Luke Kuechly is one of my favorite athletes ever. He is also the star player for my favorite sports team, the Carolina Panthers. This article, written by Jourdan Rodrigue, explains a small piece of technology that Kuechly is wearing this season to help prevent concussions using text, photographs and videos.
This mysterious piece of equipment is not seen commonly yet in the NFL and is called Q collar. Kuechly has had issues in the past with concussions which is common in the NFL. The Q collar is in prototype phase and through research of woodpeckers it has been developed. The article explains that woodpeckers tongue puts pressure on its jugular vein when pecking to limit or eliminate head trauma.
You can see how this piece of technology would be hard to visualize with out images. Furthermore, when Kuechly is wearing the Q collar in a game you can hardly notice it. The images show that it is a small collar worn around the neck. The collar presses slightly on the jugular vein of the player, this slows fluid outflow from the brain allowing the brain more cushion from fluids. An example was given by Dr Gregory Myer on the thought process behind the Q collar, “By putting a small “kink in the hose so that extra blood volume is filling that free space…we’re just filling up that free expandable space, so the brain has less room to move in the skull.” The images show how the collar attaches to the neck using a bouncy ball as an example. Other images also show Kuechly in action wearing it along with several videos.
The Q collar is still in a preliminary stage and not yet proven to decrease head trauma. With NFL careers becoming shorter and shorter due to concussions, players are willing to try extreme ideas and technology to prolong their careers and save their brain long term.

Intel’s Shooting Star drones to get star-spangled for 4th of July aerial light show

This article about Intel’s Shooting Star drone light show for Independence Day 2018. It is a great example of the use of rhetoric to support STEM. The article is about the Intel drones, but it also includes the Travis Airforce Base and their relationship with Intel and the tech community. The article describes the motivations of both Intel and the Airforce for creating this technological visual spectacle. The inspiration on Intel’s side as described here was to replace firework shows with a new environmentally friendly and technologically capable aerial lightshow. Travis Airforce Base is happy to give its community a magnificent show and have a special relationship with the local tech companies. The article was published July 3^rd, the day before the show, most likely to inspire attendance and support. The video in the article shows the practice run footage of the show being performed. The last statement made before the article closes with the video is about the logistics of the show (when & where) and encourages people to attend. The video is “For those not able to make the show”.

Here we see all the elements of Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric. The logic of making such a drone is described. The audiences’ want for new and entertaining shows is provided for. The article has the basics of credibility, as statements made quoting the Airforce are not lightly made falsely, and the news site has been running for a number of years, so likely they did speak with someone representing Travis Airforce Base; a reliable source for this topic for sure. The article also is a clear attempt at using the rhetoric to promote the technology and event, being released only a day before the performance. While the article is short and succinct, it makes its point well by considering (or at least utilizing) the ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos of their statements and the technology they are talking about.

The graphic novel on rhetoric makes a good point that I feel is not one naturally thought by many types typically drawn to STEM fields. That is, that the story surrounding a project is why it happens in the first place. Many people who are into the sciences and technology can forget all off what it means that they are working, in the end, to change peoples’ lives. The prospect of changing peoples’ lives is exciting. Being so excited can be distracting. One can forget that the story of this possibly different life keeps the project moving forward. It keeps people inspired to work through the many failures inevitable in STEM projects.

This means that one relies on the story and so it must be attractive to the potential beneficiaries of the project and the people who will complete it. This is why rhetoric is such a critical part of technology.  Rhetoric is the part that makes the rest of the world care. Many research projects are, in the end, a failure, but ‘the show must go on’. The next project must be inspired…and eventually funded. This inspiration is found in the rhetoric surrounding an idea. Not every person necessary for the completion of a project will always understand the potential benefits upon being presented with the idea. They must hear the rhetoric. They must feel that being involved in the project has value to them, their life, their goals, etc.

The skills needed to create effective rhetoric can be very outside of the box for people who have invested most of their education and time into learning STEM skills and attaining the associated accreditations to be respected (degrees and licenses for example) in their field. They most likely will not have spent much time on writing skills in most STEM educational programs. The unfortunate fact of the matter, however, is that any project without good rhetoric to support it will never happen.

In the article “Understanding Rhetoric, A Graphic Guide to Writing”, the authors use comic relief to get the audiences attention and their point across. In the comic it shows the rhetoric is often seen with a negative connotation that stunts discussion when its origin was meant to promote healthy debate and discussion. I believe rhetoric is essential in our every day lives. Rhetoric allows us to present ourselves in a professional and knowledgeable manner enabling us to communicate with others in our field and daily lives.

The article continues with rhetoric and shows us how Plato frowned upon rhetoric and believed it was a distraction and showed weakness. Aristotle on the other hand looked at rhetoric much differently. Ethos, pathos and logos are three areas of communication that Aristotle believed encompassed rhetoric. These three ideas ethos (ethics), pathos (empathy) and logos (logic) have always been very interesting to me. When I think about communicating effectively, I think of these three terms at their core. Pathos or emotion is critical in drawing the audience in and showing them why what your saying should matter. Ethos or credibility is essential in any conversation where you want to be heard. I mean who wants to listen to someone that has no experience about what they are talking about? Logos or logic is vital in completing well rounded thoughts. These three words together allow us to communicate with each other effectively and draw other attention to our causes.

The article also introduces us to Kairos. This term is interesting to me especially because I haven’t studied it before, and it makes you think a little deeper. Kairos connects rhetoric to space and time. Is what you’re saying applicable to the time and place. In the business world this is so important. You have a small window of time to capitalize on ideas. Thoughts and ideas that are important around the world right now may not be seen important tomorrow.

The term ‘rhetoric’ simplifies into a broad understanding of how we interpret dialogues and conversations. By analyzing “Understanding Rhetoric” by authors: Elizabeth Losh, Jonathan Alexander, Zander Cannon, Kevin Cannon, we can observe the correlation between the instincts of psychology and how it attributes to the ‘rhetoric’ performance carried out by individuals like us. As the text states, ” Rhetoric is only meant to hide flaws, not encourage self-improvement.”  This statement expresses the understanding of the psychology behind the term ‘rhetoric’ as people justify their use of this exercise solely to boost their self assurance. Little do people know that this execution will create a conflict as they’re demarcating the border of actually understanding and interpreting, rather than the self affirmation of the knowledge they have gained. This performance also plays over with ethos logos and pathos since it intervenes with our feelings, logic, and moral.  Moving forward, the authors also made key reference to the term ‘Kairos’ which simply coincides to the lack of patience. I’ve personally done this many times and I’m doing it right now since this assignment is due within an hour. I will however, re-read my comment to make sure there aren’t any grammatical errors.