Questioning by Topic
1:36PM Jul 24, 2019
Okay, let's see if we're working here. Alright, so let's get back to it. Okay. Now yesterday, it's a, you should have one of these in front of you, yes, you have this, this is like the, this is the circulatory system of the class. This is essentially what I'm trying to give you. If there's anything I want to give you to take with you into college, it's the ability to, at least at minimum, take an idea and unfold it. Okay? I cannot stress this enough. The truth of the matter is little five week class in the summer for the first year, your first UT class, being a bridge student, you're not going to hold on too much that I'm saying, You're really not going to take much what I'm saying seriously. And I don't presume to be the expert about your entire political experience. What I've decided over my years of teaching, the course, is trying to figure out what a student can use conceptually, that will make them better in their college coursework. I'm unlike the other class, but Miss Russell is probably a little more focused on some of the features of the college life and so far as like, better taking notes, better organisation better time management, I think all those things are important. But none of those things will make you better in the classes themselves. They're like, cushioning to the outside of the class, what I want to do is I want to try to help you think like a collegiate person. That's why I focus on trying to colleges conversation. Now, I want you to remember three extremely important stages, right? Everything is a conversation. All conversations, ultimately are about some kind of claim what I'm called an argument. Okay. And all those conversations and arguments usually centre on what? That's true, but this is not the T. It says something else. Yes, a text. Behold, yeah, it worked. Next time he falls, Mr. Walker's teeth run beside you, you soak it all up? You know, just give me your favourite. Right? Yeah. Okay. So this is the issue, there's always a text, there's always some kind of claiming argument. And there's always some kind of conversation. So I started from the outside in, I started by saying, think like a conversation, think like the conversation. Now I'm coming closer and closer to the text. This is my, my key contribution is to give you a strategy, which will allow you to move from here to here, we just read a text from Plato, that if I didn't sit here and narrate the whole thing, you probably would have folded it up and put it away. Because you would have thought the text was too odd. It was all language, it didn't make sense, you didn't like the structure of the syntax, you probably would have just discarded after me opening up that text and peeling it apart and showing you what is in that what the claims of that text are. By drawing it out. By doing all that kind of stuff, it started to come to life to you, and you can feel the claim, you can feel the claim that Plato was making, and that is that some of you are in the shadows and don't know it. That's the claim that simple. But you wouldn't have seen that right away, if you would have just discarded the text because many of you will approach the text unless it has bright, bold new york times signs on it that are flashing, bold definition, bold definition, Chapter questions, whatever. As long as it's not flashing and stuff, you usually leave the text behind. Of course, it's quote, unless I love this one. Do you read? Yeah, I mean, I read I mean, the things that interest me and I'm like, Oh, you mean just the shadows, you've seen your whole life, right anyway, that you don't read anything, unless you know, it already provoked something you already believe. So you're never going to come from not knowing to know it. Right? You're always going to be in the place of knowing what you already know.
Is everybody get that?
Right. That's what I'm trying to give you this space right here. And what I'm trying to the best tool that you have, right in here is this tool and model. And remember, this tullman model is structured and says arguments always sort of have this relationship. And there's always what's right here. They all pivot on this thing. It's right in the middle of circle. Right? Think of the text is this right here, the text is always making a claim. And that claim is always in relationship to data. There's data in the text, and there's claim and down here underneath the ground, you're always something in your belly. And that is what more warrant now. So your question to your comment, Alex, this is where the emotions oftentimes are attacked. So we're talking about food, like, we might know, the claim that the food is dangerous. And all the data suggests that that Warren down there that we should eat whatever we want, or we should be feel good about it is so inaccessible, so far down there, it's hard to get away from it. Now, one thing I didn't tell you is, you'll know sit below the war on your diagram, you'll see two little boxes coming off the bottom of the bottom. And those are what we would call backing. Okay. warrants are often reinforced by cultural backing. Let me see if I can explain this. And I'm going to use a sensitive example. And I'm not so sensitive example. Let's suppose that a kid 16 year old kid is arguing with their parents about whether they should be able to drive a car or not, or get a licence or something, right. They say their claim is I should actually let's change it not licenced I shouldn't build a movies, everybody's had this argument, like,
I should be able to go to the movies.
