relations in two paragraph

Menghuan Fan Comment by Author: Great rough draft, Menghuan. You have a lot to work with here. First order of business: pay closer attention to your quotations. See my comments below and let me know if you have any questions whatsoever.

Professor Lilley

EXPOSITORY WRITING KS

September 21, 2020

ENGINEERING MIND-SET Comment by Author: Instead of just using a key term from Foer, Give your essay an original title that alludes to the argument you’re making throughout the paper.

A long time ago, everybody was fascinated with the internet; people loved how it made them freer, smarter, and more prosperous. The internet made people better consumers, better citizens, and better humans. However, the ambiguity of the internet precipitated an enormous shift in how the information was disseminated and how information was consumed. For instance, Tech behemoths, like Facebook, reengineered the channels through which statement and news flow, which made Silicon Valley rather than the publishers to get huge profits. Silicon Valley has since been controlling and disseminating knowledge. The tech industry continues to get everything it wants. Two readings, Franklin Foer’s “Mark Zuckerberg's War on Free Will” and Jia Tolentino’s “Trick Mirror” are revealing how technology has changed our thinking by evaluating the roles played by technology in our lives as well as paying a closer look at the effects that this has to us and what can be done going forward. Comment by Author: Good and concise introduction, but now I want you to end your introduction with a clear, complex thesis. What will you argue in this paper? Your answer to that question is your thesis.

The authors seem to be agreeing that our minds have been engineered. An engineering mindset is the use of an algorithm to automate thinking. This means that people no longer think indecently but rather think in a certain way. Indeed, people are no longer independent thinkers, but we do as the system requires us to do. According to Zuckerberg, “To hack is to be a good worker, a responsible Facebook citizen--a microcosm of the way in which the company has taken the language of radical individualism and deployed it in the service of conformism” (Foer 105). This could well illustrate the idea that is used by these companies. They have been very successful in deploying the hacker culture of “moving fast and breaking things” and they have hacked our minds. For instance, in the trick mirror, the author says that “The process requires maximal obedience on the part of the woman in question, and-ideally-her genuine enthusiasm, too. This woman is sincerely interested in whatever the market demands” (Tolentino, 93). The author further illustrates how these companies are changing the human mind for their benefit. “We have not optimized our wages, our childcare system, our political representation; we still hardly even think of parity as realistic in those arenas, let alone anything approaching perfection. We have maximized our capacity as market assets.” (Tolentino, 94). This clearly shows how human thinking has been manipulated, and we are left helpless but only to do as required. Somebody is tinkering with our brains, remapping the neural circuitry, and reprogramming our memory. People no longer think the same way they used to. Comment by Author: In short, yes. But this is not a topic claim. The topic claim can’t be summary, observation, quotation, or fact. It needs to be a clear, interpretive claim. So what will you argue in this paragraph? Your answer to that becomes your topic claim. Comment by Author: Actually this isn’t Zuckerberg saying this, it is Foer. Comment by Author: What words or phrases are particularly meaningful? What is implied in that quotation that is not explicit said? What is so significant in that quotation? What does it give us evidence of? Comment by Author: I want you to pay much more attention to your quotations. Stop after every quotation and draw our attention to what those words imply. It is through such close focus on the implications of the quotations that you will be able to put the authors in conversation and build your own original argument. Comment by Author: And how does this idea here relate to one of Foer’s claims? Comment by Author: Now, what have you specifically argued in this paragraph? Form your topic claim based on your answer to that question.

