Personal and Professional Consequence

In chapter 9, Trenholm states “The ability to convey that information clearly and effectively is essential for professional advancement.” As a senior, I am swiftly approaching the possibility of an internship in a new field of work. This topic resonates with me because I am hopeful that my course work in Communications will guide me along the path to professional success. Communicating is an important piece to many job markets, but only certain individuals are able to attain a certain level of success. I see this example from the book as good advice. I have to remember that if ever I’m in a situation where my communication skills are going to be criticized, I need to be an effective facilitator. This holds true to my current job also. I have seen through my college experiences that my communication in my current job has improved; another example that communicating well can help your current employment status.

The Ex-Vice President

Among the many great speakers I have seen on television and in person, one that I enjoyed watching the most would have to be ex-vice-president Al Gore. Aside from having the fortunate pleasure in watching him speak near a former elementary school I worked at in the past, I’m also fond of his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. His strongest characteristics as a speaker would have to be all three-credibility, attractiveness, and power. In his film, he covers many aspects of environmental concerns from both a political and educational stand point. His credibility as a well educated vice-president made him quite appealing to listen to. As far as incorporating Ethos into the way he speaks, I believe he did an exceptional job already. However if he were to improve that aspect I think he should share his educational background with the audience more frequently. Although it’s obvious of his credibility as a political leader, noting his educational experiences can give others another perspective of his intelligence.

Memorable speaker

The best speaker I have heard thus far is actually a grad student here at SJSU. She was in one of my senior courses this past year and she actually inspired me. I have heard other speakers before, but she is definitely the more notable speaker I remember. I enjoyed listening to her because she was telling her experience about being a Communications major and how she grew to be a better communicator through the process. I related closely with what she spoke about, however it was the way she carried herself and her obvious confidence that I admired. It is that type of confidence I would like to achieve through my own experiences.
The worst speaker I have to admit was John McCain (apologies in advance to anybody who is a McCain fan). Although I watched him in the Presidential debate on television, he was quite possibly the worst speaker. He seemed nervous and portrayed defensive tactics in every message. It was evident through out the whole debate. I simply thought it was distasteful. I believe within a good debate, you need to have a level of rationality with an opposing individual/s regardless of opinion.

Misinterpreting

I thought the psychological model was interesting considering the way we communicate today. The psychological model discusses how “meanings intended by the source differ from the meanings interpreted by the source”. I believe this happens more often now because of the increasing use of technology. In our current generation there is consistent use of email and messaging through cell phones. I wanted to point out how messages through email or texting can be easily misinterpreted. For this reason is because body language and emotions can’t be seen or felt through a message. From personal experience, a friend thought I was mad because I wouldn’t reply to her text message when in actuality my phone was turned off. Messages cannot relay tone, reasoning, or feelings which are necessary for successful communication. When there is a lack of interpersonal communication messages can become confusing. These examples signify the psychological model and how they are present in today’s society.

Communicating Pragmatically

It completely makes sense that communication becomes a pattern of interaction. I would simply relate patterned interaction to ones personality. Through our development our personality’s progress and change forming the ways we communicate. Each of us has different standards in communicating with different individuals. Based on those standards (i.e. being humorous, serious, casual etc.) they essentially become our patterns.
Communication is similar to a game because we strategically choose our patterns and words to influence another individual. For example if I want someone to see my humorous side, I would tell a joke. If I want someone to know I’m serious about an issue I would change my tone and manner to be more earnest. However communication is unlike a game because there may not always be an end result. Players in a game would walk away either winning or losing. With communication both participants could either be satisfied or unconvinced.

Communicating Culture

When I think of building worlds in the American culture, I think of consumer waste. Not to say that the entire American culture is wasteful, I’m just using it as an example to how I visualize other countries. Here in America there is a need for everything consumable involving paper goods (i.e. toilet paper, paper towels, tissues, napkins). I think mainly about paper products because there are so many variations of the sort! Honestly do we need that many? When I traveled to different parts of Asia, paper goods simply didn’t exist or there was very little of. Here in America it’s everywhere! I think it’s a big part of the way we “build worlds” because it’s been engrained in the way we live for as long as I can remember. We communicate to future generations that it’s ok to consistently use paper products, and we keep doing so. As for it being successful, I would have to say it’s not because we are the main cause to our own waste.

Memory

One concept I wanted to discuss is one of the five canons of rhetoric. The one I think is the most important to note is memory. Memory is “the ability to hold content, style, and arrangement in one’s mind” (Trenholm). As with any good speech, being able to recall facts or data can be crucial for success. Also with memory, it’s useful during debates. The theory behind memory is that if a speaker can remember quickly, there is little room for error. I think it’s also useful for speakers because you don’t want to look like you’re reading off a piece of paper. Speakers tend to know their information better when information is memorized. It’s beneficial for a speaker to have a good memory so a speech can flow with ease. Memory also helps keep complex parts of a speech in order. It’s as if holding all the information from an outline inside your head.

Being an orator

I would have to agree with what the Greeks believed about moral beliefs coinciding with being an orator. When you’re speaking to an audience, you want them to believe what you say, so truth seems necessary. However morals are not essential to be a good one. When I envision an orator (I might not believe in them) I think of the used cars salesman down the street. They have wonderful persuasion skills in getting people to buy from them, but they may not be completely honest about their products. I have to admit they can be pretty good with their delivery in most instances. But on the other hand when there isn’t honesty behind words spoken, it can or eventually would become evident. So honesty and integrity can also be a valuable suit for a good orator. However just like the used cars salesman, the delivery of information is what constructs an orator as well.

I'm sticking to Logos

One particular speaker I admire would have to be my former boss and director Katherine. I had seen her facilitate meetings four to five times a year. I thought Katherine’s use of persuasion fell under the Logos category. Katherine was very well informed on everything that would go on in work from both the good and bad sides of situations. She tended to stay reasonable and would speak in meetings as if she were to address everything and everyone. She always took a practical approach in dealing with issues to make sure things would be resolved fairly. Being she was very professional, Aristotle’s classifications fit her work personality well. As for myself, I believe I fall under Logos as well. I suppose that is why I admired Katherine’s way of speaking in meetings and with other co-workers. I like to make sure that when I speak I’m being sensible and not overlooking details that are important. In general that is also how I try to persuade-with the use of logical information that hopefully everyone can agree upon.