And it might not be movies, it could be whatever. It's wherever you want to go hang out with your teeny bopper friends. And you're saying this Now, before we get to the data, let's jump down here to the warrant down there in the warrant somewhere there is this belief that a 16 year old, it should be free to do these activities for whatever reason. Yeah, we can call it right, if you want. This is what the 16 year old who's arguing this beliefs. Now the dad may have a different warrant. Right? The dads more is that a 16 year old is a subservient little snot and should do whatever I said. Right? And therefore they're going to disagree with the claim. By the way, what kind of claim Do we have based on the five that I showed you yesterday?
it's a proposal plan, right? I should be able to do this. Right. So we got a proposal plan. Those five, by the way, on your chart are the ones that go over here, the five different types of plans. So the kid says I should be able to go the Warren is I have 1616 year olds should have free activities. Now the student or the kid never says this, right? Imagine saying that arguing with your dad, I want to go to the movies. He said, Well, I don't know why you think you should, because 16 year olds should be free and exercise their right of India. But you don't say that, right? That's somewhere down your belt, you're working from it, not with it. It's something you already believe in, you assume this is the thing about the warrant, you assume that the person you're arguing with or making the claim to shares that warrant? But they don't. That's why you keep getting into fights with your parents over and over. And over and over. Go ahead. Do you think like you said, share, acknowledge, at least, maybe not share, but you do end up acknowledging it, the more the argument evolves and rolls around, you starts to push itself up to the surface. So yes, at that point, I think you're acknowledging it. What I mean by Sherry's, like, I might be sitting here thinking that you love this reading just as much as I do, because you see, reading is this enlightened opportunity and growth. And the reality is, you might not share that one. And I can only catch that, that you don't share that warrant. When I continually observe your data. This is not a day, okay? But your posture, your sleepiness, your comments, your paper or non paper, right, whatever it might be, that what I'm getting at is that data starts to tell me that you and I don't have the same morning that we're not operating from the same subterranean plane. Now it doesn't cause anger in me. This is why the emotional posture is important. It doesn't cause angry me what it does is it suggests that I need to approach it differently. Now, cultural backing is anything in the society that continues to reinforce this belief in the 16 year old kid, remember, the six year old kid thinks you should be free to do each one now what in culture kills the kids that
good social media instances?
Right? Other people is so his, uh, let's call his local community. He's seen it before. Yep, he's friends. He's watched it. He's watched it on thousands of movies, right? With a 16 year old gets in the hot rod, they go off gallivanting around. The point is, this stuff is not part of the data. It's part of the cultural framework that holds that warrant in place. This should help you understand this is why racial, ethnic, gender prejudice works the way that it does. People don't just like willy nilly pop out of the woodwork and be like, I hate that kind of person. I hate that lady. Just because they're a lady. It doesn't work like that. It works because it cultural framework has reinforced some subterranean belief, they don't even know that they have. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. And that if you're going to pull that out of the dirt and up to the top, it's going to take long, laborious work. And what people have realised over generations, you know, decades and even centuries, is that if we're going to dislodge this warrant, we've got to dislodge the backing. You follow? Yeah. With like, the dads are? Yep. Well, I think the example I gave is the 16 year olds are just kids and they're snotty and they shoot whatever I say, the dad might operate from the war that the 16 European is my ninth property. A lot of times parents don't know that they operate and they think of kids as property. But they do. They think of them as investments. I send my kids to this high school and I pay 20 grand a year he better get an A Damn it. And then they go they do. They march into the teachers room. And they're like, what's wrong? You know, I literally went to school with a girl and her mom was exactly right. So she's on ready for Sunday. She her claim is going to be he's smarter. But her warrant is we paid for this, right? And so it's hard to see those things. And oftentimes they come into conflict. So to go back to the prejudicial example, let's take gender equity pay. So you have a you have a male up here saying there's no, there's no pay gap, right? And he's saying look at the beta, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But down here, what he believes is that men are superior, or they work harder, or they're physically whatever. And usually, sometimes they'll say that even up here in the data, but it's because all the cultural framework around him reinforces male superiority. There's more males on sports on TV. There's more movies that sale with that the selling point on male dominated films are better than female dominated films Academy Awards up if you saw the research on this in the last Academy Award run. The film's we're in the top like 10, the speaking parts were determined between males and females. And it was like males 80% of the talking was done by males and the films that were higher ranked. Little things like that. That's not because somebody down here going, that's really screw those ladies cut our Slack, slack. No, it recycles itself, because it's culturally conditioned in such a way that it's really hard to dislodge. This has the roots that are burrowed down in here. So the questions we always have to ask and dislodging any kind of claim or any kind of argument, or when we want to dispute what we're doing and disputing is not just coming down here and say, You're an idiot, you begin in man who hates women, you're a misogynist pig,
and then we run off, that's
