Consider This (Week 7): Rhetoric and Cognitive Fluency

A few weeks ago, the Boston Globe published a piece written by Drake Bennett titled "Easy = True" in which he discusses the study of cognitive fluency and its relationship to persuasion and individuals' perception of 'truth,' two important phenomena central to rhetoric.

One of the many things I find compelling about the piece is the way the work of these researchers relates to our study of language and critical thinking, of writing, expression, and rhetorical awareness. It seems a timely piece to consider given the work we've done in recent weeks working through the complexities of logos—both as form and structure and as a method of reasoning.

With that in mind, your blog prompt for this week is pretty straightforward: think about and respond to Bennett's discussion. Some possible questions to consider:

Given the work we've been doing related to rhetoric and, specifically, logos, what is your reaction to Bennett's piece?

What stands out to you?

What do you find interesting or useful in light of our work in class?

Does this discussion deepen or complicate your understanding of rhetoric and the way language 'works'?

Keep in mind that these are only a few of the possible approaches you may take—please feel free to respond to the piece according to your own observations or questions; in other words, don't think you are required to address or answer these specific questions in your post—they are merely options, prompts to help you get started.

Alternately, you may decide to respond to any of the comments left by readers, which can be found either at the Boston Globe or through the New York Times' coverage of the piece in their regular feature "Idea of the Day."

However you choose to approach the piece, remember to relate it back to our unit on logos and/or your understanding of rhetoric. Also remember that this is a reflective piece—not an analysis or report—so you are welcome to invite your audience to look at the piece from your perspective, rely on your own expertise and experience, and explore the topic freely, even if that means you do not arrive at a solid conclusion but, rather, raise questions of your own.

Responders this week: consider what your peers have said about the piece. How do these perspectives align with or differ from your reaction to and understanding of rhetoric and cognitive fluency?

I'm eager to hear what everyone thinks!