I am intrigued by the paradox that is set up by adding in the “naysayer” perspective to your writing. The more that you talk about the criticisms people have of your writing, the stronger your argument becomes. In a way, you’re going out of your way to poke holes in your argument, so you can patch them up and make your stance even stronger. Additionally, I like how there are multiple types of templates provided, showing that there are many ways to include the naysayers in your writing. You can include them by framing the reader as a naysayer, or you can pull criticism from outside groups. This is helpful because sometimes you won’t be able to think of a criticism from the reader, so this way you can research a potential criticism/opposing viewpoint and still incorporate it into your writing properly. I also like the idea of being specific when naming an outside naysayer in order to avoid stereotyping. This way, there is no misrepresentation of who’s argument you are trying to disprove. Furthermore, I found the part about representing objections fairly to be very interesting. At first, I was in disagreement because I felt that if you dedicated too much time to the opposing viewpoint, then you might make an argument that turns the reader away from your point of view and towards the objection that you are trying to disprove. However, once I kept reading, I started to see where the author was coming from. If somebody truly does disagree with what you as a writer are trying to argue, then it isn’t going to make them any more sympathetic of your viewpoint if you misrepresent their point of view. People want to feel like they are being taken seriously, and that their opinions are represented with enough nuance. If you oversimplify their argument for the sake of making yours look better, then all they will be focused on is the bad light in which you painted their opinions. This will drive them further away from not only switching their opinion to agree with you, but it will even drive them further from wanting to acknowledge different viewpoints.
Question: how do you bring something new into a counterargument? Do you just restate your reasoning or develop an idea further?
“Planting the Naysayer in Your Text” was a helpful chapter that highlighted the importance of including counterclaims in your writing. Although the sole purpose of counterclaims is to go against your main argument, the inclusion of them actually strengthen the points you are trying to get across. The author highlights how the acknowledgment of counterclaims shows the reader’s ability to think complexity and is a “broad-minded person who is confident enough to be open to debate” (86). In addition to the mere incorporation of opposing views, the chapter continues by explaining the importance of developing these counterclaims and not simply glossing over them or immediately discrediting them as that can be perceived as mockery and an attack on those who actually hold this view. Once these counterclaims are properly developed, it is then time to write a persuasive refute that sways the reader back towards your original argument. This process will ultimately make your writing stronger and even more credible as it illuminates your ability to make an argument, acknowledge that that argument has opposing viewpoints, and persuade your reader that your argument is more logical.
Question: How many counterclaims should I include within my writing? Should most main points have a counterclaim associated with them?
I found it interesting how the authors make light of the idea that criticisms work to the advantage of the writer, specifically saying that our writing improves when the critiques are given an explicit hearing to showcase their point. On a similar note, I found it interesting how the authors instruct the readers to “anticipate objections”. The authors stress the importance of including pieces of work into your writing which may contradict your main point, but that conversation you have engaged in with the opposing view will eventually work in favor of your point of view and ultimately strengthen your paper. I found that this idea was perfectly represented in the rather comedic drawing on page 87, which illustrates the common misconception that planting a naysayer is hurtful to your writing but also showcases the reality of the benefits of planting a naysayer by providing a template on how to argue against the misinterpretation of a naysayers opinion. On the next two pages, two different templates are provided, one surrounding the idea of entertaining objections and the other surrounding naming your naysayers. I found these templates to be extremely beneficial as objections are a hard topic to talk about in writing, especially in a way that will improve your writing. Furthermore, I feel as though the template on naming the naysayers is one that I will incorporate into my writings. This has been a struggle for me even including sources that support my writing so I think that a source that argues my point will be even harder to introduce to use properly, so I feel as though this template will prove to make dividends in my writing.
