Week 6 - Judgements

1). Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make more fair?

I believe it is not possible to perceive others without judging them in some way. The brain naturally categrorizes people just the same as any other object present in our world. This is an energy preservation adaptation, which allows us to go about our lives without a sensory overload. However, this narrowing of attention to only experiences and objects that our unclassified from previous experience can someimes be a shortcomming. The brain will categorize objects, persons, etc., as the same, however, they may only appear to be the same. What we must do in our judgements, is to take the sum of the past experiences, some positive and some negative, to have an overall impression, which hopefully should be neutral. The more experiences that a person would have, should lead to a better approximation of judgements.

Week #4 - Post #2

Q2:

One speaker in my experience that has greatly motivated me was my one of my first managers at work. To this day, his words seem to have a profound impact on my behavior and thoughts regarding subjects. I have always valued his opinion. I transferred to his department after he spoke to me and thought I would fit in well. I worked with him for two years, and whenever I would make a mistake, he would know the words to properly motivate me. Now he moved on to another position, and I have taken his position. His words still affect my behavior and thoughts just as before, I recently took over more responsibilities at work, but did not ask for an increase in pay. He advised me of my poor decision, and I recently asked for the raise.

Some of the worst speakers I have heard are unfortunately, some teachers. These teachers are not the ones who are engaging, and wish all their students to learn something from every lesson. These are the teachers who are simply earning a paycheck, and will not do one more iota of effort than the minimum requirement. Unfortunately, at my public high school, I believe we had a few of these.

week #4 - post#1

A well-known speaker I would like to analyze would be presidential canditate Obama. Obama has very unique credibility towards his listening audience. Obama's greatest strength is that of the unknown. He is opposite of the polital forces which have been in power for the past 8 years. This gives him the ability to say, "If you don't like the current state of affairs in our country, then elect me, because I am opposite the current power." This is a very strong and appealing statement to most voters. Obama doesn't have as much power as John McCain, or credibility is some area with relation to foreign policy experience, however his attractiveness is far greater than McCain with his ability to sway the nation.

Week #3 - Post #3

I think the systematic approach introduced in the chapter is extremely worthwhile. It is so interesting to see the balance and play between each element which is present. As a psychology major, I have learned quite a lot about confounds, and how they can affect the results of an experiment. The situation, goals, and instruments, all have their individual aspects, and can affect one another as well. The systematic approach takes that into consideration, and that is why I find it one of the most appealing approaches in communications. The other approaches seem a bit loose, and not very scientific or objective.

pragmatic perspective

From the pragmatic perspective, it does make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction, however there is one issue, which offers discrepant information. Communication obviously builds of itself, and the information presented by others. The pragmatic perspective is very scientific in its critical approach. This would give support for the view at which communication is considered patterned interaction, however, one major issue is that of chance. The pragmatic perspective recognizes that luck, and chance can always influence events. Similar to the issues regarding chance, communication is like a game, which inches, positions, etc., can be the difference between success and failure. And again, communication builds off itself. Communication, however, is an everlasting interaction, and a game is not.

Goodness, truth, and Public speaking

A question of morals is important to debating good orators. I believe that you do not have to be morally good to be a good orator. Someone may lie, cheat, and steal, but still be able to convince you to do an action based on ethos, pathos, and logos. It is up to the audience to have a critical mind in their interpretation of the information which is presented to them. The connection between goodness, truth, and public communication, is the intent which started the process. The orator may have wanted to “help the world,” however found that their message would not be heard if they did not break some of their moral righteousness.

Pathos

I think of the priest at St. Joseph's Church in Downtown San Jose, as being a speaker that I admire. He does qualify in the pathos qualification by Aristotle. He appeals to the entire church to believe in something they cannot physically feel, touch, see, or smell. Yet with this is able to get the whole group back every Sunday to listen to him, and believe in what he is saying. I personally use a logos mode of persuasion, as I tend to believe in more logical things myself, thus would identify myself accordingly. For example, if I am trying to persuade one of my employees to work a graveyard shift, I would emphasize the increase in pay, decrease in work, and downplay the fact that they would have to stay awake all night, and there is no manager on duty.

-Daron