May 10-13 Question #2

It was hard to choose just one concept that I liked best from the dozens that we have read about this semester. One that I particularly liked was in chapter eight and it was focused on developing organizational cultures. Most people have experienced some kind of cultural change in their lives. Whether it was a move to a different place or a change in jobs, we all can say we've experienced things like this before. In chapter eight the author describes how we fit into organizational cultures and how we react when we are forced to fit into a different culture.

As a culture we share a lot of things with the strangers around us. We hold similar identities even if we are very different. "If you have ever lived or traveled abroad for an extended period of time, you may have experienced culture shock, a sense of disorientation that occurs when the rules you're used to playing by no longer work" (230). Before reading about culture shock I had heard the term used in various different ways. I think people use it a lot to describe something that does not actually fall into the category of culture shock. It was very interesting to read about the real definition. Culture shock is actually a very real thing that can sometimes manifest in physical illness.

Also in this section the author discusses the experience of surprise, "an emotional reaction to differences between life in the organizations life outside it" (230). For example when I changed jobs I was honestly surprised by the differences that I had to adjust to. I had a emotional reaction that resembled stress and anxiety. It took me a few weeks to get familiar with to new job but over time the surprise aspect faded away.

May 10-13 Question #1

I think that the most interesting research method listed in table 13.3 is the ethnography method. An ethnographer works under cover and does not get involved with his/her objects. In this method it is important not to impose one's ideas or opinions on the situations that are being studied. I like this method because I think it is the most accurate. I think it's important that we study things in a very non-invasive way.

If I were to study an aspect of deception I would ask the question: how do some groups and clubs deceive members into joining even if the membership is harmful to the joiner? To answer this question I would use the ethnography method and would go undercover to find out how things worked. I think that the results from an ethnographer's research would be very interesting and very insightful in this situation. I have read many books where the author uses this method to research a certain situation. I love finding out about their under cover discoveries because the participants in the study have no idea that they're being studied. The results are always pretty revealing when people are unaware that they'll be found out.

April 29 - May 2 Question #3

One of the concepts that I liked in this section was the one about media agendas. I love this section because I think it is very important that we all know that the media often has agendas and they give us the news they want us to know.

"According to this view, media gatekeepers select the issues they feel are most worthy of coverage and give those issues wide attention" (304). I think that this kind of gatekeeping has been running rampant in our media lately. I think that every media outlet has to compete for their audience and so whoever has the most outrageous story often wins. The internet has become the source of news for many people. TV has to work a lot harder to compete. A good example of this is all the recent coverage of the swine flu.

The media has blown up the story way out of proportion. It's true that the flu is considered a pandemic, but it isn't even as bad of a sickness as the normal flu. So why are we all afraid of it? Because the media makes us feel like we should fear it. As viewers we need to make sure we filter what we take in to ensure that we get our facts straight. It's important that we understand that the media is typically manipulative and that if we want to get untouched information we need to go straight to the source of an issue.

April 29 - May 2 Question #2

I agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message. I think we determine how we receive a message based on what medium we're receiving it through. We expect different messages from different mediums and McLuhan goes into detail about what makes a TV message different then a radio message.

"According to McLuhan's theory, each medium has its own internal logic, and each affects how we experience the world" (307). McLuhan describes TV as a "cool medium" which means that because there are so many senses involved, we have to fill in the details on our own. He says that TV follows a mosaic logic because there is not always a clear and precise message layed out for us. TV does not follow a linear logic like radio messages. TV is a lot more complex and the producers assume that we will put the information together correctly and receive the message they intended for us.

I agree with Robert P. Snow that we are all very TV literate and we expect that newspapers, books, magazines etc. should keep us intrigued just like TV programs do. Our text says that we all "think in the language of TV" and I couldn't agree more.

April 29 - May 2 Question #1

I have never made a friendship that exists exclusively in cyberspace. I can't imagine calling anyone a friend without ever meeting them in person. I've talked to strangers online, like in this class for example. But I wouldn't consider anyone a friend until I actually met them.

I think cyberspace relationships and f2f relationships are drastically different even though sometimes they may feel one in the same. I have not formed cyberspace relationships because I don't think people are completely honest online. I think people tend to embellish about themselves and make themselves look a lot more accomplished and attractive then they actually are.

