Holly Babcock
College Writing I
Professor Foss
13 October, 2015
A Dangerous Argument: How Not To Make an Argument
What makes an argument stand out is the passion and directness that makes it different from all the others. In the essay, In Defense of Dangerous Ideas, the well known psychologist and professor, Steven Pinker argues that dangerous idea are only considered that by an ignorant society and its standards. Pinker speaks to an educated audience of scholars and young students as he attempts to effectively argue that ideas are only dangerous because people make them that way. However, his argument is in itself dangerous because of how ineffective it is: Pinker utilizes poor ethos through lack of structure, poor diction, and a bitterly sarcastic tone.
An argument is only understood if the organization is clear and well defined. However, Steven Pinker’s essay disregards structure and carries on in a rambling, lazy stroll that makes the argument droll and repetitive. At the beginning of the essay, Pinker attempts to appeal to the audience’s pathos by asking taboo questions. The issue is instead of asking just a few questions, he continuously asks questions over and over again such as, “do men have a tendency to rape?” (Pinker 362). Asking a few certain questions may drive the pathos of the argument but he fails at building any ethos.(how do these questions appeal to pathos? what do they make the reader feel?) Pinker asks question after question for a full page. He has yet to define what a dangerous idea is or clarify what the essay will be about. The entire first paragraph tires to build up a strong pathos but when disregarding ethos, the argument falls short of effective.(talk more about pathos (and logos) don’t switch to ethos right away) Pinker’s ethos lacks despairingly throughout his essay and the poor structure is only one many examples of his shortcomings. Pinker does break up the essay into sections, however these sections lack definition and often repeats ideas. In one section titled Explore All Relevant Ideas, the author strives to convey that a person should consider all possibilities before judging an idea or belief. The issue taken is that the section is extensively long with no clear structure and repeats some ideas without explanation. He rambles on, “should we treat some ideas as dangerous...there is another argument against treating ideas as dangerous...at that point we will be in better position to convince others that is is false then if we had let it fester in private.” (Pinker 366-367). Pinker argues on and on but his sentences contradict each other without giving clear, concise answer as to what his idea is trying to say. He never states if an idea should be considered dangerous, instead he rambles on avoiding the answer. He drives on in an ambiguous structure that lingers on for far too long. If the author had cut out his long repetitive tangent and stuck to clear, precise support and answers, not only would the essay be a lot shorter but would be tremendously more effective. An argument can only be as good as the person arguing it, however, Steven Pinker’s disregard for ethos makes his argument lacking and ineffectual.
How and when language is used has a great impact on the ethos of an argument because it conveys clarity and dedication taken into making that argument as strong as possible. Steven Pinker has an issue with his use of language, more precisely, his diction. He consistently uses run on sentences. This would not be a major issue if it happened a few times, but he does it consistently. His run on sentences are long and repetitive, they often times seem more like a tangent than an essay. In one instance, Pinker speaks about how an individual should not be judged, he goes on to say, “Even if it turns out, for instance, that groups of people are different in their average ages, the overlap is certainly so great that it would be irrational and unfair to discriminate against individuals on that basis.” (Pinker 364). The major issue is that the run on sentence disregards clarity or focus. Instead it seems more like a train of throughout that derails a careful and considerate diction. This poor use of diction then overshadows the ethos and makes the argument fall flat.(Expand, say why it overshadows his ethos) Diction comes in many forms and Pinker uses another fine example of poor use of diction. He switches from first to third person but complicates the diction and hinders the ethos. In example he states, “we love our children and parents, are faithful to our spouses, stand by our friend…selling their children, or selling out their friends or their spouses or their colleges or their country.” (Pinker 365). When switching from first to third person, Pinker is attempting to distinguish one group of people from another. The complication is that it is not clear who is who so the language choice is confounding. The constant switch between persons only hinders the ability for the argument to come through. Who is the author referring to? What is the point of switching? Why does the author need to do this? None of the questions are answered. In response, the use of language is confusing and unclear making the ethos lack which makes the argument ineffective. (You keep repeating that his ethos is lacking but say more of how using this language will make him less credible, believable etc.)
How an argument is conveyed is important to how the ethos will build up the argument. In other words, the tone of an argument either adds or decreases the value of the argument. Steven Pinker’s tone comes across as bitterly sarcastic. The problem is that his essay speaks mostly to detached scholars using this for research or studies. If his argument is condescending, then instead of building up his own ethos he is just trashing another’s which only comes across as whining. In one instance, he refers to groups of ideologies and refers to them in mocking tones but never explains why that matters to his own argument. “For millennia, the monotheistic religions have persecuted countless heresies, together with nuisances from science such as geocentrism…” (Pinker 363). The complication with his bitter tone is that he is not adding to his own argument but instead complains about others. This creates a whining, almost juvenile tone which ineffectively portrays ethos which destroys his argument.(good!) Tone portrays the care and reasoning of the argument. If the tone is consistently negative then the argument itself will be negative. The author uses a bitter tone to help bring down other arguments but never really establishes his own. In one example “only children and madmen engage in “’magical thinking,”’ the fallacy that good things can come true by believing in them…” (Pinker 366). By complaining about the way other people believe, Pinker never establishes what they should believe in or how to correct their thinking. Instead his tone is bitter and unwarranted. This angry tone never displays any reason or clarity as to why it matters to the argument which hinder the use of ethos. The use of tone needs to be carefully considered in order for ethos to correctly portray an argument so it can be effective.
What does or does not make an argument effective is dependent on the care and dedication put into it. While Steven Pinker has a quality idea, his lack of ethos is hindered by his lack of dedication. Had he put more thought and care into his argument, perhaps he could have been an interesting and powerful one. Yet, his lack of structure, poor diction, and careless tone give him an unconcerned air that destroys his argument. Without passion and clarity, an argument is only grain of sand, undistinguished from the millions of others.
I think your essay is very well written. You have very strong and clear topic sentences at the beginning of every paragraph making your essay easy to follow and understand. You also have an established idea of who Pinker's intended audience is, but you could probably expand a little bit on the intended audience and say why you think it is who it is. Also, I think you did a really good job making your essay solely on the rhetoric of Pinker's essay and not on your own opinion of his topic but try to expand on why his ethos is bad and how his questions appeal to pathos etc. You need to touch a little bit more on Pinker's pathos and logos though because your essay stresses mainly on ethos. I like all of the examples you take and quote out of his essay and I think you explain them very well too.