Question: Where is the best point to introduce the opposing view? Before or after your “main point”
I found it interesting how this chapter put an emphasis on the importance of directly addressing counterarguments in your writing. In the chapter it makes good points as to why engaging with opposing viewpoints doesn’t weaken an argument but instead actually can strengthen an article. It ends up strengthening the work because it makes you seem more thoughtful as well as credible throughout the work. I also found it very helpful that they provided more templates for how to put in counterarguments within an essay smoother. The templates also make it easier to think about one could respond to it, as well as how to respond to any objections without having an argument. One question I had while reading was is there a possibility of putting the naysayer in your text and it makes the argument appear weaker and not strengthen it?
It’s interesting to label an audience, and how to do so properly. By labeling naysayers, your writing can be enlightened with precision and a bigger impact, producing more motivation for argument and objections. For example, a specific ideology or school of thought. Make sure to of course not use labels inappropriately, or shamefully. It’s curious to me that the reading includes taking the naysayer as seriously as possible. It is important though to use empathy when writing, literally placing into their shoes we recognize their thoughts. Try to not give out the vibe of mocking tone or oversimplification of their views. It’s helpful to think deeply about the idea of criticism. Page 82 brings in the idea that it’s important to remember that “most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing your work, such criticism can actually work to our advantage.” Planting a “naysayer” in the text can improve writing and strengthen your argument even. In my own writing, I will use the tools to minimize the problem of stereotyping, not to categorically reject labels but to refine and quality their use. The templates given were great and easy to understand. Not only to explain that “not all ____”, but to include what type of ____ they are. Example given was substituting “pro bono lawyers” for just “lawyers.”
Question: What part of the essay do you bring out the opposing view?
On page 84 in the last paragraph the author mentions that we can use others’ criticizations of our work to our advantage. Instead of ignoring the “naysayers” you can simply add them to enhance your argument. I like how they encourage you to engage others into your dialog or debate. I think this will help add more depth to your writing. Putting in what naysayers may say about your work can help you further explain a quote you used and why you interpreted it the way you did. I think that this is helpful because it ensures that you don’t leave a quote you used hanging or are using it out of context. I like the templates where they name specific naysayers. This is helpful to put a perspective on who is criticizing your work and add relevancy to what they naysayers have to say. Using the templates for framing objections as questions is nice and I think is a useful way to get the readers hooked into what you want to say about the topic.
I liked the part about the counterarguments being a technique for improving writing. It highlighted that thinking through opposing arguments does not disprove an argument but strengthens it. Authors can come across as more thoughtful and credible by acknowledging and accounting for counterarguments, which helps reinforce their overall argument. These templates make it easier to incorporate opposing views and teach authors how to reply to objections positively in a constructive way without pointless conflict.
How can a writer decide which counterarguments are worth addressing and which ones might be unnecessary to include?
I found it fascinating how this chapter emphasized the importance of addressing counter arguments directly in your writing. By acknowledging counterarguments, you come across as more thoughtful and credible. By looking at arguments with a different view it tends to make your writing stronger. It shows you’ve considered multiple perspectives, which demonstrates critical thinking.These templates make it easier to involve opposing views. Showing writers how to build off each other without causing conflict.
Question:When is a good point in an essay to counter argue?
When it comes to anticipating the criticisms that my writing may receive, I have always thought of how to best turn it around from being simply something harmful for my essay into tool I can use to better my own work. What this chapter suggests is exactly what I was thinking in that in order to correctly respond to the criticism, you must integrate it into your own text. Simply fitting into a mold of non-complex and readily believed ideas, you won’t be creating much of anything worth discussing. But, if you are able to thoughtfully construct a debate about one side of an issue that rings true to you, then being able to turn around criticism against your work is exactly what you’ll be doing to make that happen. Also, the book discusses the fact that not engaging with others own opinions will make you seem “close-minded”, as you seem to cast your ideas as undeniable truth, and as if everyone else who disagrees is simply wrong. Being able to understand the avenue in which other people see issues will allow you to propel your own writing. Not only that, but simply conversing with the ideas of a “Naysayer” in your essay will simply give you more to discuss, more to write about, allowing you to reach word limits requirements easily. Being able to use this technique was something I had tried to incorporate into my previous essay about Sherry Turkle, and I hope to refine it even further with this coming essay, by bring two texts against each other and seeing how they connect and deflect off one another.
