Likes & Improvements

This class was extremely new to me, however it was interesting and enjoyable. I've never blogged, never had the urge to, never really wanted to. However, throughout this course and having to blog, I've enjoyed it. I thought it was a great idea because we as the class get to tell how we feel as well as in a way interact with other classmates by posting comments on their blogs. However, what I believe needs improvement, is the work load. I know there are standards we need to abide by, but I feel as though, it was a great deal of writing, with the blogs, journals, assignments, grading the journals, and comments it got overwhelming at times. Especially when we had to take quizzes in the midst of all that. I believe cutting down in some area's and implementing more in others would be best. Overall, I really did like the course and I thought it was a great experience.

Further discussion- Becoming more of a Responsible Communicator

Becoming more of a responsible communicator needs further discussion. I believe the book needs to elaborate more on how being a responsible communicator is a positive thing, and what the effects on not being a responsible communicator are. It gives two types of test to be sure one is making a good decision, however not every communication interaction is going to need decision making. I think they it needs more tips on how to be a responsible one, whether it’s in a workplace, relationship, or at school. People don’t realize how effective communication is and how much people really do take things to heart. I think the text needs to put more examples of situations in being a responsible communicator. Not only does it matter what the message is you send, but the tone of your voice, the choice of words you use. People need to realize going into an organizational job, that slang is not acceptable and nor does it show responsibility. So, in my own opinion the book needs to have more of a detailed approach on how to become a more responsible communicator. It will be extremely beneficial in any situation to have great tips and knowledge of this concept.

Organizational Communication- Most Interesting Concept

One concept I found most interesting, was Organizational Communication. I found that it was most interesting because to me it's an extremely useful concept. We're all going to school to better ourselves and most of us to go out into the workforce. Learning about Organizational Communication and it's characteristics of interdependence, environment, Hierarchical structure, can benefit one greatly. Being able to manage it, is even better. However, I feel the most useful thing about it is learning how to development in different organizational cultures. You never know what type of environment you will be placed it, so it's important to understand and know your surroundings. Learning to put aside what you've known from past experiences and start fresh is extremely important when coming into a new organization. The rules might not be the same as before, so knowing that a new organization will probably want different things is important to know. This whole chapter about organizational communication was extremely useful, it gave tips, as well as knowledge. Everyone sometime in their live will need to know communication skills within an organization, that is why it was one of my favorite concepts. You can't go wrong with learning about communicating in an organization, it will only better yourself in my opinion.

Using Media More Responsibly

The concept I thought would be tremendously useful is the concept on “Using Media More Responsibly” (Trenholm, 2008). I believe these tips in becoming a conscientious and more considerate media user will help people out a great deal. The first tip that Trenholm suggests is to know and understand that the media does affect us. We need to recognize how big of an impact that the media has on us and be able to judge what is true and fair. Secondly, most of the time when the media gives us facts, we tend to believe them right away, which often become to lazy to process what they are telling us, and instead just believe them. We need to understand what is going on around us and question what they are telling us. This will help us become more aware and knowledgeable, which will ultimately cause us to demand more truthful facts. Another tip is that most of us have issues with talk shows and other forms of media, however we never do anything about it, which causes more distasteful talk shows. We need to start to raise our standards, being aware and doing something about these unpleasant forms of media, will help us become more responsible media consumers. Lastly, by understand the distasteful form of media and rejecting it from our daily lives will cause us to want to find out other resources to use instead, more tasteful entertainment, perhaps. Being able to use these tips will help us become a more responsible and caring media user. I believe that these tips can help us out in a sense we might top watching and wasting our time with the junk on television.

