Final Compare Contrast

Jessie O’Brien
English 100A
Alexis Shapiro
December 7, 2014
1551 words

Lunsford vs. Pinker
The two arguments, “Mind Over Mass Media” by Steven Pinker and “Our Semi-Literate youth? Not So Fast” by Andrea Lunsford, are giving their opinions on whether the affect of domination of technology is hindering our mental abilities. Though they may have their differences, they both come to the conclusion that if anything, new forms of media and technology are doing more good than bad. Overall, both authors make valid arguments, however the use of Lunsford’s ethos, pathos, and logos make her argument stronger.
Both authors tend to give us trust in their opinion because of their credible back round history. Steven Pinker is a professor at Harvard teaching psychology. Being a professor of psychology means he has studied the functions of the human mind and he has a strong sense to see how technology can really affect humans. If that wasn’t enough, he claims his idea that, “language is the key to understanding the human mind”, was included in several books such as The Stuff of Thought: Language Window into Human Nature, when he was only a freshman at McGill University in Montreal. This gives him a lot of trust because we can all agree with what he is saying with his back round experience with this subject.
Similarly, Andrea Lunsford is a director of the writing and rhetoric program as well as an English professor at Stanford University. To our knowledge, Stanford is a very academic and challenging school so it makes it that much easier to jump on board with her thoughts. She has also taught English at high school after graduating from the University of Florida. In addition to her 30 years of experience teaching in English, she conducted all of her own studies to support her claim that trends of reading and writing have not changed for the worse with a increase in new technology. Creating her own experiments to back up her opinions makes it almost impossible to argue with her findings, which gives her stronger ethos of these two arguments.
Likewise, both Pinker and Lunsford use similar approaches to pathos. Pinker uses convincing language and tone by using the word, “you” and how “you” would be affected by technology. He makes it personal by trying to relate to the reader. He also gives many examples that relate to us such as trying to balance our lives with technology. He says we need to learn to have self-control and be able to stop using cell phones or other electronics at times like dinner or other social events. This is very relatable to the younger generations including me because we can all admit that we have trouble leaving our gadgets alone for even short periods of time. Pinker also exaggerates in the last paragraph of his essay saying, “Far from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things that will keep us smart.”(561) Basically he is saying all these new forms of media and technology are the only things keeping us smart which is a dramatization, however this leaves us thinking if some part of that is actually true.
In comparison to Pinker, Lunsford is also convincing. She uses examples that college students can relate to. For example, she uses the example how one student was able to switch from the slang language used in texting, to a formal report with no problem. Lunsford’s argument was the most relatable out of the two because she used students in college for her experiments so it is easy for us to compare. Although the two authors have had similar approaches to ethos and pathos, it is clear Lunsford pulls ahead with her use of logos in comparison to Pinker. Pinker tends to use more generalizations to support his idea that technology isn’t so bad. For example, he claims the years that IQ scores rose were the years of television, radios, and rock videos. Even though this might be true, he still didn’t use personal experiences, which I feel is more powerful because that gives full credibility. He also argues that discoveries are multiplying in science when teachers or scientists rarely even use a piece of paper but use email everyday and PowerPoint presentations. This seems valid because it is something we all see everyday. Parents, students, and teachers all do most, if not all of their work on laptops, yet all these innovations are being created. Although Pinker has valid arguments, Lunsford’s essay is stronger in this portion because of her use of personal experiences.
Lunsford conducts several studies with students from Stanford to support her claim that all this technology is not causing harm, but making generations more productive if anything. In one of her studies, she chose a random group of students and followed them from day one of college to one year after they graduated. She found they were more interested in writing outside of class. They saw writing as pleasurable and something that was collaborative rather than solitary. She also noticed they were able to adjust their writing styles and tones depending on the audience. Lunsford made sure these students were all involved with some forms of social media and technology to prove her point, “So yes, these students did plenty of emailing and texting; they were online a good part of the every day; they joined social networking sites enthusiastically. But rather than leading to a new illiteracy, these activities seemed to help them develop a range or repertoire of writing styles, tones, and formats along with a range of abilities” (571).
In another observation, a student sent a text informing what she was doing on an internship in Bangladesh. The text included slang, asterisks for emphasis, and smiley faces which shows this was very informal and friendly. The same student then sent a report to her faculty adviser for the internship and it almost looked like a whole different person wrote it. The language was very formal with no slang, no extra markings, and was straight to the point. This showed how easily the students were able to change their tone depending on their audience. This fascinating because most people consider Stanford to be very into technology and the fact they were aware of the context and audience of writing is amazing.
In addition to this study, she also included students from different schools in another experiment. She collected samples of first-year student writing from all types of schools including two or four year, public or private, and big or small schools. In her research, she found these students were writing significantly more than ever before. Next, the ratio of errors to words stayed consistent which means even though writing has increases, the amount of errors stayed the same. Even though nowadays students may depend on spell check from their phones, it wasn’t about the spelling, but the wrong word. For example, using too instead of to. There was no use of “texting words” or slang and they all had a sense of what was appropriate language.
In a whole, they both can agree that technology and media is not making us dumb and we need to learn how to use if effectively. Even though they agree on this, they have different reasons why. Pinker believes we need to develop strategies of self-control just like many other things in life. On the other hand, Lunsford thinks that teachers need to adapt to the new forms of technology based on her studies. Teachers need to change the way they teach because if they stick with the “old fashion” ways, they may be hindering student’s ability to learn more.
The use of fallacies on both ends may cause some hesitation with jumping on board with either author. Pinker uses false cause by arguing a link that might exist but doesn’t give evidence to prove that. For example, Pinker states, “When comic books were accused of turning juveniles into delinquents in the 1950’s, crime was falling to record lows, just as the denunciations of video games in the 1990’s coincided with the great American crime decline.” (560) He makes the link between comic books and video games with a decline in crime rate which may be true, but we cannot believe this because he give to evidence to prove this is right. In comparison to Pinker, Lunsford also states fallacies. She uses red herring by not focusing on the main issue. Lunsford claims, “What students need in facing these challenges is not derision or dismissal but solid and informed instruction. And that’s where the real problem may lie- not with student semi-literacy but with that of their teacher.” (574) She seems to be taking the focus away from the students, and putting it on the teachers.
Though these arguments have some differences, they both have their opinions, which include reasons why technology is not making the younger generations worse and may actually be more beneficial. Overall, Pinker and Lunsford both had good use of ethos and pathos but Lunsford’s use of logos makes her argument stronger. She uses her own studies which makes her argument much more believable. She had more of a well-rounded argument, which included equal use of ethos, logos, and pathos. Both authors had quality arguments, however Lunsford’s essay was more convincing which lead me to jump on board with her opinion.

Works Cited
Lunsford, Andrea. "Our Semi-Literate Youth? Not So Fast." The Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition. 8th ed. New York: Norton, 1979. Print.

Pinker, Steven. "Mind Over Mass Media." The Norton Sampler: Short Essays for Composition. 8th ed. New York: Norton, 1979. Print.