week 5: Question 1

A speaker that I have been greatly influenced by is one of my best friends, Paul. I know that when he speaks, he speaks with a purpose. That is, he wants his listeners and viewers to think, feel, and respond by doing something. He takes responsibility when he speaks. Thus, he is very careful with what comes out of his mouth. He is also enthusiastic and alive when he speaks. 

The worst speaker I have heard was the best man at some wedding. He bit more than he could chew and the stories that he was sharing were spread thin. He did not catch everyone's attention. It did not seem like he was himself. He just did not seem like he was even the best man.

week 4: Question 3

The pragmatic perspective is a concept I found very interesting. A sequence of motivated dialogue will have consequences. Short and long term effects will occur as a result of communicating. We obtain very immediate effect: the pleasure of an interesting conversation; the angry attack of an offended person; an apology for thoughtless behavior; or something very concrete like a dinner order. Long term, we may achieve such things as gaining another person's trust, making a fortune, or staying married until death parts us.

The patterns of interaction established over time will provide expectations for the future communication between the members of relationships. We can anticipate how others will act, and we can select appropriate and effective behavior for future situations.

week 4: Question 2

The pragmatic model shows that communication is motivated, like a game. We communicate to achieve purposes, whether or not we are conscious of these purposes. A smile on somebody's face may mean that she enjoys our company or that he is mocking a mistake we have just made. We might judge a person as friendly or vicious. We need and want many things, some of which are not compatible in an immediate situation. For example, the intent to "tell somebody off" may interfere with attaining the desire to "avoid the scene." A stare can communicate many things. The clothes we choose to wear and the way we arrange out environment are also actions which communicate. 

week 4: Question 1

Social Constructivism emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding. I guess you can call this "building worlds." But there are many different worlds due to different cultures and sub-cultures. With different ethnic cultures, it is obvious that the two worlds are different. But even within the same culture understanding can differ. For instance, a man and a woman. The two have been together for a few years and everything is going well. Well at least to the man it is. He loves her, takes care of her, provides for her. But to the woman, he doesn't provide emotional support, doesn't compliment her enough, doesn't express his love verbally, which she needs. It isn't that he doesn't love her, he just expresses it in a totally different way. You can see how they are from different "worlds."   

week 3: Question 3

Source credibility - People are more likely to be persuaded if the person doing the persuading is seen as being credible, expert and trustworthy. It is worth noting that expertise is not the only factor. For example, physically attractive communicators are generally more successful than unattractive ones in changing beliefs, as are people who are generally likable. For example, a shampoo commercial uses a person in a white coat who is described as their chief scientist to explain why the product is so wonderful.

Consider how the source of persuasion will be perceived in terms of credibility. Even though you may be expert, if you are not perceived as such it may be better to use someone else to front your argument. Remember that expertise is relative. When a person claims expertise when persuading you, check out how really expert they are.   

week 3: Question 1

One of the speakers that I admire and enjoy listening to is Barack Obama. I have never really been interested in politics or the presidential debates. Out of the blue, I decided to YouTube Obama's inauguration. I was very impressed with him as a speaker. Most of his power of persuasion comes from pathos. He definitely connects with people and touches them emotionally. This truly helped him in this presidential election.

As a speaker, I think my ability to persuade also comes from pathos. Some may think that is not a positive trait coming from a female. I see it as, females are innately more emotional to start with. Why not use it to our advantage.

Week 3: Question 2

An orator is an eloquent and skilled public speaker that delivers formal speeches, especially ones given on a ceremonial occasion. I see a point when the Greeks believed that an individual had to be morally good to be an orator. But I do not totally agree with this belief. I think a person can be a successful orator if they appear to be morally good. As long as they are able to instill trust in their audience and be convince them that they are believable. 

Goodness, truth, and public communication should all go hand in hand, but this isn't always the case. There are great speakers that speak lies. There are honest and righteous people that do not sound trusting because they might stutter or may not speak a certain way.