I found it helpful to know how important it is to not be afraid to receive feedback and criticism. I found it intriguing that it can be helpful to not only think of but also include possible criticism and feedback into your work. It hits me as a way to incorporate a “they say” into your work, except before they say. It’s also interesting when they talk about entertaining counterarguments, how “planting a naysayer in you text” can make you come across as “a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open a debate” (86). Usually, I would try to stay away from doing just that, for fear of coming across as a sort of snotty know-it-all who is always trying to one-up you by thinking one step ahead. However, with the way it is described in the book, I now know how addressing possible criticism before it arises can instead be seen from a more open-minded point of view.
Question:
Not every criticism is meaningful or helpful, so how do you know which criticisms to address and give attention to and which ones should be ignored?
I am intrigued by the points made about stating counter arguments in your work. I think that it is very important to show the other side of an argument in your own one because if you can, you can show your audience what you are arguing against. The chapter made a lot of good points on how to incorporate and engage your audience and work with the opposing point that you are arguing which I found helpful to my own work. Adding the “naysayer” to me, seems like a weird perspective to add to your work. When they discuss how to include naysayers, it feels almost degrading to the person you are talking about cause of how they are talking about it. On the other hand, using the naysayer could improve your work by adding another perspective to that you can incorporate into the argument you are making.
Question: How do you incorporate a naysayer into your argument without sounding mean?
This section was really interesting, on page 86 it talks about answering the objective. By making sure to represent objections, it critical to be persuasive about it. I see that as a critical part of making sure an argument is fulfilled. The purpose of an objection is to be almost an interruption of a statement, so if we can be persuasive and actually make our argument stronger in the process, it will only help us in the long run. Your wording will be convincing, and your overall work can be elevated. Many times, we don’t break down those objections and just go with the flow in an argument, and that won’t lead us to the answer we’re looking for.
Where would be the most affective place in creating these counterarguments be? Would it be in the area of how 2 authors see a topic differently or would it be in your own thoughts after the original idea was formed?
12 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 16”
I am intrigued by the paradox that is set up by adding in the “naysayer” perspective to your writing. The more that you talk about the criticisms people have of your writing, the stronger your argument becomes. In a way, you’re going out of your way to poke holes in your argument, so you can patch them up and make your stance even stronger. Additionally, I like how there are multiple types of templates provided, showing that there are many ways to include the naysayers in your writing. You can include them by framing the reader as a naysayer, or you can pull criticism from outside groups. This is helpful because sometimes you won’t be able to think of a criticism from the reader, so this way you can research a potential criticism/opposing viewpoint and still incorporate it into your writing properly. I also like the idea of being specific when naming an outside naysayer in order to avoid stereotyping. This way, there is no misrepresentation of who’s argument you are trying to disprove. Furthermore, I found the part about representing objections fairly to be very interesting. At first, I was in disagreement because I felt that if you dedicated too much time to the opposing viewpoint, then you might make an argument that turns the reader away from your point of view and towards the objection that you are trying to disprove. However, once I kept reading, I started to see where the author was coming from. If somebody truly does disagree with what you as a writer are trying to argue, then it isn’t going to make them any more sympathetic of your viewpoint if you misrepresent their point of view. People want to feel like they are being taken seriously, and that their opinions are represented with enough nuance. If you oversimplify their argument for the sake of making yours look better, then all they will be focused on is the bad light in which you painted their opinions. This will drive them further away from not only switching their opinion to agree with you, but it will even drive them further from wanting to acknowledge different viewpoints.
Question: how do you bring something new into a counterargument? Do you just restate your reasoning or develop an idea further?