These two authors clearly describe modern-day life as being manipulated and driven towards a certain direction. This means that people are no longer able to think independently. We have become very loyal to the system. “When we outsource thinking to machines, we are really outsourcing thinking to the organizations that run the machines.” (Foer 111). Face book, for instance, chooses its own choices regarding what people should read. The algorithms o the company sorts out thousand of things that the user could see to a small batch of choices. This is a clear illustration that most of the things we do and what we see s controlled today. As these companies expand and market themselves as individuality and pluralism champions, their algorithms have continued pressing us into conformity and laying waste to privacy. These Technological companies have the lobbying power and fiscal means, and captive audiences that are required in ensuring that it continues with the stimulus-reward loops it offers to the people. For example, Foer believes that people have become Cyborg. This is an illustration of the way these platforms and brains continue having a symbiotic relationship that continues intensifying as time passes by. On her side, Tolentino believes that people have been manipulated by these tech companies. “We have not opti­mized our wages, our childcare system, our political representa­tion; we still hardly even think of parity as realistic in those arenas, let alone anything approaching perfection” ( Tolentino, 94). People continue becoming addicted to these platforms; they spend a long time online and give more data to these big technology companies. When talking about Facebook’s “robust and paternalistic view, Foer is talking about Facebook's algorithms eroding free will. Algorithms are embedded in our technological lives to help people accomplish various tasks to make work easier. These are new arbiters of the human decision-making process in almost all areas. However, as discussed, this is detrimental in that it leads to loss of human judgment as people are forced to rely on this software to think for them. In simple terms, Facebook chooses what should be read by the user with the algorithms of the company sorting the many things a Facebook user could see down to a smaller batch of choice items. While the notion created is that paternalistically it offers choices to the users, the truth is that Facebook directs the users to the direction that gets them thoroughly addicted. This is related to what Tolentino talks about maximizing our capacity as market assets. Tolentino explains how we have allowed ourselves to be directed to one direction that these organizations see fit for us. “For women, packag­ing and broadcasting your image is a readily monetizable skill” (Tolentino, 93). People have, therefore, adopted a particular way of thinking and doing things. It is like there are set rules that have to be followed by people. Foer describes how the evolution of hack culture leads to something beyond human beings' understanding. These technological companies do not show us what we deserve to see or what we want to see. Instead, they have locked us and directed us in a particular direction, where they show us what they think is best for us. This is against the very morals of a democracy where everyone ought to be given an opportunity of deciding what they should see. Engineering mindset and paternalism have been shown to have a very clear connection in that Engineering mindset use algorithms to automate thinking. This means that people are directed to think in a certain way. People are no longer independent thinkers, but rather they are manipulated by the systems. Paternalism, on the other hand, has been described as offering choices for the uses. The options offered are automated, where people are shown what the technology companies think is best for them. Therefore, Te two shows that technology companies are directing people towards being independent and only relying on them for direction as they continue making huge profits. Comment by Author: Yes, they do. But that is a summary or observation of the texts. What do you think I’m gonna ask you for? That’s right – – I need to know what you will argue in this paragraph. Please provide that in the form of a topic claim. Comment by Author: Ahhhh, your topic claim is lurking in these two sentences… Comment by Author: Remember, before you get to this, I want you to tell us what is implied in that quotation. Comment by Author: Manipulated in what way? Try to be as clear and specific as possible. Comment by Author: You tend to ignore your quotations. Your first order of business when you go to revise this draft will be to isolate your quotations and spend a lot of time drawing out the implications of them. Comment by Author: Perhaps you develop a paragraph in which you connect the two texts through their claims about patriarchal authority. Comment by Author: Try to locate and cut all such sentences that do not advance a narrowly focused, specific claim. These sentences are too vague. It is not clear what you’re arguing. Every sentence in your paper should work to advance an increasingly complex argument. Focus throughout. Comment by Author: Build a paragraph with this, revised, as a strong and clear topic claim. Then bring in significant passages from both authors to give you evidence in support for this claim. Pay attention to their quotations and draw our attention to what is implied in those quotations.

People can decide not to be directed by becoming disloyal to the manipulation. “We are the screws and rivets in the grand design” (Foer, 114). Being screws and rivets in the grand design, the author believes that these technology companies use people to get everything they want. At stake is nothing less than who we are and what we will become. The corporate giants today have far more nefarious aims. Tolentino believes that the Internet is infinite with information and is capable of being structured and manipulated to appear; however, the helmsman deems fit, including negatively. Thus, users are just as accountable to not solely be reactionary but should spot the performative quality to the internet as a rhetorical space. They believe that Silicon Valley is an international movement intended to mold humanity into their desired image. The shaping is very destructive as it involves the demolishing the privacy, creativity, free will, competitiveness, public media, and space for solitary contemplation. Tolentino believes that it is possible to overcome if you want to. “It's possible if we want it” (Tolentino, 94). We are only required to be willing to be disloyal to the technological companies. On his side, Foer believes that since we are the screws and nuts to this structure, we can as well decide not to be used by these technological organizations. People have allowed the tech companies to reshape them and direct them to their desired direction. In the same manner, people can decide not to be directed by becoming disloyal to the manipulation. This is important as it will help people be able to think independently and become free once again. Comment by Author: This is a much stronger topic claim. Now choose more extensive quotations to develop this claim. And remember, you’re going to work very closely with those quotations. Comment by Author: Provide more complete quotations. This is taken out of context, so your readers don’t know what Tolentino was even referring to.

In conclusion, the internet is changing our way of thinking. Rapid technological change has jeopardized the way we think. People embrace the products and services of platforms such as Facebook without considering the cost of them. Just like these tech companies brought to the decline and subsequent end of the print media, the tech company can also decide on the direction that we as human beings are going to follow. Definitely, the direction will be dictated by their gains without being wary of the effects that this has on humanity. People must decline to be manipulated and directed towards a particular direction. This is the only way that people will regain their independence of thinking.