What was that again?

I found the discussions on listening skills in chapter three to be important. I have always placed a lot of weight in the audience’s role when it comes to speaking because much of the responsibility of the message tends to lie within a person’s ability to interpret the message correctly. It’s not to take away from the necessity placed upon the speaker to present it clearly, but only an acknowledgement that the speaker can only do so much in their efforts to convey a meaning. In reading the reality of how many of us suffer from poor listening skills and how our culture has a tendency to promote this underdevelopment I found this point to be very alarming. With so much resting on the ability of the receiver, in terms of communication, how much information is lost in the inability for them to interpret a message if listening skills are not given as much, if not more, focus than those of speaking? And the more I thought about this concept it occurred to me that I spend more time attempting to drowned out surrounding noise and conversation in my everyday activities in order to concentrate on the task at hand than I do attempting to actually listen to the things I need to hear.

Communication Amongst Genders

I do agree that men and women use language differently in most cases. However, as with most things there are exceptions. The largest difference in how men and women communicate seems to be in regards to emotions. Women tend to communicate on a more emotional and personal level than men. I’m not just referring to discussing how we feel about relationships or things of that nature but also when it comes to everyday tasks. I notice this a lot when it comes to discussions between me and my husband. He has a tendency to be much more straightforward and logical in his view of things than I am. It’s not to say that I’m illogical or that he is unemotional as that is far from the truth. Where I notice the difference is in where we tend to focus our thoughts. The best example I can think of is when a remark is made we both process it differently. He is normally more interested in what the remark is in regards to and I find that I tend to focus on why the remark was made.

Perceptions

I think because we are consistently judging things in our environment, if even at a subconscious level, that is natural that we would judge and categorize other people as well. I don’t think this is necessarily the same as stereotyping however. It’s more to the point that as a social being we are constantly accessing situations that arise and surround us in our everyday life. For instance, you wouldn’t normally address a child in the same tone or manner as you would an adult. It is an immediate judgment on our part that the child is not as knowledgeable and would not be able to comprehend on the same level. For the most part that assessment of the situation would most likely be correct but not necessarily 100% of the time. There is the off chance that the twelve year old you are addressing is savant and unknowingly you automatically categorized him and accessed the situation as if he was like the majority of twelve year olds you’ve spoken to and addressed him as such. At any rate it was still a judgment and as such the most important thing is to remember that they are not always right. What makes the judgment unfair is when you stick to your initial perception of a person and are not open to the idea that you could have been mistaken. If after addressing the twelve year old initially and receiving a response that is non-conforming to my initial judgment to continue to categorize him incorrectly would be unfair. However, by continuously re-evaluating a situation it allows for my judgments to be ever changing, adapting to the situation around me. This allows for my judgments to be fairer, but still not perfect.

Characteristics

Most well-known speakers possess all three characteristics. In many cases the perceived strength is individual to the speech itself more than the individual speakers. As focused upon in a majority of the chapter public speeches are directed and written in the audience in mind. One speech may show stronger characteristics in power and the next given by the same speaker may be stronger in credibility because they felt the particular audience would relate better to one characteristic over the other. It also seems in modern times, where a lot of speeches are written by people other than the person who is actually delivering it, the speaker is chosen specifically to cater to the attractiveness characteristic. Whether it be because they are an expert in the area or because more people will want to listen to a perceived attractive person talk about beauty products than someone who may not seem beautiful by societal standards. I think the best ways to build ethos is to be knowledgeable in the topic you are speaking towards and to follow up your words with supporting actions in your life. In other words, practice what you preach.

Shaping Knowledge

When discussing the “Social Functions of Rhetoric” Sarah Trenholm states in the fourth function, referred to as “Shaping Knowledge”, that “truth is not something independent of communication; Instead, it is a product of communication.” This declaration, even in context of the functions, doesn’t seem to be a very logical train of thought. Truth is derived from facts and do not have to be presented through communication in order to still be the truth. Without those facts being communicated we as a society or collective group may not know them to be true, let alone exist, but that doesn’t change or alter whether a fact is truthful. I’m on board with the idea that communication is how individuals within cultures or societies come to accept things as fact; just not that fact is a product of communication. If it were an actual product of communication then anything could be true as long as enough people stated it to be. This is belief, not fact, and no matter how much I believe in something it doesn’t make it true.

Influencial Speakers

This is probably one of the most difficult questions for me to answer. I am not a fan of listening to people give speeches in any event or on any subject. I much prefer to read the actual words for myself and draw my own conclusions from the context covered within. Therefore, I cannot say I have ever been influenced by listening to a person speak. Instead I tend to take notes on facts and search for truth behind them.

