comm105- standard agenda

In chapter 7, the concept of the standard agenda sticks out in my mind the most because I have probably seen so many models and charts that resemble this six step process.  Ever since elementary school we are taught the principles of problem solving.  And even in college, depending on the major, you will see different approaches to problem solving.

Problem solving is a big part of every profession and we use it on some level everyday.  We are problem solvers.  I like the example in the book in chapter 7 because it is pretty basic on how to achieve answers to solve a problem.  I would like thank Sesame Street for being a big part of my problem solving skills.  Without Bert and Ernie I don't think I could have survived my childhood without them.

Comm105-ethnography

Chapter 13 talks about research methods that researchers use to gain the answers to their questions.  Or possibly more questions from their research.  Ethnography is a method that researchers that allows them to observe behavior of their subject in their natural setting.    This method can be used on one subject or a group.

We have all seen movies on this kind of research.  Movies like, Never been kissed, or Just one of the Guys.  These movies are about journalists who infiltrate a certain group posing as someone else to do research for an article.  

 

I think this is a very cool way to write about something.  What better way to write about something than to experience it.

Question 2- medium is the message

I do think that the medium is the message.  Television is probably the strongest medium of communication.  Everyone watches television.  In some form or another.  It doesn't matter what each person's interests are because there is something for everyone based on their interests.  ANd those are the programs that people are going to relate with more and watch more.  In turn they are going to get whatever message through that specific program.  I do agree with the content of the medium depending on the medium is a big factor.  With Tv the content is quick and its more visual obviously.  Less dialogue is involved and it is direct.  With radio, people can talk more and connect more with their audience.  Especially with talk radio.   You have to expect people to have a conversation rather than deliver a message.

As far as tv being a cool medium, I do notice that personalities who are more active and outrageous are not on tv for long.  Our book describes that the personalities on tv for this medium, which contributes to their success, are more toned down.  In turn, it makes them funnier and more interesting to watch.  

The people who are more outrageous are more likely to find better chances at radio, or comedy shows or cd's.  

Comm105-question 1:Cyberspace

I don't think I have ever made a friend that was made in cyberspace.  I guess you could count Tom on mypspace, but you don't have a choice when you set up an account.  Nor do you even talk to him.  I can only imagine that it is different to communicate with someone strictly through chat rooms than in face to face contact.  Now that I think about it, I talk to people all the time when I play dominoes on line.  But I never made any friends.  They're just other players.

I'm a little hesitant to creating a relationship or friendship on line.  For one, I don't think I could dedicate the time necessary to communicate with someone online.  Two, I would feel uncomfortable just trying to figure out what to say if I didn't know the person in actuality.  Its hard to think what kind of person you are communicating with and if you are too open with stuff about you're personal life than it can get awkward.  We probably know at least one person that is awkward or too open about their personal life.

Comm105-office romance

In chapter 8 our book states that handling workplace romance is complicated and that nowadays attitudes toward that are more relaxed.  In my experience I think it depends on the level of the chain of command that you are on.   In my work there are no executives allowed to have a significant other working in the same store.  Nor are they allowed to socialize with regular employees outside of work.  It makes sense because of the position that they hold.  

Its funny though that when you are a regular employee, a group of guys that works with eachother every night, and a new female employee starts working, the guys tend to dare eachother to go and talk to the girl and see if they can get them to go out with them.  This goes on for a few weeks in hopes of the girl to respond positively and eventually consider going out with one of them.  Nobody really seems to care about regular employees having a relationship but when it comes to other positions, ones with more status, it is agains the rules and enforced more.

I guess its different for each workplace or company.  I guess it depends on whether or not the company wants to maintain an image or reputation.  I guess a workplace can't have everybody dating eachother and then breaking up and having cranky employees bringing their drama to work.  I've seen people transferred, not fired, but transferred to another store because of it.

comm 105-etiquette

I think its important to try and carry your conversations as quietly as possible.  How many times have we seen people walk down the sidewalk as loud as all hell, talking to whoever, for everyone to hear?  How do they sound?  I think they sound annoying.  I've seen it done at the movies during the movie and I can't understand people who do that.  It's like they want to be yelled at by angry movie watchers.  And then they wonder why the other people are bent out of shape.

