Think before sending

A concept that caught my eye and interest was that on the new media. It covered new and inventive ways in which people are using computers and cell phones to communicate. I found the examples both interesting and in some cases amusing. While most of this doesn’t seem new anymore, it’s important to remember that digital media, in comparison to other forms of mass media, are still in their infancy and adolescence. While print media has been around for centuries, radio is early in its second century and TV has only been around for about 70 years. When you consider that computers weren’t common in households as recently as twenty years ago, and cell phones were even less common, there is still a lot for us to get to know about what they can do.

 

The part that really got me was the part about sexting. As if adult content wasn’t already out of control on the internet, the idea that people would start using their phones to pass on adult photos and have lewd conversations really shouldn’t surprise me. What I find surprising is how few people realize just how little privacy they have when using those forms of communication. In the olden days, phones had to be tapped for someone to hear a conversation. Now that text conversation you just had is available to anyone who can get access to your phone or the provider’s servers. Same with those cute pictures of your kids, or your significant other’s privates.

Hot or Cold?

The idea that the medium is the message isn’t really all that new. When we think about it, and as we have discussed in previous chapters of the book, location and environment can be as important to the message as the content of the message itself. Those mediums that engage more than just the ears of the audience are likely to be more effective, because they are able to appeal to a wider audience.

This does however create a larger problem in terms of picking the speaker. In a medium like television, you now have to take into account appearance factors as well as speaking ability. When using a medium like the radio, one only had to focus on vocal quality and control. If one were using print media, then the main consideration was in organization of content for maximum interest by the reader. While my examples are in reverse order, we see that as the medium becomes more evolved technologically, more factors have to be taken into account in terms of the sender receiver relationship.

I think the problem with the cool-hot distinction is that it doesn’t apply to all. Depending on the message, or the target audience, coolness can be a detractor. A prime example in my mind is when I see TV ads soliciting donations for abused animals or starving children. The images that are displayed evoke an outraged response from me that doesn’t match the cool narrative I hear. As a result the content becomes less valid on both sides, and rather than being prodded to donate, I’m prodded to change the channel.

Cyber-Friends

I have made friendships that existed exclusively in cyberspace. The major difference between them and face to face relationships is that they really aren’t substantial. That’s not to say that there isn’t a certain level of deep intimacy, because there is, but that intimacy is false in a way. In an online friendship or relationship there are two ways that you can approach it. One is to be honest about yourself and your personality, the other is to have a persona that isn’t really you. In both cases you have the ability to interact with people at a level that, due to anonymity, more vulnerable than you might experience in person.

That is unfortunately also the problem with those relationships. Without meeting face to face, you don’t have the same kind of investment in the friendship that you would with someone that you can actually spend time with outside of the comfort of the virtual world. Online I have access to millions of people who share interests with me to some varying degree. I don’t necessarily need to be your friend online, because I can just as easily go find someone else who will be just as interesting and accepting as you. For that reason, none of my online relationships have lasted without me being able to actually meet the person on the other side of the screen. That being said, both my best friend and my wife are the result of online friendships that became face to face friendships.

In the Workplace

One concept that I found interesting was that of workplace relationships. In my own experience, the smaller the company, the harder it is to separate personal relationships from professional ones. Smaller workplaces usually mean that you will interact with a specific group of individuals in a team more often. The increase in day to day interaction between members will usually mean that members will find themselves learning more intimate details about other members of their team or department than they would in a workplace with twice as many people. This level of intimacy can and will lead to more interactions outside of the office, especially between people with similar interests and hobbies.

In my last company my national team and our support teams numbered at less than one hundred and fifty people. Whenever we got together at the main office we would spend time after work hanging out and catching up with each other. The time we spent wasn’t just personal time, as many of us worked remotely, the time at the main office was important to us professionally as we used that time during work and off hours to keep the faces and voices together. Company functions encouraged us to bring our families so in many cases spouses got to know each other too.

