What have we learned so far? Benjamin Wallace, “The Price of Happiness”: How does the price of something affect your level of happiness? Conflicting, contradictory. You seem to usually enjoy it more if you spend more money on it. Michael Norton, “How to Buy Happiness”: Money can buy you happiness, but not when you spend it on yourself, but when you spend it on others. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow, The Secret to Happiness”: Money is not really a motivation in people and it’s not a cause for happiness. A state where you’re in the zone, you are working for the sake of working. The work itself is motivating. Your work is something that makes you happy. There’s the diagram of challenging/skills. Barry Schwartz, “The Paradox of Choice”: Barry does say choice is good, but highlights the numerous bad implications of choice. Choice can make you not satisfied because you’ll think you made the wrong choice, regret. Low expectations really help you make a choice. Dan Gilbert, “The Surprising Science of Happiness”: Nancy Etcoff, “The Science of Happiness”: Happiness is a lot more complicated than we thought it was 50 years ago. She brings up lots of different studies on happiness to “update” the audience on happiness. Babies are hardwired to detect pleasure and happiness. People are hardwired to experience unhappiness and discomfort more than happiness. Unhappiness is often medicated. Malcolm Gladwell, “Choice, Happiness, and Spaghetti Sauce”: He says we need people to help us figure out exactly what we want so they can market something for us. Howard “democratized” food and beverages, this is what expanding choice did. Sunstein, C.R., “What You Can Learn from the New Science of Smarter Spending”: Chan, M., “Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable”: Begley, S., “Happiness: Enough Already”: Sadness and depression and anxiety are okay. They can lead to productivity. Brooks, D., “What Suffering Does”: He lists benefits to suffering, as opposed to just being happy. Essay 1: Finding Common Ground Quality Criteria No/Limited Proficiency (1) Minimal Proficiency (2) Proficiency (3) High Proficiency (4) An informative introduction to the issue and opposing positions The issue(s) at hand are not explained. Thesis is missing. Reader cannot determine thesis and purpose or thesis has no relation to the writing task. The issue(s) and opposing positions are not well-developed. Thesis may be obvious or unimaginative. Thesis and topic are somewhat vague or only loosely related to the writing task. The issue(s) and opposing positions are competently developed, but still has some weaknesses. Thesis is somewhat original. Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task. Develops fresh insight. Substantial, logical, and concrete developments of issue and opposing positions. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted. Thesis is clear and specific. A well-developed, probing analysis of the two articles Offers simplistic, un.

1. What have we learned so far?
Benjamin Wallace, “The Price of Happiness”: How does the
price of something affect your level of happiness? Conflicting,
contradictory. You seem to usually enjoy it more if you spend
more money on it.
Michael Norton, “How to Buy Happiness”: Money can buy you
happiness, but not when you spend it on yourself, but when you
spend it on others.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow, The Secret to Happiness”:
Money is not really a motivation in people and it’s not a cause
for happiness. A state where you’re in the zone, you are
working for the sake of working. The work itself is motivating.
Your work is something that makes you happy. There’s the
diagram of challenging/skills.
Barry Schwartz, “The Paradox of Choice”: Barry does say
choice is good, but highlights the numerous bad implications of
choice. Choice can make you not satisfied because you’ll think
you made the wrong choice, regret. Low expectations really
help you make a choice.
Dan Gilbert, “The Surprising Science of Happiness”:
Nancy Etcoff, “The Science of Happiness”: Happiness is a lot
more complicated than we thought it was 50 years ago. She
brings up lots of different studies on happiness to “update” the
audience on happiness. Babies are hardwired to detect pleasure
and happiness. People are hardwired to experience unhappiness
and discomfort more than happiness. Unhappiness is often
medicated.
Malcolm Gladwell, “Choice, Happiness, and Spaghetti Sauce”:
He says we need people to help us figure out exactly what we
want so they can market something for us. Howard
“democratized” food and beverages, this is what expanding
choice did.
Sunstein, C.R., “What You Can Learn from the New Science of

2. Smarter Spending”:
Chan, M., “Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You
Miserable”:
Begley, S., “Happiness: Enough Already”: Sadness and
depression and anxiety are okay. They can lead to productivity.
Brooks, D., “What Suffering Does”: He lists benefits to
suffering, as opposed to just being happy.
Essay 1: Finding Common Ground
Quality Criteria
No/Limited Proficiency (1)
Minimal Proficiency (2)
Proficiency (3)
High Proficiency (4)
An informative introduction to the issue and opposing positions
The issue(s) at hand are not explained. Thesis is missing.
Reader cannot determine thesis and purpose or thesis has no
relation to the writing task.
The issue(s) and opposing positions are not well-developed.
Thesis may be obvious or unimaginative. Thesis and topic are
somewhat vague or only loosely related to the writing task.
The issue(s) and opposing positions are competently developed,
but still has some weaknesses. Thesis is somewhat original.
Thesis and purpose are fairly clear and match the writing task.
Develops fresh insight. Substantial, logical, and concrete
developments of issue and opposing positions. Details are
germane, original, and convincingly interpreted. Thesis is clear
and specific.
A well-developed, probing analysis of the two articles
Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic analysis.
Inappropriate or off topic generalizations. Analysis is irrelevant
to thesis. There are faulty assumptions and errors of fact.
Offers somewhat obvious analysis that may be too broad.
Details are too general, not interpreted, or inappropriately