Our textbook says that "the fear that has most captured the public's attention is the fear that individuals who use computers will become isolated, abandoning face-to-face interaction in favor of life lived in cyberspace" (328). I have definitely fallen victim to trends like facebook and myspace (no yet a twitter freak though) and I have to say that it is very easy to get wrapped up in online communication. I have many friends that I only talk to online and that in itself is sad. I often feel like I need to ban myself from facebook in order to make sure I actually go out and hangout with these people. I think it's a socially dangerous thing and it's hard to find a happy medium and a health balance.

April 19-25 Question #3

One concept that I really like in this chapter was the one about interviewing skills. This section is very important for people who are trying to nab a job in their field of choice. Knowing how to communicate yourself successfully to future employers is an extremely important and valuable lesson.

Our text says, "Interviews are serious business. Talking off the cuff may be fine in everyday conversation, but it is not acceptable in a job interview. Preparation is a must" (234). I think many people go into interviews hoping that they can just wing it, and they may be able to do just that. But I think most interviewers know exactly how to read a person because they've probably interviewed dozens of people in the past.

This section of the chapter focuses primarily on the fact that you need to be very well organized and you need to know how to communicate clearly and efficiently in an interview. You need to be well informed about the job you are applying for and you need to have an impeccable resume and cover letter. You need to be prepared to answer any question that is thrown at you and you need to know what are the right questions for you to ask.

April 19-25 Question #2

I'm not sure if I agree with all of the etiquette rules in this chapter and I have definitely seen people not abiding by them and I too have not always followed these basic rules of etiquette.

The cell phone rules make perfect sense and I am completely happy to abide by them. But every situation calls for a different response to these rules. If I am in a fancy restaurant I will not answer my cell phone, but if I am in a taco bell at lunchtime, I have no problem with answering my phone and I don't care if other people do. With cell phone etiquette it all really depends on the situation and the time and place. I think call waiting is great, if you're on the phone with a potential employer than obviously you won't put them on hold to answer a call coming in from your friend. Once again, I think most people are capable of sound judgment and can determine when it would be rude to put someone on hold and when it would be perfectly fine.

I agree with our text about answering machine etiquette. I think, unless you're in high school, your recorded answering message should be succinct and professional. Imagine how a future employer would view you after having to leave a message if your recording was in joke form. I used to have a goofy recorded message when people called my phone, but that changed quickly when I started looking for a job.

I think the advice about conference calls was very useful because I have never participated in a conference call before and it's good to know how I should act in order to come off as professional and respectful.

I have definitely had to change my screen name once or twice just make sure it was appropriate and professional. My old screen name used to be fun and focused on my hobbies. But now, I have a simple screen name that is just my full name. It's easier for people to remember and it's also easier for people to know who wrote an email before they open it. There's no second guessing about who I am.

April 19-25 Question #1

Organizations are tied to the environment because they depend on what's around them for resources and energy. An organization can't survive on it's own, it would be literally impossible. Of course an organizations effect on an environment is not always positive. "An obvious example occurs when a manufacturing company depletes local resources" (214). I remember watching a documentary about the effects of a General Electric Plant in Mexico. It was cheaper for GE to set up shop down there, but it was completely destroying the environment and the lives of the people that lived nearby. It's also harmful when a large organization moves away from a specific environment. That move can be just as damaging. Organizations have a large impact on the environments they call home. It is their responsibility to make sure they work well in an environment and can adjust to changing conditions.

San Jose State is an organization that highly effects the environment around it. It's not just the effect of the buildings and the space, it's also the effects of the people that attend the school and where they fit in in the community. I think a college is ethically required to positively effect the community around it. I think SJSU has had a positive effect on the community because students have moved to the area to receive a good education and most of the time these students are responsible people who eventually become active participants in the community. I think most colleges are good for their environment. It's usually the fault of other organizations for bringing a good community down.

April 12-18 Question #3

One concept in chapter six that I found interesting was the one about mediated relationships. This section discusses the complexities of relationships that were formed online. I think internet relationships are a fairly recent phenomenon and I think we're still learning about the affects of these relationships on the people involved.

According to our text, "Clearly, communicating electronically has unique characteristics that make it quite different from communicating face to face" (169). It has been made clear, time and time again that not everyone online is who they actually are in real life. There are so many cases of fraudulent behavior that it's really hard to trust anyone. I think people who are involved in online relationships get so caught up in the perfection of it that they sometimes forget to think logically. Sometimes things are too perfect to be real. But sometimes people prefer to live that way.