 

In my current company, my department has over 500 people nationally and support teams that number in the thousands. In a month, other than the 15 employees that are in my region, I might interact with the same person twice, where in my previous company, I would interact with the same people on a daily basis. This is very important because in the larger company hierarchy and status differences become much more pronounced and important. In the smaller company I could take things directly to other departments. Filters were less important because to make things work we needed to be able to move quickly. Now, rather than keep my hierarchy informed, I take things to my hierarchy because information needs to be filtered and relayed in ways that allow other departments to categorize and prioritize issues.

Etiquette

I think that some of the text’s suggestions on communication media are a little outdated. When it comes to cellular phones, it is true that there is a time and a place, but to lump a restaurant in with the movies or church is apples to oranges. You don’t talk at the movies or church, regardless if it’s on the phone or with the person sitting next to you. It’s rude to the rest of the audience. In today’s business world, cell phones are a way of life. In my work I’m expected to be able to answer it 24/7. It’s important that my ringtone is appropriate for business and that use in a social situation is limited to business.

Answering machines and fax machines are quickly becoming outdated technology. There are safer and more secure ways to transmit form data than fax machines, and voicemail has become the predominant form of leaving messages. Even most home phone services come with voicemail making home answering machines obsolete. Faxes can now be transmitted directly to an e-mail box, and most fax machines are equipped with scan software making them capable of scanning documents into formats that can be stored on a computer and disseminated electronically at a lower cost and in a more secure manner.

Screen names fall into a different category as you have what’s personal and what’s professional. Most companies assign you a screen name that is easily identified as you for inter-office communication. If you are looking for work, create a username that can be easily identified as you for prospective employers and use that for your search. Conference calls fall into the same category. Make sure that when you speak to a group that cannot see you that you identify yourself and your position so that people know who you are and what your role is and how it is pertinent to the discussion.

Technology abuse is abundant in society today. Beepers, and answering machines haven’t really been a bother to me, but when people set me aside to have meaningless conversations with their friends, it sends a message that whoever is on the phone is more important than me. The same thing applies when putting someone on hold to take another call. That is no different than when someone approaches you while having a face to face conversation and interjects to pass information to one of the participants. It is up to the participants to decide which conversation is more important and kindly excuse themselves if need be. Rudeness is only in not acknowledging both parties and letting them know how you are prioritizing their potential discourse.

Organizational Symbiosis

The relationship between organizations and the environment is symbiotic. A prime example that is significant to us here in Northern California would be that of technology and Silicon Valley. Since the resources that we use to build key components of electronics are very abundant here, many technology companies such as HP, Intel and others have set up offices and manufacturing in the area. These companies need employees that are capable of designing devices as well as coming up with new and innovative ways of taking advantage of and improving the goods that are made and sold.

My high school was very much a reflection of the community and town that I grew up in. The emphasis on education was strong, but it also encouraged vocational training and skills so that its students could be suited to fill different needs of the community as adults. While some students left to pursue jobs and careers outside of the community, many stayed in the area after graduating and took up careers or opened businesses in the community. Even if only sticking around to start and raise families, the school provided educational paths that would allow its students to pursue whatever futures they desired.

As far as ethical obligations go, I don’t really think that educational institutions have any obligations to their communities beyond what that which they owe to the student body. The symbiotic relationship between a company and its environment is the same as the one between educational institutions and their communities. At all levels, the majority if not all of the student body will come from the surrounding community. It is in the best interest of the organization to make sure that the community is one that values a safe and comfortable learning environment. This is even more important at the college or University level since they depend on more than just tuition for success. It’s imperative that their graduates are successful so that they can recruit students from outside the community as well as recruiting top notch instructors that can bring things like research and scholarship grants that help to keep their facilities and curriculum relevant.

TMI?

One topic I found fascinating was on self-disclosure. Communication is really one of the most important aspects of any relationship. We’ve all heard the phrase “Too much information” or TMI at some point. I like how the text differentiates between self-disclosures and certain statements about what you’re feeling. Making the distinction between telling someone something about you that’s personal, rather than sharing an opinion is important for both the sender and the receiver.

