Week 6, question 1

Absolutely, I believe that men and women use language differently. Men and women perceive information in different ways, and how we communicate what information we have taken in is just an example of how we differ. A good example of this is advertising. In commercials for, let's say, beer advertised during a football game, every image that you see will only last 1-2 seconds before it transitions to another part of the ad. The ad will talk about the product being "cold, refreshing," and make it a man's beer. It emphasizes on how it's a manly product and is something a man's man can enjoy. It's using personal prototypes to target a specific group that the ad agency thinks will be watching this particular program.

On the flip side, when something is advertised toward a woman, it's message can be something along the lines of saving money, using a "family" message, including how it can benefit or protect your family in some way, or trying to appeal to a woman's sense of self, including targeting her physical beauty. These tactics that are targeted to men and women is just an example of how we communicate different.

Week 2, question 3

The worlds we build in our society can be very different than the worlds that are built in other societies. Here in America (as a gross generalization) we're loud; we like to live large and fast; a lot of times we don't care about others in the sense of we want what we want and we'll go to extremes to get it. From our lingo to our literature, we are very different than the rest of the world. One example is how much we rely on monetary success. We go to school to get a good job to make lots of money to buy nice things. We focus on family, where applicable. However, if you go to other countries, it's not the same. Family, and education for the sake of education, is a lot of the focus. I feel in this country, through all the trials and tribulations that we've gone through, we still have a lot to learn in the way of communication. We've perfected technology to hear: the problem is perfecting our ears to listen.

Week 2, question 2

I think it makes a lot of sense to consider communication a patterned interaction. We follow a pattern as far as how we communicate, and to whom. For example, I communicate with my mom in one way: I can speak honestly, and for the most part, without limit. Granted, I don't go into any nefarious deeds that I might partake in (said as I shine my halo) but I can certainly approach her with any problem or issue that I have, or whatever is causing me trouble in my life. On the other hand, I talk to my friends very differently. I'm more liberal with profanities, am willing to share what nefarious deeds I've partaken in (adjusts halo) and am more likely to speak with less respect aimed at them. By no means does it meant that I respect them less; just differently.

These are patterns that we form with those we communicate based upon our experiences. I've worked in retail for nearly 9 years, and I've developed patterns with my customers depending on how they respond to me: whether they are rude, polite, overly flirty, or have your basic cordial attitude. I've become a master at gauging people, and I repeat the patters of communication with then that I have with customers who were similar to them. I think communication is all based on past experiences, and how we relate those patterns to those we communicate with.

Week 2, part 1

Out of all the models that were discussed I found the Social Constructionist model to be the most interesting. It almost goes hand in hand with "nature vs. nurture." The idea that we experience our world by symbols and what we were raised with rings true to me. The example that they used in the book, with John calling his female coworkers "honey" and "explaining everything to them" is a great example of him just going by what he was used to. Different cultures have very different ideas, and how you are raised can influence how you perceive things. Something that might be considered respectful in one culture can be considered an insult in another. Its the differences that make us all unique, and this goes along with communication as well. I think that it would be a very boring world to live in if everyone in every culture in every country around the world were to interpret everything exactly the same.

Question 3

Which concept do I find interesting? One that might not be considered interesting at all: delivery. I think one of the most important ideas of communication, especially when giving a speech, is delivery. You can do all the research. You can do all the preparations. You can have props, and flashing lights, and music, or a myriad of other things that add on to your speech. However, if you get up there and stutter, mumble, don't make eye contact, or engage your audience, your speech can be worthless.

Last semester I took an argument and debate class. For the first speech the teacher videoed us, and we had to watch it. (apparently she believes in torture.) It was painful! While I had a lot of information, good sources, and a cogent argument, my delivery made me bomb my speech. Obviously, I was nervous. I spoke as if the Road Runner got a hold of my tongue, and I didn't make enough eye contact with the audience. It was embarrassing!

So should you ever be a speaker, my advice would be after all your hard work for research and ensuring that the information you have is correct, practice your speech. You don't want to fail on delivery.

Question 2

The Greeks said that you had to be a morally good person to speak. I, on the other hand, disagree with this. You can be a terrible person, yet you speak in such a manner that you have people following you, people who make crazy arrangements just to hear you speak, and you can be one that society, in the end, deems evil. For example, Charles Manson. He committed a string of acts that the eyes of society and the law deemed evil; however he was able to persuade an entire group of followers that what he was involved in was logical and right.

This might be an extreme example, however I find it to be an important point. Just because someone can speak, and persuade, and change the minds of people with or without logical backing, that doesn't mean they have to be a good person.

In my opinion, I think society would like to think that to be a good speaker you would only speak the truth; that you only speak what seems morally "right"; that you are a "good" person. Yet there are oppositions to every side, and each side has its' own skeletons in their closets.

Admired Speaker

A good example of a speaker that I admire is John Granger. He is a literary professor and is known within the literary world for his talks and discussions on Harry Potter (oh yes, Harry Potter). His method of speaking is one that touches on both pathos and logos. He uses a communication style that can touch on the emotions of a person, yet at the same time give a logical reason as to why his arguments are cogent. He uses canon information and ideas within the books alongside other literary theories from different types of literature to prove his point, all while touching on the human emotions of what passage he has just read, or the symbolism therein.

When it comes to trying to persuade others, I'm unsure as to which I use more. I used to be a very emotional person, and during speeches I would touch on the more human aspect of my argument. However, lately I've noticed that I tend to focus more on the logical side of an argument; I find these tend to stick to the audience (dependent on the situation, of course) better.