When thinking about President Obama's success as a powerful speaker I think he possess creditability, attractiveness, and power in his speeches. I find the power in his presentations to be the best attribute when weighing against creditability and attractiveness. This could be a little surprising to some because his demeanor is not aggressive and does not speak in aggressive tones. Yet, he establishes power in his speeches because of his confidence and clear message. He constantly refers to the past of American history and uses their examples to be inspirational or common remedies to how we can approach our problems today. He gains his power because our in our current situation our country is looking for someone to take control and lead us in the right direction. His plan, style, and creditability has convinced the majority of our country to put our faith in his decisions.
Obama has built ethos in the area of creditability with knowledge and a deep and genuine concern for the people of our country. His speeches give personal examples in his life how he relates to our struggles. A major strength as a speaker has been his ability to communicate his concern and intent to help the people of our country.
Of course attractiveness is a major part of his ability to communicate. His overall health was a factor in differentiating himself from McCain in the election. People became familiar with Obama because of his slogans and ability to reach new audiences through the Internet.
These are some of the reasons that has led to our President making legendary speeches and influencing so many people in such tough times.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Chpater 9 Question 1
The best speaker that I have ever heard was my college baseball coach. What made this particular speaker influential and dynamic was his ability to think he was talking directly to you. Timing is critical when a speaking to a group. He seemed to understand the pulse of the group and understand the timing when his message was going to be received. It wasn't that my coach was real emotional or gave us this great story. The presentation of their delivery was honest and committed. I could see that this person believed to the core of their being that they believed what they were saying was going to help the team. Usually he would give examples of situations of when to apply his methods to real life experiences. His leadership skills were exceptional because in every talk he gave to us he talked about his principals were something greater than himself. I think most speakers believe talk and motivate to get a result of what they desire. But, this person in particular always addressed messages that go beyond sports, having success, and playing well. In most instances his message would be about playing the game but it would resonate with character, personal relationships, and how we go about our daily lives. It was his timing, content, and delivering a message that was insightful to our everyday lives.
The worst speaker I ever heard happened to also be a coach. He would do all these antics and try to get us emotionally involved. But, in his speeches he would make claims that were totally false. Saying absurd things that this was the biggest day of your life, or you will never forget this moment. He was right I never forgot those moments because they had no effect on my life. These stupid emotional talks may have motivated someone for a little while but, had no greater meaning. Most of his talks and messages were very cliche. He would just add a bunch of common phrases or quotes and nothing would really make sense. It was like he took all of the cliche sayings in one speech and felt that would solve all our problems or get us ready to play. There was just no direction in his speech.
I still listen to interviews and speeches in politics or managers in a work environment and they have no point or message in their words. In my experience I prefer people who discuss and examine a couple of points clearly and drive home a common message. Most people will throw information into a talk and have no real direction of their language. It seems when people try to make a world changing speech they usually fail. But, those who go make a speech to answer a question or focus on solving a problem are usually the ones who surprise us and become the talks that stick with us the longest.
The worst speaker I ever heard happened to also be a coach. He would do all these antics and try to get us emotionally involved. But, in his speeches he would make claims that were totally false. Saying absurd things that this was the biggest day of your life, or you will never forget this moment. He was right I never forgot those moments because they had no effect on my life. These stupid emotional talks may have motivated someone for a little while but, had no greater meaning. Most of his talks and messages were very cliche. He would just add a bunch of common phrases or quotes and nothing would really make sense. It was like he took all of the cliche sayings in one speech and felt that would solve all our problems or get us ready to play. There was just no direction in his speech.
I still listen to interviews and speeches in politics or managers in a work environment and they have no point or message in their words. In my experience I prefer people who discuss and examine a couple of points clearly and drive home a common message. Most people will throw information into a talk and have no real direction of their language. It seems when people try to make a world changing speech they usually fail. But, those who go make a speech to answer a question or focus on solving a problem are usually the ones who surprise us and become the talks that stick with us the longest.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Chapter 9 Question 3
I found that creditability is an interesting part of public speaking from the reading. I relate to creditability on an everyday basis at my work or as a graduate student in presenting my research. A person who does not have an impressive resume or a lot of notoriety on subjects yet it is important to establish creditability to your audience.
The book explained that audiences will have preconceived notions about a speaker. The audiences notions are based off of direct experience, advance publicity, or information. In my case, I have not had a lot of direct experience compared to my peers and definitely lack publicity. It is apparent that the creditability of a speaker in my position must come with the effective use of valid information.
