1). Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we "build worlds" through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness of success (or the lack of these) in our culture?
So far as the social constructionist perspective goes, what comes to my mind when thinking of constructing world views is the law enforcement culture. John G Stratton, a police psychologist, wrote in his book Police Passages (1984) that police officers construct a worldview of an “us vs. them” mentality as a result from the volatile and hostile encounters they have with citizens who, are most of the time, at a time of crisis in their lives.
The nature of police work leads these officers to build emotional walls, and to detach themselves emotionally so as not to feel the immense grief and tragedy they witness on a daily basis. What a citizen might see on the outside is a callous and cynical officer, but under the surface is a survival mechanism developed out of necessity.
While this concept is not exclusive to our western culture, there are ideas and concepts of communication that are. I am referring to the communication phenomena of virtual realities. The game, Second Life, offers users a chance to live a life through avatars, or characters developed by the user. Through this venue real life relationships have been built and even corporations have set up meetings via their avatars meeting at a spot in this virtual world.
While this technology may very well have instilled feelings of popularity, inclusiveness, and even happiness to millions in America, there are of course people who have learned to use them negatively. People who use their avatars to sexually harass other avatars is an issue that is still being confronted by Linden Lab, the company who developed Second Life. This leads one to conclude that even this modern communication technology can be used in a positive and a negative manner.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Patterns: Our Adaptive Nature At Work
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
The “patterns” that result from the interactions people have brings up some interesting points (Trenholm p. 34). First, it speaks a lot about human’s adaptive capability, and secondly, how these patterns affect our lives.
As humans we learn to adapt to our surroundings and take whatever steps are needed in order to find an easier path. Resistance and pain are not at the forefront of our desires. As Trenholm discusses the evolution of pattern-making what I see is really an adaptation by individuals who shape their interactions based upon fruitful and unfruitful moves. For instance, if Harry realizes that Sally will not like him because he makes fun of her freckles he will stop if he wants to keep her as a friend. The fact that people learn and become accustomed to this interaction is amazing, especially considering the people who retain friendships and marriages for multiple decades! They have honed the craft of establishing positive patterns.
Secondly, it can be said that people’s lives are formed around these patterns. Family members who will not speak to each other because their interaction results into negative outcomes will go out of their way to avoid each other. This affects their offspring, their network ties, sometimes their friends, and the list goes on.
Ways of life are determined based upon these patterns. It speaks volumes of our human nature as we adjust to our communication arenas, and it also says a lot about the the results of our decisions.
The “patterns” that result from the interactions people have brings up some interesting points (Trenholm p. 34). First, it speaks a lot about human’s adaptive capability, and secondly, how these patterns affect our lives.
As humans we learn to adapt to our surroundings and take whatever steps are needed in order to find an easier path. Resistance and pain are not at the forefront of our desires. As Trenholm discusses the evolution of pattern-making what I see is really an adaptation by individuals who shape their interactions based upon fruitful and unfruitful moves. For instance, if Harry realizes that Sally will not like him because he makes fun of her freckles he will stop if he wants to keep her as a friend. The fact that people learn and become accustomed to this interaction is amazing, especially considering the people who retain friendships and marriages for multiple decades! They have honed the craft of establishing positive patterns.
Secondly, it can be said that people’s lives are formed around these patterns. Family members who will not speak to each other because their interaction results into negative outcomes will go out of their way to avoid each other. This affects their offspring, their network ties, sometimes their friends, and the list goes on.
Ways of life are determined based upon these patterns. It speaks volumes of our human nature as we adjust to our communication arenas, and it also says a lot about the the results of our decisions.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Game: A Pragmatic Perspective
2). Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?
I believe very much that communication can sometimes be described as a “game”. Usually what escalates this game is when one person’s action sparks a reaction to whomever they are communicating to.
Having served in customer service for the past five years I have picked up quite a few “tells” of how people play this game. On occasion we will get someone in our store who is drunk, a panhandler, or just a troublemaker, and they will approach you in a very distinct manner. Usually they come off speaking loudly while making eye contact- something a lot of timid people avoid, and they know this. To me these individuals were in fact playing a mental chess game as Trenholm mentions (P. 33).
Their first move was “A. Intimidate”. The flaw I soon found with their initial tactic was that they had no counter to it if it was played right back at them. I would respond to them in a reasonable tone, but a few volumes louder than they spoke to me, while making solid eye contact. They would almost without fail drop the act. Their tone would change, their volume decreased, and eventually they would move on. What I think took place in these interactions was actually nothing more than a subconscious game of dominance.
While it is like a game, it is at the same time different because in a game of baseball a pitcher can choose not throw the ball, whereas, if two people are conversing, they are constantly throwing balls of communication at each other. The phrase “You cannot not communicate” sums up the major difference between a game and communicating.
