My first idea is the fact that Gee discredits himself and how that affects his credibility as a source. My new question is are his ideas on discourses credible? In gee’s first explanation of discourses he states that you are either in one or you’re not and that you have to be mentored by someone who has mastered the discourse. However he then discredits himself by stating that it is possible to mush fake your way into a discourse which means you do not have to fully be in one or mentored by someone. By Gee doing this he removes some of his credibility making it difficult to believe anything he says about discourses since he doesn’t appear to sure of himself. This leads me to lean more towards Cuddy and not Gee. This leads me into my second idea which is since Cuddy isn’t talking about discourses is there a possibility we are just looking into the both of them too much and over analyzing? Cuddy never actually states anything about discourses so this leads me to believe perhaps the two are not connected at all. Gee talks about discourses and how to enter them by Cuddy simply talks about body language and faking it till you make it. This leads me to believe they have no true connection of ideas and we are simply over analyzing the two texts.

ENG101I