Judgment

I have a really hard time speaking to someone without judging them or trying to fit them into a certain category. I tend to do so once I meet someone for the very first try. I guess you can say that I do “Judge a book by its cover” and it’s a very bad habit that I have. I can’t help doing so, because I am so quick to judge from the first glance or impression of someone. I think without truly knowing someone it’s much easier to judge them for my sense of comfort. I agree with chapter 3 when it states that “We often use schemata to form impressions of other people and to interpret their massages. I use person protypes, I tend to have a certain image of certain people and if I think of one person in a certain category one way, I tend to look at everyone in that same light. I think that I let retype affect the way I look at someone. There are certain people that are not very bright, therefore I do not value what they say (it comes through one ear and goes out the other). On the other hand I have people that I look at to be very intelligent, therefore I really listen to what they have to say.

I think a way to make our judgment of others more fairly, we must first be aware that we are even making assumptions of that person. I think by being broader in our thoughts and not so narrow minded will help us with this. Just because we see certain this way doesn’t make everyone in that category the same way. We need to remember that no one person is alike and that we need to treat everyone as an individual not matter where they come from. Stopping the judgment and getting to know the person will make a big difference.

Useful/Interesting Topic

Its needless to say that chapter 9 had plenty of great information. What I found especially helpful for me was the section where it talks about the Source Characteristics That Enhance Influence. The reason being because myself as well as every other speaker out there can really relate to this, and it is extremely helpful information. I find this particular section to be very helpful because its day to day stuff that an every day speaker would use when speaking in front of an audience. I think that each characteristic gives a very good detail of how each thing can be achieved. I like how the book talks about attractiveness, because its definitely easier to listen to someone speak when they dress nice and are well groomed. It gives me a sense of comfort when I'm listening to someone speak and they are well dressed, and good looking. I also like to think that I am good at figuring out whether someone is a bullshitter, I like to know that I am listening to someone who is credible and someone who i can trust and believe. I think that the book is also very useful on how to persuade an audience. For me chapter 9 has been the best chapter that I have read so far, because of the amount of useful information it contains.

Presidential Candidates Strongest Characteristics As a Speaker

I feel that the current Presidential Candidate Borack Obama has all three characteristics that the question has mentioned, which is credibility, attractiveness, as well as power. I believe that his strongest attribute as a speaker is his ability to be a very credible speaker. The reason being is that is able to pursue the American people and is very knowledgeable about the topics that he speaks of. He also indicates concern for his audiences interest which too makes him trustworthy. The notions that American people have about Obama comes from the preconceived notions that they already have for him through what they see and hear through the publicity that he has created for himself. Lets face it he is also a pretty powerful person, for the pure fact that he is able to control his audience ( Americans) and have an affect on their lives. Its obvious that he has the power over the people that plan on voting for him to be the next president of the United States. Lets also not forget the fact that he is easy on the eyes, which makes him even more appealing to listen to. Just like the book states (pg262) "The more attractive a speaker is, the more effective he or she will be". People are not only attracted to his physical appearance but also to his familiarity, similarity, and liking. He seems to have pretty amazing speaking abilities and this has an effect on how he comes across.

Best & Worst Speakers I Have Ever Heard

Yes, I have been influenced by a speaker. The best speaker that I have ever heard I would have to say is a gentlemen by the name of Micheal Keppler. I came across this gentlemen in a C.O.R.E training class that I was taking for my job. His presentation talked in great depth about the gang problems amongst our teens and within the prison system. He went into talking about how long gangs have been around, how some of the most notorious gangs came about, the type of lifestyle these particular groups live and so fourth..... What made this particular speakers presentation so memorable was the fact that he put real effort into his slide shows that were shown, you could tell that he took the time to put them together because of all the shocking pictures and the amount of information he had on each and every slide. He really used all aspects of the way people pertain information. He not only lectured, but he also used an ample amount of visual aids which painted a wonderful mental picture of the gang life. I also liked the fact that after each break he would change things up a little ( just to break the ice) and he would show video clips of funny accidents gone wrong. But, most important is that his message made clear sense on what he was trying to get across the the audience. He was very knowledgeable with the facts that he was giving, (although it was not needed) he was very persuasive with his talk due to the fact that he had actual pictures and video clips of gang members, shootings, drug busts, people in the prisons as well as video interviews with Well Known gang members. He had an amazing speaking ability. WOW!!! was he good