3. repetitive.
Offers solid but less original analysis. Assumptions are not
always recognized or made explicit. Contains mostly
appropriate details or examples.
Develops fresh insight. Substantial, logical, and concrete
analysis. Details are germane, original, and convincingly
interpreted.
A fair and impartial presentation
Uses judgmental words, inaccurately and unfairly represents
information. Doesn’t give equal space to both arguments.
Relies on both judgmental and neutral words. Information could
be presented in a biased, selective, or incomplete manner.
Mostly uses clear, neutral and accurate words. Mostly
represents information accurately and fairly. Might not give
equal space to both arguments.
Uses clear, neutral, and accurate words. Represents the
information accurately and fairly. Gives equal space to both
arguments.
A clear, logical organization
Unclear organization. No or very few transitions. No or very
few topic sentences.
Some signs of logical organization. May have abrupt or illogical
shifts and ineffective flow or ideas. Weak topic sentences.
Paragraph structure could be improved.
Organization supports thesis and purpose. Transitions are
mostly appropriate. But sequence of ideas or paragraph
structure could still be improved.
Fully and imaginatively supports thesis and purpose. Sequence
of ideas is effective. Transitions, topic sentences, and paragraph
structure are effective.
Use of sources/APA format and English grammar and
vocabulary
Neglects important sources. Overuse of quotations or paraphrase
to substitute writer’s own ideas. Possibly uses source material
without acknowledgement. Sources are not integrated. Does not
demonstrate proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and

4. sentence structure. No or little understanding of APA.
Doesn’t always cite and synthesize the sources properly. Some
connections between the two sources. Quotations and
paraphrases may be too long and/or inconsistently referenced.
Demonstrates limited proficiency in English grammar,
vocabulary, and sentence structure. Inconsistent understanding
of APA.
Mostly cites and synthesizes sources properly. Competently
makes connections between the two sources. Doesn’t overuse
quotes, but may not always conform to required APA style.
Demonstrates proficiency in English grammar, vocabulary, and
sentence structure. Demonstrates a good understanding of APA.
Fully and imaginatively synthesizes and properly cites. Makes
strong connections between the two sources. Doesn’t overuse
quotes. Demonstrates high proficiency in English grammar,
vocabulary, and sentence structure. A complete or near
complete understanding of APA.
Student,
Notes
--Matt
Bridgewater 1
Essay #1: Finding Common Ground
Diving into an argument is very difficult to do. Imagine you are
invited to a cocktail party and you arrive 30 minutes late. You
walk into the ballroom and there are already 50 people there.
There are numerous conversations going on; some of which
have been going on for half an hour. You randomly pick out a
group of 4 people to approach and socialize by getting involved
with their conversation. You walk up, introduce yourself, and

5. then listen in to what they are talking about. It takes time to get
glued into the conversation so that you can contribute. This
situation is analogous to writing our first essay, Finding
Common Ground. Over the course of WRIT 112, you’ll develop
the reading, writing, and research skills to write mature,
researched papers. But the first step is to know how to get
involved in a researched topic.
Write an essay analyzing at least two essays taking different
positions on an issue. You may also draw on other sources for
background information or context. Your purpose is to analyze
at least two essays to understand their authors’ main points of
disagreement and to suggest ways to identify points of
agreement and build common ground based on shared values,
concerns, needs, and interests, as well as to identify points of
disagreement and different perspectives. To do this, you’ll use
the essays posted to the course web site under “Happiness and
its Discontents.” The readings in this unit can be seen as being
organized in three sections. The first section draws on the
humanist tradition to discuss happiness. The second section
presents readings from positive psychology, a more scientific
approach to understanding happiness. And the third section
criticizes positive psychology. One way to write this paper is to
select two essays from two separate sections and compare and
contrast them, for example, “Pig Happiness?” from section one
and “Flow” from section two. Sometimes, you can compare and
contrast two essays from the same section, such as “Pursuit of
Happiness” and “The Dalai Lama’s Ski Trip.”
Criteria you’ll be graded on
An informative introduction to the issue and opposing positions
· A paragraph or so laying out the idea of happiness as you, a
culture, or someone else understands it. Begin with a quote, a
surprising fact, a startling statistic, or a mini story.
· A paragraph or so briefly describing the articles on happiness
that you’ll be using, focusing on their main ideas and/or
theoretical approaches to understanding happiness
· A thesis identifying areas of disagreement and areas of

6. common ground
A probing analysis with properly synthesized sources
· Several paragraphs in which you argue to support your thesis’s
assertions
· Interesting and insightful discussion of the points of
disagreement and potential agreement
· Focus in on a few points rather than too many points
· Explain in detail the points that are hard for readers to grasp
· Consider emphasizing the less obvious points of agreement
· Consider why the writers make a particular kind of argument
rather than another kind of argument
· Consider how the writer’s profession or biography could
explain why a particular idea has so much persuasive power
· Think about the social and political situation in which each
essay was originally written and how the writer was trying to
appeal to readers
· Examine the concessions and refutations of opposing views to
see where there might be room for agreement
A fair and impartial presentation
· Consider your word choices, replacing judgmental words with
neutral ones
· Make sure you are representing each writer accurately and
fairly
· Give equal space to both arguments
A clear, logical organization
· Paragraphs and sections are properly laid out and have
effective flow and logic
· Effective topic and “wrap up” sentences
· Transition words
· Appropriate use of headings, if applicable
An engaging, mature writing style and proper APA formatting
· Title page, References page, proper page header format, and
in-text citations
Sources: at least 2
Page length: 5