Week 5 Question 3: Something new and interesting

There are several concepts that I found interesting from Chapter 9. One the concepts I was intrigued by was the types of arguments that a speaker can use when appealing to an audience. Arguments can be based on authoritative, motivational, or substantive appeals which is also connected Aristotle's three ways of connecting to an audience; ethos, pathos, and logos.


I have been in several arguments with my father and end up submitting because he uses the authoritative argument of, "Because I said so," or because "I'm your father." He is my father therefore he has an authoritative warrant. I will probably end up using the same phrases to m children. Sometimes the authoritative voice causes me to be rebellious and maybe that is why many teens become stubborn and refuse to listen because they don't want to submit. For those teens that are stubborn and prideful, I would then use my motivational argument. Motivational argument tugs at the heart and makes them feel rather than think. Motivational type of arguments uses the ethos characteristics. To use the motivational argument towards my children, I would say, "You're making me sad by doing this," or "Grandmother really needs your help, you should go and help her instead of going out." I know a friend whose parents use motivational arguments to get him to do homework. They would promise to grant him a prize if he received high grades. And surely enough, he is motivated to do his best. On the other hand, some parents or speech makers uses the substantive argument that connects data and claim through logic and reasoning. I believe that the best way to appeal to an audience is through motivational and substantive. Motivational appeals to the audiences' feelings while the substantive connects the dots and makes them see the whole picture. Authoritative can be tricky because what if the speaker becomes too demanding and using too much power? That can really turn off an audience and make them rebellious. Therefore the careful and thoughtful approach would be motivational and substantive.

Week 5 Question 2: What is it about good speakers?

I believe that the President of United States Barack Obama is one of the world's best speakers. His strongest characteristics as a speaker would have to be credibility, attractiveness, and power. He's got everything going for him! Credibility refers to expertness and trustworthiness. Obama does not have so much of the expertness because he was not even in the Senate for more than two years. He's still very new and young to being a political leader let alone be the Presidents of the US. But Obama does have trustworthiness. People seem to have trust in Obama that he will do the right thing to the nation. Well at least I have trust in him. The reason being is that he has not done anything for me to not trust him. Obama was very transparent during his campaign and I know he understands my struggles because he was a common man just like everyone else. Because he has credibility, it is easier for me and many others to be influenced and educated by him. Obama may not know everything about politics but I can surely trust on him to be honest and real. Obama's speeches build up his credibility the more he gives them. The more that people hear him speak, the more people will see that Obama comes prepared and ready to deliver his message effectively. To be honest, I was a Hilary Clinton supporter and I really wanted to see her win. But once Obama won the primaries, I began to tune in to Obama a lot more and he grew on me with the way he spoke to the people. Because I was able to see him speak for a couple of times, he was able to build his credibility through his communication tactics.

Attractiveness is divided into four dimensions: familiarity, similarity, physical attractiveness, and liking.
Obama is also very attractive and young. It has been said that the more attractive a speaker is, the more effective he or she will be. I truly agree with that because I am more attracted to watching an attractive speaker. (Laughing right now). It's very shallow, I know. But let's be honest, people are considered attractive because they attract people's attention with their looks or personality. Well Obama attracts me with his look, age, and personality. His personality would actually be m ore of a liking dimension within attractiveness. Many news reporters call Obama, very likable. He's down to earth, relaxed, and very in tune with the young America. I think that's also why a lot of young adult love him. He can dance, he can play along, and he can joke.

Before taking the President position, Obama did not have much power or strong background of being a leader. He delivered good speeches because of his other skills f communication, but not power. He only recently gained power because he became the U.S. President. With such title, he has power to award people, to take away things, to have information, and to be a figure of authority. He has all of those power simply because he is the U.S. President. He doesn't have complete power though because he is balanced by the Senate and House of Representative. He still has power to influence and gain trust from the American people.

