Storage and Retrieval

An interesting topic that Chapter 3 covered was the concept of listening and retaining the information. This chapter proves that you may be listening however if you don’t retain the information, listening was a waste of time. I find this topic mostly because I have such a hard time retaining information and I have since I was a kid. Test taking for me is never a good situation, because my memory is shot in a sense. This chapter went over some key points that won’t only help me understand why I can’t remember some things but makes me analyze a lot of things in more of a sense to memorize them. It states that in some scenarios where you are under high amounts of stress your body will naturally forget things due to high amounts of stress. Not only that but we also forget things that may have conflicts with our assumptions or desires. On top of all that, we also forget things that could be painful, physically and emotionally. Lastly, one way you can accidently misinterpret things or forget is when multiple pieces of information is being directed to you. Your brain may jumble the two things being said together and what you think is what they just said, could be totally wrong. This subject also greatly interests me because it goes a little into the function of the brain.

 Some ways to better your memory is to:
1. Mentally rehearse what was said
2. Take quick yet detailed notes, only containing brief necessities
3. Create acronyms for some things to remember

Why do you have to be so judgmental?

To answer the question logically, yes it is possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them. However, majority of us are so quick probably to judge people no matter how hard we try. Its almost a natural process in the brain to compare someone else to who we are and hold them up to our standards. In a way it us looking to see if we approve of them in a sense. A good standard I try to view every situation as is not only do you not know what that person has gone through but we are all on the Earth to live. We are all here doing somewhat of the same thing, just different goals. Approaching situations in that manner sort of allows you to have a blank canvas. Even when I am approaching somebody I try not to judge them at all, however I know I do. If I catch myself judging someone in a more unfair manner or even judging at all I will still keep that thought just not hold them to it. I try to give the person a chance to prove themselves, because my mentality comes back to the previous rules I mentioned, you never know their situation, who they really are, and their thoughts. On top of that, we are all humans on Earth to live. In the gist of things I find that the human brain is calculating way too many thoughts to even not process the concept of judging, like I said its almost natural.

Men vs. Women?

Overall the way the book described men and women using language differently seemed like a weird argument. My main reason why is because when you look at the big picture it all seems to come back to your personal views, personality and/or how you were raised. Personality plays a big role in who you are and what you are going to say regardless of your gender. Sure maybe majority populations of the two genders don’t get along but there has to be a good portion of the two genders who do get along. Whose personalities run together when they are around each other. I just feel vague saying that male and female have different communication techniques. I may also have this view because I look at the whole world as the big picture and there are so many different people, personality wise, and I do not feel gender plays a role in who you are or what views you may have, therefore communication should not be different.

Steve Jobs

It may be nerdy to say that when I am asked to think of a speaker who is credible, attractive (by means of the books definition, not physically), and powerful, I think of Steve Jobs; previous co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of Apple. Whenever he would be the main speaker at the events where they release new product, consumers would have one hundred percent of their attention directed at him, almost drooling. Not only because he was releasing a new product that they wanted to get their hands on but because of his power and credibility. He was the person who invented several of apples well known products; therefore he was a genius and leading technology revolution to an extent. He had it all, people looked at him and wanted to be him. Overall though, I do not think Steve Jobs needs to work on anything. Throughout the decades of presenting new products over and over again he seemed to figure out what he was doing not only technology wise but presentation wise.

Best and worst...

Over the years I have seen a great amount of speeches, some good some awful. Now looking back on all of the speeches I have seen, I know what I am looking for quality wise, in a good or bad speech. Then I don't think I really did unless the speaker was persuasive or not. One presenter who means a lot to me, not only for what she does but for how strong she is, is Stephanie Sherer. She is an activist and a lobbyist, and carries herself very well. No matter how awkward the situation is if it is, she holds a strong presence and doesn’t crumble under pressure. She expresses a lot of expertness as well as trustworthiness towards the public. The main reason why I believe she is so influential is because she is so passionate in what she does, which takes everything to a whole different level. Looking back, it is kind of hard to remember a poor speech, however one speaker that instantly comes to mind when you say poor speaker, is George W. Bush (the most recent president of the Bush family). I don’t know too much politics behind him, but his overall presence and demeanor was awful. Not one thing he said I would really believe because all I saw when he was on stage was a child with ADHD. He just didn’t have a strong presence or desire it seemed. He wasn’t too persuasive either in my opinion. Like I said I don’t know too much about his politics side but he did not present things well in my opinion.

Credibility is KEY!

When speaking to an audience you must have many source characteristics conveyed. One of the main characteristics you must express is credibility. If you don’t express credibility, how do you expect to sell your audience on what you are talking about. Sure you can be fun and interactive in front of a crowd but you have to persuade the audience you know what it is exactly you are talking about. The book states that there are two ‘dimensions’ of credibility, expertise and trustworthiness, and they say you must have one when presenting. However I feel you must carry out both when it comes to public speaking. You need to sell to the crowd not only what you are talking about but you need to sell yourself in a way. The audience must trust you as a person, because if they don’t they are most likely not going to pay attention to what you are saying let alone have good vibes from you. I look at it not only marketing a subject, but a person as well, someone who presents and sells it.

