In Kathryn Schulz's essay "Evidence", two prevalent ways to present evidence are shown in great detail. These methods are self-subversive thinking, and being a confident bulldozer. These will both be referenced and defined later through further analysis. These methods both work well in presenting evidence and opinions on a subject, but they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Looking for examples of these two types of mindsets was not hard to find at all. Instances that I observed into included a discussion with my roommate about an NFL football game, and a conversation on the phone with my mother. After further study, it became apparent that one of these methods of thinking is more effective than the other. Self-subversive thinking can lead to deeper conversations, but do not always provide a distinct answer to the topic at hand.
Before getting started in sharing these examples connect back to Schulz's work, it is imperative to define what exactly these two methods of thinking mean. One of the methods Schulz describes is a confident bulldozer, or a person that is very straightforward with their opinion or evidence. A confident bulldozer never has a second thought that they could ever be incorrect with their beliefs. They preach as if their opinion or views are the only thing that will or ever will matter, and they leave no room for anything other than what they believe to be true. While these people are correct a portion of the time, there are other times that they are not. If one does not know better, they could very easily believe this false information. Being a confident bulldozer can hurt a conversation because it can restrict deeper analysis of a topic. The validity of what the speaker is saying is also to be questioned if they are unable to see another side of an argument. .
Meanwhile, a self-subversive thinker is one that takes things into their own hands to ensure that they have the truth.