With answering machines its good to leave a message that says who you are and what you want.  Simple as that.  I can't help but to be silly sometimes and pretend I'm a debt collector plan to repo someone's car at a certain time of day.  I only do it to the friends I like the most.  By now they already know who it is and they just laugh at me.

Screen names and ring tones should both be selected in a respectful manner.  No one wants to hear "shake that laffy taffy" during a conference or a business meeting.  Screen names can probabaly easily selected by associating it with your name and business or just a shortened version of your name.

Comm105-question 1

In chapter 8 it discusses how communication affects organizations.  Organizations are tied to our environment because some organizations have the intended purpose to keep the environment safe and secure.  Any modes of discourse could break the organization and perhaps skew some of the members attitudes and perceptions.  That could very well affect the rest of the people who are part of that very environment that the organization was bound to protect.

The school i go to(SJSU) has a very close relationship with San Jose.  People come to the campus for all sorts of reasons.  They come together for rallies, performances, seminars, organizations.  Our campus is the mecca for anything that may interest you.  And there are groups to attend for it.  It brings all cultures of life to the campus.

The ethical obligations that a school like ours has is the obligation to give people the opportunity to learn.  Whether it be for school courses, or events, or group sessions.  Just about anything on this campus is promoted to keep people in the loop and to educate them on what is happening on campus and in their community.

Comm 105-Knapp's Relational Development Model

In chapter 6 I was interested in the relational development model.  It puts together a diagram that shows the steps in a relationship's coming together and falling apart.  I think it is pretty accurate in terms of the steps and what happens within them.  The stages in coming apart are fairly accurate too.  When a relationship is on the brink of falling apart the two parties involved start to develop differences that don't compliment the relationship.  Pretty soon they start to stagnate and then avoid eachother.  When this happens the parties probably want some time apart to think.  When that happens, I don't think there is any point to expect any good to come from this time apart.  The more time you spend away from eachother without trying to resolve the problem, the worse it gets.  Before you know it the relationship is doomed.  On the brightside, at least there is Knapp's model to help guide you to where the relationship is going.  

Yeah...maybe that's not such a bright side after all.

Comm105-filters

When I think about what I would like in a person I would want for a romantic partner I think about common interests.  Although I have to admit that when I see a hot girl I definitely have to notice.  In my experience though, the thing I find most attractive about a girl is her personality.  Because most of the girls that I have liked, I find that their looks are moderate but cute, and they have a strong personality to add to that.  What strikes me as unnatractive is the persons ability to be shallow and snobby.  I don't care how hot they are, if they are these things then I'm not into them.  It's kind of a problem with me the way some people judge me based on my looks.  They think I'm the kind of guy who only goes for the hot girls.  Not true.  I like the geeky, sometimes nerdy, but smart and funny girl, to be very attractive.  And if one of those girls, who may think they are unnattractive and insecure, has the courage to come up to me and try to ask me out, I think it is very cool and flattering.  It does gain my interest.  But this is sounding like a match.com personal so I'm just going to say that everyone's filters are different.  Their turn offs and turn ons, pet peeves, personal characteristics, bank account.  These are just some of the things that people base their future relationships on.  Why?  It takes away from the experience of the heart.  

Comm 105-rigid role relations

 I think the most difficult pattern to change or deal with is the competitive symmetry pattern.  Its hard to get in an argument and not bring up a list of what the other person has done even when it doesn't have to do with the particular topic you are arguing about.  Both parties try to bring up some facts that top the other's claims and hopefully get the one-up on them thus ceasing the other parties' argument.  It's kind of unfortunate that this happens a lot because it can cause people to forget what they were trying to address in the first place.

