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.