The suggestion about time and place for disclosure is also important. Telling someone that you’re allergic to peanuts while discussing a work project may not be the most appropriate time. Just like letting someone you’ve just met know that you snore loudly when you sleep might cause them to decide that you’re expectations for the relationship are a little premature.

The part about responding to disclosures was the one that I liked the best. It’s reminder that just because someone reveals something personal about themselves or shares a personal situation with you, they aren’t always looking for an answer externally. It’s also important to keep that in mind when you choose to disclose something to someone else. Choosing whom and how you disclose something should be done with how the receiver will react in mind as well. If you want support and understanding without advice, going to someone who tries to fix things may not be the correct avenue. Likewise, if someone comes to you with a situation or problem, it may be wise to probe a little into what they’re looking for in a response, especially if the topic or disclosure is of a serious or delicate nature.

Who's on top?

Whether it is the competitive symmetry or submissive symmetry, I think they are equally the most difficult to change. We naturally resist change, and since the symmetrical roles would require the most change for anything to get done, they would cause the most friction. That friction would be easily noticeable and in most cases, to spare feelings one might pull back on making a change or the other member may attempt to change as well, switching the type of symmetry, but leaving the relationship with same conflicts.

 

In the same manner, the most damaging one to a relationship would be submissive symmetry. Since both parties are depending on the other for the relationship to move forward, the relationship will eventually stagnate. While some may consider this the least damaging outcome, in my experience it is the most likely to cause irreparable damage. In the other two scenarios, there is hope that dissatisfaction with the relationship will be voiced prior to the inevitable boiling of frustration that comes with nothing being done.

 

I think competitive symmetry could be the most damaging of the rigid role relations in terms of self-esteem. If the members of the relationship are truly incompatible, yet fighting for dominance, there is the highest chance that a conflict will occur that gets out of hand. One the gloves come off, there is no end to the potential of damage to both parties egos. Even the winner of such a conflict could find themselves regretting something they said or did. In the end, as the text suggests, I think it is best if the partners share one-up and one-down positions. It leads to the most satisfactory outcomes all the way around.

Does this make me look fat?

For me, relationships, romantic, or platonic, begin and end with personality. Physical appearance factors in only in that it can give me a brief overview of certain habits that help give me an initial impression of a person. When it comes to romance, this becomes even more important. Society has certain expectations in regards to relationships that puts a strong emphasis on keeping the same partner for life. While that standard has loosened up a bit over the years, we still look unfavorably on promiscuity. Since over time, our looks will change, and we will become less attractive, compatibility in personality really needs to be the standard by which we choose our partners.

 

10 years ago I would have been more accepting of Duck’s theory. Having started a relationship with my wife from over 600 miles away, does however throw a little bit of a wrench in the social cue portion of the theory. With the advances that we have made technologically in the last decade, physical proximity is not as much of a factor as it used to be. People are able to meet and build relationships over long distances, and then decide whether the next step is worth the change in location.

 

In my younger and stupider days I had eliminated someone based on a pre-interaction cue. Later, after that person and I had become very good friends, I made what I would call a foolish mistake by reconsidering that elimination in the hopes that it would affect a decision they were making that would impact our relationship. In the end they were more mature than I was and made sure that I didn’t go too far and ruin what to this day is my most treasured friendship.

Bring Down the Wall!

Picking just one concept out of this chapter to discuss is very difficult due to the intimate interlacing of the subject of intercultural communication. Since the pitfalls and solutions are in almost all areas are similar, it’s hard to single out a single concept without it overlapping two or three other concepts. For me, the section regarding barriers and the section regarding adapting were probably the most interesting.

I found the area regarding maximum differences especially interesting. Having grown up in a predominantly Asian community, it was interesting to learn that Western and Asian cultures are the most far apart. Considering that in my experience, many Asian cultures are trying very hard to assimilate western ways into their culture, this was particularly surprising. While I am fully aware of the traditional conflicts and differences between American culture and say Chinese or Japanese cultures, in a modern sense, the gaps are not as large as one might think.

