Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States. What is the 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?
President Obama is an inspiring speaker and person. He has the power to make a majority of people (not just U.S. citizens, but also citizens of the world) do what ever he calls for. We are so lucky as a planet that he uses this skill and blessing for good and not evil.
An example of this is the day before the inauguration (MLK day). He made a call to action to all U.S. citizens asking them to use the day as a day of volunteerism. How successful was this call he made in multiple speeches? Well more then one place I called to volunteer at had to turn me away because they had TOO MANY volunteers. When I hear them say this there was only one way for me to react... "wow!" Now that is impressive.
But how does he accomplish this? I believe he uses his credibility, his attractiveness, and also his power. But what I think comes most naturally for him and peopel most recognize in him is his CREDIBILITY.
After college he could have become a corporate lawyer and made tons of money, this would definitely have helped him pay off his student loans off a lot faster. But he didn't. Instead he gave himself to the community. This (at least for me, and many people I have spoken to) gives him a lot more credibility in my eyes, he obviously cares about the well being of people, communities, and most importantly, the United States.
As for ethos...he definitely has that covered.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Week 4- Discussion 2
Pick one concept from the assigned reading (Chapter 9) that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
The concept that found to be the most interesting in this chapter was the idea of the social functions of rhetoric. The reason that I found this particularly interesting is because it I finally began to understand rhetoric and how important it is in everything we do and all of our interactions within out society.
There are six factors of the social function of rhetoric. They are discovering facts, testing ideas, persuading others, shaping knowledge, building community and lastly, distributing power.
One part I found extremely interesting is the distributing power factor. When you think about it, its often the most powerful person who is speaking. Such as a president, a teacher or a group leader.
But what really is important, I believe, is what they do with the power.
Of the factors I think discovering facts is extremely crucial, but sometimes it happens without knowing it. For example, you may think you know something, but once you look into it or really listen or hear about the topic you may discover knew information. In speeches often both the speaker and as well as the audience learn new information.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
The concept that found to be the most interesting in this chapter was the idea of the social functions of rhetoric. The reason that I found this particularly interesting is because it I finally began to understand rhetoric and how important it is in everything we do and all of our interactions within out society.
There are six factors of the social function of rhetoric. They are discovering facts, testing ideas, persuading others, shaping knowledge, building community and lastly, distributing power.
One part I found extremely interesting is the distributing power factor. When you think about it, its often the most powerful person who is speaking. Such as a president, a teacher or a group leader.
But what really is important, I believe, is what they do with the power.
Of the factors I think discovering facts is extremely crucial, but sometimes it happens without knowing it. For example, you may think you know something, but once you look into it or really listen or hear about the topic you may discover knew information. In speeches often both the speaker and as well as the audience learn new information.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Week 4 -Discussion 1
Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you 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 seen/heard is President Obama. I have been lucky enough to see him speak on multiple occasions, and have to say that he a great speaker when watching him on TV, but even better when you are 5 feet in front of him.
Because I have already written a blog about his speaking technique I will choose someone else. The other speaker I will be writing about is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I believe it may be impossible for anyone to argue against the fact that he is one of the most influential speakers ever. I have watched the I have a dream speech so many times and am so influenced b y his words that I vowed to learn that historical speech word for word (unfortunately, it's still a work in progress).
I believe the most important tactic that Dr. King took was a call to action. In his "I Have Been to the Mountain Top" speech (his final speech in Memphis before his assassination.) He gave his final call to action:
"Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you."
This, I believe, is what makes an influential speaker.
The worst speaker I have ever heard was my old boss. She was very monotone and would never say anything to catch the attention of others. She may be the only speakers I have ever heard that never used pathos, ethos OR logos. It was a shame because I she was a very intelligent woman, but had a hard time connecting with her audience.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
Friday, February 13, 2009
Week 3 - Discussion 3
Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
One concept that stood out to me was the Psychological Model, which is a psychological process in communications that involves two or more people who exchange meaning through transmission and reception of communication stimuli.
