Presidential Candidate...Week 4 Post 2

My beliefs may seem a bit back and forth just by looking at my blogs talking about David Duke to Barack Obama. The Presidential candidate that I feel has the best characteristics including power, attractiveness, and credibility would be Barack Obama. I feel him being young and in such a high position makes him attractive. Though many people feel as though he doesn’t have much experience, I disagree. Though he may not have as much experience as the other presidential candidate I feel that in the time he has been in senate he has had much success. And I feel as though him just being in the position that he is in, he has great power and has the ability to exude that power over the audience he is addressing. To be completely honest I feel as though he has great ethos in all of those areas.

Speakers...Best and Worse...Week 4 Post 1

I have been influenced by many speakers, one of which is David Duke. I don’t believe in many of his ideals but I feel as though he does have a very powerful way of getting his views across to his audience. He uses facts and statistics in his speeches, even though these facts may be taken from a biased point of view, he uses them with great precision in order to make himself and his speech more credible. He is highly educated and uses that education to his advantage. Though most of his messages I do not agree with I do believe he is a great speaker because he makes his speeches memorable. I remember most of his speeches because of the way he doesn’t hold back his opinion. I feel one of the worst speakers I have ever heard is President George Bush. He does not have any flow or connection with the audience he addresses. His speeches are not fluid and I don’t see any ethos, pathos or logos used during them. To be honest I don’t feel as though anything is memorable when I hear him speak except that every time I hear him speak I just get reminded again of what a terrible speaker he is.

Intentional communication... Week 3 Post 3

The chapter brought up the topic of whether communication is intentional.  I found this to be very interesting because the chapter brings up definition 5 which says " In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver(s) with conscious intent to affect the latter's behaviors." (pg 20) I do see the point of view that the author is coming from but on the other hand I feel as though non-verbal communication is just that verbal.  A lot of times when we do non-verbal communication it is unintentional so if that is the case then wouldn't it still be considered communication?  When people say something and an expression comes over your face with surprise or happiness, I feel that these are ways of communicating even though they are done unintentionally.

Pragmatic Perspective...Week 3 Post 2

Pragmatic Perspective...Week 3 Post 2 The Pragmatic perspective is one in which the authors characterize as independent behaviors that become patterned over time (pg 32). This suggests that patterns are developed between people as conversation continues and builds. In the chapter the pragmatic perspective is resembled to that of a game. I do see some characteristics with it that resemble a game in which people "rally" information and opinions back and forth and each individual makes certain decisions on where the conversation is going and in that sense they do become interdependent. At the same time I don't see it very much like a game for the fact being that in communication there is no real "winner" which is the goal of a game. The chapter does mention payoffs but I feel that a payoff is not the same as an ultimate win, which I feel is what players of a game really strive for.

Social Constructionist....Week 3 Post 1

The social constructionist model is one that I feel was a bit more difficult to understand then other models. It focuses on world building and that we build our worlds by having communication be a part of every day life it is all around us rather than just between the individuals talking (p 30). It is my understanding that our social constructions are ones that take form in our head which we become accustomed to and even while the social constructions of the outside world is changing, we may not be aware of it and have to decide to alter the social constructions that we have already established (like the example in the book of the male/female roles). I feel these constructions do help a lot in our cultures but they also are limiting. Because this way of communication is thought more of symbolic I feel that there is a sense of loss of the individual.

What I found interesting...Week 2 Post 3

There were many things within the chapter that I found interesting but what really caught my attention was the five canons of rhetoric; because of how practical it is and the way that these cannons really do need to be completed in order to have a good speech from start to finish. Cicero established these canons which include invention, style, arrangement, memory and delivery. Invention is how a speaker decides on what he or she is going to be speaking about. Style is how a speaker decides the best way to communicate a speech to a particular audience. The arrangement is just as it sounds; the ordering of the speech. Memory, which is one of the most important because it is what really makes us as speakers able to hold it all together and keep all the information arranged in our mind. Finally there is delivery which I think is really important in making people feel what you are trying to convey in your speech or what you are communicating.

Morally Good?... Week 2 Post 2

During the time period of the Ancient Greeks, Orators were extremely important to people in order to try and keep the truth out there and correct. I believe that people holding such positions as orators do in fact need to be morally good and know the current situations occurring around them. There is a big connection between goodness, truth and public communication. If a person is not morally good then i feel the likelihood of that person speaking the truth if it did not benefit him/herself is very slim. And though in today's world people feel as though speaking the truth publicly doesn't happen very often, I feel that it is very important to do so. There is a big connection with the truth and that truth being presented to the public if people are going to support and have a cause to believe for.

Who I admire... Week 2 Post 1

I admire Barack Obama because of his presence when he gets up to the podium.  The first time I ever heard him speak was watching the democratic national convention four years ago.  As soon as I heard him speak I agreed with his views and felt like he gave the American people a future they could rely on in an unstable economy.  Since that first occasion, my opinion of him and his speaking abilities have continued to grow.  Obama uses a combination of ethos, pathos and logos in order to connect to his audience.  He uses ethos effectively to add his own character into the speech he is giving.  He is able to use pathos well in order to get to the American people's hearts and he uses logos by his word choice showing his education and eloquence in speaking to a captivated audience.  The personal qualities I posses are more influenced by ethos and pathos.  I have the ability to be persuasive by relating to the audience that I am speaking to and targeting the emotions of people in order to get my point across.  Aristotle's methods are very handy in communicating effectively to people.