Even with great information people can be turned off right away from the lack of experience or publicity. Which lead most of my interest to the introduction of the presentation. The introduction is described in the book as a tool for, "creating a desire in the audience to listen to the speech. (pg. 280)" The ability for a speaker to understand it's audience and provide an engaging exciting introduction is critical for any young or inexperienced speaker. Having a technique such as offering a person allusion or greeting, asking a rhetorical question, using a quotation, telling a humorous anecdote, etc. are great examples. I really like the idea of personal allusion or a reflective story that isn't too long. I always seem to be engaged when a person tells a short interesting story.
From the reading and in my experience creditability will bring active listeners. But, a lack of creditability in the beginning can bring in an audience with great information and an effective introduction.
The book explained that audiences will have preconceived notions about a speaker. The audiences notions are based off of direct experience, advance publicity, or information. In my case, I have not had a lot of direct experience compared to my peers and definitely lack publicity. It is apparent that the creditability of a speaker in my position must come with the effective use of valid information.
Even with great information people can be turned off right away from the lack of experience or publicity. Which lead most of my interest to the introduction of the presentation. The introduction is described in the book as a tool for, "creating a desire in the audience to listen to the speech. (pg. 280)" The ability for a speaker to understand it's audience and provide an engaging exciting introduction is critical for any young or inexperienced speaker. Having a technique such as offering a person allusion or greeting, asking a rhetorical question, using a quotation, telling a humorous anecdote, etc. are great examples. I really like the idea of personal allusion or a reflective story that isn't too long. I always seem to be engaged when a person tells a short interesting story.
From the reading and in my experience creditability will bring active listeners. But, a lack of creditability in the beginning can bring in an audience with great information and an effective introduction.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
the social constructionist perspective
Building words in the social constructionist structure looks at norms, rules, symbolic gestures and views that make up communication. These "codes" can represent an off brand of communication that makes communication different in various cultures. I feel an easy example is using slang language. There are words or phrases that represent a king of language in many of our professional and social networks. People of wall street talk in a different language than a construction worker in the Midwest. They both speak in English but, there language is different. Words are built in these networks or communities that can influence acceptance, roles within the specific community, and an almost validation that you know what you are talking about because you can construct the language of a certain community.
In the U.S. we have come a long way in the way we talk to different genders. Women have been nationally accepted as equals in workplaces. Granted there are numerous examples of women being disrespected in the workplace whether it be in language or pay but, these are different issues. But, women are talked to in a respectful manner that other countries and cultures in the world still do not label women as capable in a workplace environment.
The military is an interesting structure that differs from our society norms. In today's environment people question authority more. In military ranking supervisors carry orders without question as long as it does not disrupt their moral compass. Communication is direct and talked in a lot of code and slang. But, this is efficient and necessary for their position. A military must be able to act quickly and possible defend through the use of force. In their line of work there is not any room for dissension, hesitation, and individual interpretation to their task. I am not a military expert and will not begin to pretend to know that our communication style is a major reason why we tend to have a formidable military. I do know that their constructionist style is applicable to their jobs.
I find that we change hats a lot and have to talk differently in different social situations. The words we use in language constantly change due to our situations. For instance I knew a teacher that was very professional and would hardly give a glimpse into their individual views or give an idea of what they were about as a person. Later on after taking this teacher's class I came into contact with them socially and found this person to be an extremely dynamic and charismatic person. The constructionist method is interesting. It is difficult for me to accept that people do not experience the world directly or what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than direct experience. I personally believe my direct experience has greatly shaped my communication with others. Yet, a social constructionist perspective has a place that studies our communication process in the use of representing our communication symbolically, cognitively, and culturally.
In the U.S. we have come a long way in the way we talk to different genders. Women have been nationally accepted as equals in workplaces. Granted there are numerous examples of women being disrespected in the workplace whether it be in language or pay but, these are different issues. But, women are talked to in a respectful manner that other countries and cultures in the world still do not label women as capable in a workplace environment.
The military is an interesting structure that differs from our society norms. In today's environment people question authority more. In military ranking supervisors carry orders without question as long as it does not disrupt their moral compass. Communication is direct and talked in a lot of code and slang. But, this is efficient and necessary for their position. A military must be able to act quickly and possible defend through the use of force. In their line of work there is not any room for dissension, hesitation, and individual interpretation to their task. I am not a military expert and will not begin to pretend to know that our communication style is a major reason why we tend to have a formidable military. I do know that their constructionist style is applicable to their jobs.