One of the best speakers I’ve heard is Brian Cox. He is an English physicist who also has a show on the Discovery Channel called “Wonders of the Universe”. The speeches he gives regarding the physics of our universe are fascinating in subject matter and his passion in regards to the subject comes through in his voice. His speech is melodic in its quality and always delivered with an air of wonderment in regards to the material.

The worst speaker I’ve ever heard was actually a teacher of mine. His lectures were always monotone. There was no emotion in his voice as if he was as bored by the subject he was presenting on as the students were to have to sit through the lectures.

Psychological Perspective & Interpretation

I found it interesting how the four main perspectives discussed in the chapter all seemed to be incomplete in how they approached and covered communications. It seems more practical to combine two or more of the perspectives together in order to better encompass the breadth of communications as a whole.

Out of the four perspectives I felt that the psychological perspective may have been the most straightforward in its approach. That may be because it is the most familiar. This perspective takes into account both the sender and the receiver in deciphering each individual part of a conversation where the final communication is determined not only by the person sending the message but also by the way the receiver of the message decodes it. I found this fact to be very important due to the fact that the ultimate success or failure of a communication is in how the sender’s message is interpreted. Therefore it is important for the sender to know his audience and how his words may be interpreted.

The Bonds That Build Our World

If you view communication through the constructionist perspective it is our communications or interactions with one another that essentially has not only held our society together, but is also the basis of society as a whole. How we interpret our surroundings and share those interpretations with fellow human beings creates the fabric of our reality. In doing so it “builds a world” based upon those interpretations. Further, each individual’s reality is intertwined with another person’s reality through these interactions and communications which begin to weave and build the fabric of the world we perceive around us. It also defines an individual’s role within this newly constructed world.

There are many ideas that are unique to the culture we have built in the United States. One that stands out to me is the idea of equal opportunity. As a nation we promote and celebrate the pursuit of financial independence. Rags to riches stories are often romanticized and heralded as a possible reality for any to achieve. In its most positive light this concept leads to an increase in determination, ambition, and ingenuity within our society.

Pragmatic Communication Patterns

Communication as a patterned interaction between two parties does make sense in some regards. Some basic patterns can be compiled based on appropriate and inappropriate responses to an initiating question. For instance if someone were to initiate a conversation by saying “How are you today?” there are multiple appropriate responses, but it would be considered inappropriate to respond by saying “No thanks.” The same would be true in the case of a chess match. There are predictable moves in response to last move of an opponent. These moves or interplay between two participants become interdependent as the game or conversation continues because the subsequent action from the other party is dependent on the last action made.

Where the patterns fall short is in the ability to comprehend the meaning or interpretation of the subjects background. With games such as chess there are strict rules in which you have to adhere to in order to make appropriate actions. These rules are not left up to interpretation and are not moldable to the subject’s needs. Communication on the other hand can be molded and adjusted to fit different situations and the rules can vary depending on the subject matter as well as the relationship of the parties involved.

“…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke these words during his first inauguration as the 32^nd President of the United States. In front of a country that was deep in the woes of depression his words were up lifting and provided hope to a down trodden society. This was only the first of many memorable speeches Roosevelt would deliver in his lifetime. Strong and confident in his delivery his words were backed by an overwhelming conviction that commanded attention. As with all great speakers he was a master of all three methods of persuasion; however I believe the majority of his power was delivered through the ethos method. He was a very accomplished man before being elected president and his confidence in not only his abilities, but the abilities of this nation, were at the forefront of his delivery.

If I had to attempt to categorize what little power of persuasion I possess I think I would fall more in line with the pathos method. I have always considered myself to be a highly empathetic individual and will always try to consider the thoughts and feelings of others before I speak. Although I always try to be as logical and factual in my arguments as possible I believe that any persuasion I may hold would come from a place of emotional connection with those I am speaking to.

Aristotle's Persuasive Rhetoric

I found it interesting that Aristotle was focused on how successful arguments could be built upon persuasion. I have had persuasion described to me in many different ways in the past. Coming from a business environment in work it has been something that has had a lot of focus in leadership trainings. I’m very surprised that it has never been presented to me in the way Aristotle broke persuasion down into three categories: ethos, pathos, and logos. These three methods are eloquent in their simplicity. Ethos is said to persuade through personal character where a presenter would try to exhibit their qualifications to speak on a subject. Pathos is where a speaker would try to appeal to the audience’s emotions. Lastly logos is the use of logical facts to support an argument. Each method has the ability to stand on its own or be used in conjunction with one another. Persuasion is such a powerful tool in speech that it is often misconstrued and used for purposes of attaining desired outcomes instead of the truthful conclusions Aristotle focused on. It’s almost as if the mere mention of persuading another individual is scrutinized for its ability to mislead instead of being embraced for its ability to reveal.