During High School, I took a leadership class. In that class, our job is to organize and prepare for school events. In order to do that, everyone in the class was divided into certain sections. For example, my section was in charge of hosting events for the faculty and giving rewards and certificates to honor. In general, everyone had to work together in order for events to run smoothly. Having leadership was important for this class because we were given our own responsibilities. This was a class where we were teaching ourselves how to work together rather than being "fed with spoons."
Before I took this class in my freshman year, I was actually a very shy person. Therefore, I didn't have that much confidence. According to Group Communication, "direction and influence" define leadership. (O'Hair) From taking leadership, I learned that I had to be more confident in order to become a leader.
Direction is knowing what you are doing. Being a good leader means you are able to guide people through any situation. A teacher is a leader for example. Teachers are good leaders because they guide and teach you about certain subjects. It is assumed that the students have no knowledge about the subject. The teachers are in charge of making sure students understand it. However, if you had a teacher that did not know the subject he or she was teaching, then he or she can't really teach. In that case, the teacher wouldn't really be a teacher or a leader because he or she wouldn't be able to provide any direction or guidance.
Another important aspect is influence. Guiding a class is important but both direction and influence are complementary. Being influential means persuading your audience to care what you are talking about. A teacher can be good at guiding students. However, if he or she looks very bored, the students will think that it is acceptable to be bored about the subject because the teacher looks bored as well. In contrast, if the teacher looked enthusiastic and eager to teach the subject, students will more likely pay attention. In most cases, students will even have fun learning the subject.
In my experience in leadership, these two aspects were very important. Most of the time, we were busy. Sometimes, it got to the point where we had no leader present. In that case, we had to improvise and become leaders ourselves. We had to figure out what to do when no one was there to guide us. Sometimes, there would be some lazy people sitting and doing nothing. In order to make them work, I had to be a leader and tell them that they need to work. In order to make them work, I had to be influential or sound like doing the work was important. If I did not practice these two aspects, I would not be able to work on my own or encourage others to work with me as well.
- Pink Bean
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
2) Strong or Valid Arguments
So today, I was sick. Every time I get sick, I always get a Cold Buster from Jamba Juice. I do not know if it's just a coincidence but I always feel better after I drink one. I decided to get one so I don't have to write my blog while being sick. Now, I am not sick anymore. :D
I just came from Jamba Juice about an hour ago and I ordered a Cold Buster right before closing time. Before I walked in, I examined the place, and I made an argument from it.
The chairs and tables from outside were stacked inside.
The floor was recently mopped.
From this, I can conclude that Jamba Juice was closing very soon. (as in 5-10 minutes)
Even though it may sound true (Jamba Juice was really gonna close soon), this is actually an invalid argument. It is invalid because the premises was true, but it is possible that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. Jamba Juice's policy probably was to put all the patios inside 1 hour before closing or maybe by sundown. The floor was mopped because someone probably made a huge mess on the floor. My reasoning is very flawed but it is still a possibility. In other words, there is a possibility that Jamba juice was not closing soon. If Jamba Juice was not closing soon, and the premises was still true, then this argument is invalid.
However, is this a strong argument? It is a strong argument. In my previous paragraph, I admitted that my reasoning was probably an unlikely scenario. The patios being placed inside and the floor being mopped was probably done because Jamba Juice gets less customers right before closing time. In result, Jamba Juice was preparing to close the place soon and by dealing with the closing duties. It was 8:56 pm by the time I arrived at Jamba Juice, and they were about to close at 9:00 pm. There was also only one employee. The other workers probably went home already. This argument would only be weak if it was likely that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. In this case, it was very unlikely that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. That alone makes the argument strong.
Other than that, I have an example of a valid argument.
I saw a huge spider by the bathroom window.
Therefore, there is a huge spider in the bathroom.
This is a valid argument because a few minutes ago, I actually saw a huge spider by the bathroom window. It was HUGE. Anyways, I saw it again before writing this paragraph. From that, I can conclude that this is a valid argument because there is a huge spider in the bathroom. The conclusion will never be false. I just saw the spider recently so the premises is true. Therefore, this argument is valid because it has a true premises and a true conclusion which can never be false (since I know the spider is still there). (O_O)
- Pink Bean
I just came from Jamba Juice about an hour ago and I ordered a Cold Buster right before closing time. Before I walked in, I examined the place, and I made an argument from it.
The chairs and tables from outside were stacked inside.
The floor was recently mopped.
From this, I can conclude that Jamba Juice was closing very soon. (as in 5-10 minutes)
Even though it may sound true (Jamba Juice was really gonna close soon), this is actually an invalid argument. It is invalid because the premises was true, but it is possible that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. Jamba Juice's policy probably was to put all the patios inside 1 hour before closing or maybe by sundown. The floor was mopped because someone probably made a huge mess on the floor. My reasoning is very flawed but it is still a possibility. In other words, there is a possibility that Jamba juice was not closing soon. If Jamba Juice was not closing soon, and the premises was still true, then this argument is invalid.
However, is this a strong argument? It is a strong argument. In my previous paragraph, I admitted that my reasoning was probably an unlikely scenario. The patios being placed inside and the floor being mopped was probably done because Jamba Juice gets less customers right before closing time. In result, Jamba Juice was preparing to close the place soon and by dealing with the closing duties. It was 8:56 pm by the time I arrived at Jamba Juice, and they were about to close at 9:00 pm. There was also only one employee. The other workers probably went home already. This argument would only be weak if it was likely that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. In this case, it was very unlikely that Jamba Juice was not closing soon. That alone makes the argument strong.
Other than that, I have an example of a valid argument.
I saw a huge spider by the bathroom window.
Therefore, there is a huge spider in the bathroom.
