Listen to the podcast:

Chat

1. That's one way to Ornithopter
   • It's a mechanical bird thing. Not sure if it comes with the sweet model.
2. OMSI dinosaur exhibit
   • Because dinosaurs.
3. Bridgeport Village: Premiere shopping center in “Portland”
   • It's not really Portland. Adam goes out to Farburnbri to eat out of Asian pans and watch a popular film.
4. Dave takes animated movies seriously enough to voice an opinion but not seriously enough to see on a screen larger than a wallet…
   • Nor seriously enough to articulate a very good opinion. There exist many better critiques, for example.
5. Dave’s talk was. So there’s that.
   • But the conference was good!
   • This is W. Lewis Johnson’s company.

Segues are weird.

 

Penultimate section of interview with Jen Briselli

You can review the last episode by reading the show notes from last time.

Once again, we'll add some relevant links right here:
More fascinating conversation with Jen Briselli.

“The process of design is a rhetorical art.” -@jbriselli

Wikipedia has a nice summary of ethos, pathos, and logos.

Here's the Carolyn Miller paper.

There's another below. It includes ethos and logos as described in the conversation, but Dave loves this paper for the way it describes these concepts in relation to how people interact with intelligent systems. For those listeners who have been with us since the old days, this topic should sound familiar. Click the link for the .pdf!

Miller, C. R. (2003). Writing in a Culture of Simulation. In M. Nystrand & J. Duffy (Eds.), Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New directions in research on writing, text, and discourse (pp. 58–83). The University of Wisconson Press.

The logical fallacies poster.

Rhetor: The communicator using rhetoric
Rhetorician: The one who studies the communication from a rhetorical perspective

Alright, here's the take-home question from this episode:

Do logic and ethos necessarily fight each other?

Wrapping it up, here's the paper about different framings translating to the same perceptions of risk.
Kahan also talks about it a little bit in two blog posts here and here.

Web exlusive

This section comes from email exchange between Dave and Jen.
The stuff from Ceccarelli (or anything by her in general) is great on the topic of rhetoric/persuasion in science.

Duarte and Olson's books for storytelling and how to make communication more compelling (especially for the pathos end of things).

Kahan and his gang have developed their "cultural cognition" as a "cultural theory of risk" and base a lot of that on the cultural theory of risk devised by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. He talks about the development of it in this paper. Douglas in particular talked a lot of a group/grid system that I think it still obviously very relevant, in this case "grid" is the assessment of how strong someone adheres to the value of role differentiation... and there may some more citations in that paper to others with work on the hierarchy/egalitarianism stuff if you want to follow the breadcrumbs...

Come to think of it, that paper is pretty foundational to understanding "cultural cognition" and the anthropology shoulders it stands on. I should have included it in that last email.

We’ll post more links next time, but for now Jen recommends, “Just read everything" from the Cultural Cognition Group.

Dave has no dulcet tones.

 

-----

(Cover image credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophone )

 

{plusone}		{ttweet}		{fshare}

 

 

 

{fcomment}

• Prev
• Next