“Planting the Naysayer in Your Text” was a helpful chapter that highlighted the importance of including counterclaims in your writing. Although the sole purpose of counterclaims is to go against your main argument, the inclusion of them actually strengthen the points you are trying to get across. The author highlights how the acknowledgment of counterclaims shows the reader’s ability to think complexity and is a “broad-minded person who is confident enough to be open to debate” (86). In addition to the mere incorporation of opposing views, the chapter continues by explaining the importance of developing these counterclaims and not simply glossing over them or immediately discrediting them as that can be perceived as mockery and an attack on those who actually hold this view. Once these counterclaims are properly developed, it is then time to write a persuasive refute that sways the reader back towards your original argument. This process will ultimately make your writing stronger and even more credible as it illuminates your ability to make an argument, acknowledge that that argument has opposing viewpoints, and persuade your reader that your argument is more logical.
Question: How many counterclaims should I include within my writing? Should most main points have a counterclaim associated with them?
I found it interesting how the authors make light of the idea that criticisms work to the advantage of the writer, specifically saying that our writing improves when the critiques are given an explicit hearing to showcase their point. On a similar note, I found it interesting how the authors instruct the readers to “anticipate objections”. The authors stress the importance of including pieces of work into your writing which may contradict your main point, but that conversation you have engaged in with the opposing view will eventually work in favor of your point of view and ultimately strengthen your paper. I found that this idea was perfectly represented in the rather comedic drawing on page 87, which illustrates the common misconception that planting a naysayer is hurtful to your writing but also showcases the reality of the benefits of planting a naysayer by providing a template on how to argue against the misinterpretation of a naysayers opinion. On the next two pages, two different templates are provided, one surrounding the idea of entertaining objections and the other surrounding naming your naysayers. I found these templates to be extremely beneficial as objections are a hard topic to talk about in writing, especially in a way that will improve your writing. Furthermore, I feel as though the template on naming the naysayers is one that I will incorporate into my writings. This has been a struggle for me even including sources that support my writing so I think that a source that argues my point will be even harder to introduce to use properly, so I feel as though this template will prove to make dividends in my writing.
Question: Where is the best point to introduce the opposing view? Before or after your “main point”
I found it interesting how this chapter put an emphasis on the importance of directly addressing counterarguments in your writing. In the chapter it makes good points as to why engaging with opposing viewpoints doesn’t weaken an argument but instead actually can strengthen an article. It ends up strengthening the work because it makes you seem more thoughtful as well as credible throughout the work. I also found it very helpful that they provided more templates for how to put in counterarguments within an essay smoother. The templates also make it easier to think about one could respond to it, as well as how to respond to any objections without having an argument. One question I had while reading was is there a possibility of putting the naysayer in your text and it makes the argument appear weaker and not strengthen it?
It’s interesting to label an audience, and how to do so properly. By labeling naysayers, your writing can be enlightened with precision and a bigger impact, producing more motivation for argument and objections. For example, a specific ideology or school of thought. Make sure to of course not use labels inappropriately, or shamefully. It’s curious to me that the reading includes taking the naysayer as seriously as possible. It is important though to use empathy when writing, literally placing into their shoes we recognize their thoughts. Try to not give out the vibe of mocking tone or oversimplification of their views. It’s helpful to think deeply about the idea of criticism. Page 82 brings in the idea that it’s important to remember that “most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing your work, such criticism can actually work to our advantage.” Planting a “naysayer” in the text can improve writing and strengthen your argument even. In my own writing, I will use the tools to minimize the problem of stereotyping, not to categorically reject labels but to refine and quality their use. The templates given were great and easy to understand. Not only to explain that “not all ____”, but to include what type of ____ they are. Example given was substituting “pro bono lawyers” for just “lawyers.”
Question: What part of the essay do you bring out the opposing view?
On page 84 in the last paragraph the author mentions that we can use others’ criticizations of our work to our advantage. Instead of ignoring the “naysayers” you can simply add them to enhance your argument. I like how they encourage you to engage others into your dialog or debate. I think this will help add more depth to your writing. Putting in what naysayers may say about your work can help you further explain a quote you used and why you interpreted it the way you did. I think that this is helpful because it ensures that you don’t leave a quote you used hanging or are using it out of context. I like the templates where they name specific naysayers. This is helpful to put a perspective on who is criticizing your work and add relevancy to what they naysayers have to say. Using the templates for framing objections as questions is nice and I think is a useful way to get the readers hooked into what you want to say about the topic.