Week 5 Question1: Best Speaker & Worst Speaker

I, like many others, only remember speeches that are influential in my life or that have touched the audience in some way. The most recent famous speech I've heard was from our President Barack Obama. He is an amazing speaker and knows exactly how to deliver his message. I have only watch him speak several times on this campaign trail and was able to witness his inauguration speech. Obama really motivated me to be a citizen and to step up to my potential. During his speech, he mentioned struggles and triumphs of the past, the present, and future. First he really spoke about the true issues of American but he also gave solutions. The one thing that made his communication memorable was the setting of the speech. This was the inauguration of the nation's first African American president and so it gave everyone, including myself, chills that we are even watching America make history. To me, he's like the Martin Luther King, Jr. of my time. I trust in him as a President because he came from similar background as I did. I trust him because he shares the same beliefs as I do. He shared his core beliefs with the nation during his speech and that also appealed to many people. He speech was a reality check by confronting the issues, but he also gave inspiration, motivation, hope, and change to America.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't remember horrible speakers so it's hard for me to narrow down a bad speech. But since I am on the topic of American Presidents, I must say that our previous president, George W. Bush was a horrible and probably the worst President speaker in my time. I have only been able to seen some of his public speeches to America and I am appalled by his lack of communication skills. He rarely memorized his speech and most of the time having to look down at his paper. I am very impressed by how President Obama was able to remember a 30 minute speech that was address to the entire nation during his inauguration. I would be so nervous and stutter / stumble the whole way through. But President Obama did not even flinch! Anyways, Bush as a speaker was so horrible that they even created a "Bush-isms" with quotes of his ridiculous statements. I just remember that he was unable to connect to the audience because his message was about fantasy and what he believed is true. He never saw eye-to-eye with the American people and never spoke of reality.

Signing out,
Events Dreamer

Week 4 Question 3 An Interesting Concept

The one concept that I found useful from the reading is the concept of the pragmatic perspective. That perspective really hit home and opened my eyes to how selfish I've been. In my second post, I wrote about my former roommate and how we did not get along. The whole time I was blaming her and how she couldn't adapt to the changing environment. She grew up in a small town while I was a big town girl. She wanted alone time and I needed a roommate who wanted to be around me. Therefore I concluded that it must be a difference in personality. The pragmatic perspective is looking at communication as a game in which each person's move is dependent on the other. I finally realized that I must have done something offensive to her to have made her act defensively back and vice versa. This perspective made me reanalyze what I must have done to have hurt her.

As much as I enjoyed learning about the pragmatic perspective, I still believe that in a long-term and strong relationship, the involved players need to understand the intent and purpose of the other person's actions as well as desires and needs. Now I have an awesome roommate; we both get along and we both enjoy each other's company. But If I did not understand why my current roommate does what she does, I will never be able to get along with her because I won't have the ability to empathize with her. Sometimes, she leaves the house a mess but because I can understand that she is having a bad day, I do not have a grudge on her. Most of the times, having an understanding of other people can help you forgive their mistakes like how I am able to forgive my current roommate for not cleaning when she is not feeling good. She means me no offense, she is just not feeling happy herself. Before was unable to forgive my first roommate because I was not able to sympathize with her, but now I can see that she didn't have the same childhood as I did, therefore I cannot blame her for her actions. I factored in the circumstances that surrounded our game to happily accept the failure of our relationship. I've learned and now I am creating a stronger, better, and healthier relationship with my current roommate by taking into consideration her personality, culture, and surrounding circumstances.

Week 4 Queston 2: Communication as a Game

The pragmatic perspective suggests that communication is a system of interlocking, interdependent "moves", which become patterned over time. These systems of communication is similar to a game of chess where the moves are what matters because they affected future moves; the players and where the game is played is not put into consideration. The players in the games are partners interacting with one another which then leads to patterned moves and these moves become interdependent of each other.

I think that in some relationship it does make sense to apply the pragmatic perspective. The book gave a perfect example that I can truly relate to; roommate problems. I had a roommate that I did not get along with and unfortunately we had to separate. We were two different people with different preferences and personality. At the time, I had always asked myself, "What is wrong with this person? Why can't she understand me or why can't I understand her?" I figured that it was because our personality did not match. I grew up enjoying company and became a very outgoing person while my roommate grew up very shy and standoffish. She preferred to be alone while I preferred to live with someone who was active and outgoing; someone open and trustworthy. I can never relate to her because she didn't go through the same experiences or lifestyle that I did and I could not relate to her as well. Therefore, we parted because it was best for us to live with people that better matched our personality. Now looking at the situation from a pragmatic perspective, I can reanalyze the situation and admit that the unfortunately outcome of our relationship was a result of interdependent moves that each of us made in the beginning of the relationship. I must have acted in a certain way that made her uncomfortable and caused her to have her defense up. When her defense mechanism was up, I could sense the barriers in our relationship. I was offended that she had blocked me out of her life when I did not do anything to deserve that. The pragmatic perspective says that it doesn't matter that I didn't do anything; what matters was what I actually did to cause her walls to go up. Because I was offended by reactive actions, I interacted by having my walls up as well and began to act in a certain that pushed her away further. As a result, both of us got into a pattern of pushing each other away, doing things to offend another, and finally we both quit the game and decided to not live with each other anymore. Now that I saw the problem wasn't actually because we had different personalities, it was because we were both unaware of how our actions affected the rest of our later moves.