I also think that this pattern is the most damaging to a relationship.  In considering the random comments that may rise and make their way into the conversation, these comments may be inflamed, derrogatory remarks that have no positive effect on the conversation.  It all becomes about making the other person feel worse than the other.  Like our book states, dominance becomes the main theme in relationships.  When people in a relationship say something that they may not be able to take back, it affects the relationship negatively.  The perception of that person is changed and it may take time to return back to the way it was, if possible.  People's feelings would definitely get attacked as well as their self esteem.

Comm 105-perception

In chapter 12, it talks about perception of people.  Most perception is formed due to constructs of their culture and their experience.  Our book states that Meaning is not extracted from nature but projected  by people on it.  

It also states that our values and attributions are culture specific.  I was at work the other day and I was expecting this new release for the Playstation 3 to ship in so we could sell it to people.  It turns out that the video game had to be pulled and be scheduled for a later release.  The reason for this, which I researched, was that the video game contained a song of a featured artist which contained a couple of lines of the Quaran.  Someone wrote a letter saying that it was disrepectful to associate pop music with this particular religion.  Before you know it, they pulled the game and informed retailers that they will have to reschedule another release date.  

I know whoever wrote the letter obviously cared about his beliefs and was just trying to be respectful to them, but who, out of everyone who bought the game, would have cared or for that matter, be offended?  Or another question, who agrees with him and the result of the action.  Just to provide and argument, there are a lot of games that have a lot of mature content such as blood, gore, violence etc.  This game, was a game rated "E" because the content was suitable for anyone interested.  It's  a little interesting  because I would understand a game with aggressive violent content, would be a focus for re-evaluation on a release but....you know what I mean?

Comm 105-question 2-premises

In chapter 12 of our book, it discusses how most Americans are rational, perfectible and susceptible.  It describes 3 different premises.

The first one, rationality premise, says that most humans are capable of discovering truth through logical analysis.  I don't think this is true of most humans becuase I have dealt with people whose emotions get the better of them and they lash out in a fit of rage or frustration.  No real logic in that action.  I also can't understand when some people don't realize when something they are looking for is right in front of them.  Not many people have the experience to know how to analyze something.  Its through no fault of theirs but, there are people capable of this rationale to help them and society.  Psychologists and therapists are probably the better examples of this logic because they get information in order to do an analysis.  More often then not, they figure a person out for that person they are helping.

The perfectability premise I have seen.  I would like to think that people work to better themselves but I know its wishful thinking in some cases.  I for one work under this premise.  If a job makes you feel good about what you accomplish, your only hope is to become better as a worker and a person.  Its about achieving goodness through effort and control.  Again we can go to the whole therapy thing and also rehab.  People go to rehab to better themselves for their addicitons.  If they really try then they should expect results.  They can't expect to have results if they put no effort.  It's the same as giving up.

Finally, the mutability premise, which I think is also the influential premise.  This is very apparent in people.  Enviormental factors and surroundings can make a person behave or act a certain way given certain circumstances.  I can't think of another example or group that would best fit this premise but I think that social experiments are a good example of seeing what people do in situations they aren't typically involved or associated with.

Comm105-Question 1-Creatures of our culture

I think  I do believe that we are creatures of our own culture.  And its hard to break out of our habits and beliefs depending on our experiences.  There are ways to break out of those kinds of things and possibly open our eyes to a whole new experience.   Also, there are ways to open our eyes to other people's view points.

There are several shows on tv that help people and teens that are set in their own ways that they don't see or care about anything going on this world but themselves.  Their actions and attitudes often call for a reality check so to speak.  There's this new show where a spoiled teen and daughter of a wealthy man, not Paris Hilton, where she is sent to live with a rainforest tribe in the Amazon.  Talk about extreme immersion  into another culture.  The benefits of this would be: education, experience without material things, and the ability to meet new people and respect them for their culture.

I think as we speak, we are set in our beliefs and culture, considering the electronic age can work for us cross culturally, or work for us just to stay within our own culture.  I think its amazing that we can play video games with people from different parts of the world.  Just the other day I was playing a game with some people from England, South America, and also from Japan.  It was beyond my understanding but I enjoyed it and I took the opportunity to engage in conversation with them,  while I was wooping their butts.

