Week 6 Discussion Post #1

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

I found the concept of listening to be instructive in Chapter three. It’s funny, when I think about the word “communication”, I mostly think about the speaker. But communicating in any way is a two-way act involving the giver and the receiver. Our listening skills determine how we interpret and understand each spoken or nonverbal message.

“When we listen, we are not passive receivers but active creators of meaning “(Trenholm 45). I like this quotation because many times we use our own life experiences in order to formulate an opinion or belief about what someone else says. And I firmly agree that listening and hearing are such different things. Even now, when I am writing this post at the library, there are voices of children doing homework and sounds of cars outside that I can hear, but I have not attached a meaning to what I have heard. It is interesting to learn that listening, on the other hand, involves all of the senses. If someone says “It is really hot today”, and emphasizes the word “really” in a complained or exaggerated town, I would listen to both the actual sentence as well as how the sentence was spoken.

Generally, I think listening is a very active process that can take a lot of energy. It is an important act in my personal and professional relationships and at school and at home. By listening to another person, I am trying to show the person that I am there for them and interested in his or her life. And if I am either complaining about a rough day or feeling excited about a job promotion, I value my friends and family who actively listen and care about my well-being. I think listening is a key component for healthy relationships.

Week 4 Discussion Post #3

Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is this speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?

Many of the students have mentioned it, and I too feel that Barack Obama is a person who encompasses all three characteristics in a positive way, which make him a memorable speaker. I think he is emotionally attractive- he appeals to a wide audience and most people can relate to what he speaks about.

Obama is very articulate, well read, and educated, and he knows what he is talking without being condescending. It seems like he really cares about his cause, and this in itself, gives him power. His words are his power, and he is able to connect with the audience through his ideas and goals.

Obama is credible by connecting with his audience and giving them reasons to trust and believe in him. He doesn’t seem like a salesman trying to sell something to the audience. He is very endearing, and his promises and hopes are toward a positive common goal for the country.

Obama’s ethos could be built in these areas by him continuing to share his ideas and hopes for this future and continuing to be articulate in his concepts and goals. I think as long as he stays true to himself and the needs of the audience (ie the country), his speeches will be effective.

Week 4 Discussion Post #2

Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

The best speaker I have ever heard is the pastor at the church I grew up in. His communication was memorable because of his attractiveness to the audience and his personal character. It didn't feel like he was "preaching" or telling his audience what to do in life. He gave eloquent information and universal ideas that anyone could relate to. For me, I am very skeptic of churches that force their opinions on you and tell you "you are going to hell if you are this or that", etc. But this particular speaker emphasized global awareness, and caring for the less fortunate, which are ideas and concepts that are hopeful for positive change. His sermons do involve God, but they also focus on living a healthy life, being kind to others, and feeling connected in some way to the world. His communication has always been memorable because the ideas and concepts he uses are very relative to many parts of my life.

The worst speaker I have ever heard is my high school drama teacher. She was very eccentric and always came off as condescending, even before she started her lectures or speeches. Many of her students were scared of her (including me!), and she usually instilled fear when she was speaking about an assignment or project. She didn't seem very inspiring, and her messages and ways of communications did not seem very effective.

Week 4 Discussion Post #1

Pick one concept from the assigned reading (Chapter 9) that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

One concept I find very interesting is the Audience-Speaker relationship. Not only do audience members have their own life experiences and beliefs when they listen to a speech, but "speakers must take into account what audience members may already be thinking" (Trenholm 257). In the chapter we've already learned that public speakers tend to reach out to larger audiences and their speeches are longer in time. This means that the relationship between the audience member and speaker must be strong from the beginning. Within this concept, I think it would be very difficult to be the speaker, because they have to use various techniques in order to reach and positively affect an audience of various beliefs, attitudes, and values. I know that if a speaker doesn't catch my attention from the start of the speech, I tend to lose interest. As an audience member, I love when speakers are passionate about their cause, instead of feeling like they are trying to "sell me" on something or persuade me. There are so many factors that affect the audience-speaker relationship, and I think having an open mind is key in order to make public communication effective.

Week 3 Discussion Post #3

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 or success (of the lack of these) in our culture?


“If everyone around us talks about the world in a certain way, we are likely to think of the world in that way and fail to question whether we are seeing things accurately” (Trenholm 30). When you grow up in a family, you learn morals and guidelines that you abide by. We constantly surround ourselves with people who tend to share similar values and opinions. When our opinions or beliefs are questioned, sometimes it is difficult to realize that another person has a much different view of the world that has shaped their opinions greatly. Our worlds are constantly being “built” by various forms of media- television, magazines, and cinema. American television may give off the idea that people in California are all rich snobs who hate working and love swimming at the beach. Every society or culture creates rules and norms that shape the way that particularly society functions.