In the past decade, China has slowly been moving towards a more capitalistic society. While their strong communist attitudes have made this a very slow process, they have been allowing more individuals to earn as well as opening up to more foreign businesses. In Japan, there has been a movement over the past 30 or so years that have brought their social attitudes much closer to what we have in America today. While they are still very ethnocentric, they much more tolerant of foreigners than they used to be, and they have made a lot of progress in gender equality and civil rights.

Check your Premises

Rationality, perfectibility, and mutability, which I will refer to as the three premises, aren’t exactly something that I can say I believe in. It would be easier for me to say that I agree with the ideas in principle, but that in reality they are all flawed. Something I learned early on is that contradictions cannot exist in reality. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises, one of them is wrong. The simplest way to explain this would be to put it in terms of flight. To say humans can’t fly, would be a false statement. To say humans cannot fly without assistance from an apparatus would be a correct statement.

The rationality premise in general holds true, however, in the information age, we find that what is being analyzed is in many cases incomplete if not altogether false. Good decisions require accurate information and an ability to see beyond the moment. As previous chapters have stated, as an audience we can bring our own experiences and prejudices into a situation which can also lead to making bad decisions.

The mutability premise, like the rationality premise, generally holds true, but only partly. As I stated in a previous post, while environment can shape an individual, it cannot define them. The flaw in a universal education system that uses this premise would be that it assumes that all human beings are capable of reaching the same level if environmental factors are the same. However, such a system would mean that none of us would know who Einstein is.

The perfectibility premise, which I intentionally left for last, is the one that holds up best. America was founded on the idea that perfection wasn’t something that could be achieved, but rather something that we could strive for daily. As Americans we know that there is always going to be room to improve the system, which is why we have the ability to change the Constitution. That isn’t to say that we cannot meet our own definitions of what it means to be perfect, but that is a subjective belief rather than an objective one, which is really the only flaw in the premise itself.

Creatures.

I can agree with Benedict’s assertion that our habits beliefs and impossibilities are shaped by our culture. I do not, however, believe that they are defined by it. I had the joy of growing up in a cultural melting pot. Early on it was difficult for me to understand the nuances of communicating with people due to accents, attitudes, and local slang. Like the Moroccan example from the text, eating dinner wasn’t just about dinner. Doing stuff didn’t always include doing anything. Because I interacted with people from different cultures, ethnicities, and countries on a regular basis, I was able to see how the regular interactions with other cultures could change the shaping that Benedict was speaking of.

It’s very dangerous to use something so broad scoped as culture as a basis for learned behavior. Someone who grew up here in America, but was raised by immigrants, would have their beliefs and habits shaped by family and society, which may not be the same. It would then fall to the individual to decide what things they would choose to absorb and imitate.

Making Faces =)

One concept that interested me was facial displays. Terms like poker-face and sad-eyes are commonplace in society. As with everything else regarding the study of communication, I love to learn the nuances that, more often than not, go overlooked by most of us in our day to day interactions with other people. There are times when I know, just by face and eyes, whether or not to pursue a certain direction in a conversation. I have at times used facial expressions to indicate to others that I don’t want to be approached.

On the flip side I’m regularly astounded by the number of people that are completely oblivious to facial expressions. With simple flexing of muscles we can display such things as happiness, sadness, curiosity, apathy, and anger. With such a wide range of emotional states that can be expressed without ever having to speak a word, it’s amazing how many people fail to understand a mood.

 

Bite your thumb at this.

Whenever I contemplate how different cultures might view nonverbal gestures or take different meanings from them I recall my 9^th grade English class. Romeo and Juliet was required reading, and the class was surprised that biting your thumb at someone was the equivalent of giving them the finger. With that in mind I tried to pay a lot more attention to gestures.