One sender or receive encodes an idea through translating it within the message, thinking that the second person will be able to decode that message. Once the message is sent it travels a channel to its destination (the other person). Once the message is decoded the received, in return, gives feedback to the sender.
But this process is not as simple as we would all like it to be. Many things may get in the way of the message being interpreted properly. One of these problems may be noise. This affects the message while on its channel. This may make the message difficult for the received to interpret, which could lead to problems.
One example (similar to the books), is in one of my classes there is a lot of wind outside the window. Because the room is old the wind becomes extremely loud inside the classroom. This makes it very difficult to concentrate or actually hear what my professor is saying, making the lecture hard to interpret.
This is interesting to me, because (I’m not sure why) but I tend to misinterpret messages pretty often. Now I can just blame it on the “noise”, but I guess only people who study communications will get my joke ☺.
Have a great weekend!
ImaginePeace
One concept that stood out to me was the Psychological Model, which is a psychological process in communications that involves two or more people who exchange meaning through transmission and reception of communication stimuli.
One sender or receive encodes an idea through translating it within the message, thinking that the second person will be able to decode that message. Once the message is sent it travels a channel to its destination (the other person). Once the message is decoded the received, in return, gives feedback to the sender.
But this process is not as simple as we would all like it to be. Many things may get in the way of the message being interpreted properly. One of these problems may be noise. This affects the message while on its channel. This may make the message difficult for the received to interpret, which could lead to problems.
One example (similar to the books), is in one of my classes there is a lot of wind outside the window. Because the room is old the wind becomes extremely loud inside the classroom. This makes it very difficult to concentrate or actually hear what my professor is saying, making the lecture hard to interpret.
This is interesting to me, because (I’m not sure why) but I tend to misinterpret messages pretty often. Now I can just blame it on the “noise”, but I guess only people who study communications will get my joke ☺.
Have a great weekend!
ImaginePeace
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Week 3 - Discussion 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?
It most definitely makes sense to look at communication as a pattern of interactions. The book even said “…consist of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time”. This is the summary of the pragmatic perspective.
A prime example to study would be romantic relationships. Often times it resembles a game. For example A girl wants a bracelet from her boyfriend for her Christmas. She may tip toe around directly telling him what she wants, instead she uses nonverbal communication, and this leads to a game. But she tries to find ways to communicate what she wants. And in the end he may benefit by understanding the messages she is trying to communicate and getting her the right gift.
This will make her happy, which may in turn make him happy. This way they both get what they want. This may become an apparent game to the couple after awhile. They will know the rules, regulations and what strategies they can use to get what they want or “win” the game.
Happy Blogging,
ImaginePeace :)
It most definitely makes sense to look at communication as a pattern of interactions. The book even said “…consist of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time”. This is the summary of the pragmatic perspective.
A prime example to study would be romantic relationships. Often times it resembles a game. For example A girl wants a bracelet from her boyfriend for her Christmas. She may tip toe around directly telling him what she wants, instead she uses nonverbal communication, and this leads to a game. But she tries to find ways to communicate what she wants. And in the end he may benefit by understanding the messages she is trying to communicate and getting her the right gift.
This will make her happy, which may in turn make him happy. This way they both get what they want. This may become an apparent game to the couple after awhile. They will know the rules, regulations and what strategies they can use to get what they want or “win” the game.
Happy Blogging,
ImaginePeace :)
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Week 3 - Discussion 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 or success (or the lack of these) in our culture?
Culture plays a large part in our communication methods. We define what is normal to us through our own communications, although this may not be normal to others. Because the way we communicate may be different then others, it builds a wall which creates our own world. This world my have its own rules, rituals, symbols, ect. Some cultures even have their own worlds within their culture, not just one building.
Our world of communications may not translate to someone else' world of communications. This is very prevalent in different cultures. One example is how we interact with others. I am Italian, and have been around loud Italian people my whole life. In my family the only way to get heard is by being louder then the person next to you. Thus I am a very loud, extroverted person, and this is completely accepted by my culture, including the elderly. My best friend is Japanese. When I met her grandmother for the first time I think I may have been a little too loud for her. She later told my friend that she was offended by how loud I was. This surprised me because usually the elderly like me. But it taught me a valuable lesson that now all cultures are the same as my own, I was just stuck in my own cultures world.
