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.