I’ve noticed that in most cases, gestures aren’t really used to communicate more than very simple ideas or commands. I may waggle a finger at someone to get them to come to me, but in Japan they do that by facing the palm down and curling the fingers down. Apparently it’s very important not to call someone over in the western fashion as that gesture is rude to them.

Within this country I haven’t noticed a whole lot of regional differences in nonverbal gestures with the exception of greetings and farewells. In the south physical contact is much more common place than you find in the west or northeast. While I might wave or at most share a brief handshake here in California, I’ve been hugged by complete strangers in South Carolina. I have noticed that since I have been traveling less for the past few years, I have become less sensitive to nonverbal gestures and cues than I used to be.

Are you mad, or am I number 1?

When it comes to non-verbal messages, it is actually very easy to have misinterpretations. While no specific instances of my own misinterpretation come to mind, I do know that it not only happened, but it usually resulted in an embarrassing situation (which is probably why I don’t remember specifics). One instance that I do remember wasn’t a result of my misinterpretation, but rather someone else’s. When in high school a friend and I were talking about vehicles we might like to have and a person misunderstood our gestures towards his vehicle as gestures toward him. Needless to say he was angry, and it almost led to a fight.

 When it comes to improving the accuracy with which I interpret non-verbal messages, I have found that asking for clarity helps. In many cases just getting the context of the gesture can vastly improve my understanding of it. If someone makes a gesture that gives me a reason to have an emotional response, I generally request that they clarify it for me so as not to be the person I mentioned above.

Nan desu ka? (What is that?)

The additional concept I chose was how language affects the way we see the world. Not only is it a fascinating concept, but one that I am very familiar with. The language that you learn directly translates into thought. I remember when I moved back to Hawaii at the age of 9, there was a huge difference in the way they spoke from what I had learned. Terminology, verbiage, and sometimes even the perceived meanings of words were completely foreign to me. Due to the cultural differences, despite the fact that we were all speaking English, their slang was so different from mine that it led to many misunderstandings.

 

In high school I became semi-fluent in Japanese. As the text suggests using French, the language I was speaking caused me to focus on different things like tone and gestures. When speaking the language, I also reached a point where I would find myself thinking in it. An amazing thing is how much of our language is based on or contains parts of other languages. It definitely makes you think about how unique our view of the world might be.

Battle of the Sexes

Men and women definitely use language differently. So much so that many languages have gender based usages of different words or different words depending on whether or not men are speaking to men, women are speaking to women, or male and female interactions. While English has evolved to be a much more gender neutral language, we still have a few words that are gender specific in use.

 

Statistically it has also been proven that women use up to four times as many words as men throughout the day. When you consider how amazing it is that you can have a man and a woman telling the same story, and the verbiage, expressions, and even gestures will differ considerably. Women tend to be much more interactive when speaking to each other than men. This tends to make women better listeners as well.

 

The differences between the way that men and women use language really isn’t that surprising when we consider many of the other differences between the sexes. I personally think that the differences and the study of them can help us to enhance our understanding of our language, society, and culture.

First Impressions

I’m not going to say that it is impossible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them. However, it is extremely difficult. “You never get a second chance to make a first impression” is probably one of the most true statements out there when it comes to perception. Short of being completely unaware of someone, even if we have no intention of interacting with someone, we make judgments about people we see based on their appearance. We evaluate things about people like clothing, posture, and hygiene. Even if we don’t actually take the time to talk to them, we still take stock of these things if for no other reason than to evaluate our environment.

 

When it comes to taking those observations and making judgments about people based on them, it can sometimes be very hard to be objective. Just because someone is dressed poorly, smells like they haven’t bathed in a week, and stands loosely with their shoulders slumped, doesn’t necessarily mean that aren’t some well-educated and successful business person. But very few of us would draw that conclusion based on that kind of appearance.

 

To make more fair judgments I think it is important to try not to categorize people until you actually take the time to get to know them. Not every bum is poor and lazy, not everyone wearing a power suit is eloquent and confident. One thing that has always helped me reserve my judgments is to pretend that everyone I meet is a spy and has carefully arranged their appearance. It is my job to see past the surface before coming to conclusions about them.