I believe very much that communication can sometimes be described as a “game”. Usually what escalates this game is when one person’s action sparks a reaction to whomever they are communicating to.
Having served in customer service for the past five years I have picked up quite a few “tells” of how people play this game. On occasion we will get someone in our store who is drunk, a panhandler, or just a troublemaker, and they will approach you in a very distinct manner. Usually they come off speaking loudly while making eye contact- something a lot of timid people avoid, and they know this. To me these individuals were in fact playing a mental chess game as Trenholm mentions (P. 33).
Their first move was “A. Intimidate”. The flaw I soon found with their initial tactic was that they had no counter to it if it was played right back at them. I would respond to them in a reasonable tone, but a few volumes louder than they spoke to me, while making solid eye contact. They would almost without fail drop the act. Their tone would change, their volume decreased, and eventually they would move on. What I think took place in these interactions was actually nothing more than a subconscious game of dominance.
While it is like a game, it is at the same time different because in a game of baseball a pitcher can choose not throw the ball, whereas, if two people are conversing, they are constantly throwing balls of communication at each other. The phrase “You cannot not communicate” sums up the major difference between a game and communicating.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Communication Concept: The Vigorous Style
*3). Pick one concept from the reading assignment this week (Ch.1) that you found interesting or useful and discuss it. Please discuss a concept that has not already been discussed this week so far.
The “Vigorous” style of delivery is one that I found intriguing. It belongs to the “Style” category, one of five parts to the canons of rhetoric (Trenholm, p. 7). This style, largely based on pathos, was meant to evoke an emotional response from the audience. What piqued my interest was how commonly this approach is used today in excess by politicians and other power figures.
Cicero warned of using this approach too often, and he recommended against using it without logos or ethos, or logic and character. Plenty of examples can be found where this occurs; particularly on the US presidential campaign trails. Immense and outlandish promises are passionately made, people shout in exhilaration, wave their candidate’s banners, and chant triumphantly, yet voters are notorious for blindly following politicians just because they are of the same party.
There is a reason why these events are called “rallies”. Rallying initially occurred when a military leader would inspire his soldiers with a moving address with the hope of inciting passion and vigor- things necessary for the battlefield. Yet modern day politicians abuse this tactic by “rallying” their supporters, and draining as much emotion as they can to garnish a support base, while depriving them of badly needed reasons why they should be so excited. I think Cicero was onto something.
The “Vigorous” style of delivery is one that I found intriguing. It belongs to the “Style” category, one of five parts to the canons of rhetoric (Trenholm, p. 7). This style, largely based on pathos, was meant to evoke an emotional response from the audience. What piqued my interest was how commonly this approach is used today in excess by politicians and other power figures.
Cicero warned of using this approach too often, and he recommended against using it without logos or ethos, or logic and character. Plenty of examples can be found where this occurs; particularly on the US presidential campaign trails. Immense and outlandish promises are passionately made, people shout in exhilaration, wave their candidate’s banners, and chant triumphantly, yet voters are notorious for blindly following politicians just because they are of the same party.
There is a reason why these events are called “rallies”. Rallying initially occurred when a military leader would inspire his soldiers with a moving address with the hope of inciting passion and vigor- things necessary for the battlefield. Yet modern day politicians abuse this tactic by “rallying” their supporters, and draining as much emotion as they can to garnish a support base, while depriving them of badly needed reasons why they should be so excited. I think Cicero was onto something.
Qualities of a Great Speaker
*1). Think of a speaker you admire (please do not use the President of the United States as an example). Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?
A speaker whom I admire greatly is my friend Jason Dulle, a scholar, theologian, and apologist for the Apostolic/Pentecostal movement. Jason is almost finished with his PhD in theology at the age of 27, while supporting his wife and two children. He is one of the most sought after speakers in the United Pentecostal Church.
When you hear Jason speak about the validity of Biblical teachings, the existence of God, and other such arguments you hear reasoning that is drenched in hours upon hours of study. For a single 50 minute lesson he will admit to spending over 20 hours in study. This gives him both ethos and logos rarely seen in individuals who teach upon complicated and sometimes unclear biblical issues.
The logos in his style is plain to see because he is well versed in his field. Because of his long hours of study he is so confident while he is teaching that complicated streams of information are broken down to laymen's terms in matter-of-factly fashion.
This confidence also exudes ethos, or honesty, because almost anyone who is confident about something means that what they are saying is well-thought out, and what they are saying comes from the heart.
The qualities that make me effective in communicating are similar to Jason's, but with a little bit of variation. I am effective when I am confident about my subject matter. Words and reasoning will come easily because I will be comfortable in my confidence. Secondly, my empathy for the audience also helps me get my message across, becaue if I can understand where they are coming from then I can relate my message to them even better.
