Week 3: Post #3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

Intentionality really struck a chord with me from Chapter two.  I found myself thinking about all of the times I have gotten into an argument because of intentionality.  Let me explain.  I think intentionality is one of the most problematic areas of communication because it takes on a life of it own.  It can be most often a problem when communicating non-verbally.  This means the frown you make when your mom says your having meatloaf again will likely offend and upset her, even if you didn't mean for it to.  The problem with intentionality is that there is no way to make a sure bet on it.  You never know for sure if the message sender meant to send out that message, regardless if the message is out there or not.  It is intentionality that takes on the burden of implicit and explicit messages.  If we only received explicit messages, we would definitely have a better understanding of each other.  Unfortunately we are a bit smarter than that, but we have to deal with the pitfalls of intentionality.

Week 3: Post #2

2). Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?

According to the textbook, the pragmatic perspective "consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time".  According to this perspective, we become predictable players in a game of communication.  This means we result to familiar "moves" or predictable behavior while interacting with others.  For example, many people might have a friend who isn't the best listener.  You might attempt to talk to this friend about an issue you may have, and this friend always manages to make the conversation about them.  Another predictable move might be an uncomfortable joke that is always told at some point during a conversation.  Using this perspective, we would assume that we could predict every interaction before it happens.  I don't think this is completely accurate because this perspective seems just too superficial.  I like to believe that my interactions with people that I am closest with require cognition, not just the typical move.  This is where the predictable behaviors don't happen and this show that the perspective is unlike the game.  

Week 3: Post #1

1). Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we "build worlds" through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness of success (or the lack of these) in our culture?

When dealing with social construction, we must remember that everyone is different.  Everyone creates their own reality based on experiences and beliefs that they have had which is specific to them.  People may share some ideas, but we must remember that we all perceive things differently based on who we are and what we have gone through. Social construction can even vary between cultures, communities, and countries. 

Some cultures have completely different ideals than others.  Being an American, we are very familiar with a conversation about obesity.  Whether we are obese or aren't, we know that it is common here and it is an "epidemic" that we deal with.  In many other European countries obesity levels are very low compared to America.  They may not have to deal with the constant conversation and to talk about such a personal health issue.  It might even be offensive since it is so personal.  

Week 2: Post #3

*3). Pick one concept from the reading assignment this week (Ch.1) that you found interesting or useful and and discuss it. Please discuss a concept that has not already been discussed this week so far.

I believe that the modern period of rhetoric has the positive results of all previous beliefs.  One approach that I was particularly intrigued by was the elocutionary approach.  This approach entails all of the unspoken communication that ensues during any given oral communication.  This is the hand gestures and delivery of the speaker.  The book suggests that this became too much of a science that resulted in very calculated speech with little to no spontaneity.  Self help books were/are developed to help people improve these skills.  While I can understand how lack of spontaneity could be detrimental, I believe this is also where many public speakers lose their audience, most often from boredom.  If the speaker is unable to keep the audience intrigued by the unspoken communication, the speaker is likely to lose the attention or admiration of the audience.  So elocution is imperative to be an effective speaker, but this may not be something that can be taught.  It more likely comes with practice and the speakers growing comfort.  

Week 2: Post #2

*2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?

I find the idea of an orator needing to be morally good is often an oxymoron.  While not always the case, persuasive speakers are attempting to switch the opinion of their audience, no matter what the measures are.  By calling on ethos (emotions), logos (logic), and pathos (credibility) of their audience the orator is manipulating the audience in every fitting way.  I believe that orators are only attempting to do something that seems very natural to humans, which is try to convince others to agree with them.  However, with goodness, truth, and public communication comes differences in opinions, which I believe is the essence of life. I can understand why orators needed to be "morally good", however I don't think that having your job be based solely on convincing others of your own opinion is a good start.  Consequently, I do not believe that goodness, truth and public communication go hand in hand in a persuasive speaking sense. 

Week 2: Post #1

*1). Think of a speaker you admire (please do not use the President of the United States as an example). Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

One speaker that I admire most is my father.  Besides the fact that we have a relationship that would often cause me to be more accepting of what he has to say, my father has the ability to woo not only me but the rest of his audience by the power of persuasion.  My Dad tends to use pathos and ethos to draw his audience in.  In other words, he capitalizes on the audiences logic and emotions.  He will give examples that he thinks may hit close to home.  He tries to give everyone his own view point.  

Having grown up with a powerful speaker as a parent, I was able to acquire some of my Father's speaking ability as a young adult.  I also tend to use a logical and emotional stance when trying to persuade others.  While these two ideas may seem to conflict each other, I believe the right balance results in a very affective speech.  I tend to reach more for emotional arguments because I am a sensitive person.  I know what hits home for me and I like to use that same approach with others.  I like to think of myself as an understanding person as well.  This is where the balance of logic and emotions comes into perfect harmony.  Because of this, I believe that I am a perfect example of Aristotle's classification scheme of ethos, pathos, and logos.