3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it. (Choose a topic that has not already been covered in this weeks discussion).

One concept discussed in Chapter 3 was Becoming More Mindful. I thought this term to be very interesting especially when the book goes on to describe automatic processing. According to the book, “We process mindlessly when we rely on old routines and mental habits to give us information about the world (54).” Becoming more mindful gives us advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that we can use mindless processing to “protect us” from potentially harmful situations. I believe that there are more disadvantages and more catastrophic consequences from being less mindful. The obvious is when going to different countries and having contact with different cultures then your own. Being less mindful of others can create stereotypes and create barriers between cultures. I enjoyed reading about this concept in chapter 3. 

Feb. 15 - 21 Question #2

2). Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States. What is the speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas? 

I believe that credibility, attractiveness, and power are some of the strongest characteristics that our current president of the United States has. Although he has had little time thus far to prove himself as a credible President, his credentials and qualifications have given him some credibility. Attractiveness also is a strong characteristic. Some older friends have compared him to former president Kennedy on how he is young and attractive. Lastly, power is also a characteristic of President Obama. The role of Commander and Chief and the power to help or declare war is a major power our president has. Cognitive Complexity is also a major characteristic that our president holds. I believe that in the area of “power” ethos could help arouse more emotions and motivate people. If our president wanted to go to war, ethos would help when gaining the public’s approval. 

Feb. 15 - 21

1). Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

I have to admit I don't think I have a favorite speaker, but I must say the majority of the speakers that I have been influenced by or who have moved me the most were passed political leaders. I believe Franklin D. Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill are one of many speakers who have influenced the world including myself. During World War 2 their speeches motivated millions of people to fight against Hitler's regime which in part influenced myself in how I perceive history. What makes their speeches memorable is that their speeches took place at a time where many countries, including the U.S., could've fallen under Hitler's rule. These speeches motivated citizens to fight against genocide and Hitler which is why they will always be treasured. The speaker's tone, clearness, and ethos also makes their communication memorable. The worst speaker I have ever heard would have to be someone who isn't clear, isn't' mindful of the audience, does not perform, and their nonverbal or verbal communication repels he audience's attention. 

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it. 

I thought that the Social Constructionist Model was very interesting. The idea that people don’t experience the world directly rather take parts of our culture, connect them to “facts”, and respond to them in ways our culture finds significant. I also thought that the social constructionist model might be a a term to take serious because, according to the term, people accept cultural myths and stereotypes without thinking. This is why the book criticizes hoe the model puts too much emphasis on the social self and not enough on the individual self. This term was the most interesting from the chapter and I enjoyed reading about it.  

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? 

According to the book, Thinking Through Communication, The Pragmatic view consists of a system interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time (32). It makes sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction because certain "acts" or "moves" are repeated in a kind of Interact. The book describes and gives a really good example of how communication can be like a "game". If someone i know, like my sister, happens to cry, my understanding of what happened before my sister crying is a distinct "move" that will influence the way I react such as; me feeling sorry, angry, or even happy. I can relate to other games such as basketball, soccer, or even checkers because understanding the moves the players make during the game can influence how you work out the relationship with the players. Its also different from many games because some games essentially are played not thinking about how a certain "move" or "act" will influence the relationship you have with players especially in games that are played by oneself.

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 or success (of the lack of these) in our culture? 

According to the book, Thinking through Communication, The social constructionist perspective is the process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality (Trenholm). The social constructionist perspective also states that we never experience the world directly, rather experience through communication. We "build worlds" through communication and through the tools given by the social constructionist model. If everyone began speaking about how the world is free of pollution and to not worry about global warming, we are likely to see the world in that way and fail to question whether we are seeing things accurately. The idea of preserving, conserving wildlife, and the environment may not exist in other cultures. It contributes to our success of improving the environment and ultimately makes us happy. 

Think of a speaker you admire. 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?

President Obama is someone who I admire as a speaker. I haven't read any other posts of my fellow classmates but I can guarantee that at least one other person will also find our president admirable. His charismatic presence combined with his influential and motivational speeches make him an ideal person to admire. Barrack Obama's power can be related to logos, ethos, and pathos; but I believe that pathos mostly is seen in Obamas speeches. The way he captures the audience's attention with emotional vivd and Think of a speaker you admire. 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? concrete speeches make him a very influential speaker. I also consider myself to be somewhat of a persuasive speaker. I believe that Ethos would best describe me because I have good moral character and I’m also concerned about the person or audience I'm speaking to. I also believe that Aristotle's scheme does work especially when it comes to the concept of argumentation.

Greek Orators

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 don't agree with how the Greeks believed that in order to be an orator an individual had to be morally good. Although the requirement sounds great and really should be true, History shows us that Orators aren't always Morally good. Unfortunately, Moral goodness lacks in the hearts of many past and present influential speakers. President Barrack Obama used the rhetoric and ambiguity of the word "change" to motivate people of the United States to elect him as the next president. When Obama promises “change,” he is able to unify very diverse constituencies, all of whom have their own interpretation of what he means.  What change?  As long as he remains ambiguous, all of those who want change will support him, even if the changes they want are all different. Many can argue that President Obama is morally good. Others can argue that he isn't morally good because he hasn't fully ended the war in Iraq. The bottom line is, you don't have to be a morally good person to be an orator. Hitler is an example of how a non-moral (monster) can still persuade and convince people to follow his political agenda. I do believe that there can be a connection between honest truth, public communication, and goodness. I just wish there were a lot more motivational orators who were true and practiced all three.