probably not helping. Probably what that's doing is entrenching this male deeper into is already held belief that women are angry. It actually grows his route, you follow him saying here are no. So what has to happen ultimately, is that at some level, there's a keras pulling apart any there are times when you show this person, they believe this, it, it's a shadow, and it will be painful for them. That's an okay day. So to put that aside, so we have a sensitive example. And we have a common example. Now here's the here's the real bugger. For most students, when they come through a text, I will inevitably get an email that says, I've written x, y, z sentences, and I just can't come up with anything else. Countless students will say this, when they write papers will say, Well, I don't know what else I need to add. And it's precisely because they've not asked enough questions, you have got to be willing to ask questions that don't go anywhere, in order to get somewhere. It's the same way with the game, the longer you sit there and stare at me and don't ask any questions about chip and buzzy, the more stagnant it gets and dies. It just sits and sits and sits and says. So what kind of questions can we ask? So here's what I'm going to say. There are five different kinds of questions. And this is where you have to be careful. They look remarkably like the claims, but they're different. The data is not the claim. It's the raw information on which the claim is built or is related to is Everybody understand that? Okay. But the data itself can be discovered by asking questions that look like the claim. For example, Aristotle, and Cicero after him, there was this common idea of the ancient world that you had what were called common topics. Okay. You think of the word topic? To me something you write about, like what topic you're writing about top hos TOPOS, the Greek term quite literally means a place or an area. Okay. So let me go back to my visual example before, okay. Then I use the example of dissecting the pig yesterday. Okay, let's go back to that. So the dissecting the paint the pig is the text, yes, we go with pay is you back up, and you're trying to find out the claim that the big is made. Right, here's what I want you to see. My interpretation of the claim is based on where I'm standing. This is another perspective. This is another perspective, you see what's happening, I'm enlarging my understanding of the text by sort of moving around a into quote, different places. While Aristotle's argument was in your brain or in your mind, or in your thinking, there are different places to put your feet down, and different ways to ask questions of a text. One of the reasons we have a hard time we say, Well, I'm watching ivory tower, and I'm writing disputation, but all I'm seeing is this one thing. And I've written like two lines about actually what else to write is to keep standing in the same spot seeing the same thing over and over and over. And the problem is, that's a weak argument or ends up being a weak claim, because you've got very narrow data. So how do you enlarge the data I have to move with here, look at something different. I have to not just looking at the liver, the circulatory system, but I'm also looking at maybe how the gallbladder might have influenced liver problems, have to move and move and move in move and move. So the first place to stand what Aristotle said was comparison, the first sort of this would be called a common topic. The first kind of question you can ask him any data is how to compare two things. Okay, this is where it gets a little bit difficult because this is not it's, it is instinctive in one sense, but it's not another, we oftentimes will ask how is it similar or dissimilar to Why? Okay, now, that may not make sense right yet, but watch what I'm about to do.
Up here on the data, I should go to the movies. What is a
kid usually say in order to argue that he or she should go to the movies? What's one of their data? points? Pardon? Right? If because others are doing it? Now notice how that's related to this. replace the variable x with me and replace a variable why with other people? Do you see it? How am I similar to similar other people with a kid is saying, I'm just like others? If they do, then
you do it so naturally, in so quickly, and you're building your claim you're building claiming your first data point is, Will others do it to what you don't realise is you're standing in the realm of comparison, that's your strategy. Your strategy for stat establishing data for your claim? Is comparison. I'll start with a comparison. You might what's a deeper comparison that kids often use, or or high schoolers often use, not just other people are doing it even more specific.
What about a sibling?
Tell me how you use it.
Right? When they were 16, you let her go? Why should I go? Right? How was it similar to Why? Right? So you might argue that you're similar to a sibling for one reason or another. Or you can also argue that you're different than the sibling. She didn't get to go. Because she's the lazy good for nothing, blah, blah, blah. I'm not like her.
You should trust me.
What I'm saying here is the conceptual strategy for establishing one of my data points for my claim is to use comparison.
The I can't say it enough, what I'm getting
at is, in order to expand the data, there are certain ways to look at the text. One way to look at the text is to use the lens of comparison, find out at similar to why.
So let's use
let's use the Republic, but we just read.
Notice I did it when I asked you a question. So this person is sitting in the cave, looking at the shadows on the wall, what did I compare it to the shadows? Great, great. So I basically was opening the text up helium part, but asking myself the question, how many shadows in the Republic similar to
grades in the current world?
But I could also be asking, not how just how are they similar? But how are they What?
How are they different? And why would that be valuable? Because I could argue while shafted say that shadows and grace or dissimilar, this one important respect. grades are an important currency. In our society, the shadows in this cave are not currency. You don't use them for anything. You don't get anything because you know what they are. In our society, you do get stuff for having them be following me or no. Now, if I was writing my dissertation on the Republic, I could take Plato to task just because I've asked myself a better question. I've asked myself a Plato's text. Wait a second. Now, Howard, very similar to shadows. Okay, I can see the connexion.