Medium is the Message

I do agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message in a sense that it’s just as important as the content of the message. I believe that it determines whether or not someone will receive the message in the correct way or at all. For example, sending content through text messages, sometimes people never get them or get them to late because of the phone companies or sometimes people misinterpret what the message actually says. I know for me I sometimes forget I get a text message and never even respond back. However, if someone were to call me I’d answer back right away most of the time and in person of course I’d answer back. It just depends on the medium in which the message is sent. When it comes to his idea that television is a cool medium I think McLuhan has the right idea. For some people sending a message through television works for them, while others the radio might be a better way. I also, believe with McLuhan that people are getting extremely use to how television sends out information in a short and simple manner, which for most people works for them because there isn’t enough hours in the day. I think that they want abstracts in the newspapers, books, and magazines because of this same reason. That they are used to it on the television as well as it works for them in their everyday life. People also like to have a visual of what is going on, which television provides. When the newscasters show us clips of what may be happening or where something did happen we can put the story and the picture together. It changes the way we think.

Cyberspace Friendship

Surprisingly, I just recently met a friend exclusively through cyberspace. However, I am almost always against it, it’s a little different because this friend, is actually one of my best friends cousins. I’ve never met him because he is currently in Florida going to school. We met over Facebook, he requested me because I had the same last name as one of his friends, and he thought it was cool because if you know my last name it isn’t common. Well, we got to talking a great deal and now were extremely close friends. It’s different from a f2f relationship because of the fact that he can’t judge me. He has never seen me in person and doesn’t necessary know how I act around other people. He can’t judge me by the way I dress or how I am with other people. I’ve opened up to him in such a sort amount of time and I never do that, not even with my very closest friends. I feel like I can tell him anything and he honestly feels the same way. He is extremely honest and gives me great advice and there is no judgment. He is supposed to move back to the bay area and I am a little nervous because I don’t want to lose this great relationship. I would never have considered having a cyberspace friendship because of all the wacky people out there, but it’s nice to know that he is my best friends cousin and that’s why I believe I’ve let this friendship get to the extent in which it is in.

Managing Interpersonal Conflict

I chose the concept managing interpersonal conflict because I found it very interesting. The reason for this is because I, myself do not handle conflict well. I am the type that hates to fight and rather drop the conflict then working on it because I don’t like confrontation. I don’t like arguing and most of the time I feel as though the problem isn’t that important to even bring up. My mother says I get it from my father, which I believe is true. Whenever my father and I have an argument, we usually drop it. We don’t talk about it and we go about our day. My mother hates this, she believes that you need to talk each problem out, whereas my father and I don’t like to deal with it or waste our time. This is why I believe I am more of a person that withdraws. This is basically when conflict arises, I change subjects or just let it be and try not to focus or do anything about it. This is not the best approach sense usually, all my anger builds up and I tend to explode on the wrong moment. The book makes interesting points, where some people will accommodate to a situation, which I have done. It’s basically when the person gives in because they don’t feel like its important and they rather make the other person happy. This can be okay in certain situations, but not important ones. Compromising is something I do need to work on, it will probably help me not to explode less as well as work on communicating to the other person what I feel and listening to what they feel. There is also problem solving, which is discussing a new solution to the problem at stake. I felt as though these concepts can help me a great deal when it different relationships, which is why I choose it.

Filters- Duck’s theory

Honestly, I have to be physically attracted to someone, before even talking to them. Once, I am physically attracted, their personality has to be attracting as well. I’m not going to be able to be romantically into someone, without being physically attracted to them first. Duck’s theory makes complete sense, some filters I use more than others, when considering if they can be potential romantic partners, but I do and have used all of them before, it just depends on the situation. I’ve eliminated different men using different filters it just depends on the situation I am in. However, I usually use interaction cues and preinteraction cues the most. If I can’t hold a conversation or feel comfortable being myself around that person, then I will eliminate that person. I’ve connected with someone the first time I’ve talked to them, you feel a sense of comfort and you learn you can be yourself. Preinteraction cues are also important to me when deciding. If there nonverbal messages come off as they are better than me, they don’t take care of themselves then I usually won’t waste my time. I know what I like when looking at a person. If they look like they haven’t shaved in a couple weeks, it shows me they don’t care about themselves, which tells me they probably don’t care about working and having a successful life or goals. It may seem harsh, but I’ve been hurt way too many times, not to judge someone or eliminate them because of this. Of course sociological cues have an effect on a relationship; I don’t want to get involved with someone they won’t ever be around. It’s just pointless to me. There are a great deal of reasons why we eliminate people, most of the time we know what we want, so why waste time.

