Week 6: Class Discussion Q2

I do think that men and women use language very different. Men and women can both use it similarly also. For example people can use language to get what they want and I believe a man is more direct about it with know sugar coating whereas a women may not be so direct and use a more standoffish approach. A women may hint at what they want and expect people to figure it out. I think that is the main problem in relationships is lack of communication. Men get upset when women are not upfront because that’s how men typically operate. They have a fight and then are over it and are fine the next minute whereas women want to talk about and sit and analyze and over think the situation. I think that men and women will always use language different even if they are not using their stereotypical roles of men being direct and women more emotional.

Week 6: Class Discussion Q1

Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? When I hear this question I immediately know my answer and it is no. I think everyone forms a general opinion on someone within the first 5 seconds of meeting them, even before they get a chance to say a word. We look at age, what they are wearing, what they look like, where are you first meeting them and so on. Of course this isn’t to say that we should not judge people and give everyone the same blank canvas but it happens. There are also pre dispositioned stereo types that make people automatically categorize people such as a jock, cheerleader, hillbilly, rocker, ghetto and so forth. Because we already categorized someone we then thing of all the stereo types that come with those categories and base how we listen to that person off those. I don’t know how we can change this, because even if you were to talk to someone on the phone you do the something because they may have an accent or deep authoritative voice. Obviously this is not fair because you may be surprised when you find out that the “hillbilly” is really has a PhD, very well educated and very wealthy, it happens all the time.

Week 4: Class Discussion Q 2

A speaker that I really admire is of course one of the very well known and most popular speakers, Martin Luther King, Jr. He is one of the greatest for many people but obviously there is a reason. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke with such power yet empathy for the people. He knew how to captivate his audience in many ways. When he spoke you say power, passion, good character, logic and concern for the people. People took his word and believed in him. He has been gone for many years now and he is still one of the most well known speakers and everyone knows him by saying “I have a dream” and that will live on for many more years to come. I believe that when Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke to his audience he portrayed credibility, attractiveness and power and that is what made him so great to me.  The audience trusted him, he wasn’t over bearing yet he showed passion in his words. I think that he spoke with ethos, pathos and logos and that built his character. He was a great speaker and his words will still live on.

Week 4: Class Discussion Q 1

These days there are so many public speakers out there from political speakers to celebrities figures and so many more. Its hard to pin point one speaker who has influenced me but one that stands out in my head is one of the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) speakers who I saw when I was in high school. What makes her so memorable was her emotional credibility to audience. She herself had lost a child do to a drunk driver and just the emotion and conviction in her voice as she spoke really touched not just me but the audience as a whole. By the end of her speech we where all in tears, she held such a power in her voice as she spoke and it was not because of the very sad fact that she lost a child but the fact that she still stood up there and was telling her story to help save someone else’s life. That is a speech that I will always hold close to me.

Now on the other hand one of the worst speakers I have ever heard was my high school principle during our high school graduation. He was such a disappointment. I believe that the main reason was because he never grabbed the personal attention to the students on a daily basis as it was but during his speech you could tell he was really unprepared, unorganized and there was know thought put into the speech. It was as though he threw it together the night before (he actually admitted he did). For something like a high school graduation I believe you need someone that shows care and power over their audience especially since we where all moving on to adulthood and could use a few words of encouragement. He literally just read us a Dr. Seuss  book, now does that say thought, to me not really. For me his message was that he really did not care for his students.

Week 3: Class Discussion Q 2

With reading about the pragmatic perspective, they describe communication as patterned interaction and at first I did not agree but as I read on I could see what they meant. To me it seems as though they are saying you need two people to interact, your sender and your receiver and that makes sense. You need both people in order to have communication even if one does not respond and one not responding can send a louder message then responding with word. In a game you need two people to play and usually in a game one persons move depends on the person before them and in communication that is what we do. If I am having a conversation with someone and I state how I am feeling the other person will respond to what I have said because I set up the game or the move in that situation.

They also talk improving unhealthy pattern and give the example of a fighting couple that goes to see a communication counselor. Well the communication counselor is not really into the exact details of the argument or what the background is but the pattern in which makes them argue. Many people have this problem whether it is with a spouse, parent, friend or anyone else that they don’t see eye to eye in the pragmatic approach you want to find a new pattern in which you should communicate so you don’t argue all the time rather then focus on the personality of the person. In life I don’t think you can view communication entirely as a game because if we did there wouldn’t be as much interpersonal communication between people.  

