Blog Post 5

This is a very interesting article to read before I type my response to a question about the long-term benefits of handwriting. Ironically enough I am more than persuaded by this article to believe that the process of writing something verses typing something generates more thought process and requires more effort. I prefer to hand write everything for the sake of ease. I can write faster than I can ever type and I lose my train of thought while hammering at a keyboard more often than if I am in tune with a pen and paper. Stanislas Dehaene states, ““When we write, a unique neural circuit is automatically activated”. I have to stand behind this statement for the simple fact that through my personal experience I comprehend and remember facts or information more closely than if I were to read them online or type them. The process of writing has to be clearly linked to memory and how we learn. This may be a bit of a preconceived ideal I held before reading this article, however, this only confirmed my belief in the process of writing supported by facts. As a reader it is a good practice to analysis and evaluate the authors work for both credibility and usefulness. Several things take part in making this determination, such as relevance, credentials, and accuracy. This article would be a credible source to use when constructing a research paper. All of the article referenced check out to be true and credible. However, when determining the relevance of an article in relation to your topic it is important to remember what you are trying to say rhetorically with your paper. If the stance of the article and your thesis coincide with one another and the scope of your argument is supported by the article it would work well with your paper. I believe this article may be too far separated from my topic after reading the relevance bullet on page 167 of “The Everyday Reader”, but could possibly be tied into my paper at some point depending on how narrow or broad my topic becomes.