1) Rigid Complementarity, Competitive Symmetry, & Submissive Symmetry

I think the most difficult one to change is submissive symmetry. I am an extremely submissive person; I rarely like to make the decisions when it comes to being in a relationship with a significant other, or just in a friendly friendship. I need the other person to be the opposite of me and help me make the discussions rather than setting there, going back in forth trying to force one another to decided something. I don’t think anything ever gets done that way. I believe that most relationships are rigid, which is okay because most of the time each person takes a turn being dominate. Competitive can be a difficult one as well, but I am an athlete and I can easily change my competiveness on and off, especially if it might hinder a relationship. However, I do think that competitive symmetry is the most damaging. Unlike the submissive symmetry where the partners are trying to make one another happy, usually in a competitive symmetry relationship the people in it are only focusing on themselves. They don’t realize that it’s taking a toll on each other because they are so caught up in “winning”. When the realization happens, it’s usually too late to fix. I think rigid complementarity is extremely damaging to an individual’s self-esteem, especially if you aren’t the dominate one in the relationship. If you’re in a relationship, which I myself have been in where the other person takes control and basically tells you what you need to do, you’re always wrong, you start to believe it as well as start to think badly about yourself because you seem to be doing nothing right. There are ups and downs to all three patterns and it depends on the type of relationship to realize which one is damaging to the relationship, oneself and which one is difficult to change.

Becoming a More Open Communicator

The concept I felt that was most useful as well as interesting was the tips at the end of the chapter regarding to becoming a more open communicator. I thought the five tips could be extremely useful to people who are close-minded as well as prejudice. The first tip basically states that one should try to be open to new types of people, people who are outside of your comfort zone and group of friends. It further on states, we tend to be more comfortable with others that are like one’s own culture. At the end of this tip it asks the question of out of all the friends you have how many are either from a different racial, ethnic or religious background. My honest answer is more than half of my friends are from different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds. I have very few friends that are Caucasian or Greek. The majority of my friends are all Hispanic. The book stated that after answering this question the outcome is none or few it suggests that you should open up your mind to new people. Myself, I think I need to open myself to my own race more; however it is a little difficult because of the environment and people I’ve grown up with. The bay area is extremely diverse; where I live it’s mostly all Hispanic, Asians and African Americans. If you look at my five best friends you see one white, 4 Hispanics and one Chinese. Now to me that is pretty diverse and I love it. I think people should realize all these other cultures have a great deal to offer. I still learn something about each other these other cultures each day and I believe it makes me a wiser and smarter person. I understand how I can and should act with each of them and I respect their cultures like I respect my own. The second tip suggests learning about the history and cultures of different groups. Which, I love to do and I think it’s a great experience. The third tip is to become more fair minded and know and examine and understand your own possible stereotypes you might have. Another tip that the book suggests is to role play, look at things and experiences through another races perspective. This will open your mind a great deal more I believe. It will possibly help you understand who they are more. The last tip is to be more self confident. The more we are happy with ourselves, the more we are happy to learn and understand someone else. I believe this last tip is one of the best ones because I also believe this tip works in relationships. I believe that you have to be happy with oneself in order to be happy with a friend, significant other, family member and co-worker. Without being happy with oneself, you’re more likely to get down on these people as well as take it out on them. These tips I think are extremely important to be a more open communicator to different groups of people. I think we should all try at least one of these tips.