Another example would be comedy. Ideas that are funny in one culture may not be funny in another. This is because is each cultures world they have their own view of humor. A comedian may be successful in his or her own culture and not in another.
I believe the way to be c=most successful in your own culture is to realize that their may be different worlds within it and to be sensitive to their communication styles. This may have to be done by breaking down walls and finding a common ground.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
Culture plays a large part in our communication methods. We define what is normal to us through our own communications, although this may not be normal to others. Because the way we communicate may be different then others, it builds a wall which creates our own world. This world my have its own rules, rituals, symbols, ect. Some cultures even have their own worlds within their culture, not just one building.
Our world of communications may not translate to someone else' world of communications. This is very prevalent in different cultures. One example is how we interact with others. I am Italian, and have been around loud Italian people my whole life. In my family the only way to get heard is by being louder then the person next to you. Thus I am a very loud, extroverted person, and this is completely accepted by my culture, including the elderly. My best friend is Japanese. When I met her grandmother for the first time I think I may have been a little too loud for her. She later told my friend that she was offended by how loud I was. This surprised me because usually the elderly like me. But it taught me a valuable lesson that now all cultures are the same as my own, I was just stuck in my own cultures world.
Another example would be comedy. Ideas that are funny in one culture may not be funny in another. This is because is each cultures world they have their own view of humor. A comedian may be successful in his or her own culture and not in another.
I believe the way to be c=most successful in your own culture is to realize that their may be different worlds within it and to be sensitive to their communication styles. This may have to be done by breaking down walls and finding a common ground.
Until next time,
ImaginePeace
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Friday, February 6, 2009
Week 2 - Discussion 3.
Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
The specific concept from Chapter 1 in our textbook that I found extremely useful for me is the importance of source credibility or "the extent to which a communicator is considered believable and competent".
As a PR major, we study source credibility in almost every class. People often want to be such a credible source they sometmes cross a very fine line that leads to unethical practices.
An example is that often drug companies will write a scholarly article and pay a doctor to sign their name to it. This is unethical as public relations and medical professionals.
This brings up the argument of disclosure. How much should a company or person disclose? But they may be stepping a little bit away from credibility.
As a public relations professional I deal with credibility within my work field very often.
I also do tours of my work environmental facilities as part of my profession. If I do not seem knowledgably as a source, many of the public will not take what I am telling them about the facility seriously, and they may question my credibility. To help this I explain my job for the environmental department and let them know I am experienced with giving tours there.
When I receive questions on the tour I answer them with certainty. When I receive a question that I do not know the answer to I am honest and tell them I do not know the answer to the question, but I am always able to lead them to someone who does know. I believe this adds to my
The specific concept from Chapter 1 in our textbook that I found extremely useful for me is the importance of source credibility or "the extent to which a communicator is considered believable and competent".
As a PR major, we study source credibility in almost every class. People often want to be such a credible source they sometmes cross a very fine line that leads to unethical practices.
An example is that often drug companies will write a scholarly article and pay a doctor to sign their name to it. This is unethical as public relations and medical professionals.
This brings up the argument of disclosure. How much should a company or person disclose? But they may be stepping a little bit away from credibility.
As a public relations professional I deal with credibility within my work field very often.
I also do tours of my work environmental facilities as part of my profession. If I do not seem knowledgably as a source, many of the public will not take what I am telling them about the facility seriously, and they may question my credibility. To help this I explain my job for the environmental department and let them know I am experienced with giving tours there.
When I receive questions on the tour I answer them with certainty. When I receive a question that I do not know the answer to I am honest and tell them I do not know the answer to the question, but I am always able to lead them to someone who does know. I believe this adds to my
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Week 2- Discussion 2.
