(Page 150) I appreciate this point. I think one thing that can be read from it is that writing can be improved when it is written in conversation with the subject matter or the reader. Few people like to be "talked at," and making claims either with subpar evidence or without evidence at all--while being all around bad analytical practice, as this section explains--can make the writer come across as overly confident and patronizing. It leads to both poorer claims and a worse experience for the reader.

As a silly example, I'm reminded of a critique I saw once of that BBC Sherlock show. Good mysteries give the reader (or viewer) all the clues they would need to logically put together the conclusion themselves. The TV show, however, set all of its mysteries up with data the viewer was never given access to until the big reveal, leading to a pretty terrible watching experience, all in an attempt to make Sherlock appear to be more of a super-genius. I think this can apply here, too.

(page 111) I feel like there's a bit of a blind spot in this section--I would disagree with the idea that everyone's sense of self is primarily influenced by others' views of them (like that quote from class about seeing yourself as you think others see you). I think here Johnson may be making the assumption that for everyone it is as simple as accepting your assigned roles and all of the expectations that come along with them (or making the conscious choice to rebel against those roles), but I think it can be argued that the ability to do this comes from some amount of privilege (tying in with what Johnson explains later in this chapter).

For instance, Johnson repeatedly mentions how LGBT people have a lot of expectations placed on them based on their identities, either from the assumption that they are straight, or from the stereotypes associated with LGBT people. But he never addresses something immensely important to this topic: how do these LGBT people figure out their identities if the norm is to assign everyone as straight? Surely that would require some amount of self reflection beyond just what people see externally, but Johnson writes as though these identities are a given. He later mentions how heterosexuals take for granted how they do not have to think carefully about what information is disclosed to others, but does not expand this idea to how people of non-marginalized identities often do not have to question the roles they have been assigned. This isn't an act of rebelling against one's role, such as a student talking back to a professor; this is a direct refutation of the role one has been assigned. I think it's completely fair to say that these situations are still heavily socially influenced, but Johnson doesn't delve into them much beyond the surface level analysis of easily accepted and internalized role expectations.

I appreciate this point. I think one thing that can be read from it is that writing can be improved when it is written in conversation with the subject matter or the reader. Few people like to be "talked at," and making claims either with subpar evidence or without evidence at all--while being all around bad analytical practice, as this section explains--can make the writer come across as overly confident and patronizing. It leads to both poorer claims and a worse experience for the reader.

As a silly example, I'm reminded of a critique I saw once of that BBC Sherlock show. Good mysteries give the reader (or viewer) all the clues they would need to logically put together the conclusion themselves. The TV show, however, set all of its mysteries up with data the viewer was never given access to until the big reveal, leading to a pretty terrible watching experience, all in an attempt to make Sherlock appear to be more of a super-genius. I think this can apply here, too.