Week 3: Class Discussion Q 1

The social constructionist perspective is very interesting to me. This perspective says that communication is not something that goes on between individuals but instead it surrounds the people and holds us together. In a way I do see this in our society a lot especially now of days. Our world is built on “media” communication when even just 20 years ago we weren’t as media driven. Everyone has a cell phone, computer, t.v, text messages, internet, emails, instant messages, ect. This is what is building our world and our culture today. Some older generations don’t understand our “new” way of communication though. For example my dad hates when people text message him, he always asks me why we don’t just pick up the phone and call people anymore and I just try to explain that this is how our world is emerging and it will only get worse, for him anyway. Our new generation of children only know this way of communication, you even have to sign a slip as parents stating whether or not your kindergarten student is going to be carrying a cell phone. Even look at this class, its online and in Aristotle’s day you would be lucky to go to school and learn in an actual class room and would even be accompanied by a paidagogos that made sure you got to school safely.

I am not saying that is a not a great advancement in our culture and a great way to get ideas and information out to people but at the same time there are many cultures who don’t even use telephone communication in their day to day lives and many of us wouldn’t know what to do if we didn’t have our phone for even a day (I know I am one of those people).  Other cultures in other parts of the world find other ways of communication and don’t need the technology we do and they live a very happy life and I believe their communication skills within their families are a lot stronger. They don’t text message their every conversation.

Week 2: Class Discussion Q 3

I really enjoyed this first chapter in the book because it gave you great insight on how communication studies came about and who the main rhetoricians where in the development of communication and public speaking. One area that rally grabbed my attention was the talk of the more scientific study of communication or the “scientific method”. Throughout the chapter it goes into detail of what we all commonly know or have been taught in communication study of Ethos, Pathos and Logos as well as the Five Canons of Rhetoric’s and so on. Even though we may not have known in as the Five canons of Rhetoric’s, these 5 methods are something we typically tend to do in our public speaking with out even knowing it. But the scientific method peaked my interest because I know for myself I do not typically break communication down scientifically. I like that they would isolate a certain phenomenon and then break it into smaller parts, pose questions and hypothesis then put it into action. The one example they used to study was if a women had the same “source credibility” when talking on a female issue as they did when talking on a male issue. They then set up a situation where they had a female talk to an audience on the different issues. They could then use that information to answer their questions and see if their hypothesis held true and so on. You can then use this information in many situations and areas. Using the scientific method can really help public speakers to become better because they develop research and hard facts on topics to help back their speech. For example if a female public speaker has to talk on a male issue she can take the research done on a females source credibility on a “male issue” and use that information and the feedback done in the research to help with her speech. I just personally found this interesting and think it could be useful.

Week 2: Class Discussion Q 2

The Greeks believed to be an orator you need to be morally good? I do agree that an orator, public speaker, should be morally good in their speech especially if they want their audience to trust them. This of course is not always the case but who is to decide if someone is being “morally good”?  Everyone perceives each idea and topic different from one another and just because someone may give a totally different speech as someone else on the same topic, how do we decide who the morally good one is especially if they have two opposite views.  With being a public speaker you do have a huge obligation and you are someone who can persuade your audience in one way or another so in an ideal world you want to make sure you provide them with all the right facts and information but this doesn’t always happen. For example, politicians hold a great power over the people. We look to them to be morally good in what they tell use, the facts they present and even their opinions but they may not always provide us with the right information because their job is to win our vote, over the next person. But again even though we may find out that they don’t follow through with what information they presented, that politician may still feel he was being morally good in his judgments. Another example is celebrities because people hold them to a high standard and expect them to use their “celebrity” for good and to be morally good in what they talk to the world about but I don’t believe that they have to. They are people to and have the freedom to say what they want even if they are not being morally good. We would just like to see them use their power for good.

Is there a connection between goodness, truth and public communication?  Well I would like to say that yes there is a connection but that would be if everyone who was a public speaker spoke the whole truth with only facts and knowledge then they would bring goodness to public speaking. These days people will say what the audience wants to hear, there isn’t always truth in what they are saying because they know that they need to only state information that with sway people to believe them. Not all people are this way and as I said before people should speak with truth, goodness and be morally good because people are putting trust in these orators, but you don’t have to do these things and still be a great public speaker.