This is a valid argument because a few minutes ago, I actually saw a huge spider by the bathroom window. It was HUGE. Anyways, I saw it again before writing this paragraph. From that, I can conclude that this is a valid argument because there is a huge spider in the bathroom. The conclusion will never be false. I just saw the spider recently so the premises is true. Therefore, this argument is valid because it has a true premises and a true conclusion which can never be false (since I know the spider is still there). (O_O)
- Pink Bean
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
1) A Good Argument about Pink Bean?
As I mentioned earlier on my Introductory Post, I play a MMORPG. This online game I play, also known as Maple Story, has many cutesy graphics and cute-looking monsters as well. One of the monsters, which is also where I got my alias name from, is called Pink Bean. Below is how it looks like (and it's my profile picture too hehe). I can also make an argument by just looking at it.
Pink Bean looks very cute.
It also looks innocent.
Anything that looks cute and innocent is not threatening.
I can conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous.
Before we conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous, we need to see if the argument is good and passes three criteria.
First, we need to see if the premises, or the claims before the conclusion, satisfy the facts. In other words, is it plausible, or believable, that Pink Bean looks cute and innocent? I think most people would agree it does look cute and innocent (just look at it!). However, are things that look cute and innocent really not threatening? Although it may seem unlikely that something cute and innocent is threatening, it can still indeed be. For example, my friend and I think spiders look cute and innocent. However, some spiders such as the black widow can be threatening because its poison can kill a human if bitten. This example proves the third statement to be flawed.
(0 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:
Second, we need to know if the premises is more convincing than the conclusion itself. First of all, I already discussed that the third statement of the premises is flawed because it was proven to not always be true. That leaves us with "Pink Bean is not dangerous." From this statement, we do not know for sure whether it is dangerous or not. For a fact though, Pink Bean is actually the strongest monster of Maple Story and is difficult to defeat, hence making it dangerous. Since it is a fact that Pink Bean is dangerous, this also leaves the conclusion flawed. From here, I can say that the third statement is more plausible than the conclusion because the conclusion is a false statement and is not believable. In contrast, the third statement, or the premises, can be true and believable in some cases.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) :D
Finally, would this be a valid or a strong argument? If this was valid, that means if Pink Bean is cute and innocent, and all cute and innocent things were not threatening, then Pink Bean for a fact would not be dangerous. However, it was proven that Pink Bean is dangerous so now that makes the conclusion false. In other words, my argument would be invalid because the premises is plausible in some cases but the conclusion will always remain false. An argument with a possibly true premises but a false conclusion is invalid. Since this is invalid, does it make this argument strong or weak? A strong argument would be that cute and innocent things can not be threatening and that Pink Bean is dangerous. The chances of that happening would have to be very unlikely. A weak argument would be the same statement except being more likely. Therefore, I can conclude that this argument is weak because Pink Bean will always be dangerous and cute and innocent things can continue to be not threatening.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:
From my evaluation (which scored 1 out of 3 points), I can say that this is a bad argument. It lacks good reasoning by generalizing that all cute and innocent things are not threatening. We then knew for a fact that Pink Bean was in fact dangerous but the argument said it was not. I only gave that one brownie point to the third statement because sometimes things that do look cute and innocent are not very threatening (bunnies (^w^), and no not the one in Monty Python).
- Pink Bean
It also looks innocent.
Anything that looks cute and innocent is not threatening.
I can conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous.
Before we conclude that Pink Bean is not dangerous, we need to see if the argument is good and passes three criteria.
First, we need to see if the premises, or the claims before the conclusion, satisfy the facts. In other words, is it plausible, or believable, that Pink Bean looks cute and innocent? I think most people would agree it does look cute and innocent (just look at it!). However, are things that look cute and innocent really not threatening? Although it may seem unlikely that something cute and innocent is threatening, it can still indeed be. For example, my friend and I think spiders look cute and innocent. However, some spiders such as the black widow can be threatening because its poison can kill a human if bitten. This example proves the third statement to be flawed.
(0 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:
Second, we need to know if the premises is more convincing than the conclusion itself. First of all, I already discussed that the third statement of the premises is flawed because it was proven to not always be true. That leaves us with "Pink Bean is not dangerous." From this statement, we do not know for sure whether it is dangerous or not. For a fact though, Pink Bean is actually the strongest monster of Maple Story and is difficult to defeat, hence making it dangerous. Since it is a fact that Pink Bean is dangerous, this also leaves the conclusion flawed. From here, I can say that the third statement is more plausible than the conclusion because the conclusion is a false statement and is not believable. In contrast, the third statement, or the premises, can be true and believable in some cases.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) :D
Finally, would this be a valid or a strong argument? If this was valid, that means if Pink Bean is cute and innocent, and all cute and innocent things were not threatening, then Pink Bean for a fact would not be dangerous. However, it was proven that Pink Bean is dangerous so now that makes the conclusion false. In other words, my argument would be invalid because the premises is plausible in some cases but the conclusion will always remain false. An argument with a possibly true premises but a false conclusion is invalid. Since this is invalid, does it make this argument strong or weak? A strong argument would be that cute and innocent things can not be threatening and that Pink Bean is dangerous. The chances of that happening would have to be very unlikely. A weak argument would be the same statement except being more likely. Therefore, I can conclude that this argument is weak because Pink Bean will always be dangerous and cute and innocent things can continue to be not threatening.
(1 out of 3 points for a good argument) D:
From my evaluation (which scored 1 out of 3 points), I can say that this is a bad argument. It lacks good reasoning by generalizing that all cute and innocent things are not threatening. We then knew for a fact that Pink Bean was in fact dangerous but the argument said it was not. I only gave that one brownie point to the third statement because sometimes things that do look cute and innocent are not very threatening (bunnies (^w^), and no not the one in Monty Python).
- Pink Bean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)