OTHER: I need a second draft for this essay. here are the comments from the professor for the first draft.
As I noted in your DB post, Trust: Testing and Control, you can get even closer to hitting all the requests of my assignments, step by step and part by part. Your work here again demonstrates some thoughtfulness but you leave out too many of the steps as per the assignment handout and turn a lot of this over, it seems, to computer-generated language (?). See what makes me say that in this note below.
Here are suggestions of what needs to be accomplished in the second draft:
1. The first paragraph needs some clarity on what the definite difference in perspectives is between Van Edwards and Ariely. You just say “different perspectives on human nature.” You need to get to know Ariely more and be able to say how his point of view differs from Van Edwards. Also what would his reaction be to such a course?
2. Your thesis needs to be something more exact about what you feel strongly about as a specific point. This point must be the point you have worked out as a guiding force for the whole essay, a point your will work hard to highlight in your topic sentences of your paragraphs and the point you will come back to. You do not yet have a thesis statement (“reveals the complexity” is not a guiding force of a point to work at–to work at hard–to prove as your work as the writer of this essay. Is it a computer-generated statement, by the way? AI and CHATGPT love, love, love phrases like “reveals the complexity..” and “balanced approach…” You can do better yourself, Richard, through your own thoughts.)
3. Your second paragraph is not following the rigor of real visual analysis. See Part B of the assignment sheet as well as Assistive Handout 2 in the Course Menu to get this very important part of your essay into shape.
4. Your third paragraph, Richard–I have no idea what you’re saying and how it conveys anything personal. It doesn’t, really–right? Think of all the stories you’ve read and told since you were young–all with a who, what happened, what you observed, where and at what time in your life, what’s going on, who are you and how can I get to know you through the story you’re conveying, and how I can understand you and agree, “OK, I get it. Because of what Richard has been through or what he has observed personally, because of this being actually Richaed, he would or would not want to take this course.” I can have this kind of reaction to you personally in this part of the paper only if write in an authentic way.
Please see Part C of the assignment handout. I’m really thinking this part came from computer-generated writing. . .
5. For your research part, please convey the research in a more complete way. Remember that I ask that the research has to relate to the rest of the paper–it has to be like a “cap” that the paper wears very fittingly. There are not connections to anything else you said here. In terms of working with a thesis (see my comments above about you needing an actual thesis), a thesis would come back into play when you discuss your research. Please see Assistive Handout 3 in the Course Menu for help on how to write this part of your paper. But please also work on what it is you really want to drive home in this paper–you, Richard, what’s important coming from you to me?–about trust and “being a human lie detector” and how we relate to others in the world? I need to hear your voice.
Remember too, Ariely also has to come back in here as well. Did you do a good job with Journals 1 and 2–these were meant to help you get to know Ariely.
Take your time to do a good job for the second draft. It’s worth 15 points.
Comments from Customer
PREVIOUS PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (#568780097): the essay is based off this article, https://www.scienceofpeople.com/courses/lie-detection/
What is the purpose of this essay?
The purpose of this essay is to grapple with a complex multimodal text related to the course, which will (thanks to your careful analysis) shine light on course themes, in particular Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view honesty and dishonesty. In other words, your analysis of this text will serve as an illuminating lens to view not only the text itself but the course overall so far. In addition, you will gain a more critical perspective on how a claim is made (ex: “humans can—and should be– accurate lie detectors”) in relation to other experts’ opinions.
What will I be writing about?
On her website, “Science of People,” Vanessa Van Edwards advertises a course on “How to Be a Human Lie Detector.” The course promises to educate and train people in detecting lies and hidden emotions with up to 90% accuracy, as it promotes abilities such as “speed read anyone” and “find dishonesty behind words.” The course is expensive, and its marketing (images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us) is elaborate. Your job is to analyze the website as a kind of deliberate message about honesty and dishonesty all around us; to analyze how the website communicates that message (again, images, expressions, promises, assumptions), and how all this information either confirms or contradicts Ariely’s moderate-optimistic view of honesty and dishonesty you’ve been picking up from his book. Note: DO NOT sign up for the course. Only view the webpages that are available—there is already plenty to observe and pick up information on.
What kind of structure can I use for the essay?
Part A: Write the Introduction:
What does it mean to know ourselves as human? Should we strive to see, understand, and accept our own dishonesty? Or does being human obligate us to be “better”? –to be more honest, more integral, and to constantly improve ourselves? (And so should we be less tolerant of others’ faults—such as their lieing—as a result?) As your last sentence of the introduction, create a thesis statement that makes clear your position as well as the point that you realize there are two varying ideas of human nature in play–the view of Van Edwards on self-improvement (and intolerance for others’ faults) and the view of Ariely.
Part B: Next, talk about the advertised course:
Smoothly transition into your discussion of “How to Be a Human Lie Detector,” as it is advertised on the website: How is the course presented? What does Van Edwards want you to believe about lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) What does she want you to believe about people who lie? (“Point” to what you’re looking at the on the site.) What does she want you to believe how easy or hard it is to learn more about liars and lying? (“Point” to what you’re looking at on the site.) As you analyze these messages in the advertisement, analyze the language and images she uses–images, expressions, “promises,” assumptions about human nature and deceit being all around us. Depending on how you feel about this kind of messaging (and what you said in your introduction), also critique (evaluate) her perspective in a strong, ironic, or perceptive tone.
Part C: Next, make a choice: This course does—or does not—hold interest or value for you:
Yes, this course holds definite interest or value for me.
Perhaps this course goes along with your notions of how human beings should constantly improve themselves and not make excuses for themselves or others. Perhaps certain marketing messages or images from the site struck a chord with you, based on your past experience and what you know of other humans. Perhaps you think the course could explain some aspects of human nature that have always annoyed you or that you feel need more attention in today’s world. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, news, culture, or social scene.
No, this course and others like it hold no interest or value for me.
Perhaps you can discern manipulation coming from the site in several places. Perhaps you do not trust Van Edwards for her self-presentation or inconsistencies. Perhaps you’re thinking the approach she offers is not “real world,” not sustainable, and could possibly even backfire in relationships or psychologically for individuals. Bring in some mention of Ariely, and make your case with examples that are believably based on your experience or your own close-up observations of your community, culture, news, or social scene.
Part D: Finally, add some research:
What is one research source you can find—for example, a source on how children learn to trust, or how detecting lies is or is not possible—that supports something you’ve said in Part C of this paper?