Week 3 Discussion Post #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?

I agree that communication can be like a patterned interaction. When we get to know certain people, we communicate with them in different ways depending on our relationship with them. When children want something from their parents (ie candy or sweets), they play a sort of game depending on how their parents react. First they may ask kindly, then they may try to persuade, and they creative various tactics depending on the mom or dad’s reactions.

We live in a society that has created various norms and rules that we subconsciously abide by. In Trenholm’s comparison between the pragmatic model of communication and chess, she writes “To understand chess, you need to understand the present state of the board and the series of moves that produced it” (Trenholm 33). If I were the boss of a company and my employer became seriously ill when a deadline was approaching, I would definitely act a different way toward he/she if he/she was not sick. An altered situation/environment affects the way of communication.

Week 3 Discussion Post #1

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


After reading the chapter, one little concept stuck out in my mind. I love that communication can be open ended and philosophical. “Even an everyday object such as a telephone can be defined in many ways” (Trenholm 19). Trenholm goes on to explain that a teenager and an engineer could describe a telephone in extremely different ways. With the Internet being so prevalent and people constantly instant messaging and emailing, we practically rely on interpreting definitions on a daily basis. Also, it’s funny how the tone of one’s voice can determine the way we interpret another person’s emotions or intentions. I don’t really like the idea of having a strict definition for every thing, because environments are always different and each defined thing will be shifted depending on the scenario.


:)
Anna

Week 2 Discussion Post #3

A concept I found interesting in this chapter was Francis Bacon’s ideas during the Moderrn Period. It’s funny how themes of human thought during 1561 are universal and still hold true today. Bacon believed that there were four reasons why clear thinking is distorted. He believes “that most of us, are, by nature, careless thinkers overruled by emotion” (Trenholm 10). I really agree with this. Our emotions directly influence our choices and thoughts. One huge example I can think of is love. Two people can be in love, and the relationship may not necessarily be healthy or right. But emotions are high, and people cannot always be in the right state of mind. Bacon also thought that in order to keep clear thoughts and not be as careless, we must “be as scientific as possible, grounding knowledge in empirical observation and rational thought” (Trenholm 11). I agree with this statement as well. In a previous public speaking course, we had debates frequently. Sometimes people were asked to speak on behalf of something they didn’t agree with. In this case, it is necessary to set aside emotions and just deliver a thoughtful speech. However, I do believe that sometimes emotions can enhance a speech and clear thinking. When I am passionate about my topic, I want to obtain as much knowledge and information as possible in order to have a great speech. In this case my emotions have helped my presentation.

Have a good weekend, everyone! ☺

Week 2 Discussion Post #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 am so conflicted with this question! I would love to say yes, to be an orator, one should be morally good and speak the truth. In a speech, it would help to have good morals and a clear and accurate goal when presenting an idea. However, in politics, we hear so many versions of what the “truth” may be, we have to consider that some speakers aren’t presenting accurate information. This information can directly be tied to having poor morals. In example, Adolf Hitler was one of the most influential and powerful speakers in the world. His communication techniques were direct, firm, and confident. But who is to say he wasn’t morally good? I do not think he was, but the definition of “morally good” is up to the person defining it. Clearly the Nazis believed in the “truth” that Hiter was providing. I believe that the goodness, truth, and public communication all connect deeply. If the intention is good and the speaker is clear and confident, it is up to the audience to decide for themselves if the speaker is trustworthy. Some former politicians have great ideas and promises they make for a country, but they neglect certain truths that could trouble a society.

Lots of random thoughts, but hopefully you get my idea! ☺

Week 2 Discussion Post #1

Think of a speaker you admire. 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?



Oprah is a speaker whom I greatly admire. In her television show she uses pathos and ethos to convey a message to the audience. Topics on her show can range from racism to emotional abuse, and emotions run high as she speaks about real world problems. Her manner of speaking arouses the audience. She is very honest and open about a wide range of topics that people may not normally speak of, and I think she is able to convey every message in a knowledgeable and meaningful way. I also think her ethos, or personal character, shines through on each show. She is an extremely smart and articulate woman, and her own experiences and personality traits affect the way she speaks to her audience.

I truly believe that knowledge is power. The more I know about a subject, the better I can express and illustrate the message to my audience. I also believe that confidence is a key factor in being able to persuade others. Speaking with a manner of confidence and feeling good in yourself definitely affects the way you come across to your audience.