1 edit
Originally posted by DestinyRestoredUm, for starters, I'd try being careful with your definitions. I'm not exactly sure what this "folk psychology" is that you're describing, but it's obvious that you're against it. Perhaps a little more explanation of what it is that you're against would be in order--or better yet, an explanation of what you'd like to replace it with. How does the saying go, "Any fool can be against things, tell me what you're for!" ..or something like that.
how can I make improvements. Is my argument sound? I wish to improve not only my writing skills but also my ability to debate logically. Thank you for you criticism.
Also your individual arguments don't seem too terribly well developed. It seems the basic strategy is simply to pick a bunch of bad things that people have done, blame them on what you're against, and then argue that what you're against is bad. The argument could be strengthened by improving the causality link between the actions and the beliefs system which you are trying to blame, which again probably goes back to the definition. Also, anticipating and heading off counter-arguments is another good way to strengthen your side.
Originally posted by leisurelyslothI agree with all of this, and basically I'm a bit confused to what your argument really is. Because it seems to me that arguments against folk psychology are really arguments against any type of psychology all together. Bascially the arguments I've just seen in the 5 minutes I researched this argue against folk psychology by claiming the human mind doesn't have any concepts such as love, belief, hope, anger or whatnot, and all of these actions are the work of chemicals in the brain, not of thoughts or concepts.
Um, for starters, I'd try being careful with your definitions. I'm not exactly sure what this "folk psychology" is that you're describing, but it's obvious that you're against it. Perhaps a little more explanation of what it is that you're against would be in order--or better yet, an explanation of what you'd like to replace it with. How does the s ...[text shortened]... ng and heading off counter-arguments is another good way to strengthen your side.
Your paper doesn't really argue against folk psychology at all, as you can simply ascribe the people's actions in those scenarios to the perversion of group psychology, rather than any flaw with the concept of psychology in general.
although I don't make mention of her my argument stemmed from Ruth Benedict's statement "Human Nature is plastic and can be molded to the needs of society." I believe not only is she refering to conditioning as an SR relationship, but she is also saying there is no way to be sure man-kind is not part of a vast experiment.
Originally posted by DestinyRestoredSee, thats the kind of stuff that should be in a paper, not just examples of an argument that is never put forth. That would be a good opening paragraph "Ruth Benedict claimed in her paper XXXXX that "human nature is plastic and can be molded...." Then you say what your thesis is, mainly how folk psychology is undermined by this concept. Then you say "Throughout the 20th century, there have been many incidents of folk psyhcology being undermined proving that folk psycholgy cannot exist
although I don't make mention of her my argument stemmed from Ruth Benedict's statement "Human Nature is plastic and can be molded to the needs of society." I believe not only is she refering to conditioning as an SR relationship, but she is also saying there is no way to be sure man-kind is not part of a vast experiment.
Now that I have slept on it, I now know what my poblem with it is. It reads somewhat like a vast conspiracy theory. I still don't know what "folk psychology" is but you might want to talk about some of the positives of a culture that have an interest is psychology.
You might read some of the works of Thomas Szasz who is a psychiatrist who has long challenged the precepts of mental illness and psychiatry.
Originally posted by DestinyRestoredHoly cow you've got to be kidding
I am 27 in a MAT English program
MAT in English, which prepares you for teaching literature courses in private schools or AP classes in good suburban high schools, leads to a career that is in certain respects "more like college teaching" than most college teaching.
That paper..... AP classes.... college teaching.... my brain is exploding