"Another significant characterisitc of text-based electronic channels is visual anonymity. When we communicate over e-mail no one needs to know who we are" (169). Many would argue that looks don't matter and we shouldn't judge people based on their appearance, but in this case a person that says they are an attractive 25 year old woman may in actually be a 45 year old criminal. These are the characteristics that one should want to know before talking to anyone online.

April 12-18 Question #2

I think we all have unique and important filters we use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. I think our main goals in finding someone all center around what our needs are as individuals. If we find someone who can help us fulfill those needs then we try to initiate a relationship. If a person blatantly refuses to meet those needs then we would view them as unattractive.

Ducks theory describes four different things that couples do when they sense their relationship is dissolving. The theory makes perfect sense to me. In the first phase each individual starts having personal doubts and starts to feel like their needs aren't being met and that they might want to pursue other relationships. In the second phase the individuals get together to discuss their individual feelings. If they decide to end the relationship then they go through the third phase where they must open up to more people, the people in their social circles. In the fourth phase the individuals determine how that relationship affected their lives, both the good and the bad.

I think many couples go through these stages before they break-up. I've only been in one relationship and I'm still in it so I can't really say that I know how this process works. But I've seen plenty of friends go through it and it seems to happen in this exact way. I can definitely say that I have used preinteraction cues as a filter to decide if I want to meet someone. And in many of these cases I've found that I've reconsidered the person after interacting with them.

April 12-18th Question #1

Out of all of the role relations I think the complementary pattern would be the most difficult to change. "One partner takes the one-up position and the other takes the one-down position" (148). When people get stuck in a pattern of one person being dominant and one person being submissive I think it would be very hard to reverse that, especially if it had been occurring for a long period of time. Imagine a child one day becoming the dominant character and a parent being the submissive. It would be practically impossible for a child to even know how to be in the one-up position. In some relationships, like a parent-child one, this role pattern is not a bad thing. That is probably why it stays that way. In spousal relationships, this pattern might not work so well and would be easier to change if the participants are willing.

In my opinion, the most relationally damaging pattern is the rigid complementarity. "When the submissive partner begins to resent always giving in or when the dominant partner begins to tire of being in charge, dissatisfaction can result" (148). I had some friends who were in a relationship who fit this pattern perfectly. The girl was the dominant one and used to deciding everything for the couple, while the guy was the submissive and was familiar with letting his girlfriend have her way. It wasn't until recently when this pattern proved fatal to their relationship. She got tired of having to "wear the pants" in the relationship and he got fed up with always letting her have her way. It may have worked okay in the beginning, but it's not a way to live forever.

I think all of the patterns can be damaging to someone's self-esteem. People need to learn to share the power in the the relationship in order to be successful. I'm sure we all know, any kind of extreme can be harmful, and that is especially true in relationships.

March 29th - April 4th Question #3

One concept from chapter 12 that I really liked was the one about culture and goals. This section talks about how our culture defines our goal making decisions. In our culture many kids aspire to go to college. That is a common cultural goal in our American culture. In other cultures, school might not be a priority but making a lot of money might be the ultimate goal. It really depends on what is most acceptable.

I think we feel pressure in our culture to make certain goals for ourselves. According to our text, our culture follows the effort-optimism standard which is the belief that one will be rewarded for hard-work. Interestingly, this characteristic makes a lot of people feel over worked and burned out. Sometimes people become workaholics in order to achieve their goals. Other countries may not take work so seriously because they think that no matter what happens, God has the ultimate rule over their lives and it really doesn't matter how hard they work for something. Cultural goals can sometimes be a good thing but sometimes they can break people down. I think it's best to avoid letting our culture decide the goals we want to make.

March 29th - April 4th Question #2

I would have to say that I agree with the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises. I think that they all make perfect sense and most people would agree with them. I think as humans we are all naturally rational and capable of making logical decisions about numerous issues. The institutions that are based on this belief are the court system, free enterprise, and democracy. I think most people are capable of being rational but many are not. These people are not widely accepted by our culture because they do not fit into the norm.

The perfectibility premise "is based on the old puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control" (pg. 353). I agree with this statement but I also know it has some major religious connotations. I believe that people can work their way to goodness, but I don't know if perfection is possible. I believe that we are all sinners and no matter how hard we work we are bound to slip up, and that is why I think so many people believe in forgiveness and a renewal of the heart. Religious or not, I think many people follow this basic belief.