The worst speaker that I have ever heard was a Music Teacher that I had some years back. The reason he wasn't any good was because of the fact that his voice projected as very monotone, and boring. When he spoke his voice also trembled(it was as if he was nervous). Most days he would come to class so unprepared and would constantly jump around from one topic to another, which made it very hard for me to follow what he was saying. The only thing that I could remember about his class was how horrible of a teacher he was and honestly I would never show up just because of the thought of listening to him for 45 minutes 4 days a week made me cringe.

Useful/Interesting

After reading chapter 2 in "Thinking Through Communications I found several things that were mentioned to be useful in day to day communications. However, one thing that stood out to me the most was how the book refers to communication as a "Game" which is also referred to as the Pragmatic Model of Communication. When you think about it communication is in fact just like a game, I had never thought about it like that before. Its very true because in order to completely perform the task there must be at least 2 players. Just like in a game people agree to talk to one another just like individuals in a game when they make a move on the game board. Which then gets an interaction going amongst both people just like in a game when they are taking turns in a game. Just like in a game the players become dependant on what their opponent does, because the opponents move is a determining factor of what the other player will do next. Just like with two people who are having a conversation, one person cant reply until they finish listening to what the other person has to say. Each player in a game is affected by what the other person move will be, just like each person who is engaging in a conversation is affected on what the other person has to say. The last thing that corrolates to the way a game is played is the payoff at the end, in a game its the winner and in communications its a person who dominates the conversation, just like in a debate.

Pragmatic Perspective

In certain situations thinking of communication as patterned interaction is needed. The best example that comes to mind is when you start a new job. You learn how to work with others and get a feel for all your co workers attitudes and work ethics. Through this you learn everyone’s styles and adapt to those styles in order to so call “keep the peace”. By doing so only makes the relationship between you and your co worker stronger and therefore this makes the day by day aspect of the job a little easier, due to the fact that you both learn to work together as a team.

After reading chapter 2 in the “Thinking through Communications” book, I now see how I follow the communication patterns that are described in the book. I utilized communication patterns on a day to day basis with every different co worker that I come across. I change up my work ethics depending on the person I am working with. I learned quickly that you need to adapt to everyone. Example: I work for Santa Clara County Juvenile Hall, therefore within this job you must always be on guard. I work with several different people on a daily basis. We have something that is called a 15 minute tier sheet, in which we go around to each minor’s room and take a look then we sign off that we checked into the rooms, this must be done consistently every 15 minutes. With some staff they don’t mind signing the tier sheets, however with others they think that since they have been working in the hall for 10 + years that they are above signing the sheets. So there I go and sign the sheets every 15 minutes. When I leave the unit and go on a break, I come back and the sheets were just how I left them (even if I was out for 30 min). Of course I am not going to complain about it since I don’t have as much seniority on most staff that I work with. I just think that if everyone was on the same page and learned how to communicate with each other it would help out tremendously.

Communication is definitely like a game. As each person talks, that’s just the same as taking turns in a 2+ person game. When one player moves of course its going to have an effect on what the other players do, just the same as when you say something to someone in conversation they must react all the same. People who communicate with each other are just like a payoff in a game. One person could possibly be in competition with the
other, with something as little as putting the other person down, therefore they feel as they won. Lastly each person in a conversation is dependent on one another, because without a receiver there can be no sender.

Communication however is not always like a game. When people communicate it doesn’t always follow a pattern, and sometimes there is only talking at one end. Example: When a teenager is getting chewed out by his/her parents for doing something that the parent doesn’t approve of. At least for me anyway, there is no real form of communication because when I did something wrong and was getting yelled at by my dad I just sat there and listened. I was too scared to say a word to him especially when I knew that what I had done was wrong.