Comm105-Facial expressions

The human face has so many muscles in it to help show what kind of emotion we are feeling.  You ever wonder what our face looks like the moment we feel confused, angry, sad, or amused.  I think it won't be the same if you try to recreate it in a mirror.  The same goes for eye movements.  Whenever someone feels like they are uncomfortable or trying to hide something, they almost never look you in the eye in a face to face interaction.  Some people might call it a tell, if they thought the person was lying about something.  Eye movement can also tell you if someone is intoxicated or under the influence of a a substance.  Eye movement can be very rapid or look like they are very heavy to a person.  Vertical nystagmus is a way of seeing if a persons eyes start shifting very rapidlly when they are told to look directly to the side without any signs of rapid shakiness to their eyes.

There are so many ways to show emotion in the face and eyes that without this capability, we could not communicate effectively to other people, exactly how we feel.

COMM 105-nonverbal messages #2

I can't really say that I have been a whole lot of situations where some nonverbal messages meant something different in another country or vice versa.  I can say that I have experienced another culture's idea of personal space.  In Jamaica, where everyone is pretty friendly and laid back, you can get a massage out by the beach in some of the resorts.

During the massage they get all the necessary areas: back, neck, shoulders, and then they move down to the lower back and then out of nowhere they lift the towl and just grab a handful of your butt and start working that around.  I can't say I was expecting that because that doesn't happen over in the states.  At least not in all massage therapy spas.  I didn't say anything because I didn't want to be disrespectful.  After a while I just let it slide.  After all I couldn't really complain.  

Enough about that though, It is funny yet interesting to think that nonverbal messages have different meanings in different parts of the world.  Making eye contact with some cultures is a sign of disrespect and in some an address of a challenge.  In other cultures, physical contact is against the rules for greeting someone.  So shaking hands with someone is out of the question.  Its probably very important to do research on the customs and practices of other cultures that way other people get the best impression out of you and hopefully see that you are trying to be respectful to their culture.

Comm 105-Nonverbal messages

Sadly I have been in a situation where I misinterpreted a nonverbal message.  It was much like a the last scene in the movie "Swingers" where Vince Vaughn and John Favereau are sitting in the diner and Vince's character sees a woman making cute faces at him, so he thinks.  He persists on making faces back, thinking she is directing them at him.  Turns out that she was making them at a baby sitting across from her.

My experience was somewhat the same and I ended up looking like a complete idiot.  I felt confident enough, the message was just not for me though.  

A way a person can increase their accuracy at reading nonverbal messages is to maybe do some research.  If you were like that guy chris Angel or David Blaine who are good at reading people's mannerisms and eyes you could tell a lot about a person just by looking at them and what they are thinking about.  These guys must have secrets and research methods on how to read people's behavior.  That's the only way I can think it would be possible for those guys.  Otherwise, experience is a good way to establish good estimates on nonverbal messages because it would include previous references and material to revert to.  

I also think that some people know how to take all of those characteristics in and hide them so that no one could be able to tell what that person is feeling or going through.  Nonverbal messages can be very subtle and they can be very strong.  

COMM 105-high and low context cultures

I am having a little difficulty fully understanding what a low and high context culture is.  I guess my understanding is that if a language is spoken to someone who understands it, clearly and concisely, they would have no trouble understanding what the other person meant.  If a language has high context, it may have a little more meaning than what we first interpreted.  Either that, or it is hard to interpret depending on the way it was delivered.

I went to a festival today where there were aztec dancers and mariachis performing.  The aztec dancers explained to us how plain english words originated from aztec words.  For example the aztec word for tomato was xitomatl.  The spanish switched it to tomate.  Very similar, and then the english of course tomato.  Just one letter difference and you have a word that anyone could understand regardless if it was in spanish or english.