I liked the part about the counterarguments being a technique for improving writing. It highlighted that thinking through opposing arguments does not disprove an argument but strengthens it. Authors can come across as more thoughtful and credible by acknowledging and accounting for counterarguments, which helps reinforce their overall argument. These templates make it easier to incorporate opposing views and teach authors how to reply to objections positively in a constructive way without pointless conflict.
How can a writer decide which counterarguments are worth addressing and which ones might be unnecessary to include?
I found it fascinating how this chapter emphasized the importance of addressing counter arguments directly in your writing. By acknowledging counterarguments, you come across as more thoughtful and credible. By looking at arguments with a different view it tends to make your writing stronger. It shows you’ve considered multiple perspectives, which demonstrates critical thinking.These templates make it easier to involve opposing views. Showing writers how to build off each other without causing conflict.
Question:When is a good point in an essay to counter argue?
When it comes to anticipating the criticisms that my writing may receive, I have always thought of how to best turn it around from being simply something harmful for my essay into tool I can use to better my own work. What this chapter suggests is exactly what I was thinking in that in order to correctly respond to the criticism, you must integrate it into your own text. Simply fitting into a mold of non-complex and readily believed ideas, you won’t be creating much of anything worth discussing. But, if you are able to thoughtfully construct a debate about one side of an issue that rings true to you, then being able to turn around criticism against your work is exactly what you’ll be doing to make that happen. Also, the book discusses the fact that not engaging with others own opinions will make you seem “close-minded”, as you seem to cast your ideas as undeniable truth, and as if everyone else who disagrees is simply wrong. Being able to understand the avenue in which other people see issues will allow you to propel your own writing. Not only that, but simply conversing with the ideas of a “Naysayer” in your essay will simply give you more to discuss, more to write about, allowing you to reach word limits requirements easily. Being able to use this technique was something I had tried to incorporate into my previous essay about Sherry Turkle, and I hope to refine it even further with this coming essay, by bring two texts against each other and seeing how they connect and deflect off one another.
I found it helpful to know how important it is to not be afraid to receive feedback and criticism. I found it intriguing that it can be helpful to not only think of but also include possible criticism and feedback into your work. It hits me as a way to incorporate a “they say” into your work, except before they say. It’s also interesting when they talk about entertaining counterarguments, how “planting a naysayer in you text” can make you come across as “a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to open a debate” (86). Usually, I would try to stay away from doing just that, for fear of coming across as a sort of snotty know-it-all who is always trying to one-up you by thinking one step ahead. However, with the way it is described in the book, I now know how addressing possible criticism before it arises can instead be seen from a more open-minded point of view.
Question:
Not every criticism is meaningful or helpful, so how do you know which criticisms to address and give attention to and which ones should be ignored?
I am intrigued by the points made about stating counter arguments in your work. I think that it is very important to show the other side of an argument in your own one because if you can, you can show your audience what you are arguing against. The chapter made a lot of good points on how to incorporate and engage your audience and work with the opposing point that you are arguing which I found helpful to my own work. Adding the “naysayer” to me, seems like a weird perspective to add to your work. When they discuss how to include naysayers, it feels almost degrading to the person you are talking about cause of how they are talking about it. On the other hand, using the naysayer could improve your work by adding another perspective to that you can incorporate into the argument you are making.
Question: How do you incorporate a naysayer into your argument without sounding mean?
This section was really interesting, on page 86 it talks about answering the objective. By making sure to represent objections, it critical to be persuasive about it. I see that as a critical part of making sure an argument is fulfilled. The purpose of an objection is to be almost an interruption of a statement, so if we can be persuasive and actually make our argument stronger in the process, it will only help us in the long run. Your wording will be convincing, and your overall work can be elevated. Many times, we don’t break down those objections and just go with the flow in an argument, and that won’t lead us to the answer we’re looking for.
Where would be the most affective place in creating these counterarguments be? Would it be in the area of how 2 authors see a topic differently or would it be in your own thoughts after the original idea was formed?