Week 3 question 2

I think communicate is a big game at times between people! I have to use myself as an example. In relationships with boys, I tend to play a lot of games. I try not to, but I just end up doing it. One evening I called my boyfriend and he asked me to come over, but I felt like he didn't really want me to. As much as he was asking me to, I just didn't believe him. So I in turn played a communication game which was me saying no it's OK I got a lot to do anyways. The funny thing was that when I got off the phone, I was incredibly sad. I really wanted to see him, but couldn't;t speak my truth because I didn't want to be vulnerable with him. I think the pragmatic model explains how we as humans do communicate and play games instead of speaking our truths. You can see a pattern in a game and that's how u can predict what people will do in the pragmatic model. I think the flaw with this notion is it supports people not being real with themselves. If I would have been real that night my boyfriend wanted to see me, I would of told him how I truly felt. But something inside of me told me no, don't be real with someone who doesn't care. It is sad that I even talk to myself like that. That is a pattern for me! I almost always keep a wall up and it is a predictable pattern and many other people do it as well.

week 2 question 3

The concept that I found to be interesting was the psychological model. The model seemed to explain why we have so many miscommunication with others. A person speaks to another person which is called a receiver. The receiver encodes the message by putting it in terms that they understand because of their past experiences and beliefs. This explains why we as humans make so many assumptions when we communicate. The psychological model seems to prove how we all think the world revolves around us. Each person can't even step outside of themselves enough to truly practice active listening and not make assumptions The psychological model made me think that we will always be closed minded and that our life experiences is what determines our communication with others. This is definitely true. But I have found that although it is hard, you can most definitely not let your past experiences define you and how you communicate. For example, my dad used to always yell at me. I in turn learned to yell at people as my form of communication. But I noticed it one day, and ever since then I am constantly trying to lower my voice so that I am not so loud. The psychological model is half true, but it doesn't explain the fact that we don't have to communicate with assumptions.

week 2 question 1

I think the way we "build worlds" through communication varies. Everyone has their own habits, set of beliefs, and rules for the way they live. In the California culture there are lots of beautiful girls around and so we all tend to communicate about our looks and what is "cute", "hot" and "sexy". I have traveled to other cultures before and their ideas about beauty were completely different. I found the other cultures to have a more pure idea of what beauty truly is about. I think in America we put a big focus on whats beautiful. We have beauty pageant's that put so much pressure on the women to look, act and be a certain way. This is one part of our culture that I feel contributes to an unhappier "world" that we create. Another idea we talk about in our young culture of Santa Clara and probably a lot of other cities is partying. When a teen hits around 14 or 15 they start getting the pressure to drink and smoke pot because its considered "cool". I find the idea of drugs and alcohol kind of interesting because I have been to other cultures and each one seems to partake in some of those kinds of things. Partaking in things like drugs and alcohol have been apart of our "world" for along time. We even have special terms known as "slang" to communicate and that also builds our world that we live in.

Week 1 post 3

A concept that intrigued me in the Chapter 1 reading was about the way Aristotle's school was described. It sounded like the way our educational system should be and is often something I talk about in my life. Of course I would take out the part on women not being able to attend school. But Aristotle's school sounds beautiful. I liked how one would have to rise early and had a "paidagogos" that made sure one didn't miss class. I used to cut classes like crazy when I was younger because they were so incredibly boring! But if I had someone who influenced me and reminded me of why I would go to class every single day, life would have been allot easier. It's almost as if Aristotle understood we can't do everything on our own. At times we are weak human beings and when we are we need other peoples help. I think in America we seriously lack asking for help and its caused us a lot of problems. Also his school is described like it was really connected to nature. In the book it is mentioned that Aristotle used to walk with his students along pathways called "peripatos". I wish to god we would do something like that in school. I bet so many students would love to walk and discuss things instead of sitting in a "box" with no fresh air and uncomfortable desks. I also like what we used to learn back during that time. Nowadays high school and junior high is so incredibly dull that I really believed I had better things to do. I would of love to learn about life, and persuasive speaking and how it can affect our world if we learned it.

Question 2 Feb. 2

I agree with the Greeks saying that to be an orator, you must be morally good. There are many politicians in America who speak in public, but they manipulate instead of persuade. This shows that they are not morally good and actually have the ability to hurt us more than help us. How can you speak on something that you may have some knowledge about, but as a person you are fake, manipulative, and closed minded. People may listen to you at first because you sound smart, but once a person sees that your actions don't necessarily match your words they will stop listening to you.
I think the connection between goodness, truth and public communication should be something that is required to speak in public. If your speaking in front of a many different kinds of people, you should know that they are respecting you by taking time out of their own lives to listen. This means that in a sense there is a relationship that is forming between the speaker and the listeners. In a relationship, both people must give and take for it to flourish. So the listeners are giving their time and I think that means the speaker needs to give something too. If while they speak they have impure intentions of any sort, they are being a taker and I think don't deserve the position of being a public speaker.

Question 1

A speaker I admire is Tupak Shakur. He is known for being a rapper for changes to be made and he also wrote beautiful poetry. Because he was black, young, and powerful, he spoke in ways about the world that touched a lot of people of all different ages and races. He spoke the way he saw it from his point of view and that made him credible in his own community which Aristotle would refer to as having ethos. Tupak touched a lot of people with his lyrics in some of his songs and this gave him pathos. As for logos, he practiced it in the way he wrote in his poetry.

A personal quality that I have in regards to my speaking being persuasive is my ability to evoke emotion in people. I speak in a way that makes people connect with what I say. They tend to believe me because of how passionate I can get, because I am a passionate person. I also speak in a way that communicates trust because I look people in their eyes and I show no fear. This kind of covers Aristotle's view of having credibility because when you trust someone, you tend to believe what they say.