Very clever I would say.  So many words in the spanish language sound almost like their english translation.  I found myself saying words in spanish that I had never used before because it sounded right.  Sure enough I was saying them right.  I try to learn a new word every day to my spanish language arsenal.  

men and women:using language

I do believe that men and women use language differently.  First of all, the way a man talks to a woman if he is interested in her is different then when a woman talks to a man.  Ever see those James Bond movies where he uses a clever one liner to gain her interest.  Its not that different in real life for a man to use some sort of witty line or humorous analogy to gain interest from a female and possibly a conversation.  When a woman does it, it is usually very subtle but noticable.  For example, everytime a girl has flirted with me, it usually consists of a compliment on my physical appearance.  Why is that?  Granted it was very flattering, I also noticed that it worked.  I was at work one day and I walked out of the stockroom with a flatbed pushcart loaded with heavy boxes of detergent and things like that, and this girl, out of nowhere, comes up to me and compliments me on my physique and asked if I was in the army.  It made me nervous when she copped a feel of my arms and asked me if I worked out.  Ridiculous.  Funny but ridiculous.  

Later I found out that the girl had been watching me for some time and got the courage to make a first move.  

Anyway, back to topic, there also situations when language between men and women isn't so different.   Has anyone ever had a friend, who was a girl, that fit perfectly in a group of guy friends?  Not only did she carry a conversation like a guy but she didn't seem uncomfortable with the topics a guy would bring up?  There are women out there that prefer to communicate with men then with women.  For some reason they can't talk to women because they don't get along, so they claim.  

It is true though, as stated in chapter 4, that men's conversations consist of achievements or complaints for that matter.  Women's conversations usually consist of h deep thought and expression of feelings.  I don't know why that is because there isn't a law of  nature that says we all can't talk the same way.   Maybe it is a plan of a higher power that men and women are different.  Some of us may already know that.

Question 1: How we perceive others

It think it is impossible to not categorize someone based on what we percieve.  Otherwise, what would be the point of having a complex thinking machine like our brain.  It's in our nature to think about stuff and making it make sense for ourselves.  

The only way I think that we would not categorize or judge people is if we lived in a full on utopian society.  Even then I think it would be wishful thinking.  I don't know if anyone remembers a movie called "Logan's Run."  If you don't you should see it.  Its a fun movie from the 70's.  It's about a Utopian society closed in and away from the outside world.  There are no old people, in fact people have this crystal embedded in their hand that glows a certain color when they're time is up.  No one can age past certain 30 age because it is against the law.  The only way that people can get a chance to live past that age is if they enlist in what they call "carousel."  Which is basically Russian Roulette with laser beams.  No one ever makes it although they keep hoping.  If people try to run from having to go into carousel, the hunters chase them.

Anyway, its a fun movie with a unique story.  It just serves as an example of a society where the only thing that goes on doesn't even remotely resemble life today.  Everyone wears all the same colors depending on their age and everyone is fairly attractive.  Not a typical society of people I would say.  All the people don't even think about what their life means.  They don't even know that they can age and grow old.  

I am glad that we don't live in a Utopia where everything is perfect because nothing ever is.  I've seen to many movies like that where perfect people end up being lunatics.  Uh oh, just caught myself in my own perception.

Comm105

In chapter 9 there is a section that talks about different types of arguments.  It reminded of last night when I went to hang out with my friends and his friends for his birthday.  He just turned 21 and I had bought him a few drinks to celebrate.  He did not drink any of them.  He made a promise to his 19 year old girlfriend that he would not drink as long as he was with her.  Her argument was that she is afraid that he will change when he turned 21.  Being that she is his first girlfriend he assured and promised her that he would not.  Here's my point:  I respect that he didn't want to drink.  More for me.  Anyway, the thing that irks me is that he will drop everything just to console and reassure her.  She calls him and texts him on his phone so many times a day that its hard to believe that she can even take care of herself.  Everytime I see him on the phone with her he's always trying to comfort her about something she is upset about.  

It's something new almost everyday.  So instead of letting him spend time with his friends and letting us spend time with him.  She calls him up, and like a good boyfriend, he answers and like usual she is down and depressed and worried about him.  She was worried that he would be drinking and if he was she would be very upset and she would probably throw the whole "You obviously don't love me enough if you can't keep your promises."  

