Ethos, Portos, and Logos

No, not the three musketeers. These are the three things you need to persuade people: credibility, emotion and logic (Aristotle in On Rhetoric). EV, in a comment on my post on Critical Reading, pointed out an article called Classical Rhetoric, on the wonderfully named website, The Art of Manliness.

I’m trying to work this information into a lesson on Rhetoric, which, because of how closely they relate to adolescent development, the emergence of abstract thinking, and how we establish our place in the world, I’m hoping to stick into the Personal World curriculum.

To start with, here are my notes on Ethos:

Credibility (Ethos)

Credibility, the quality of being believable, depends on two things: the trustworthiness of the person, and their demonstrated knowledge of the issue at hand.

Character

We believe good men more fully and more readily than others. … his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. – Aristotle

Credibility and strength of character count, even in the simplest of things. The answer to the question, “Did you take the last cookie?” will only be believed if the questioner trusts the person being asked to answer honestly.

Adolescents, who tend to be idealistic and opportunistic, need to pay close attention to the idea that history and reputation matter. They sometimes tend to view each individual encounter as it’s own separate event, unaffected by all the previous encounters and similar events. It is essential to recognize that this is not the case.

Credibility is most important because, although the cookie is a small thing, if you say, “No,” while the answer should be, “Yes,” then when the big questions come up, no matter how logical your arguments, you have no basis on which to persuade. Trust and character are hard to build, but easy to destroy.

Graphing calculator pro. – Free app

Until tomorrow (Jan. 5th, 2011), the Graphing Calculator Pro iPod app is free (thanks Josh). It can do a lot, so it might take a minute figure out how to do the graphs and it can be a little fiddly (you can scale both axes separately, for example, which is nice unless you don’t intend to), but I like it. After just a couple of minutes, the student who found it was already playing with slopes.

The Brett Farve Graph

So we’re studying graphs (data representation) for math this cycle. Slate Labs has a neat scattergram showing Brett Farve’s vacillating comments about his likelyhood of retierment for the last three years.

Rewards and motivation

… tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation.
— Desi et al., 1999.

Edward Deci (and others) published a paper (pdf) in 1999 that analyzed a whole bunch of earlier studies on how extrinsic rewards affect motivation. Their conclusion is that rewards are generally bad because rewards prevent people from learning how to motivate themselves.

… the primary negative effect of rewards is that they tend to forestall self-regulation. In other words, [expectation of rewards] undermine people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves
— Desi et al., 1999.

So while they may work in the short term, rewards do long-term damage.

When institutions—families, schools, businesses, and athletic teams, for example—focus on the short term and opt for controlling people’s behavior, they may be having a substantially negative long-term effect.
— Desi et al., 1999.

They also find that rewards can push you into a negative feedback loop, because to properly administer a reward you usually need increased monitoring and you produce more competition. Both of these undermine intrinsic motivation so you’re left with using more extrinsic rewards. (think also of high-stakes testing and No Child Left Behind).

So what to do? Desi et al. report that:

intrinsic motivation … requires environmental supports. …the necessary supports are opportunities to satisfy the innate needs for competence and self-determination.

(Note: I found out about this article while reading Daniel Pink’s, Drive).

Drive: How to exploit intrinsic motivation.

So my holiday present from the Head of School was Daniel Pink’s 2009 book, Drive. I’m much happier reading scientific papers and books based directly on them, like Lillards’ Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius, than mass-market, self-help publications, but I’m supposed to get through it so we can have a discussion during our inservice. However, since I’d read a favorable review of the book last April I’m willing to give this one a chance, despite the desperate lack of information on the back and the sad pandering to business-minded readers in the blurb on the inside cover.

My antipathy toward self-help books, is based largely, I think, on the possibly erroneous belief that these books tend to be anecdotal, unsupported by science, or even to start with a scientific basis (however poorly understood) and stretch it into wonderful realms of possibility where it was never meant to go.

I also find it hard to credit books that tend to be awfully culture-specific. The worst ones come from certain myopic cultural niches that I find it hard to identify with. Even the stuff that based on rigorous science (as rigorous as far as the social sciences can be at least) tend to be based on the sub-population within the scientists’ easiest reach: WEIRD people from Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democracies.

Anyway, I’m in the middle of chapter one, and the book is actually quite good. Drive is well written for a general audience, so it lacks the concision that would make me happier; I’m already familiar with quite a bit about what he writes, and I’m a little crunched for time this break. The science so far is still based mostly on WEIRD people (though the first studies were done with other primates), but at least it’s an easy read.