follow the instructions. carefully

Lesson :out of order

In this exercise we will practice what we have learned about transitions by identifying them in a writing sample.

Below you will find a sample student essay with paragraphs that have been placed out of order. Your task is to rearrange the paragraphs into an order that seems logical to you.

First, copy the essay into another document. Then you can work through this activity in several ways:

you should make notes as you go along. Highlight (or underline, bold, etc.) any wording within the text that gives you clues as to the logical order.

___________________________________________________________________________

A

In a video posted by CNN, an American commentator, Piers Morgan, debates on his show with his guests. The debate begins and immediately people are talking over each other and not letting anyone speak which is an example of cognitive dissonance in action. Piers Morgan, as an active promoter for Gun Rights, against his guests who are predominantly conservative, pushes his point by constantly talking over his guests. He asserts his argument mainly focusing a ban on guns which would effectively reduce gun violence within the nation. His guests, on the other hand, argue it is actually the reason for the backlash of more violence. Throughout the debate, it becomes hard to understand what each individual is saying because they are all talking over each other – essentially it doesn’t matter because no one is listening to each other. The fact of the matter is: everyone has their own set opinion which they want to get their point across, letting another person speak is in a way, an act of conforming. When debating with each other, people choose not to listen to each other because it puts them in a position to listen to something uncomfortable. In the debate with Piers Morgan and his guests, the participants expressed the behavioral trait of tribalism through cognitive dissonance, leading their debate to be unproductive.

B

Beck’s article reflects the nature of people’s tendencies to resist information that conflicts their beliefs which are defined by tribalism. A characteristic associated with this phenomenon according to Beck is the behavior of cognitive dissonance, or “the extreme discomfort of simultaneously holding two thoughts that are in conflict.” Authors, Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schacter state within Beck’s article through their book, When Prophecy Fails, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change.” In translation, once someone has a set opinion, it’s hard to convince them to change their minds. Beck uses the example of doomsday prophet, Dorothy Martin, and her followers who believed “spacemen called the Guardians were coming to collect them in flying saucers, to save them from a coming flood.” As time went on and no spacemen came, Martin kept revising her predictions and the followers kept believing. Essentially, they did not want to believe that they were wrong despite the fact there was no evidence to back up Martin’s predictions. Cognitive dissonance associates itself when people fail to appeal to logic and evidence which leads them to only be convinced by the “truth” of their beliefs.

C

According to Beck’s article, people resist the truth because they look for reasons to convince themselves otherwise. In her article, she describes this psychological behavior as motivated reasoning, when people “seek out agreeable information and learn it more easily; and they avoid, ignore, devalue, forget, or argue against information that contradicts their beliefs.” Beck provides examples of this behavior through a study done in 1967 with students who smoked and some that were non-smokers who were given a staticky audio was given the availability to press a button to listen to the audio clearer for a couple seconds. Results revealed that the students who were smokers pressed the button to listen to the parts of the audio where the speaker was giving reasons that suggested that cigarettes could not cause cancer, likewise, students who were non-smokers chose to listen closer to the parts of antismoking. People are readily more motivated to validate reasons that help maintain their perspectives rather than reasons to concede that they are wrong – reasoning, is weighted in accordance with people by motivation.

D

Gunshots echo throughout the nation. Gun violence in America is becoming an epidemic as mass shootings in the U.S. are becoming more deadly as Gun Control and Gun Rights activists fight for their positions. Gun Control activists essentially argue for the deregulation of guns for the safety of the country while Gun Rights activists oppose that guns are not the threat, but people, and that the Constitution empowers us with the right to bear arms. Both sides of the spectrum have specific perspectives they adhere to and as the debate continues neither side of the party is willing to listen. Julie Beck’s article “This Article Won’t Change Your Mind,” examines these behaviors of people when information is no longer processed as information but rather as a marker of identity, therefore, becomes tribalistic. The debate between Gun Violence and Gun Rights fuels tribalistic behavior which prolongs a solution to the number of lives lost through bullets in the nation. Beck’s article assumes that it is by nature for people to act through tribalistic behaviors, however, it is possible to maintain your set views while having productive debates that can lead to effective actions. 

E

Although the debate between Gun Control and Gun Rights has been raging since the1960s, it wasn’t until recent years as mass shootings and gun violence events became more and more frequent has the debate become one of the most divisive issues in American life. The main foundation for those opposed on controlling who owns guns within the nation roots within the Second Amendment of the Constitution: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This right is interpreted to counter those who approve of gun control as it infringes upon individual liberties. In the perspective of Gun Rights activists, it is not the guns that are dangerous, it is the people. However, those who are in favor of the regulation of firearms realize that the increasing number of gun violent deaths in the nation calls for a change to these laws.

F

Although people do seem to have the tendency to act tribalistically as seen in the debate between Gun Control and Gun Rights, and throughout Beck’s article, it is not impossible to escape. TED talks by Rob Willer, Joan Blades, and John Gable explore the benefits of considering opposing perspectives and idea that it is possible to validly interpret different points of view through a constructive way. Rob Willer’s TED talk revolves around the growing animosity and divide between liberals and conservatives. Willer discusses in his presentation the importance of acknowledging empathy and respect, which is statistically proven to be a more persuasive tactic in a debate. In Joan Blades’ and John Gable’s TED talk, despite their political differences, are able to become long-term friends. They convey to the audience to break off from their personal filter bubbles such as relationships and social media and instead become more diverse in your understanding of people on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Through mutual listening and considerations, we can have better, more productive conversations in order to improve our country.