I think its noble to make a promise and keep it.  But this kind of promise may not have any gurantee.  Here's where my authoritative argument came into play, and trust me I have had several arguments based on my experience to try and enlighten him on the subject of relationships.  I've made a lot of promises that I didn't keep.  I have made quite a few mistakes over the years.  I have been right where my friend is right now on more than one occassion.  Everytime I've been in that situation, I have lost my friends.  I was too blinded by love that I treated other people like crap.  The only thing that was important to me was the girl.  Nothing else.  I'm not knocking love, but I think its easy to fall into it.  It's also something that you should be ready for and mature enough for.  Not that anyone ever follows that advice, but what the hell, love makes you do crazy things.  

So, having a few drinks in me already, one can't help but be the philosopher that somehow shows up after two 24oz Modelos.  I tried once again to enlighten my friend about where he should be going in life because he's 21, not in school, and he doesn't do anything else but take care of his girl.  All his friends were there for him but he was not.  I mean he was there, but you know what I mean.  He was in the other room talking to her for about an hour.  I was fed up, and I probably shouldn't have drank so much but then the Motivational speaker in me got on a soapbox and decided to tear him a new one.  I layed into him about his girlfriend and where his life would go if he continued the way he was going.  I didn't tell him to break up with her because I understand that he's in love with her.  But I did tell him that both him and her needed to grow up.  I didn't care that she would worry about him a lot more if he started to go to school.  Her argument was that he would change because there would be other girls there at school.  NO KIDDING.  Give me a break.  What kind of argument is that?

Needles to say, he had an excuse for her behavior, like he always does.  Defending her to the very end.  That's what he does.  He's even told me and his other friends that he trusts her more than he trusts us.  He told us this a week after he started seeing her.  Messed up right?  So why are we still friends?  I can't give up either.

The cool thing was that I was so fired up that it made his other friends get on the same argument and throw in their take on it.  That was good, because I was out of breath and getting dizzy.  

How can you get someone to believe you if they have made up their mind?  Probably something very drastic is necessary in order for that to happen.  I had the experience and the credibility as well as the fire that could drive an argument home.  Looks like love just burns harder.  That poor bastard.  Anyway, how was everyone's day?

Comm 105-Question 2

When I think of who a good speaker is I don't really care if they are in politics or not.  I think that this is where the question was going but, truthfully I think a lot of the campaigns are similar.  I get bored on the same speeches over and over.  Also when they feel like attacking someone else's reputation, I just think that there are better things to do. If someone is going to bury themselves they don't need any help.

I watch a lot of late night tv when  I do my homework and a speaker that comes to mind is Late Late show with Craig Ferguson.  The thing I like about this guy is that he always is honest about the issues pressing America today.  He's Scottish, with a thick accent and he's funny as well.  The thing that keeps me interested and other people as well is that his way of speaking is always very energetic and passionate.  He is never dull or subtle like, I think, Jay Leno.  One, he does have the accent thing going  which automatically peaks interest, two, he's funnier than all the other late show hosts, three, he does his opening monologues with a close up approach.  When he is talking in the beginning, he always walks to and away from the camera and touches the camera or pats it in the front as if he was having a conversation with us on the television.  I have never seen anybody do that before.  If anyone is interested  check out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ.

He also has a good rapport with his audience.  Remember the time when a bunch of celebrities were getting into trouble with alcohol, drugs, and other scandals?  They all tried to blame the lifestyle and what not.  Craig Ferguson got on his soapbox one night and got very serious about this.   He mentioned he was a recovering alcoholic and also that he took responsibility for his actions and that the other celebrities should too instead of complaining and blaming everyone else for their problems.  That was one of his best monologues to date.  The one that solidified that I liked this guy for the first time was the one titled:  "Ferguson speaks from the heart."

He decided to put his role as a late show host aside and speak from his heart about some of the jokes he had been doing about celebrites and their problems.  He felt sorry for it and decided that he wants to aim his jokes toward something he felt more comfortable with. 