Social Rhetoric

            I found the social functions of rhetoric to be extremely interesting. I also think that in some ways they may be a little controversial, specifically the functions of testing ideas and shaping knowledge. Before I get to those, I would like to cover the other functions.

            If a speaker meets his obligation to his audience by researching his topic and presenting facts, then the sharing of that information is beneficial. However, that doesn’t always happen. This is where the persuading of others comes in. The old adage “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” can apply here. Effective speakers can convince audiences of falsehoods as well as truths. This possibility puts a little bit of an onus back onto the audience to check the validity of a speaker’s arguments.

            At this point I come to testing ideas and shaping knowledge. While good speakers will generally reject ideas that are illogical or can’t be supported with facts, some speakers will shape the facts to support ideas. This is where the audience must step in and demand well-reasoned and well supported arguments. The double edged sword that is the shaping of knowledge is where one must tread lightly. Truth cannot be dependent on anything. Consensus cannot be used to determine facts. While rhetoric can be used to disseminate facts, it cannot be used to produce them, in any sense.

            Thus I enter the dangerous areas of community building and power distribution. A community that is built on a foundation of strong facts, that support their system of beliefs, will have real power in it citizenry to be distributed. Conversely, a community whose ideas and beliefs are built on poorly reasoned ideas based on half-truths and lies will eventually fall apart.

Tell me no lies.

          Considering a well-known speaker I would prefer to avoid politics. Unfortunately, the most well-known speakers in this day and age are politicians. The nice thing about that is that if one were to look at our politicians one would find a very diverse group that have varying levels of education and backgrounds. Even many of the “career” politicians were in the past things such as business owners, teachers, lawyers, and doctors. Depending on which one you are listening to, and what topic they are speaking on, you may have differing strengths in characteristics.

          In the political arena I believe that credibility and power carry the most weight when swaying the voting populace to believe that you are the right person for the job. Experience, and trustworthiness are important, but you also have to present yourself as strong enough to actually accomplish and follow through on the promises you make. If you were to look at Congress and the current administration, you could see that neither side has had the strength or fortitude to follow through on campaign promises that they have been making for the past few years. While having their power balanced is something that has always been important in this country. Their standstill has meant that the status quo hasn’t changed.

          For them to build ethos in these areas it is important that they find ways to accomplish things that are for the good of the American people. If the economy and national debt are major concerns for the people, then they need to find ways to grow the economy and shrink the debt. Currently their power is based more on coercive power. While some may, I personally don’t trust people who hold threats over my head. Shifting to one of the other power bases, could increase trustworthiness. Placing experts in key cabinet positions, would also help their credibility and overall character.

The Voice

Of course I have been influenced by a speaker. I would even go so far as to say anyone who hasn’t been influenced by a speaker hasn’t had any contact with another human being. Whether it be family, teachers, clergy, co-workers, politicians, motivational speakers, or friends, we have all been influenced by things we have been told. We’ve shaped our opinions, biases, and beliefs on what people have told us and how those things coincide with our own perception.

 

            One of the better speakers I’ve heard was Colin Powell. His ability to relate his experiences and knowledge in ways that made me feel like I lived them myself made his communication very memorable. When he speaks it doesn’t sound rehearsed, but rather that he’s imparting a lifetime of knowledge and experience in way that’s tailored to suit me as the individual rather than the crowd around me.

 

            I’ve heard many bad speakers. One that stands out for me was Al Gore. It was in many respects the exact opposite of Colin Powell. So much so that only a short time in I couldn’t wait for him to be finished. I don’t remember much about his message only that I felt as though I was listening to a used car salesman trying to sell me a lemon and convince me that it was brand new luxury car. There was no logic, rhythm, or emotion to what he said. It seemed like he was reading a prepared statement and wanted to get away from the podium as much as I wanted to get away from the auditorium.

Know what I mean?