I find that we change hats a lot and have to talk differently in different social situations. The words we use in language constantly change due to our situations. For instance I knew a teacher that was very professional and would hardly give a glimpse into their individual views or give an idea of what they were about as a person. Later on after taking this teacher's class I came into contact with them socially and found this person to be an extremely dynamic and charismatic person. The constructionist method is interesting. It is difficult for me to accept that people do not experience the world directly or what we know and believe about the world comes to us through communication rather than direct experience. I personally believe my direct experience has greatly shaped my communication with others. Yet, a social constructionist perspective has a place that studies our communication process in the use of representing our communication symbolically, cognitively, and culturally.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Pragmatic Perspective
Analyzing communication as a patterned interaction can be very tricky. I feel the textbook gave a good example of pragmatic communication when a couple has constant problems. The textbook also mentions that pragmatic communication is a good rule of thumb when analyzing communication in small groups. I find it difficult that pragmatic communication is the dominant perspective when analyzing communication. Peoples roles and status can differ their communication technique and language. People do play games during communication and there this sort of progression that brings us to the end of a conversation. But, people bring a lot of other factors to the table that may not have any pragmatic relevance.
Communication is like a game in that situations of communication can go through this dance or progression of responses that eventually resolves the agenda of a conversation. If a conversation was in progress and an employee wanted to ask his/her boss for a raise their would be a progression throughout the conversation that would start with a greeting, a lead up to the pitch, the ask, the response to the request, and the conclusion or verdict from the boss. But, to get an answer to the question their is a logical progression of events that can either help the conversation or hurt the conversation.
Communication is not like a game in that some people are very straight forward or have no intention of going through the procedures of pragmatic communication. I feel that from this portion of the textbook people could read too much in the events of the conversation instead of what the person is "really" trying to say. I find in my experience is when communication stumbles is when people misinterpret of what people are trying to say. I do not entirely know if pragmatic perspective will be the correct method of analyzing a communication problem. Never the less pragmatic is a unique way to look at communication. It can be extremely useful in learning how deal with others. The real talent is understanding when it is relevant to look into the pragmatic method to see real results in communication.
Communication is like a game in that situations of communication can go through this dance or progression of responses that eventually resolves the agenda of a conversation. If a conversation was in progress and an employee wanted to ask his/her boss for a raise their would be a progression throughout the conversation that would start with a greeting, a lead up to the pitch, the ask, the response to the request, and the conclusion or verdict from the boss. But, to get an answer to the question their is a logical progression of events that can either help the conversation or hurt the conversation.
Communication is not like a game in that some people are very straight forward or have no intention of going through the procedures of pragmatic communication. I feel that from this portion of the textbook people could read too much in the events of the conversation instead of what the person is "really" trying to say. I find in my experience is when communication stumbles is when people misinterpret of what people are trying to say. I do not entirely know if pragmatic perspective will be the correct method of analyzing a communication problem. Never the less pragmatic is a unique way to look at communication. It can be extremely useful in learning how deal with others. The real talent is understanding when it is relevant to look into the pragmatic method to see real results in communication.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree.
I believe it is crucial that an orator be one that is morally good. At times it is imperative that an orator set aside their own views and assumptions and report the truth. Because most of Greek society was translated by word of mouth it is imperative that orators have the ability to provide information that would not be taken out of context.
Morality can become tricky and a lose definition. An orator can make an argument to announcements, theories, and stories that can dramatically change the context of their information without changing any of the facts. Characteristics such as tone, pace, order, and emotion and drastically change the significance of any story or thought. The orator did not change the information but, their presentation can change its significance and direction. Some orators might feel they did not break any code of morality since they did not change any facts. Morality must be detached from the orators personal agenda and views unless they are desired.
The question I have is how the Greeks established creditability and accountability for these orators? It is one thing to demand that orators live up to a high standard of morality but, who and how were these virtues up held? Never the less, I agree that morality should be a demanded virtue of orators.
The morality of orators is a perfect example of truth, goodness, and public communication relating to honest virtues. Informing the public to honest and significant information is vital to the authenticity of our communication in business, media, and person to person communication. Informing our society through the use of various media outlets acts as a our accountability check for the way our businesses operate and how our country is run. But, who holds the media accountable? Sure there are laws and regulations but, the fault mainly relies on the professionalism and morality of the reporter. Obtaining information that is valid and honest is the purpose of our reporters. But, too often we see people spinning the information to increase an entertainment value in order to seem more interesting and gain attention. While their is a purpose for "dressing up" stories and reporting in an entertaining fashion. These attributes cannot refrain from changing the facts by use of tone, pace, order, or any other trick we can use to carry attention to what makes the report significant.