Sometimes, communication is different than a game because in many relationships, we do need to be considerate of different personalities. We need to have to ability to adapt and cater to some people in order for them to trust us and cooperate with you. The pragmatic perspective does not take into consideration the uniqueness of different people, the places where we interact ,or what happened outside of the relationship. These three that I just mentioned are very important factors that can influence a relationship greatly. I think that these factors should be focused on in more complex and serious relationships. The pragmatic perspective is more appropriate for relationships that are shallow and short-term. But it should not be applied to relationships that are heart-felt, true, and long-term.

Week 4 Question 1: How we "BUILD" worlds

According to the social constructionist perspective, we build worlds because as a social group, we create collective ideas of ourselves, of one another and then of the world. As a group of people, we live inside the world of communication because most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication not direct experience. Well I guess that is true for most of us in still living in this world today. But not really true for those that lived thousands of years ago who had to experience stuff first hand to then be able to pass the knowledge down to us. But for most of us today, we learn from those that came before us; that is how we sometimes make our decision. We base our knowledge on what we learned from our parents and older friends. In a sense we build our own perspective on the world based on other people's take on the world. For an example, I was born in Vietnam and came over here when I was 5 years old. Some of my views on the world was different to kids who grew up in the United States. I had a culture shock when I came to America because I was introduced to so many new types of food and types of languages. It was also a big thing to go to America. America was considered the land where dreams come true; the land of the FREE. The communist side won in the Vietnam War and it was a huge downfall for my parents and for those that fought for democracy. So to be able to go to America and escape the oppression was a huge opportunity for only some fortunate few. Since my father was a soldier alongside the Americans, he was granted amnesty into America. Some who tried to escape by boat did not succeed and was put in jail. It was very hard times. My view on the American world was a beautiful land where people have vast pool of opportunities to reach their goals. This is true to other Vietnamese kids who also grew up in Vietnam. But for the children who did not have the same background as I did, did not have a special view on the land they live in. Also, I was taught that communism is a terrible form of government because it provides more opportunities for a government to become corrupt and to oppress the people. I always had a negative view on communism. When I reached high school, I learned more about communism and how it originated from Karl Marx. I was also taught on several examples of communism such as China and South Korea. Many Americans also disliked communism because the American government fought very hard against communism. The government had used propaganda and other factors to show the American people that communism is a bad thing. Based on the knowledge and experience that I've learned from my father, I've come to conclude a negative view on the world of communism. But others who grew up in a communist country may have some prideful beliefs on it. Because I was raised to believe that communism was a terrible form of government, I was able to understand the meaning behind the teachings on communism and why the United States government decided to engage on a war against communism. I was able to easily understand the lectures from my teachers and this helped me in writing my essays and succeeding in my midterms on communism.

Within this world of communication there are four cultural tools that we use to decipher and understand the communication. These cultural tools are symbolic codes, cognitive customs, the cultural traditions, and the sets of roles and rules. These tools can help us succeed in life and sometimes may hurt us because we cannot understand a certain view of the world. But if we have the ability to process the information and the ability adapt to new environment, we will have a higher chance of succeeding in life.

Week 3 Question 3: An Interesting Thought

After reading Chapter 1 regarding the communication tradition the history of rhetoric, I found it very useful to learn about Aristotle’s three communication method; ethos, pathos, and logos. Being educated about the communication methods allows me to strategically choose my words and position my arguments. I was also able to identify the communication methods that some public speakers use. I have always wondered how those public speakers relate to their audience or how they get the audience to cooperate. I believe that I will be somewhat of a better communicator from now on because I will definitely take advantage of the different communication methods to get my message across. I think that all of the three communication methods can useful so I won’t stick with just one. I also believe that a great speaker is someone who uses all of them in one speech! That would make the individual an extremely persuasive strong speaker.

The next information I found interesting is the canons of rhetoric created by Cicero. The canons of rhetoric describe the five major topic areas of communication. I look at it as steps to formulating speeches or messages. These canons will be very helpful to me in the future when I’d like to tell a story. The two steps of the canons that I will mostly take advantage of the memory and the delivery. I am always fascinated by how speakers like President Obama and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. remember their infamous oration. I remember taking COMM 20 and as an assignment, we had to deliver a 10 minute speech. It was very hard for me to memorize the whole speech. I had to improvise when I’d forget some parts and of course, that lowered the value of my speech. So therefore, instead of reading my speech aloud, sentence by sentence, over and over again, I’d like to learn how to correctly memorize my speech.

I would also like to learn how to deliver my speeches using gestures, emotions, and tone of voice. Dr. King was an amazing speaker because he would raise and lower his voice at the right point in his speeches and this directs the emotions of his excitement. I get excited every time President Obama raises his voice to emphasize a point and I feel serious when he speaks calmly and slowly on an issue. I would like to be able to utilize these skills in my communication with others.