          The concept of defining communication was very interesting to me. As the text discusses it I get to ask myself how much definitions affect how we view the world. As there are many ways to define communication, I found that the idea of quantifying the definitions by adding descriptors, i.e. verbal or written communication, helps the listener or reader to have a better idea of what the speaker or writer is referring to.

 

Taking the idea to the next step I see how important it is for us to have a strong vocabulary in the language that we are communicating in. It helps us to understand what is being said, as well as allow us to better respond to what is being said. I find that many times, misunderstandings stem from a lack of vocabulary. While many words have clearly defined meanings and concepts, there are also very many, especially in English, that aren’t as clear.

 

          We’ve already covered how important early rhetorical scholars believed non-verbal cues were in communication. Adding the proper use of context and making points and statements as well defined for the listener as possible are also important. Lastly is knowing the limitations of the audience, and communicating in ways that they can understand that leave as little doubt as possible in the mind of the audience as to what your message or point is.

Game On!

        Communication is a patterned interaction when two things occur, first is that both participants must be able to think. Second is that both parties have to be playing the “game”. When considering it from the pragmatic perspective, the communication between parties must involve both parties having an objective. That objective doesn’t necessarily need to be self-serving, but the approach is one that leads to gaining something from the communication.

 

        In most cases, when we communicate with others we are looking for information. Whether it is just simple knowledge about the other party, or it being to gain insight that might allow us to gain something from them, information is exchanged. It’s like a game in that one party may make statements or ask questions that will prompt the other to give a direct response or answer, or in turn to refuse to respond or answer. Either way, the prompter will gain knowledge about the other party. Like a game, there is a back and forth where the players position themselves to reach their desired outcome.

 

        Unlike a game however, there will not always be a clear winner or loser. In an even exchange, both parties will come away with their desired goal reached, both considering the win theirs. In some cases both parties will walk away without reaching their desired goal, and feel that it could have gone better, or rethinking their strategies for future communications. Sometimes, one or both parties come away having only completed one goal, or gotten half of an answer. They may rethink what the best possible outcome was for them and reassess the goal realizing that they got the best that could have been expected.

 

        In any case, communication can definitely look like a game, and most of us treat it as such, even if we’re very selective about when and how we play and with whom. Even as I write this blog, I do so hoping to communicate information, insight, as well as achieve a passing grade in this class. Will I win? Will you?

World Building

          Let’s consider the idea of building a world through communication for a moment. The world that the text speaks of is perspective based. If we take the broadest definition of communication, one thing interacting with another, then our entire view of the world is based solely on communication. It takes into account the use of all the senses available to us, and the limitations of those senses. We learn about everything around us, whether or not it can speak, by using our senses to observe it.

 

          If we shorten the scope to limit ourselves to human to human communication, we begin to build a society. As we share what our senses are telling us with others, and they the same, we gain new perspective and even understanding of the world we build. We then develop a culture based on like beliefs, or perception. One of the core ideas that the culture here in America was founded upon was freedom.

 

          Even in its founding, the leaders of this country and in our culture, we still had to develop a better understanding of what freedom meant. Hence the end of slavery, the civil rights movement, and even today we continue to work towards giving everyone an equal opportunity to pursue happiness and find success, however one may define it.

 

Call it what you want, an apple is still an apple.

        Overall the history of rhetoric and rhetorical science was interesting. What stood out most to me was in the way that the periods were divided. Despite the overwhelming use of rhetoric for religious purposes through the medieval period, it was seen as stagnant. But it seems to me that rhetorical science was one of the few sciences that flourished. While it was mostly guided by the church, there was no end to the study, testing, and ultimately, the use of what had already been theorized about by the Greeks, but also in the development and testing of new methods by different religious organizations. What we lack is publication of the methods because their uses were so guarded by the organizations that used them.