The mutability premise says that people are shaped by the world around them and because of this assumption, the institution of education is so important to our society. By helping to better someones environmental, physical and psychological circumstances you can drastically change someones life, which essentially helps better the rest of the culture.

March 29th - April 4th Question #1

I definitely agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture." I think that everything we know and believe and the ways in which we act are all shaped by the culture we were brought up in. I don't necessarily think that it is a negative thing, but I do believe it can become negative if we don't acknowledge it. It's fairly obvious what culture someone is from upon meeting them. That's just how our world works, we are a product of our specific cultures. Within a culture, there are many different people, but most fit the mold of what there culture represents.

Sometimes our culture limits us in ways that are not always apparent to us. "Cultures are group understandings rather than individual ones, and belonging to a culture means acting according to group norms" (pg. 344). Sometimes if you do not act according to those norms you will no longer be accepted within that culture. For example, in our culture it is a norm for girls to walk around in shorts and tank tops in the summer time. However, in other cultures this is completely inappropriate and if a woman was caught doing that she would no longer be accepted in the group. This is a case of culture interfering with personal freedoms. I think there are many aspects of our own culture that other cultures could learn from, and vice versa. We all have differences but for the most part we are very similar. It's important that we accept other cultures and try to learn from them in order to change ourselves for the better.

Week 8-14 Question #2

Different countries often have very different ways of showing nonverbal communication. Even within our own country people communicate differently. I think one of the most obvious and interesting is how people communicate a simple hello. In many places people will communicate with a wave of the hand, and in some places a simple smile does the job. What I think is most interesting is the avoidance of communication. In some third world countries, women are not even allowed to look at a person to communicate a hello. I think this type of communicate ranges drastically depending on what country you are in.

Another interesting and obvious difference occurs in our own country. One of the biggest nonverbal communicators is the way we present ourselves in public, or simply put, our fashion sense. I know we shouldn't judge people by the way they dress, but it's actually really hard to avoid that. People dress a certain way to send a certain nonverbal message. Most people have enough sense to know that if they dress a certain way then they will be judged a certain way. Fashion trends vary from city to city. Everybody dresses differently but I think we all stick to similar standards of dress, whether that be professional, punk, preppy etc. We all fit into some category that sends a very specific message to the people around us.

March 8-14 Question #1

Nonverbal messages can be extremely ambiguous and I have definitely misinterpreted the meaning of others' messages. I have also had my nonverbal communication be misinterpreted. That is why I think it is extremely important to back up your nonverbal communication with verbal communication. Especially if you know someone may misunderstand you.

My old roommate was a professional when it came to sending confusing nonverbal messages. I knew that she wanted to tell me something but the only way she knew how to do it was with nonverbal messages, which to me seemed like very passive aggressive behavior. "When nonverbal codes work together to send the same message, their impact is intensified. When they work at cross-purposes, confusion results" (110). I think that this was exactly what was happening with my roommate. She was trying to act like nothing was wrong but her nonverbal communication was not consistent. It became a very confusing situation and ended with us having to move out because our issues with each other were not being solved with a proper form of communication.

I think in order to avoid these issues in the future, I've learned that my own nonverbal communication says a lot about what I'm thinking, and in order to make sure I'm consistent I need to talk about things too. I can't solely rely on what my body language and actions are telling people. And it goes both ways. If I'm confused about someones nonverbal communication I need to ask them directly about it before I jump to conclusions. "It is not a good idea to read deep meaning into every gesture, yet it is important to give proper attention to nonverbal cues. People will sometimes tell us nonverbally what they will not tell us with words, and we should not ignore those silent messages" (135). I learned a big lesson with my old roommate. And I now know how to react to someone with they are only offering nonverbal communication about their issues.

March 1-7 Question #2

I definitely think that men and women use language differently. It's not a bad thing, it's simply just a difference that I think we have all learned to work with. I think language differences are one of the biggest things to cause conflict in a relationship. But it does not have to be that way. We just need to learn how to adjust our communication styles so that we can more more understanding of the opposite sex.
Our textbook says that men and women grow up completely different. "Women's culture stresses intimacy and connection, whereas men's culture values autonomy and individual achievement. These orientations affect men's and women's topics of conversation, their conversational styles, and their interpretations of one another's meanings" (Trenholm p.90). So really, nobody is to blame with an argument arises over misunderstood language. We communicate how we were taught to communicate, if we can't fully understand someone elses language, it is not our fault nor theirs.
We are brought up to act like our specific gender from the very day that we are born. Our understanding of communication and language is based in large part on the fact that we were treated a certain way all throughout our lives. I'm a girl, so I was treated as a girl from the day I was born. I was treated how my parents thought/knew a girl should be treated, and they raised my brothers to act like boys. Our gender languages are almost unavoidable. Every culture has different gender language patterns, but for the most part they follow the same basic assumptions.