Craig Ferguson does have credibility when it comes to show business and as an American Citizen when it comes to the politics that this country delegates.  He also has an attractiveness to his way of talking.  He doesn't talk to you like he is a talk show host.  He speaks from his heart and his mind.  And he does it well.  I wouldn't say he has power in the traditional sense, but I think people do agree with him about the issues he speaks about or jokes about.  People seem to enjoy him because he is honest, charming, and funny.

The area he could build ethos in is his power.  Even though he speaks well, he is still a late show tv host.  Not many higher powers would take him seriously if any.  I think if he switched to another network he might get a little more exposure and attention.  But then he probably wouldn't be the same  man that I enjoy watching on his show.  It's like  his own blog space when he does his opening monologue.  In a blog you can explain how you feel about things while feeling comfortable and in your own element.  If anyone is interested, please look him up to help better understand what I'm talking about.  There are things that he does in his speaking abilities that I wish political candidates would do. 

Comm 105-Week 4-best and worst speaker

Let's start with the worst speaker, and I think everyone should know where I'm going with this.  The worst speaker I have ever bared witness to is none other than George W. Bush.  There are more videos and clips of him screwing up his public speeches than I have ever seen before from anybody.  Not only does he look like he gets that lost look on his face and ends up forgetting what he has to say, but he has also taken things out of context and applying to other aspects of his speeches, example: OBGYN's can't practice their love.....

You gotta be kidding me.  I am looking at a video of him right now and just holding my head in shame.  In shame that he is our president.  First of all, he really doesn't have a commanding presence and secondly, it just hurts me to hear his voice.  I think at this point everyone watches his speeches just to see what the hell he is doing to the country and to see if he screws up again.  I don't think anyone is taking him seriously anymore.

Now this next one may be a little odd for me but it had me thinking.  I was watching this guy named Joel Olsteen on tv and I have to admit, he has a pretty good character about him.  I'm not really into practicing religion, but somehow I don't think he was speaking about it too much.  He started explaining something about unity in communities and motivational stuff like that.  Stuff that would make yourself feel better about the world we live in.  The fact that he seems so passionate about it and optimistic about his speeches, impresses me very much.  So now when I see him on tv I say to myself, "What's JO JO up to now?" "What's crackin' JO JO?" 

It makes me smile, because no matter what other kind of horrible and god awful stuff is going on in the news, switch to ol' JO JO and he's there smiling and talking away about life in the world today.  I only wish I was that optimistic about everything.

Comm 105-Pragmatic approach

It does make sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction.  Think about when you run into someone and you don't know what to say other than, "How are You?" or How have you been?

Then that person explains briefly how they feel, which is usually "good", then they tell you a little bit about what they are doing that day.  Next, the logical step is for them to ask you how you are doing.  Then without thinking, you become totally original and say you are good as well.  Then you tell them what you are doing or what you have been up to.  It's sort of like a dance.  You know what move has to come next, you just have to be prepared for it.  It's a pattern of steps that are taken to the end of the conversation.

Like Chess, there are the geniuses that know how many moves its going to take to beat their opponent.  In communication, someone may know exactly what they are going to say and when they are going to say it during an interaction such as a debate, or an argument.   The reason would be to shut down their rival in hopes that they have no response.  No response would mean that they would be done.   

But not all communication is like a game.  Ask yourself, what is communication like with people you care about?  How do you interact with them?  Is there really a pattern on how you interact with them?  It might be different because the drive of the conversation is different.  The reason for interacting is different.  And also the purpose of it is different.  If  you're the kind of person who is so busy that they very rarely have time to spend with their family, the motivation might be stronger to communicate.  When you do, the goal will be different because it's your family.  

I do understand that the pragmatic approach explains that one persons interaction affects the other's interactions but part of this approach feels like its talking too much about someone winning or losing an interaction.  Maybe because they throw in the chess aspect of it.  But it also explains how communication is a pattern of interactions, which is why the whole chess perspective may be relevant.  If  you know the person you are interacting with, you know how to respond.