Week 2 Discussion 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 actually agree. I think that an orator must truly be morally good. Great orators have much influence and power. They can either use that power for good, or they can use it for evil. An example of an orator who used their power of persuasion for good would be Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an example of one that used it for evil would be Adolf Hitler.
Goodness is spread through good people. It is easy for an orator to spread messages or hate, violence and all around maliciousness.
Jim Jones is another orator who was not morally good. He used his persuasive speaking skill to convinced families to follow him to a community where he eventually talked them into suicide. This is why I agree with the Greeks that orators should be morally good.
Goodness, truth and public communication should be interconnected, but unfortunately they are not always interwoven. This is very prevalent in politics. Many politians think that they are doing what is good, although to accomplish this may not always communicate the truth to the public.
Morality should play an important part in interconnecting goodness, truth and public communication, but unfortunately many people knowingly lie to the public which only earns them distrust
Until next time...
ImaginePeace
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 actually agree. I think that an orator must truly be morally good. Great orators have much influence and power. They can either use that power for good, or they can use it for evil. An example of an orator who used their power of persuasion for good would be Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an example of one that used it for evil would be Adolf Hitler.
Goodness is spread through good people. It is easy for an orator to spread messages or hate, violence and all around maliciousness.
Jim Jones is another orator who was not morally good. He used his persuasive speaking skill to convinced families to follow him to a community where he eventually talked them into suicide. This is why I agree with the Greeks that orators should be morally good.
Goodness, truth and public communication should be interconnected, but unfortunately they are not always interwoven. This is very prevalent in politics. Many politians think that they are doing what is good, although to accomplish this may not always communicate the truth to the public.
Morality should play an important part in interconnecting goodness, truth and public communication, but unfortunately many people knowingly lie to the public which only earns them distrust
Until next time...
ImaginePeace
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Week 2- Discussion 1.
Week 2- Discussion 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?
I am sure many people will be saying this but I really believe Barack Obama is a completely admirable speaker, and I think this helped lead to his victory in this past election.
For one thing his speeches are often filled with pathos. He finds a way to bring an emotional connection from his words to listeners. No matter if his listeners support him or his policies, it extremely hard for anyone to not feel an emotional connection to his words and speaking abilities. Using pathos helps to persuade his listeners to listen to what he is saying find a connection.
But he also uses logos. No matter how detailed, illustrated or imaginative his speeches may be, they are always filled with logic. And example of this would be his speech after he lost the New Hampshire primaries. He used his speech as a story, but often brought it back to the logic with a saying that later turned into one of his campaign slogans, "Yes we can."
Obama also uses ethos. His speeches are heard and the audience can feel the sincerity.
I like to think that I am most persuasive by using logos. I want to sound logical, but I don think that is actually always the case. I usually tend to persuade with pathos. When I try to persuade it is usually something I am very passionate about, and my passion and emotions are hard to hide, which I believe makes them contagious. I also use pathos because I try to find an emotional connection to whom I am talking to.
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?
I am sure many people will be saying this but I really believe Barack Obama is a completely admirable speaker, and I think this helped lead to his victory in this past election.
For one thing his speeches are often filled with pathos. He finds a way to bring an emotional connection from his words to listeners. No matter if his listeners support him or his policies, it extremely hard for anyone to not feel an emotional connection to his words and speaking abilities. Using pathos helps to persuade his listeners to listen to what he is saying find a connection.
But he also uses logos. No matter how detailed, illustrated or imaginative his speeches may be, they are always filled with logic. And example of this would be his speech after he lost the New Hampshire primaries. He used his speech as a story, but often brought it back to the logic with a saying that later turned into one of his campaign slogans, "Yes we can."
Obama also uses ethos. His speeches are heard and the audience can feel the sincerity.
I like to think that I am most persuasive by using logos. I want to sound logical, but I don think that is actually always the case. I usually tend to persuade with pathos. When I try to persuade it is usually something I am very passionate about, and my passion and emotions are hard to hide, which I believe makes them contagious. I also use pathos because I try to find an emotional connection to whom I am talking to.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