S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G

Dell Hymes developed a model to help better describe communication as a whole, as well as provide observational tools for communication. In the text it is described as being put in the same shoes as anthropologists, attempting to explain cultures and their strange differences (36). Easily enough it is in a simple acronym format that goes as stated, S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G (Situations, Participants, Ends, Act Sequences, Keys, Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genres). He believes that you must understand the situation and environment where the communication event is taking place. On top of understanding the situation you must understand the participants as well and their ends which is also the key goal in communicating. Another observation necessary is how the communicator expresses what they say, their tone and/or visual representations. One of the not so important observations to make on the list would be the beliefs and values attached to the communicator. Lastly, one of the key observations to make has to do with the goal of the speaker, the genre. Addressing what kind of communication it is, prayers, orations, curses, or any other type (38). The main reason why I chose this topic is because it really opened my eyes when it comes to observing a speech. Not only has it opened my eyes but now I think of the acronym S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G when witnessing a speech or conversation. However it doesn’t work in every situation, it still helps to one degree or another.

Building worlds....

The social constructionist model is a process in which a collective group creates their perspective of reality based off of the languages/symbolic codes, cognitive customs, cultural traditions, and the sets of role. This model also expects that we never actually experience the world in its direct entirety, but we live it through our beliefs and customs. It states, "...most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through direct communication rather than through direct experience" (28). Which I had never looked at it that way, because its totally true. For a while when I was younger I lived a somewhat sheltered life, I was very ignorant and biased upon several things, such as the topic of other countries and/or cultures not being worthy enough. Which is also a big topic I feel throughout our society, people aren't open to too much change or something that is culturally different. I have learned that I am not the only person on the planet and everyone is not only entitled to their own opinion but belief as well. Who knows really who is right or wrong. A lot of what we do action wise and communication wise is widely based on our beliefs.

Pragmatics

The pragmatic perspective is a form of analyzing communications, which is composed of observing the concept of a conversation as a game. The two key rules in this 'game' is that you must have a minimum of two people and those two people must interact in such pattern where eventually they reach an end point for a particular pay off. Looking at conversations from a logical stand point, the concept of conversations being pragmatic does make a whole lot of sense. People bounce thoughts off each other so to say, in hopes to reach a particular goal. Whether it is to figure out how the opponent’s day was or to argue a specific topic with someone, the purpose, emotion, and personality is irrelevant. Just as long as they are following the basic patterned structure of exchanging ideas for a specific goal is all that needs to occur. The best game to compare it to would be volleyball, in means of setting the ball (beginning the conversation), volleying back and forth between opponents (interacting with each other, or conversing), and the main goal is to come to an end result (having your opponent miss the volley, in the end one of them wins).

Concepts....

The overall concept I was greatly interested in was the analyzation of public speaking and characteristics to look for in a presenter. I have seen many speeches I have just never thought anything of them to go into depth analyzation like the text did. It gave me a greater understanding. It discusses the methods Aristotle believed when it comes to persuasion of an audience; ethos, pathos or logos. Whenever I see a presentation now I sort of address it in that way. Although it doesn't work in every situation. Not only did Aristotle introduce the three modes of proof. He also created the five canons of rhetoric. Which was a form of descriptions that divided communication into five parts; Invention (clear descriptive analysis and argumentive discussions), Style (selecting proper words to convey a message), Arrangement (ordering ideas effectively), Memory (ability to retain content, style, and clear minded approach), and Delivery (key to using graceful gestures and soothing voice).

Orators...

When it comes to public speaking and overall presentation I believe one does not need to be morally good. Everyone for the most part is going to have overall different views on a lot of things. So classifying someone to have good morals is vague, because are you to classify his or her morals as good. As long as you have confidence and/or knowledge on what you are talking about, you should present well. When thinking about it, you don't really even need knowledge you completely make something up you just have to sell it. Presidency is a great example. In most cases Presidents will say one thing and fail to do it. They are somewhat similar to a car salesman. Not only that but the Greeks were considered orators when they weren't necessarily carrying out good morals. Although once again, who am I to make the call on what's right and what's wrong. In conclusion, I don't find a connection between goodness, truth, and public speaking.

Admiration is key....

The industry I use to work in is a very controversial industry, both politically and medicinally. For two years I worked at a medical cannnabis collective, running operations and ensuring we are abiding by the law at all times. Me going into detail about the industry is a never ending conversation I feel, but just saying what industry it is, some people already have raised a brow. With that said, Steven DeAngelo, an individual that everyone knows in the medical marijuana industry, is the person I admire when it comes to public speaking. Some of you may have seen him on Discovery Channel when they were airing the controversial show, Weed Wars. He is very admirable not only for me but many people in the medical marijuana community. Mostly for his overall compassionate beliefs, courage, intelligence, calm personality, and trustworthiness. Majority of his power I feel comes from ethos, with his main goal of caring and showing true compassion for one another. Not only is ethos a big contributor for him, but logos as well. He comes off as a rather intelligent, hospitable business man trying to do what is best for the constant under threat community. When I use to go about my day to day work life at a medical marijuana collective, I tried to come off just as he did, if not better, very professional, respectful, understanding, knowledgeable, and compassionate. People instantly think of people who consume medical cannabis as someone who is a waste to society and/or hoodlum. My goal was to remove that image from cannabis users and allow people to be open minded to who uses and who doesn’t. If you saw me, you would not think I even had any knowledge or interest in the plants medicinal benefits. I find my greatest trait when it comes to public speaking to be my level of confidence. Whether or not I really know what I am talking about my confidence in whatever I am talking about will allow you to believe just about anything I say. Overall, Aristotle’s classification does work on Steven DeAngelo, and the best classification would be style. Only because his wording and overall logical speeches persuade the mass crowds.