CoMM105-Social Constructionist perspective

As I'm watching Tru TV's Party Heat, a show that show's police officers carrying out their duties to protect the public, and thinking about this perspective, I begin to wonder about how a lot of people seem to think that police officers are the enemy.  When someone thinks about public safety, who do they think falls within that category?  The model for Social Constructionism explains that their are people within a group surrounded by collective representations of reality, which is surrounded by customs and traditions and codes.  On the outside of that, is the circle of communication that builds around them.

For some reason, maybe due to the all of these aspects of the model, the people being questioned and investigated for public intoxication seem to act very hostile towards the police.  As if the police were the ones that ruined there fun and inability to drive a boat.  Then when other people see the officers trying to arrest and apprehend the violators they think that the police are being hostile towards them.  

It seems that a world is created around the officers instead, where people who aren't cops and don't understand the life of one, gather their knowledge and perception from their surrounding peers.  The social construct model shows a circle of communication all around and even explains that our construction of reality are distorted by communication.  Possibly even by the way it is communicated.

Maybe, this model of communication is also partially responsible for shaping the way people act, feel, think, and so on.  

I guess this concept can explain how people's perceptions of others can be formed.  I wonder what would contribute to their decision to believe for themselves.  Experience could be the determining factor and current state of one's mentality of the world around them.  But the thing that is even more interesting is that this model, given what it includes, makes me think that social constructs change very often.

COMM105-Use of gesture

In chapter 1 there is a diagram that explains the use of gestures in communication.  It discusses the full range of motion that is available to use gestures with your hands, eyes, head and feet.  The diagram shows a small drawing of a man performing some of these gestures as if he was telling a story.  It's interesting to think about how effective certain gestures can be when you're telling a story to someone.  

Some professions that flourish with a full range of gestures are comedians, actors(of course), theater actors, performance artists such as magicians, clowns, mimes, etc.  

If these sort of gestures weren't presented to us while something was communicated to us how would we fully understand what the person was talking about?  Would we fully understand?  

Anyway, even though some of us may not be in any of these occupations that I listed above, I think it is possible that we use gestures for everything we do.  Just the other day I saw someone on the phone waving their arm and hand around while they were talking to the person on the line.  It beats me why that would be necessary to do but a couple of days later I caught myself doing the same thing and I guess it is just instinctual.  Without even realizing it I started to wave my hand around in different directions.  

Now I try to see how long I can go without using my hands while I'm on the phone.  I have failed ever since.

Good oration

To be a good orator, I do think a person has to be morally good.  I don't know if that would apply today.  Because everybody who speaks or does speeches, such as the new candidates for presidency, can say what they want to say but what guarantee do we have they will keep their promises?  

For an inexperienced public speaker I would imagine they would have to stand firmly by what they believe in.  If they believe what they say then others would believe it too. Conviction is also a big part of it.  Unless you are a really good actor, then being morally good will definitely work towards strengthening public speaking skills.

I am terrible at things like debates, but when it comes to speaking in public I think it comes down to delivery.  You can have all the arrangement in the world but I have spoken in a public setting and sometimes the way you map it out doesn't always go as planned.  Especially if the delivery of certain parts of your speech weren't effective.

COmm105- Ethos

There have been many great speakers whose power to persuade came from Ethos and Pathos.  John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King to name a few.  Their moral competence as well as their knowledge and experience made people admire them and support them  because of  their ability to speak in public.  They were great speakers and persuasive in getting people to understand their cause.  Unfortunately they were taken out of this world too soon.  It is ironic when good things start to happen....

My abilities to be persuasive comes from being unpredictable.  I don't like to start and end speech the same way if I can.  I can speak loudly and clearly but I don't think people would take me seriously.  When it comes to speaking at a close proximity, one on one, that's a different story.  It seems that some of my experiences involving relationship advice has helped a few inexperienced people I know.  I try to get them to think about what path they will take, rather than tell them what to do.  I'll give them the tools and they work with them how they see fit.

Aristotle's scheme does work for these people as well as me.  The canons of communication are a good outline of how to communicate.  We've seen it all the time on television with public speaking.  I think its okay to throw in a curveball into this outline as well.  If not to illicit a fresh perspective, then at least experiment for the sake of communication studies.