Week 3 Question 2: An Orator must be morally good

According to the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, an oration is a formal public speech; one delivered on a special occasion. An orator is a public speaker; one who delivers an oration and is distinguished for his skill, eloquence, and power as a public speaker. Based on this definition of a orator, I completely agree with the Greeks that the individual must be morally good to be an orator.

An orator is someone with great influence, power, and skills over people. The orator has the ability to manipulate and influence the crowd into any beliefs and action. With this great power comes great responsibility and the orator must know how to correctly use these powerful abilities. If the individual is immoral, the audience is in great danger of false information and can be lured into a deathly trap. An example of this occurrence is, Adolf Hitler. He was once a great orator to the people of Germany. He knew he could affect people with pathos, ethos, and logos. He understood that his abilities of public speech can allow him to persuade Germany to do what he wants. Eventually, he was responsible for the killing of thousands of Jewish people and led Germany into a spiral downfall. The people of Germany at the time did not know any better; they trusted Hitler to be truthful and moral; Hitler took advantage of that and continued to sway Germany in the wrong direction. Following the example of Hitler, the orator must be an individual of pure and morally good so that the audience is influenced by a strongly ethical person. I consider an orator a public leader which means that the individual must have all the good characteristics of a leader.

There is a strong connection between goodness, truth, and public communication. Being good and truthful is a characteristic of good morals. The use of ethos is dependent on source credibility. Therefore, if a public speaker is depending on ethos, the individual must have goodness and truth in him other wise, the audience will not be influenced. There is the other argument that a good public speaker is someone who can influence and manipulate his audience with pathos even when the individual is lying. It is true that sometimes I fall for pathos speakers but eventually the truth always reveal itself, and once it does, I and other listeners will never ever believe that specific orator again. Therefore, to maintain credibility, I suggest to orators that they maintain goodness and truth in their words.

Week 3 Question 1: An Effective Communicator

The first person that pops into my mind when I think of a great speaker is my best friend/boyfriend Corneilious. I have known him for three years now and have always been intrigued by his ability to articulate his opinions, ideas, and stories. Friends of ours would always call him "Grandpa Neil" because he tells great stories that leave the audience captivated and amused. I am only beginning to learn his ways of communication. By the way, he is a communication major which makes him a stronger speaker than before. When I tell stories, I always leave my audience feeling confused and lost but with Corneilious, he strategically prepares his stories and punch lines carefully so that his audience can easily pay attention. I believe he is a natural at public speaking because it does not take long for him to formulate a plan on how to deliver the punch line when he is abruptly telling a story.

I believe that his power of persuasion encompasses all three of the rhetoric classification schemes. Corneilious as a person is a reliable source. Knowing his character, he would not exaggerate details or relay false information. Our friends fully trust his words and accept him as a credible source. Through his personal characteristics of natural leadership and charisma, he can easily fascinate his listeners. He can manipulate the ambiance around him through his ability to calm or raise his voice at the right moment in the story. With the ability of affecting the emotions and feelings of his listeners, he definitely falls under the pathos classification as well. Corneilious has I an uncanny ability to make a sad story funny, or a funny story serious. I can only embarrass myself while trying to relay a comical story to others but somehow, my humorous situation turns becomes confusion and silly when I verbally describe it. I know that he uses his pathos ability against me when we get into a heated argument or a serious debate. He some how woos me and softens my madness with his words. When we argue or when, he takes advantage of his ability to use logos by manipulating his wording and logic of the message. When making a statement or explaining a situation, Corneilious uses words that exactly describes his meaning. Sometimes there are stories that are logically sound in my head but when speaking it out loud, it can be hard for others to understand, but Corneilious has no problems making others understand his meaning.

My own personal qualities are not persuasive like Corneilious or other public speakers. I believe that there are some people can become leaders through education and training, but some are born leaders. I am a person who is learning to become a leader and how to better articulate my thoughts. I can be persuasive at time through the use of pathos when telling stories that needs requires sympathy for understanding. I definitely need to work on achieving the ethos and logos quality and I hope that this class will help me achieve it. Thinking outside of the Aristotle’s classification theme, I usually am a better persuasive speaker when I listen to my audience’s concerns first. I sometimes use my audiences’ words against them or to use it in favor of reaching a clear communication. Because I know what my audiences’ like to hear, I can use that to my advantage when trying to hold their attention.

Aristotle’s classification scheme only describes the main ways of communication but there many other methods that different people use to get effectively communication. Although, everyone is different and may be unique in their method communication, the speaker must learn how to use ethos, pathos, and logos as well.