March 1-7 Question #1

I don't think it is possible to perceive someone without judging or categorizing them. I think to perceive something is to judge it. I think they are one in the same. The issue is whether we make positive or negative judgments of other people and why we choose the judgments we make. Our text says that we use personal constructs to make sense of what we notice in others. "Like other schemata, they can make perception easier and more efficient, but they can also be inaccurate and unfair" (Trenholm p.51).
These constructs all depend on how the person has been "primed" to think. If a person is having a good day and has experienced a positive event, they are more likely to think of others in a positive light. If they are having a bad day or have suffered some kind of trauma then they are more likely to perceive people in a negative light. It's in our power to decide how we make judgments and how we perceive people.
To be fair about our judgments it's important for us to make sure we understand our cognitive schema. I've always believed that negative people will judge others in a negative way, and this whole section of chapter three proves that to be fairly accurate. If we can maintain a positive attitude, we can maintain positive judgments of others.

Week 4: Q3

Chapter nine was very interesting because it focused on public speaking and everything that goes into creating a good speech and being an influential speaker. One section in this chapter that I really liked focused on the relationship between the audience and the speaker.
Without an audience the speaker has no purpose. So it is very important for the speaker to know exactly who he is talking to and how it will affect his persuasion. "When audience members come to hear a speech, they bring prior beliefs, attitudes, values, and life experiences with them. In constructing messages, speakers must take into account what audience members may already be thinking" (257). I think that many speakers come off as being great because they have an easy audience. If everyone in the audience is the same and has mostly the same attitudes, then it will be easier for the speaker to create an effective message. If the audience is very broad in their attitudes than it is much harder for a speaker to persuade all of them.
I think it takes a very gifted speaker to persuade thousands of people to think a certain way. The larger and more diverse the audience; the harder it is for the speaker to influence them all.

Week 4: Q2

I think our current President is a very gifted speaker because he has acquired a few very positive characteristics. I think he knew that for him to become president he would absolutely have to be able to convince the country that he was above and beyond what we could ever expect. He developed a strong credibility, attractiveness and a sense of power that ultimately lead him to win the election.
It was apparent that McCain wanted to show that Obama was not credible so that was something he really had to prove to the country. Obama had to build his ethos in that area because that was the one that was being questioned the most. It didn't take long for Obama to gain credibility. He proved himslef to be both trustworthy and believable, two components of a credible person. Besides that, he already had a certain appeal because of his message of change. His attractiveness showed immensely in his campaign for changed. "Identification occurs when the source possesses attractiveness; that is, when he or sheoffers audience members an emotionally rewarding relationship" (261). Obama was capable of tugging on the heart strings of most Americans and I think that really helped him win the vote.

Best and Worst Speakers

I have been influenced by many speakers and the most influential one have shared some of same qualities and skill sets. I can't pick a favorite speaker because I think everyone is different and influential in their own ways. One speaker that I heard recently that was amazing was a man named Bill Wilson. He lives in the hardest, roughest, most crime ridden ghetto in New York. He built one of the largest Sunday schools in the world and he councils hundreds of children. He's been shot in the face, beaten with bricks, but yet he refuses to leave the cities children to fall victim to drugs and gang life.
Wilson had a very influential way of speaking. He was not willing to sugarcoat any of his experiences because he wanted his listeners to know exactly what he went through. He was well informed about the plight of city children and it showed. He also did an amazing job of persuading his audience to want to make change in their world.
I can't think of a specific speaker who was so horribly bad, but what I've noticed of some less influential speakers is that they all have some shared characteristics. Some are not fully knowledgeable about the topic they are speaking on and that is definitely apparent to most audiences. I think most bad speakers I've seen are people who are not familiar with speaking in public. I think it takes some time to get comfortable talking in front of people and the most influential speakers are confident ones.