A speaker whom I admire greatly is my friend Jason Dulle, a scholar, theologian, and apologist for the Apostolic/Pentecostal movement. Jason is almost finished with his PhD in theology at the age of 27, while supporting his wife and two children. He is one of the most sought after speakers in the United Pentecostal Church.
When you hear Jason speak about the validity of Biblical teachings, the existence of God, and other such arguments you hear reasoning that is drenched in hours upon hours of study. For a single 50 minute lesson he will admit to spending over 20 hours in study. This gives him both ethos and logos rarely seen in individuals who teach upon complicated and sometimes unclear biblical issues.
The logos in his style is plain to see because he is well versed in his field. Because of his long hours of study he is so confident while he is teaching that complicated streams of information are broken down to laymen's terms in matter-of-factly fashion.
This confidence also exudes ethos, or honesty, because almost anyone who is confident about something means that what they are saying is well-thought out, and what they are saying comes from the heart.
The qualities that make me effective in communicating are similar to Jason's, but with a little bit of variation. I am effective when I am confident about my subject matter. Words and reasoning will come easily because I will be comfortable in my confidence. Secondly, my empathy for the audience also helps me get my message across, becaue if I can understand where they are coming from then I can relate my message to them even better.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Question 2: Morality in Communication
*2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?
I agree with this statement. The lines of communication between the audience and an orator are delicate enough, and would be even more obstructed if the speaker was viewed as one who could not be trusted. And the fact that goodness and truth are closely tied into communication even further cements my belief in this notion.
The chances are very good that each person participating in this class have been in the audience of both good and not so good speakers. Sometimes one mistake or one flaw in the speech, such as a lack of confidence or eye contact, could turn an otherwise good speech into a painful or cringing space of time. The point is that that channel of communication between the speaker/ orator and the audience is delicate.
Now just imagine that the orator is known to be an immoral person. Where does that leave your confidence level at as a member of their audience? The whole reason you are there is because you trust this speaker to teach you something. That trust is undermined by their violation of trust with someone else, whatever it may be. They have lost a great portion of their effectiveness as a speaker even before their introduction because of their immorality. This will in turn cause their credibility to dwindle.
As a country we still hold the same standard that the Greeks did in terms of morality. Just take a look at the lack of sponsorships singer Chris Brown has, and the lack of support for Senator John Edwards after news of his affair. These people have done immorality in the sight of the public and have not only lost their credibility, but potentially their public forums as well.
This is why I believe that goodness, truth, and morality are necessary in order to be an orator. They are the underpinnings of effective communication.
I agree with this statement. The lines of communication between the audience and an orator are delicate enough, and would be even more obstructed if the speaker was viewed as one who could not be trusted. And the fact that goodness and truth are closely tied into communication even further cements my belief in this notion.
The chances are very good that each person participating in this class have been in the audience of both good and not so good speakers. Sometimes one mistake or one flaw in the speech, such as a lack of confidence or eye contact, could turn an otherwise good speech into a painful or cringing space of time. The point is that that channel of communication between the speaker/ orator and the audience is delicate.
Now just imagine that the orator is known to be an immoral person. Where does that leave your confidence level at as a member of their audience? The whole reason you are there is because you trust this speaker to teach you something. That trust is undermined by their violation of trust with someone else, whatever it may be. They have lost a great portion of their effectiveness as a speaker even before their introduction because of their immorality. This will in turn cause their credibility to dwindle.
As a country we still hold the same standard that the Greeks did in terms of morality. Just take a look at the lack of sponsorships singer Chris Brown has, and the lack of support for Senator John Edwards after news of his affair. These people have done immorality in the sight of the public and have not only lost their credibility, but potentially their public forums as well.
This is why I believe that goodness, truth, and morality are necessary in order to be an orator. They are the underpinnings of effective communication.
Intro
Hi, My name is Jeremy and I am a senior who is planning on graduating this December. This and a P.E. class are my final two classes before I receive my bachelors degree in Justice Studies. Although I am not majoring in communications, this subject has been my favorite throughout junior college (West Valley), and even up until now- my last semester at SJSU. My favorite book is Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends and Influence People" which really inspired me to further my communication knowledge.
I am involved in Chi Pi Sigma, a criminal justice fraternity on campus, and I have been with a catering company for the past 4 years. Currently I am in the hiring process with several law enforcement agencies.
This is my first online class, and I hope to see it through to the end!
I am involved in Chi Pi Sigma, a criminal justice fraternity on campus, and I have been with a catering company for the past 4 years. Currently I am in the hiring process with several law enforcement agencies.
This is my first online class, and I hope to see it through to the end!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)