Men and Women's language

I do agree that men and women use language differently. Just by stating out the basics guys talk about girls all the time, and then more guys spread the word and somehow it usually ends up back to the girls being talked about. But for some reason it doesn't seem like the girls words get's spread around nearly as often or as quick. I don't know if it's just they can keep a secret and we can't, or they do not care to talk about guys the way guys do about girls.
Guys don't get butt hurt when they hear things girls say about them but girls always do. Then you have to turn your attitude around and kiss their a** to get back on their good side (if your lucky.) You can always tell when a girl is upset, you can hear it in their voice. And when they say their okay, it means there is something wrong. When they say there not upset, it means of course their upset. Guys will usually say exactly what's on their mind when their asked things, but girls don't. They will hide their true answer until we figure it out ourselves.

Perceiving Others

I believe it is almost impossible to perceive someone without judging or categorizing them. When others start talking to us, we start to listen, but as they continue to speak, we start to make observations. Either the way they talk, what they are wearing, how they approached us, and many other ways. And always, everyone is going to talk about someone behind their back. The moment they are away from each other, the truth and trash talking come out, they're put in a category, and the judgmental comments are said. 


To make this as fair as possible, it's always nice to not let the other person here about what is being said about them. But why is it so hard for us to not be judgmental? It's part of our society to do so, whether is critiquing them on what they said or even correcting them without them knowing. Or simply it's fair enough to suggest  how they can talk better or approach the topic in another way.

Week 4 Discussion Question #2

A well known speaker of my choice would have to be The President of the United States. Not because it was the example in the question, but because there isn't many well known speakers that I know today. Obama's strongest characteristics are power and credibility. To me he is not an attractive person but to others he may be. But in terms of power, he is the President of the United States so people are going to listen to him, and earning the spot he's in now put him through the test of winning the audiences attention by making them believe everything he says, and used ethos, pathos and logos to show the crowd his emotional side, his logistics side, and his credibility. His credibility is everything you would imagine it being as the President. He dresses nice, not showing too much skin but not covering his face or hands. He is cleanly shaved and his hair his crisp. He speaks clearly and just fast enough to where you can understand everything he says. Any questions he's asked, he returns the answer involving the question, along with an answer.

Week 4 Discussion Question #1

I have been influenced by a speaker, and yet again it's Steve Jobs. I love how he built up his speech until the end. It kept me waiting on the edge of my seat until it was over. He used many examples on his previous jobs, personal stories of his family, and how he did in his earlier in his education. The tone in his voice also kept interested as well. I tend to focus on voices when I'm listening to a speaker, if him or her has an annoying voice. I do not tend to focus as much if they had a decent voice.

I'm trying to think of this speaker I had in 8th grade during a school wide event, (I can't remember his name) and this guy I tell you, had an annoying voice, and kept looking down at his paper. Didn't make great eye contact at all. He didn't involve the audience and wasn't funny when he tried to be. I don't know if I was just young and didn't know a thing about communication, but I thought of this guy first when you asked about  the worst speaker I have heard.

Week 3 Discussion Question #2

The pragmatic perspective would in fact make sense to think of as a patterned interaction. Going deep into detail about communicating; you look at your phone, find the person, write or send your message, and wait for them to respond. If you don't hear or see a response you look at your phone again and see if they've responded. You do this over and over until your read the response, send your response back and wait for them again. Until one person stops, it's usually the person who's turn it is to respond.

I do think of it as a game as well, kind of like most games played today, you both get a chance to go, you wait for your partner to go and when the other person has a chance to respond, you play your part to return the favor, and it goes on and on until one loses (or fails to respond.) In any way someone communicates, I think of it as a game, whether they are trying to win an audiences attention or cheering in a grand stands at a race or game. Trying to beat their oppenents by helping out who they are communicating with.

Week 2 Discussion Question #1

I believe that in today's society we very well continue to build new worlds of communication. Whether it's using our newest innovations/technology or methods. Individuals all communicate differently depending where they are located, what resources they have, and what culture they are from. We have a ton of ways in which we communicate today, such as; Cell phones, cameras, video cameras, speakers, computers, texting, instant messaging, commenting back and fourth on blogs, and articles or written papers. People express their ways of communication based on what is available and conveinent for them. Not everyone has phones and internet, so they have to find other ways of communicating with one another, such as notes, symbols or anything else they can think of. Our ways of communicating are expanding today because of the time and effort people put into making a new electronic way of us to pass communicate I think that's it's great that we have the newest items for us to have options to, but I also believe that it's ruining our culture the most by going in the deep end with our economy, and using our money to put into items we try and innovate, but not succeed.

Discussion Quesition #3

The concept I chose from week 1 to discuss in detail was the Communication Today: Contemporary Departments of Rhetoric and Communication Theory. It's crazy to think that in modern time, the new technology then was printing and where written communication became important. Then universities and colleges were organized into departments because that's what rhetoricians during the modern period believed was the correct way to study the spoken word of literary works and became known as the English department.

During the earlier years of the twentieth century, Rhetoric and the new teachers of the public formed their own professional organization, making their own speech of communication departments. And as of today, they are apart of the more popular campuses throughout the United States. Before the teachers created their own departments, students during the early days became serious about studying literary communication.

Discussion Question #2

In my personal opinion I do believe that an orator has to be morally good. Otherwise your just a speaker who is trying to win the audiences attention by telling them false information and things they want to hear. Whether they are true or not. I believe that goodness, truth, and public communication all can be tied into one. If you want goodness you must speak the truth. And if you speak the truth, it will get out and around to the public. And individuals will notice you and want you to be a leader for them. Talking to the public takes a lot of responsibility. Whether it's using Ethos, Pathos, or Logos to reach them or by already knowing the answers to the questions they're going to ask.

Discussion Question #1

A speaker who I admire is a guy by the name of Steve Jobs. I admire him because the first real speech I heard entering into the Communications world was "How to live before you die" by Steve Jobs. Jobs uses Ethos, Pathos, and Logos; but more of Ethos and Pathos. He uses his own experiences from his past within his family, the school's he's attended and the companies he's worked for.
For me, I personally believe I use Logos to do most of my pursuading because I like to provide others with facts and statistics, so they know I understand the topic were discussing or problem were trying to figure out. As for Aristotle's classification theme, I do believe it worked for Steve Jobs.