 

        When I look at the climate of the world today, I see that the use of rhetoric is more important than ever. The number of different ways that we can communicate with each other makes it so much easier to get the message out. We’ve gone from spoken word, to written word, to digital words. Even now I am able to communicate my thoughts and ideas to millions of people with just a few keystrokes. That doesn’t necessarily make what I say the truth though. If I wanted to I could post online a picture of an apple, and call it an orange. I’m sure I could come up with all kinds of philosophical statements relating to the validity of my claim. Like a commercial I recently saw said “Everything on the internet is true”, people who believe that would be easily led to my way of thinking and start calling apples oranges. Despite my assertions though, the apple is still an apple.

 

Communication has existed since the first life form bumped into the second one. While rhetoric has become more sophisticated and elegant, in some ways it has also become more simple and dangerous. The right words in the wrong hands can be just as dangerous as giving loaded weapons to monkeys. Knowing the history of how rhetoric was used will hopefully help us to use communication skills and our knowledge of them more responsibly than some of our predecessors.

"Never give in"

When it comes to speakers that I admire, Winston Churchill immediately comes to mind. As a speaker and orator he used the three of Aristotle’s Appeals; ethos, pathos, and logos with great skill and effectiveness. What made him a great speaker was that his power to persuade didn’t come from just one of the Appeals, but rather the use of all three. 

Aristotle’s classification scheme works for Churchill, but isn’t fully encompassing. In some speeches he would keep his rhetoric to only two of the three Appeals. Churchill’s speeches almost invariably followed the five Cannon’s of Rhetoric. Even when speaking informally with little to no preparation he was able to come up with great and meaningful speeches that fit with his audience as well as being relevant to current events as the situation warranted.

 

I do not fancy myself as a motivational speaker. My strengths generally come from well planned, logical arguments. I can be passionate when speaking, but I generally don’t do well in passing that passion on to my audience. My persuasiveness comes from cold logic, if that isn’t sufficient to sway my audience, then I’m not going to succeed in persuading them of much.

Moral Oral

        Even as I read the text from chapter 1 this week a couple of names immediately popped into my head as the universe’s way of disproving theories that tout absolutes. One example of a great orator that was not morally good that immediately sprung to mind was Adolf Hitler. As a speaker he, or his speech writer, was a master of the use of the five cannons of rhetoric. Enough so that he was able to take a country that had recently been decimated in the first World War, and convince its people to rise from the ashes of that defeat, and become a world power again in a mere 21 years. In that short period of time he was also able to convince millions of people to commit atrocious acts.

        A better examination of history would show that great speakers have incited people to commit acts that we consider as morally evil for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. That is not to say, however, that the Greek assumption that one must be morally good to be an orator is wrong. Hitler “believed” that he was morally just to do the things he did. One could argue that many, if not all, of the dictators of the past and present felt morally justified in leading their peoples the way they did.

        The connection between goodness, truth, and public communication is only in the eye of the beholder. If the speaker can convince his audience that he believes something is good and true, then that can open the door for the audience to accept his beliefs as good and true.

Introduction

For purposes of this course I am The Answer is: 42. For those of you familiar with the work of Douglas Adams you’ll understand the reference. I am a former Marine who was born and raised in Hawaii. After ending my military career I moved to the Sacramento area where I have spent the last 9 years as a field service technician. I live in Antelope with my wife, two Siberian huskies, and three cats. I have been going to school at Sierra College trying to get my computer science degree for the past three years.

I have always been fascinated by the way people interact and communicate with each other, whether by verbal or non-verbal cues. In high school, I participated in speech and was on the debate team. I have been really lucky in that the way we communicate has evolved so much during my lifetime. From face to face conversations, to a bias towards the phone (both land line and mobile) to the extensive use of e-mail, instant messages and text messages. While this will be my first formal class communication studies since high school, I pride myself on being able to clearly and effectively communicate using many different methods.

                My main goal for this class is to become a better evaluator of the way others communicate. While it’s important that I communicate in ways that ensure that my message isn’t misunderstood, I also want to be able to make sure that I am not misunderstanding the message that others are giving to me. I hope that after this class I will be better able to understand cultural differences in the way people speak as well as be able to more effectively understand and use communication techniques myself.