Social Constructionist Perspective

I truly believe that we as people build our world around the concept of communication.
When referring to the idea of the social constructionist perspective what helps me understand this is through the ideals of my family. When I was younger I was taught to look at the world through my parents views as well as other family members. By doing so this showed me that my culture definitely was not the same as the next persons. We had definite traditions in our culture that steered the directions of my thoughts. The ideas we talked about in my family were mostly religious based, which was the Catholic Tradition, and most of our conversations were very deep in morals and the way I was to uphold my self as a woman. The conversations that I had amongst my parents as well as my family members truly did help me. They made me into a strong woman that has much respect for herself. I think that all the conversations that we had helped me to make good judgment calls. I am happy to say that by doing this, it helped me very much. One thing that I however did not agree with was the way my family spoke of a woman educating herself. They use to tell me that a womans role was to stay home and take care of the family and home. When I told them that I wanted to persue my education beyond High School they werent so thrilled. I however am proud of myself for not listening to the critisism because otherwise I would not be where I am today.

Useful/Interesting Topic

I found it very interesting to read through chapters 1 and 2 and realize how far the history of communications really goes back. I had not idea, or ever even thought about that before and now that I have read through chapters 1 and 2, I find the history very amazing. One thing that I found to be interesting was when I read the section on the Ancient Greece. I found it to be fascinating that only males could attend the schools, and if they attended they were followed around by paidagogos to make sure they didnt cut class. How funny to think that they cut class back then too!!!!! I loved how Aristotle put so much focus on persuasive rhetoric. I think that if elementary schools as well as high schools put emphasis into teaching students about communication skills, this would give many students much more confidence in everything that they do. Teaching about ethos, pathos and logos would give people a much more broad range of ways to put out their informations, so that they can adapt to any type of situation or any type of audience.

What Makes A Good Speaker???

The Greeks have the idea that in order to be a credible orator, one must have the traits of goodness and truth, pure ways to be a good speaker and have good public communications skills. How are we supposed to be able to determine what is moral and right, considering that we all come from different backgrounds, cultures, and moral up bringing? Every person has a different outlook on what is morally right and that idea will vary from person to person. I would have to say that I disagree with this due to the fact of what is said within the speech. I don’t think that the way someone lives their lives should have a determining factor on whether or not that makes them good. A good moral orator who does nothing but good things in their life does not necessarily mean that their ability to gain the attention of others or to persuade the listeners will even have any relevance. If you look at the other side of things, the speaker might live an awful life and break every rule possible and do many immoral things, but yet they have the ability to gain the attention of the listeners as well as persuade their audience. The determining factor of the way the speaker is able to persuade and gain the attention of their audience should only rely on the speakers' ability to speak rather than their personal life. I don’t believe that there is any connection on a person’s goodness, truth and public communication. I only think that the person’s ability to speak is the only factor that should be even considered.

A Speaker That I Admire

The person I admire may not be someone famous, but he sure stands out in my mind because of the incredible speeches he gave. The person I am talking about was a teacher I took for a Juvenile Justice class in the Winter Semester. When he spoke he talked with such passion and articulation. He put forth so much meaning and sincerity into every single word that came out of his mouth. I don't think I have ever heard someone in person speak with so much passion. According to Chapter 1, I would have to say the power came from logos because of the wording and logic of his message. For example one thing that stands out in my mind is that he refers to kids that are locked up " kids in cages" which I must say I couldn't describe it any better. He uses such powerful words in explaining and describing his feelings. The personal qualities that I posess that make me a persuasive speaker is that I am very confident in what I say even if I know im unsure. I dont let the audience know I am nervouse and I speak straight forward. I think that Aristotles scheme works for what makes me a persuasive speaker because I make sure I put thought into what I say and make sure that I am using correct wording as well as set up my speach like an essay format with bullet points so it makes it easier for me to remember. Therfore, I do take something out of Aristotles scheme.