Ian Bogost -- Procedural Rhetoric (Media Systems #7)

[@yorgosdritsas9425]

Great quality. I've been reading Persuasive Games for my thesis and it's been a treasure.

[@stephenbaluran3298]

I think Janet was missing the point. She thinks procedural rhetoric should always look for a particular feature in a system (in the same way Marxist criticism always looks for economic inequality). Procedural rhetoric is about the process, not about the outcome. It's a method for analyzing video games, but what we end up finding in our analyses is up to us.

[@briankelly1817]

Great audio. Also, yeah, that Janet character, she deserved the zinger at the end of the video.

[@angledcoathanger]

Eat that Janet

[@mmakey4310]

she sounds salty and jealous in every way

[@oscarbarda]

It's really sad that the end debate was cut, because I think she was coming from an interesting place (badly, but still) asking what can we do with those theoretical tools. And there are many, many answers but she did not seem open to recieving them :x

[@mmakey4310]

But her questions are really exactly for herself to answer. She literally wants Ian Boogust to hold her hands down to draw out something, but its is kind of juvenile especially at such higher level of education. No offense, it shows her lack of understanding of what Ian Boogust is really talking about.

[@neighbourlywumao7661]

“Almost like the application of the argument to the design process itself.” I guess he’s saying it is recursive logic?

[@QuijanoPhD]

I would have liked to see how the rest of the conversation at the end played out. Is that Janet Murray or another Janet? I wouldn't have expected her to push on Ian so much.

[@KastleMedia]

I think Janet proved at the end that having a background in comparative literature is not the best starting point for someone who wants to create new theories on technology. I would have asked him the same question.

[@telzamahel]

It's probably worth noting that it's not so much a theory 'on' technology as much as it is a computationally (and technologically) informed critical & design methodology, which can be applied to various media.

[@dougthemoleman]

Oh my God, this Janet... Not only does she fail to understand the point of the discussion but her arrogance in the face of her ignorance is simply staggering. I get not knowing. I get not being ashamed to ask something with genuine interest. But asking subversive questions (that get patiently answered) and still further implying the term "procedural rhetoric" serves no purpose (even after its purpose has been reexplained to her)? Why? I would not have the patience Ian has for people who behave in this way.

[@gmensah2008]

Nah dude, you're the one suffering from follow the cult leader mentality. Dude made some theory out of thin air and uses examples to make his point. But there's no principle, and when ask to clarify he says that's it not his domain, or that he can't answer that question. So Ian Bogost can't answer as to what the point of his theory would be, as to its application beyond being a "framework" from which one makes observation. Basically he's define a categorization that has no real application, and yet he claims that his categorization can prescribe real world application. She called him out on his bs and he had nothing to add it. What Ian forgot to learn from Aristotle is that rhetoric is not an isolated field of study, but part of a larger educational system, i.e a learning system, and it's actually the last part of that learning system. So she correctly asks about his learning methodology, which he has none. He shits on the TED talk falsely insightful presentation, and yet manages to exactly that, a false insightful presentation. She may not be as famous as Ian, she may only be just a teacher, but she can think for herself, and is not a sheep in awe of bs wrapped as insightful theory. Reasoning requires arguments and facts, not anecdotes about how my son learn to speak spanish in ten days. Bs Bogost got his card pulled up. He can stroke that beard back to bs land, his followers will still lick the bs of his boots either way.

[@telzamahel]

I think it's important to protect the social license to ask (potentially stupid) questions, but you're right, Janet was stubbornly advancing an argument, as opposed to genuinely asking a question (or raising a valid point, and then moving on). The point she was making was odd, as well. It's kind of like calling up a chef and asking him how exactly your body will process his food. All he can do is assure you that it'll probably process it much like it processes anything else, but obviously that's not his area of expertise. He's talking gastronomy (criticism), and she's asking about gastroenterology (pedagogy).

[@mmakey4310]

Janet's questions are really juvenile especially at this higher level of education. It is an irrational dismissal using typical illiterate trolling which in the end just put the embarassement on herself...