In the design of machines, there is a discrepancy in usage between the designers and the consumers. Engineers aim to make their machines logical. However, humans are not perfectly rational and logical. In the first few pages, these statements resonated quite deeply with me.

In high school, I was heavily involved with the debate (parliamentary) circuit in Taiwan. There were many cases whether it be myself, my teammates, or fellow debaters complaining about the judging in a debate round. We’d always argue the judging is faulty or that they were terrible judges because they did not judge logically and rationally. Looking back, it’s extremely difficult to throw away all biases and to think logically and rationally: we simply weren’t programmed to behave like robots. The masterful use of emotional appeal and ethos are powerful ways to convey and persuade, despite it not being logical or following within the metric of debate. Extrapolating this, our day to day conversations and arguments with others aren’t purely logical. There are experiences and preconceptions that affect our way of thinking and decide our courses of action. The most important aspect to debate and conversing with others is communicating clearly and effectively. Being purely logical isn’t necessarily the best method of communication.

Although this seems kind of off tangent, I feel like the ideas expressed within this chapter are fully applicable to our daily lives, with debate and speech being one of them. Things such as signifiers are not just useful for machines or doors, but also instructions and jobs. If anything, this chapter has allowed me to identify connections across various subjects and actions.