But I also should ask, why are they different?
They're different than this one important,
see what else? And then again, this whole other paragraph or two paragraphs, so the data expands when I ask better questions. Everybody follow me so far, right? By the way, do you see that this is really similar to a certain claim?
You have a claim on the other side of the T chart
that looks a lot like this.
Sort of the our
resemblance is this thing is like that thing,
right? So again, it's going to be easy to confuse the claims on one side from the data on the other, they are very similar. But remember, what I'm trying to show you on data is ways to expand the information to strengthen the claim.
Stay on there we go.
Okay, the next one is definition.
Play. Aristotle also says one thing you can ask that idea is you get asked questions about how things are defined. What kind of thing is x? One of the things parts of x? Alright. So let's say we were talking about the Republic.
actually, let's go up here.
Okay, great, great, great, great, great,
perfect, good, good, good. Okay. Um, should be able to go to the movies. What does it kids gonna say about the movies in order to convince their parents that they should be able to go?
what some of the things I could say about movies.
They can say that a movie is educational. What else could they say? will get the parents saying contradistinction
or an opposition violent?
Gil backers will get violent. What do you mean by adult supervision? You can't be there without into the rain. Okay. Okay, so let's put those violent together and say that the movie is born.
Okay, that's good. That's good word.
Okay. Now, I want you to see that these are two different definitions. If this definition holds, then the parents more inclined that is inclined to say yes. If this definition holds, are more inclined to say no. If you define movies as a community experience, right? And notice you do this, right? You want something from someone, you redefine it, you do it all the time. You want the boyfriend to not run away from you, because he's a free will. And whatever. He's not giving you the time of day, you redefine. I mean, isn't this what DTR is? Ryan, you ever heard that term, define the relationship, it's this moment, we have to get together and find out whether we're serious, or whether we've just been hooking up hooking up was not a word that we used in my day. But that happens, you have to get together and talk about it. And you always want to pick the right term, so that you keep the person in the relationship but not too close, but not too far. So you're like, wow, we don't want to say boyfriend but you know, we're interested in we were seeing each other, we liked each other. There's a whole slew of terms like seeing hooking up dating steady things we don't use anymore going out. I always say to people, are you attached? And they're like, I don't know what that means. Yeah, exactly. Most people like, I don't know what you mean by attached. I'm like, that's the most benign phrasing that I know how to use. It means are you to belong together somehow in some way. But depending on how you define that, that's going to change the claims. If you over here saying a partner should
be like this,
depending on how you're going to define that term, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, roommate, whatever. Depending how you're going to define that is going to change the nature of the plan. You see this or not? Miss happens constantly. Sports.
Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, what kind of claim is that?
What kind of claim? Is it?
Based on what I've told you.
Right? What was the clue?
Better. Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning. Definition over here. greatness is defined by championships. Right? You want to if the other person is already with you is going to rotate around and definitions that greatness is defined by legacy statistics, attitude, if you change the definition, everything moves with it. So one of the strategies in developing the data is asking the question, what kind of things x Now
why does this keep saying X and
Y? Those are just variables.
You can put anything in there. If I'm arguing with a parent, about whether I should be able to go to the movies, I can ask what kind of thing is x and I could put movies in there. But I could I could ask what kind of thing is going
to sound silly.
One of the parents pushing me in I want to move the argument a new direction, all of a sudden say going that the point is I The point is to like, be headed towards more independence. This is a symbol of me growing up, going to the movies is like going into my adulthood you always tell me dad that I want to you want me to be more independent and you want me to be more grown up? This is a form of doing that. So I'm asking you, right? It's complete Papi con, he's probably not going to believe me. But I can shift to the direction.
A third kind. We gotta get out of here.
Let me get these last two. It doesn't mean like pack up your stuff and walk out means I know that it's lasting long. The last the last ones. This one is relation. relation is what caused What if I'm arguing with dad, about
from army with dad about
didn't want to go to the movies. I might use a causal argument relation argument. Listen that if you let me go to the movies this time, it'll be easier next time. Or dad, if you let me go to the movies. I will do the leaves tomorrow on Saturday. Right causal arguments. The next time from there is circumstance. A circumstantial argument is going to be things like that I have the money that I have the keys the car, nobody's using the car. It means the conditions are right. For this thing to occur.
The conditions are right for the thing to occur.
Sorry, it's all wonky there. And the last one is authority. We'll explore these in more detail the moral authority is somebody has said something that's validated your argument.
Mom says it's going to be fine.
Or you know, Jesse's mom says it's gonna be fine. Thanks.
There's Jesse's girl.
don't forget this one critical element. critical element is these are tools to expand the data. So y'all tomorrow