Premises

I believe mostly in the rationality premise. The perfectibility mutability premise is questionable. The rationality premise is basically the belief that people are to be trusted to make good decisions when needed. Some of the social institutions that practice these beliefs include democracy and trial by jury. This premise is the one I believe the most. I know I go into anytime of relationship whether it’s a friendship or a significant other, I tend to trust the person until they prove me otherwise. I believe that’s the only way to go through life is to trust someone first, to give them a chance. Otherwise I doubt you would have a happy life because you wouldn’t trust anyone as well as you wouldn’t be able to build great relationships with other people. I know one of the number one things in a relationship is trust, if you don’t have it, the relationship won’t be healthy. With trust comes people making good decisions. If you don’t trust someone I believe they won’t make a good decision in your eyes. I think just like trial by jury “you’re proven innocent until proven guilty”. The perfectibility premise based on that fact that everyone is born sinners, however through effort they can become good or have goodness within them. I don’t believe the fact that everyone is born a sinner, however I do believe that through sins we learn and we grow and can become good from it. I believe that maybe some people are born differently, but through time if they want to change they will change of for the better. But, to say everyone is born a sinner is a little dramatic to me. Lastly, the mutability premsis, is basically stating that humans act the way they do because of the environment in which they have been surrounded by. The way to change these behaviors is said through physical and psychological areas. I don’t believe people are shaped by their environment. Most people say growing up in the ghetto, mean the children are bad, however I have friends that want to prove everyone wrong and are in college now doing great things. I’ve seen rich kids act more stuck up and behave horrible, more than middle class people like me and low class people. I also believe that people can be happy with themselves already and have the environment bring them down. I think it just depends on the person.

Creatures of Our Culture?

I agree as well as disagree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are “creatures of out culture” and our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture. I believe that some of what we inhabit and believe is from our cultures, but as well as other cultures. I believe that yes we are shaped by our culture as well as from our genes. I know that I as a person sometimes won’t act in a way that my culture would approve of. We break rules because we are human and we have our own individuality. However, I believe society sets limits and disapproves of certain things an individual might do because of their culture. I don’t think my culture defines who I am entirely, but at the same time it is a part of me. When it comes to impossibilities, I believe that comes from the individual and what they truly believe they can do and accomplish. My brother and I come from the same culture, everything comes easy to him, but I know he sets limits to sports because that is something he isn’t so great at. He doesn’t like to fail, therefore he sets limits, so to him he doesn’t fail. This is basically setting a limit to all your possibilities. When it comes to myself I am really good at sports, I’m street smart, but I am not to great with book smarts. However, I don’t set limits, I try new things and if it doesn’t work I move on. It isn’t impossible for him to do well at a sport, but he thinks’ it’s impossible. It might be impossible for me to accomplish being a doctor, but I won’t knock it till I try it. That’s how we work individually. My brother and I come from the same culture, yet we act differently when it comes to what we think we can accomplish. If you want to break through the limits within your own culture, I believe you have to take chances, understand that failure does happen, but it’s not the end of the world. If you become your own person and not what your culture or society believes you should be, you can break through these limits. I’m sure we’ve all regretted or did something our culture wouldn’t approve of, well to me that’s breaking through the limits.

Interaction Zones

I felt that the Interaction Zone Table 5.3 shows in the book was interesting. I knew people had comfort levels, but I didn't realize there was types of distance. For instance the "intimate distance" It's when the two people who are having a conversation are about eighteen inches apart. This type of distance is used for private conversations or inmate discussions (Trenholm 2008). The next distance that is described is the "personal distance" this can go as close to eighteen inches and as long as four feet. This is for friendly conversations. I think it's for people who are comfortable around each other but still want to keep that little distance. Then there is "social distance" which can go anywhere from four feet to twelve feet, this distance is used for business purposes. Lastly, there is "public distance" is twelve feet to wherever you can hear and see that person. This last distance is for public speaking and such. I believe this is useful information because it shows the four main settings a person will be placed in. It shows one which is a safe distance and which isn't so you don't make whoever you are speaking to uncomfortable or if you are the listener you know what is a proper distance for oneself without looking like you don't like the person or are uninterested. Some people like to keep a distance and they don't like people in their space. I'm honestly going to start using these techniques because I feel as though professionally there should be a certain amount of closeness, but you don't want to be at an intimate distance and overstep your boundaries. Overall I think this concept is extremely useful. [ All information was found on Page 129 table 5.3 ]