G

Whether Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun there is an undeniable problem within the United States in regards to mass shootings and gun violence. The solution to the problem underlies in between tribalism and the argument between Gun Rights or Gun Control. However, the argument is not whether to ban guns or for every citizen be armed with a gun but what is going to keep ourselves and others safe. Instead of debating endlessly through tribalistic behaviors as discussed in Beck’s article, there are ways we can stray away from these behaviors and engage with information respectfully and empathetically as conveyed in TED talks by Rob Willer, Joan Blades, and John Gable. We all have the common goal of safety for our country. Tribalism is the biggest obstacle we have to face in this debate. Through tribalism, we are delaying the solution for the numbers of lives lost through bullets, however, through respectful and empathetic debates, we can finally make progress on gun violence in the nation

H

Signs of tribalistic behaviors such as motivated reasoning can be seen through debates between Gun Control and Gun Rights. In a similar video posted by CNN, “Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan on guns,” journalist, Piers Morgan and American commentator, Ben Shapiro debate on the rights of guns. Ben Shapiro begins his statement by commenting how Morgan in his previous debate “demonizes people who differ politically by standing on the graves of the children.” Morgan responds to this accusation by repeatedly responding “how dare you.” Despite the evidence seen through Morgan’s previous debates with his other guests on his show where he argues multiple times that “people who side with gun rights don’t care about the children who have died in the school shootings,” he denies this accusation because it contradicts to his beliefs. Although Shapiro’s comment on Morgan’s arguments may seem harsh or aggressive, his accusations towards Morgan’s strategies were not far-fetched. However, regardless of what Ben Shapiro argues against Morgan, Morgan will only listen to information he is motivated to hear and will continue to deny the rest.

I

The video, “Pro-Gun Vs. Anti-Gun: Is There Middle Ground,” brings a group of people, together in a neutral environment to spark dialogue about their similarities and differences. They are asked questions or scenarios such as “Do you think your views on guns can change,” or “I’ve been in a situation where my life was in danger,” and are asked to step forward if they agree and to explain why. Throughout the debate, the participants were able to respectfully speak their perspective while also engaging and listening to others. In the question, “Do you think people on the other side don’t care about me or my loved ones’ lives,” the participants explained their situations and were able to empathize with each other in a way they were able to understand the opposing side’s view. Finally in the question, “Do you think America has a problem with mass shootings,” all participants were able to agree that there is a dangerous epidemic of gun violence in the nation which calls for a change. Despite their political difference, they can all mutually agree that the number of lives taken from shootings is unacceptable, thus we all have one goal: to improve our nation.

J

While being provided a set amount of facts whether with or against your perspective – it is one thing manipulate facts to better fit your perspective – it is another thing to completely seclude yourself from opposing information. According to Beck’s article when people switch off the radio, change channels, only like the Facebook pages that give you the kind of news you prefer,” they are performing an act called selective exposure/learning. They are essentially constructing “a pillow fort of the information that’s comfortable.” From selective exposure which is the act of isolating yourself from opposing information, comes the act of particularized trust or surrounding yourself with only people who have the same ideologies as you. Particularized trust in Beck’s article is discussed as one of the largest fueling factors when it comes to tribalistic behaviors. Beck describes this act as “specifically, the trust you have for people in your groups. ‘Particularized trust destroys generalized trust.’”

K

Within the debate with Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan, Morgan expresses his opinions through selective exposure and particularized trust. Piers establishes his liberal perspective through the views of Democratic politicians, Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly. Piers Morgan utilizes the views of only those with the same perspectives as him which is a form of particularized trust. “I’ve made it very clear what I want to do, which is exactly what Mark Kelly wants to do. Rather than address your comments to me about standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook, you can address them to Mark Kelly because he agrees with everything I’ve been saying.” Piers allows his perspective to settle within representatives of his choice within his political stance which leads to the tribalistic behavior of selective exposure and particularized trust. He allows Mark Kelly’s opinions to speak for him and to expose himself to only certain perspectives, solely because they belong in the same group. Piers Morgan’s debates reflect acts of tribalism seen throughout media and everyday life.

L

Throughout the debates – not exclusively between Gun Control and Gun Rights – but between conservatives and liberals, it has become increasingly frustrating over the years to watch both sides endlessly argue without any productivity. In the first debate I watched with Piers Morgan and his guests, it was hard to even understand what they were saying because none of them let each other get a word in. In the Piers Morgan debate with Ben Shapiro, despite my liberal perspective, I watched as Ben Shapiro made valid arguments in regards to Gun Rights while Morgan proceeded to argue tribalistically. It is frustrating to watch people like Piers Morgan who debates on important topics such as gun violence be represented in the media and to behave in such a manner that makes our arguments invalid. However, it is possible to have productive debates which can help lead our country in the right direction.

 ******************************************************************************************************************************************

STEP ONE: Post the letters that correspond to the order of your solution.

Then, add some commentary about your solution: 50 words max

· Which paragraphs were the easiest to piece together?

· Which paragraphs/sections gave you the most trouble?

· Are there any that you are unsure of? 

· Had you written this paper, what might you have done differently to more easily guide readers through this argument? 

STEP TWO: 50 words max

Read through several posts from classmates, comparing your answer to theirs. Then, in a separate post, compare your ordering and experience to that of others.

· Did others order differently from you? If so, look back at the paragraphs. Are there multiple options? Can you argue for one over the other?

· How were the solutions and experiences of others similar to yours?

For step 2, after you Post the answer, I will send you my classmates posts.