threads and stimulates our thought processes to connect the dots between story lines. In other words, vegging in front of a TV screen has now become an intellectually stimulating activity because keeping track of modern plot lines requires mental expenditure. However, I think Johnson is mistaken because he fails to adequately acknowledge that modern TV has dulled our minds to the increasing violence and gore, lowered our standards of right and wrong, and encouraged an addiction-like obsession to the gripping

It could very well be true that over the past 20 years, television programming has developed in such a way as to demand more cognitive participation. However, watching TV is not the societal benefit Johnson makes it out to be. Johnson’s claim that TV is overall a beneficial societal force fails to account for the indirect effects of watching TV. It may be true that the cognitive demands of watching an episode of 24 do in fact stimulate brain function as opposed to diminish it. However, when a person sits down in front of the TV, he is choosing to do so instead of reading, studying, doing his homework, or exercising. These things are undisputedly beneficial to society. When one spends his time in front of the TV screen, it is time he is taking away from actually getting smarter.

In Watching TV makes you smarter, published in "The New York Times" on April 24, 2005, Steven Johnson argues for the multiple threads, fewer flashing arrows and social networking that make modern Television nourishing cognitive food. In answer to Johnson's article, "Carrie" posted Does watching TV make you stupid? on May 1, 2005. Carrie presents further blogs on May 3rd and May 7th, 2005; however, the gist of her arguments are contained in her first blog. Comparing the logic of Johnson's argument for and Carrie's argument against Television as cognitive food, I believe that Johnson presents the more convincing argument.