Nonverbal Messages In Other Cultures

My first semester at San Jose State University in one of my COMM classes, the teacher showed us a video of how nonverbal messages are different around the world. I had never really thought about it. The gesture we use with our finger to tell someone to come here in Latin American is known for being romantically into someone. Wanting their attention they simply put their palm tilted towards yourself and use a finger with a back and forth motion.
That's one of the many cues one might want to be careful using if in another county. Also, in America our thumbs up and mean screw you in another person's language. In some countries looking into someone's eye's when speaking is disrespectful or standing to close can be as well. Some a form of greeting is kissing someone on both cheeks, where in others its a handshake.
I haven't necessarily moved around this country, but I've had many different group of friends from other cultures. I've seen how Filipinos greet each other, with just one kiss on the check and a hug. I had to get used to it meeting my friends parents, I always just said hello or gave a hand shake. When I started hanging out with my Hispanic friends it was a nod or handshake to the young people and with older it was a hello or hug depending on the person. The grandma and grandpa's you'd have to give them a hug and a kiss on the cheek. I'd start to learn more and more nonverbal cues that they would give and start to pick them up as well. I believe every culture as something to learn from and if you can take something away from it then I think it's a great learning experience. I love how I've grown up in a diverse society and I wouldn't change it for anything.

Misinterpretation of Nonverbal Messages

I have misinterpreted nonverbal messages my whole life. I've been quick to judge, when really I just need to slow down and think first. But, not only have I done it to others, its been done to me as well. Think of it as an ongoing process. Many ways in which I've come across it as well as done it is through text messages, emails, aim, Facebook, Myspace and any other networking site I may have missed. It's also the facial expressions people give and their body posture. I know I don't get along with girls at all, I hang out with mostly all guys, so when they bring a girl around I question it. There was one instance I was hanging out with my group of guy friends and this girl comes out of no where. Her facial expression towards me was rude and her body posture made it seem like she was better then me. However, after thirty minutes, I was told that my body posture and facial expression when she came was rude and made it seem like I didn't want her there. I misinterpreted it as for her doing it to me first when I really did it to her and she was just trying to keep her distance. I guess her facial reactions were of why is she looking at me, what did i do to her type of thing because of my nonverbal actions. After that, I got to know her and she seems like a nice person.
I believe people can increase the accuracy of interpreting a nonverbal message by having an open mind. A person shouldn't judge of gesture given. Also, understand what is stated nonverbally, may not be stated verbally because that person might be scared to say something. Know your place and know that there are many possibilities of nonverbal gestures.

Ways Nonverbal & Verbal Messages Interact

The concept I choose, was in Chapter 4 table 5.2: Some Ways Nonverbal and Verbal Messages Interact. This concept intrigued me greatly because I never really thought about the six ways in which it could happen. The first one: Repeating, it stated that if someone said give me five minutes and the person held up their hand showing five, it would be a sign of accuracy. Always watch out for someone contracting themselves, one can do this by the nonverbal message, mealing the tone of your voice doesn't match up to watch you are verbally saying. Which, I've done plenty of times with my mother. When she asks me to do a simple chore I say "Yes, I'd be happy to", but with an attitude most of the time. I know it annoys her and she feels disrespected in some cases, but I never realized how I was contracting myself, by putting attitude in my response. Substituting, is when someone asks you a question and without verbally responding you might nod your head or perhaps roll your eyes. Complementing, is often read in your face. Maybe someone says "Your outfit looks cute" and their face has a big smile on it. It's complementing not only the message, but what your saying is true. Accenting, is basically when you emphasize a word more then the other, when speaking, it has to do with the tone of your voice. Lastly, regulating the book gave an example of someone looking at their watch while the speak is talking. This signifies that maybe you have somewhere to be. All six of these ways show how nonverbal and verbal messages interact with each other. I found it interesting because looking back I've seen myself do these things unconsciously.

Do Men & Women Use Language Differently?