Reporting is a powerful tool of communication. It's misuse can change public opinion and our history. A sense of morality is vital to all forms of communication.
Morality can become tricky and a lose definition. An orator can make an argument to announcements, theories, and stories that can dramatically change the context of their information without changing any of the facts. Characteristics such as tone, pace, order, and emotion and drastically change the significance of any story or thought. The orator did not change the information but, their presentation can change its significance and direction. Some orators might feel they did not break any code of morality since they did not change any facts. Morality must be detached from the orators personal agenda and views unless they are desired.
The question I have is how the Greeks established creditability and accountability for these orators? It is one thing to demand that orators live up to a high standard of morality but, who and how were these virtues up held? Never the less, I agree that morality should be a demanded virtue of orators.
The morality of orators is a perfect example of truth, goodness, and public communication relating to honest virtues. Informing the public to honest and significant information is vital to the authenticity of our communication in business, media, and person to person communication. Informing our society through the use of various media outlets acts as a our accountability check for the way our businesses operate and how our country is run. But, who holds the media accountable? Sure there are laws and regulations but, the fault mainly relies on the professionalism and morality of the reporter. Obtaining information that is valid and honest is the purpose of our reporters. But, too often we see people spinning the information to increase an entertainment value in order to seem more interesting and gain attention. While their is a purpose for "dressing up" stories and reporting in an entertaining fashion. These attributes cannot refrain from changing the facts by use of tone, pace, order, or any other trick we can use to carry attention to what makes the report significant.
Reporting is a powerful tool of communication. It's misuse can change public opinion and our history. A sense of morality is vital to all forms of communication.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The speaker I admire has to be Barack Obama. I feel in most instances President Obama uses a logo style to persuade his audience. The logos style refers to a public speaker that persuades others through the wording and logic of the message. Although his most famous and memorable speeches were very emotional and moving (more of a ethos approach). President Obama speeches are clear and direct. Politics can be manipulative, complex, and argumentative. But, President Obama has the ability to clearly argue his points and reach a wide audience. The combination of his assertiveness and calm demeanor provide confidence and belief in his message. No matter what one's political views are or their opinion of our current President, I find it difficult for one to argue against President Obama ability as a fantastic communicator. His style and message has influenced millions around the world.
I think Aristotle's classification does work for President Obama. I have a hard time putting him into one category. He is such a dynamic and versatile speaker that he can weave in and out of Aristotle's classifications. His ability to switch classifications for the setting, audience, and tone of his argument make President a favorite of mine. His tone in an interview may differ than when he is speaking to millions of people. Yet President Obama continues to be consistent in being clear and concise. Qualities that I believe Aristotle would approve of.
I feel one quality than can make me a persuasive communicator is the ability to reason with opposing opinions contrast to my view of an argument. When making an argument or stating my case with others, I always try to put myself in the other person's position and try to understand what motivates them to their point of view. I feel this is always an intelligent thing to do because the other person could very well have a better opinion or solution than myself. But, I have found that if I can put myself in the other person's vantage point before I make an argument my argument tends to come off stronger. Actively listening to the other side of an argument is something a lot of people fail to do. Listening to people's counter arguments will typically open opportunities to make a stronger counter argument. Most people are concerned with what they are going to say next they miss vial clues or opportunities to relate and argue your points because they simply do not listen. I have learned this is vital to becoming influential.
I think Aristotle's classification does work for President Obama. I have a hard time putting him into one category. He is such a dynamic and versatile speaker that he can weave in and out of Aristotle's classifications. His ability to switch classifications for the setting, audience, and tone of his argument make President a favorite of mine. His tone in an interview may differ than when he is speaking to millions of people. Yet President Obama continues to be consistent in being clear and concise. Qualities that I believe Aristotle would approve of.
I feel one quality than can make me a persuasive communicator is the ability to reason with opposing opinions contrast to my view of an argument. When making an argument or stating my case with others, I always try to put myself in the other person's position and try to understand what motivates them to their point of view. I feel this is always an intelligent thing to do because the other person could very well have a better opinion or solution than myself. But, I have found that if I can put myself in the other person's vantage point before I make an argument my argument tends to come off stronger. Actively listening to the other side of an argument is something a lot of people fail to do. Listening to people's counter arguments will typically open opportunities to make a stronger counter argument. Most people are concerned with what they are going to say next they miss vial clues or opportunities to relate and argue your points because they simply do not listen. I have learned this is vital to becoming influential.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)