People use various rhetorical tools to engage their audiences and support their arguments. Whether one knows it or not, there is a traditional tendency for one to apply what has come to be known as Aristotle’s appeals to excite readers. According to Lutzke and Henggeler, those appeals comprise logos, ethos, and pathos, which authors either balance or fail to balance in their writing to achieve various purposes. In “Your Brain on Poverty,” Derek Thompson applies various appeals to argue that people in poverty do not necessarily make poor decisions; instead, their decision-making is a natural and rational response to poverty-induced stress. Placed in a poor person’s context, any other person could make similar or even more problematic decisions.
Logos
The article starts with a scientific quote linking poverty to the inability to decide rationally. The author emphatically states that one in poverty occupies the same mental state as a person who loses “13 IQ points” (Thompson), a finding that seems to refer to a study published in 2013 by Anandi Mani and colleagues. In the study report, the researchers explained that poverty induces what people generally describe as stress by capturing attention, depleting cognitive resources, and triggering intrusive thoughts (Mani et al. 980). Kicking the article off with such a groundbreaking quote induces a logical appeal that signals to readers that the writer is not simply expressing his opinion. One would even want to investigate further to see if the writer’s assertions are true, encouraging one to read the article to its very end. Placing the quote at the beginning also highlights the writer’s primary argument in the text; in other words, it supports the author’s primary argument that poverty, not irrationality, informs poor decision-making for people experiencing poverty. Throughout the text, the author supports that thesis, using further evidence, including anecdotal evidence from people experiencing poverty. For example, one such person explains how they gave up making rational choices, citing their “realization” that “I will never not be poor” as a resolution for not pursuing hopeless dreams (Tirado). In the confession, the speaker argues there is no point in denying oneself “small pleasures” to achieve what richer people believe to be attainable goals because one eventually gets broke and fails to accomplish them (Thompson). The author’s inclusion of anecdotal and research-based evidence nails his point that what seems irrational to other people might as well be the best decision a poor person makes.
Pathos
There is a compelling appeal to emotions throughout the article that engages readers to think closely about the author’s topic. Poverty is something everyone, rich or poor, can relate to because even those who do not personally experience it see it through others. More importantly, the scarcity of resources endowed to each human being forces one to think often about how to maximize utility through efficient, careful allocation. As such, rationality is a heated topic that engages all potential readers. As with his reasoning, the author cites various pieces of evidence to trigger the reader’s emotions about poverty and rational decision-making. For instance, he emphatically challenges “You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is… more basic than food” (Thompson) to explain why single mothers sometimes have their children sired by different fathers. Indeed, research supports the notion that humans inherently need to belong (Allen et al.), and that one prefers to be in the company of strangers than to be alone (Pardede et al.). It is not surprising, therefore, that a single mother should choose a stranger who fulfills their immediate gratifications despite the long-term implications brought by that relationship. Since everyone probably has experienced such ironies, the author’s invocation of such a topic engages the audience and provides a reason to follow his argument.
Another heated topic invoked by the author regards self-control. As simple as it may sound, scientific evidence supports the notion that not all people possess self-control. For example, Polaris Koi confirms that self-control derives from both biological (genetic) and environmental factors, suggesting that some people cannot help their lack of it. Unfortunately, low self-control has adverse life impacts, including an increased risk of social ostracism and loneliness (Stavrova et al.). In the face of these findings, one can judge why some people are more patient than others or why some make impulsive, irrational financial decisions that others would consider irresponsible or even foolish. Citing such a controversial topic as self-control enriches the article with a compelling emotional appeal that encourages one to find out the argument the author is making. Since one can acknowledge self-control deficits in oneself or other people, it is only reasonable that one should accept the author’s claim that poor people are not necessarily irrational.
Ethos
The Atlantic reveals Derek Thompson, the author of the article referred to in this paper, as a staff writer and author (Thompson), suggesting he enjoys credibility in the authorship of various topics cutting across different life aspects. In the article, Thompson acknowledges multiple points of view regarding poverty and rational decision-making to support his argument that poor people do not just make bad decisions. In addition to Mani et al.’s scientific study discussed above, Thompson quotes another study from neuroscientists Joseph Kable and Joseph McGuire, who recently found that self-control is not about one’s ability to wait only; it has more to do with timing and future uncertainty. Even when waiting promises a greater reward, one increasingly abandons the wait if they are unsure of getting the promised reward. Unsurprisingly, one would prefer finding an alternative means to get to work if the train they usually travel in gets increasingly late because one is unsure it would come in the first place (Konnikova). Viewed that way, the example highlights the possibility of “bad decisions” being desirable in some circumstances. In other words, it is no longer about the person making the decision rather than the context in which they are. Thompson also alludes to another writer, Andrew Golis, who recently observed that short-term needs sometimes cannot help bad decisions because their counterparts, long-term plans, appear to be unachievable (Thompson). These arguments return readers to the original argument about decision-making, exonerating people in poverty. It is not about the person; rather it is about their challenges.
Conclusion
Thompson uses all the rhetorical appeals—logos, ethos, and pathos—to argue that people in poverty do not decide poorly out of their will; rather, their circumstances demand so. Viewed critically, one realizes that decisions other people deem irrational are sometimes the most reasonable ones a person in poverty can make. By balancing all of Aristotle’s appeals in his text, Thompson makes the case that people in poverty need help to alleviate their circumstances, not condemnation or ridicule. As a problem with cognitive foundations, self-control has limitations, including perceived uncertainty about promised rewards. Like others, people in poverty calculate their rewards and choose the most attractive ones; that is, fulfilling present needs in exchange for perceived unattainable long-term rewards.
Works Cited
Allen, Kelly-Ann, et al. “The need to belong: A deep dive into the origins, implications, and future of a foundational construct.” Educational Psychology Review 34.2 (2022): 1133-1156.
Koi, Polaris. “Accessing Self-Control.” Erkenntnis 88.8 (2023): 3239-3258.
Konnikova, Maria. “You’re so Self-Controlling.” The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/opinion/sunday/youre-so-self-controlling.html.
Lutzke, Jaclyn, and Mary F. Henggeler. “The Rhetorical Triangle: Understanding and Using Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.” School of Liberal Arts University Writing Center, 2009, https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item35402.pdf
Mani, Anandi, et al. “Poverty impedes cognitive function.” science 341.6149 (2013): 976-980.
Pardede, Saga, and Velibor Bobo Kovač. “Distinguishing the need to belong and sense of belongingness: The relation between need to belong and personal appraisals under two different belongingness–conditions.” European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 13.2 (2023): 331-344.
Stavrova, Olga, Dongning Ren, and Tila Pronk. “Low self-control: a hidden cause of loneliness?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 48.3 (2022): 347-362.
Thompson, Derek. “Your Brain on Poverty: Why Poor People seem to Make Bad Decisions and why their “Bad” Decisions might be more Rational than you’d think.” The Atlantic, 22 Nov. 2013, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/.
Tirado, Linda. “Why I Make Terrible Decisions, Or, Poverty Thoughts.” Thought Catalog, 25 Nov. 2013, http://thoughtcatalog.com/linda-tirado/2013/11/why-i-make-terrible-decisions-or-poverty-thoughts/.
write