When asked the question do you agree that men and women use language differently? I have to say yes and no. I do believe at times we use a different language especially when explaining things, but at the same time I am known to think like a guy and speak like them. I think overall it depends on the situation. I think the reason is partly because of the expectations we've been brought up with by society, in how a girl should act and how a guy should act in a give situation. However, the book gives examples of when these might happen, such as a guy inviting friends over without consulting his girlfriend, that has happened to me before I never got upset. I don't know if it's because I've grown up with all guys and tend to get along better with them that I act like them or what not. However, I do have my "girl" moments. I believe areas in which we are different, is like the book stated double talk and story telling. Another area the book touches on is how women are better at "oriented talk" while men are better at "task-oriented talk". When it comes to vocabulary in language women tend to used more detailed terms and as women we tend to be less obscene. Grammatically we differ to such as we ask short questions and are more polite. However, men more then women often start topics. I believe when it comes to openness about conversation, I believe it depends on the topic of conversation. Women might shy away with a topic of sex whereas men probably wouldn't have a difficult time discussing it. However, it also depends who one is talking to. Either way men and women have their similarities and differences when it comes to using language.

Judging

I absolutely think it is not possible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them. I believe that we've gotten so use to judging people as well as being judged we tend to do it unintentionally, unconsciously and sometimes even on purpose. Like Chapter 3 in the book stated, we are poor listeners in America. When we listen we either pay attention to the person or look like we're listening and pay attention elsewhere. The book also states that we do three things when listening, "stimuli structure", "stability", and "meaning". We tend to focus on past knowledge and categories to define people, when listening to them. Right away we realize that we are either talking to a female, male, or a transgender person those are all three categories. We often notice age, color and clothing style, which again are all categories. I think it is impossible to not categorize someone because we do it whether we know it or not.
Judging might have some hope in the fairness area, maybe put yourself in their shoes first. We can make fair judgments by basing them on fact and not on opinion. There are listening strategies that chapter 3 touched on. They included improving attention, interpretation, evaluation, responding as well as storage and retrieval. I believe that those five listening techniques can help being fair in the area of judging and categorizing people. I believe if you have a positive attitude in the beginning and are open to hearing someone else's point of view your on to a good start.

An Interesting Concept- Intentionality

The concept I chose is intentionality, which focuses on if communication can be unintentional or if it's just intentional. Either way my opinion is that communication can be unintentional or intentional because either way you are sending out a message even if you realized it or not. People can tell a great deal about expressions, which says a lot about your mood at that moment. People say actions speak louder than words. An example the book gives about Brennan seeing Brianne and she not realizing he is there, Brianne frowns or looked annoyed because she did something revealing, which then Brennan makes an assumption about her mood at the moment. Even though Brianne didn't realize Brennan was watching she made that facial reaction. She communicated her mood at that given moment, whether she realized it or not. This concept made me think, how many times have I made a facial reaction not realizing it and/or people were watching me? What kind of message did I send to whoever saw me? Either way I "sent" a message and someone "received" it, regardless if I meant to or not.

Pragmatic Perspective

In a way it makes sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction. In relationships we tend to build patterns when communicating. The way I talk to my mother when she yells at me, is the same way every time. The way my mother yells at me when she is mad is the same every time. By us making these acts between each other we are interacting. Communication is like a game because their are two or more players involved when communicating. Like the book states there are "partners" and these "partners" make moves like in a game, which in communicating it is known as an act. These acts result in playoffs which result in the partners becoming interdependent. There is no "I" in team. Therefore the team depends on everyone, just like in communicating you are communicating with another person, you can't just depend on yourself. In soccer I can't win a game without the help of my other teammates and the goalie. When I communicate I can't make a point without the other sides opinion/argument. Otherwise I'd be arguing with myself. However, communication isn't always like a game. Sometimes there's serious issues and it's not all fun in games. When communicating people take in their surroundings and who their partner is. It a game, players aren't interested in where there playing, there main focus is on the game and where their partner is, not who they are.

