Week 3 Post #2

This view states that communication is the key to holding our world together. It also states that through this communication, “social groups create collective ideas of themselves, of one another, and of the world they inhabit”(29). This view seems to be the most difficult to completely understand only because I am sure what it means by “building worlds”. What this perspective means to me is that through our own cultures language, beliefs, attitudes, values and guidelines, our world is shaped differently than what another person see through their culture. It seems to me that this view states that societies views are what shape us. I do believe that our way of thinking in society today is shaped by everything around us from TV to magazines. We do begin to think the way everybody else is thinking. I understand that this becomes a problem when we are faced with someone from another culture. Our thinking is completely different, sometimes causing serious problems. Some things that we might talk about in our society could be entertainment and celebrities. Other cultures do not rely on what celebrities think or say because they do not value entertainment like we do. These concepts directly contribute to our happiness because we do rely so much on what society thinks and what other people think. We all try so hard to be like what we see in TV when it is just not realistically possible or even right. People’s confidence and wellbeing could be seriously affected by this way of thinking.

Week 3 Post #1

According to our text, under the pragmatic perspective “communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent ‘moves’, which become patterned over time” (25). Basically, this perspective focuses on the games we play as human beings. Games meaning when two people begin to have a conversation with one another and eventually interact with one another over time. I think that it definitely makes sense to think of communication as patterned interaction. Mostly because I believe that after knowing somebody for a length of time, you begin to understand how he or she likes to communicate and therefore, know what the right and wrong moves are. People’s personality change constantly and are different from person to person. It is important to know how to talk to one person versus how to talk with another. For example, when having a conversation with my best friend, I know that I can be more free and easy going whereas when having a conversation with my mother, sometimes I have to know the right things to say in order to not push her buttons. You also begin to understand each person’s facial expression and other actions. This makes it easier to know what types of conversations you can have with certain people. I also believe that this view is played out a lot in loving relationships like a boyfriend and girlfriend or husband and wife. You need to know how to play the game in order to keep a steady relationship.

Discussion #2

A speaker that I have always admired is my high school principal, Mary Miller. The first time I had ever heard her speak was a my older sister's graduation. I was young then, but remember listening to her and thinking how much presence she had in that gym. Many years later I got accepted to Presentation High School and was lucky enough to still have her as my principal. 

I think that Ms. Miller uses pathos in her speeches. She puts so much emotion into each and every speech that she does. She makes sure that with each speech that she does, she relates to each and every student the best that she can. Ms. Miller would tell us stories which would enable us to make a connection to her on a level further than just being our principal.  She was always so passionate about what she was speaking about, which would always touch our hearts. 

It was hard for me to come up with some qualities that I have that make me persuasive. I think that I also try to relate to whomever I am speaking with. I also try to be very knowledgeable about what I am speak about. I think that these qualities are just like my principal's qualities which both fall under Aristotle's classification schemes. 

Week 2 Discussion #1

Question: 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 do not agree with the statement above. Yes, it is a plus to listen to a speaker whom you know is morally good, however not many people out there are morally good. In order to succeed in our society today, you almost have to do whatever it takes to be on top. These people will lie if they have to. When I think of an orator, I think of some of the most amazing speakers we have had in our society over the past 100 years. People like John F. Kennedy Jr. and Martin Luther King Jr. You believed what these people said because you knew that they were good people. Sometimes you can listen to someone like Hitler and get brainwashed into believing what he is saying is right. He was not a morally good person but he knew how to persuade a crowd.

When it comes to a connection between goodness, truth and public communication, it definitely depends on who is speaking and what the topic is that he or she is speaking about. Again, you can really only find truth and goodness in a speaker when you are passionate and knowledgeable about what this speaker is talking about. 

At this moment during the election we are listening to the speeches in the Republican National Convention. It is amazing to hear these people speak about what they believe in and what they believe is best for our country. You have to decide on your own what is the truth.