Interesting Concept in Ch. 2

One concept from chapter two that I found useful and interesting was the one about the psychological perspective of communication. This perspective says that "two or more individuals exchange meanings through the transmission and reception of communication stimuli" (26). This model follows a very basic sender/receiver pattern where messages are coded and decoded and feedback is important because it validates the accuracy of the sent message.
Messages are interpreted differently depending on the person receiving it. This is where a person's "mental set" dictates how a message will be received. Because everyone has different mental sets, often times this leads to misunderstandings. If the sender does not know how to code their message for a specific mental set, then the message will not be received as intended.
Often, siblings or other family members are of the same mental set and are less likely to misunderstand each other. They are referred to as being "of the same mind."
The text uses the example of a professor teaching a class. Sometimes some students are of the same mind as the professor and therefore understand the lecture. Where as other students may not be of the same mind and don't retain any of the message or just don't understand it at all.

Pragmatic Perspective

The pragmatic perspective says that "communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time" (32). This means that with this perspective, people develop their communication in a game-like way. It's all about making certain moves and getting certain reactions. Over time people develop a patterned interaction based on the games they've played numerous times.
Communication is like a game because it focuses on sequences. Our text used the game of Chess as an example. When one person makes a move that causes a sequential response from the other person and that dictates what move they are going to make. This action is repeated over and over again. To understand the game you have to look at it from the beginning to the end, just like to understand a conversation you would have to look at it from beginning to end.
Critics of the pragmatic perspective say that communication does not work like this because it does not take into account the influences of other things such as culture and personality. "Pragmatists steadfastly refuse to ask why people act as they do. They dismiss factors such as intentions, desires, and needs" (35).

Social Constructionist Perspective

The social constructionist perspective says that communication is a means in which to build worlds. It's basically all encompassing and affects every aspect of our lives. Through this perspective we take into account the possibility that communication does not only happen between individual people.
We build worlds through communication by using specific languages, information processing, beliefs, attitudes, etc. So each culture and each society creates their own communication world. For example, in our culture jobs and success are very important; so a lot of our communication revolves around those things. But in some other cultures around the world, family and happiness are much more important, so their communication revolves around those things. Different communication creates different different worlds.
Another example of this is the recent economical crises. We have constructed a world of fear and anxiety based on what has been communicated to us in the media and through people we know. The social constructionist perspective says that much of what we know of the world around us is based on what has been communicated to us and not on what we've experienced first hand.

One Interesting Concept

One concept that I thought was interesting in chapter one was the discussion about the classical period and the the fact that Aristotle was not the first to have a deep understanding of rhetoric and communication. Corax and Tisias were among the first to really examine the reasons and uses for communication.
Legal issues were the reason for most of the communication problems that arose in Sicily 466 b.c. People were not equipped to argue in an intelligent and persuasive way. Corax and Tisias made it their mission to find a way for people to argue more efficiently. Basically, they are the ones who created rhetoric. Aristotle just picked up where they left off.

Moral Speaking

The Greeks believed that morally good speaker made for a better orator. I'm not sure I fully believe this to be true. I think it is more important to be familiar with current society and culture and to simply have a good understanding about what you are going to speak about. I don't think listeners can always determine if a person is moral or not based on a speech they make. Especially if it is a very factual/informational speech.
If a speech is meant to persuade people to act on something or to believe a certain thing than it makes sense that some kind of goodness and truth would be necessary. I think people tend to respect speakers more if they have a history of goodness and are trustworthy. But, as we all know, some speakers who create an image of goodness and trust often end up being some of the most immoral people.

Speaker Admiration

A speaker whom I greatly admire is the pastor at my church. His sermons are always so interesting and I never find myself bored. He is truly a gifted speaker. I think his abilities to persuade come from the pathos. He knows how to bring up emotions in people that allow him to really get his point across. Of course he shows signs of ethos and logos as well, but I think the pathos is dominant and it works well for the kind of speaking he's doing.
The personal qualities that make me persuasive come mostly from my ethos. When making a speech or just talking to people, I tend to use the fact that I'm trustworthy and have good sense, to make them feel comfortable listening to what I have to say. Aristotle's classification scheme does work for my personal qualities. I think it makes a lot of sense to know what your strengths are and to use them accordingly to persuade people.

Welcome to my blog

Hi everyone and welcome to my blog! I'm in my senior year at SJSU and I am majoring in magazine journalism with a focus in communication studies. I don't know what the future holds for me but I'm really looking forward to a career that combines both of my academic interests. I love communication studies and I am excited to see what I will learn in this class.