social constructionist perspective

The social constructionist perspective basically states that we build worlds by using four cultural tools. These tools help us communicate and create different worlds around us. These four tools consist of languages, customs, traditions and rules and with each of those four components a cultural world is built. Each culture has their own language, custom, traditions and rules. For example the way I speak with my family is different by generation. I won't talk to my cousin the way I talk to my grandparents. However, if my grandparents are in the same room I won't talk to my cousin how I'd really talk to her if she's not there. The languages and rules are different yet our traditions and most of our customs are the same. Now I can't talk to my friends the way I talk to my family. All four of the components are completely different. With my family we talk proper, have certain religious beliefs, traditions such as a prayer before we eat and have rules to adhere by. With my friends we talk with slang, don't really discuss our customs or beliefs, have traditions such as playing soccer every Monday and rules such as not being able to date the same guy. I think that these concepts contribute to success in our culture by giving us a path to follow, but at the same time allow us to go on different paths and try new things. With any concept there is always room to explore and do new things.

The Greeks/Orator/Goodness-Truth-Public Communication

Even though I am Greek [ =) ], I don't agree with an individual having to be morally good to be an orator. I think there are perks on both sides. For instance, if a person is morally good, they will probably grab the attention of that audience as well as their trust. I also believe if someone is morally bad the audience would still want to listen because of political views and things of that nature. I think that if someone is morally good or bad it doesn't determined what type of speaker they are. Most people do break morals and standards, I am sure that everyone has at one point or another. So, I do disagree with the Greeks in that sense. However, I do believe there is a connection between goodness, truth, and public communication. In most cases in order to persuade an audience or at least get them on ones side, being a good kindhearted person as well as truthful wins almost every time. Also, when public speaking if one has this good quality about themselves a listener can most of the time hear that soft soothing tone in ones voice, and tends to listen more. Tone is extremely important when communicating. I also believe that being truthful helps justify what one is speaking about.

Mia Hamm

I started to think about someone who I look up to. With that in mind I thought about Mia Hamm, one of the greatest female soccer players. A light bulb wen toff in my head and I realized that she too is a great speaker. No only is she passionate about soccer, but about the points she tries to get across to her listeners. The one of her voice tells a story in itself. When she starts off speaker her "attention getter" is almost always something funny. Which to me will always get an audiences attention. She does a great job in giving us an overall idea of what she will be discussing and she gives stories to back up what she is saying. usually the stories are personal experiences, which to be is one of the most affect ways to get an audience to listen. Her speaking abilities as many others that I have come across derive from ethos, pathos and logos. I already look up to Mia Hamm and respect her so for me she is already credible (ethos). Her passion for what she is saying and tone of voice gives her an emotional control over the audience (pathos). She always, always gives logic to what she is saying by examples and own life experiences (logos).
I, like Mia Hamm when speaking take it very seriously. My abilities to be persuasive comes from the passion of wanting to make an effect on whoever is listening. I believe that's a personal quality I have. I want to be able to touch someone when I speak. I don't want them to walk away thinking, "That's 10 minutes of my life I am never getting back". I want them to walk away with, "Wow, I never really thought about that before". For that to happen I believe that you have to convince the audience you are passionate and trustworthy. That they can respect you and that you do have emotion too. Putting your own life experiences in what you are saying makes you human too. Overall I believe that Aristotle's classification scheme works for her (Mia Hamm) as well as myself.

A Little Something About Me

Hello! I've never blogged before, so this is all knew to me. I am currently a senior at SJSU and will hopefully be graduating this up coming summer! =) I am a Communication Studies Major and a Child Development Minor. I just turned 21 on August 25th- WOOT WOOT!!! Soccer is my life. Chivas de guadalajara is my favorite soccer team. I love to spend time with my family they are extremely important to me. I enjoy the outdoors: wakeboarding, knee boarding, snow boarding, swimming, camping and playing soccer just to name a few. But, don't get me wrong I do loooove to shop! My goal for this class is to not procrastinate and try and get the most out of it, especially sense it's one of my last COMM classes I am taking.

Good luck to everyone this semester! =)