LAST BLOG POST!
What I would like to take from this class is the idea that public speaking just isn't that big of a deal. I build it up to such epic proportions in my head, what with the nerves and the anxiety and all. I was just starting to get to the point in the semester with these speeches where I could explore how much fun I have up in front of people. I think that in another two or so speeches I may have been able to stop looking at public speaking as something that is going to tie my bowels into knots, but more as an opportunity to ...play. I'd really be able to take all of the tools I have acquired this semester and be able to use them to make a fun game out presentations in general. It's something I was able to do in my last rank test; instead of freaking out on whether I was getting everything right I was somehow able to relax and just have fun. I love martial arts, so why shouldn't I take the opportunity to enjoy the test? And it worked - I totally kicked ass. If I could translate this mentality into not only public speaking, but all other areas of my life, well, I think I would be one happy camper.
I've really enjoyed getting to know you all! (This has been my favorite class people-wise by far...) I hope you all have a fantastic summer!
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Nostalgia Sessions Part 2
I would have to say that out of all of our speeches, I probably liked the informative speech the best. At least, that is the speech I felt best about. I am a huge nutrition geek and I felt really confident getting up there and talking about Paleo Nutrition. I also actually really liked having the power point up there, because it was almost like speaking with a friend up there. A non-verbal, two-dimensional and very colorful friend. And even though the informative speech involved a lot of work researching and putting everything together, in the end that made me feel even more confident about my topic. Which just does to show that you get out of it what you put into it, right?
Actually, the more I think about it I realize that the persuasive speech is up there too. I had a lot of fun with that topic. (How could you not, with a subject like play?) but I think the informative speech wins, just because I had a lot of stress going on while I was preparing the persuasive speech. But both topics were well researched, had power points, and were fun to talk about.
As "enjoyable" as they were, I am certainly glad to have them all over with. :)
Actually, the more I think about it I realize that the persuasive speech is up there too. I had a lot of fun with that topic. (How could you not, with a subject like play?) but I think the informative speech wins, just because I had a lot of stress going on while I was preparing the persuasive speech. But both topics were well researched, had power points, and were fun to talk about.
As "enjoyable" as they were, I am certainly glad to have them all over with. :)
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Nostalgia Sessions Part 1
What concept or concepts have I found most helpful in this class? well, I know this is kind of a cop-out answer, but I found everything to be useful. If I had to pick out specifics though, I would have to say that the chapter on organizational patterns and the chapter on reasoning stand out in my mind. I have come to the realization that without a good foundation you won't go anywhere. Each day seems to drive that point a little more home, and it is true in public speaking as well as the rest of life. Good organization in the preparation stages of your speech will make your life SO MUCH EASIER. All across the board, too.
I liked the section on reasoning because weak arguments do not a happy Emerald make. Whether you are writing or speaking, having a clear, sensible argument that is derived from solid evidence feels really damn good. Having the little table of fallacies was helpful, as well as having a better understanding of how to use different types of reasoning. I think I still need some work on proper deductive/inductive reasoning skills, but hey, it'll come in time.
And hooray for being done with out speeches! Does that feel good or what?!
I liked the section on reasoning because weak arguments do not a happy Emerald make. Whether you are writing or speaking, having a clear, sensible argument that is derived from solid evidence feels really damn good. Having the little table of fallacies was helpful, as well as having a better understanding of how to use different types of reasoning. I think I still need some work on proper deductive/inductive reasoning skills, but hey, it'll come in time.
And hooray for being done with out speeches! Does that feel good or what?!
Friday, April 27, 2012
A fallacy is simply an error in making your argument. The mistake can appear in your claim, your evidence, or in your reasoning. Taking a ride on the fallacy bandwagon will ensure that you have a weak argument that can be easily ripped apart in the event that you have opposition with weak-seeking fallacy hounds. The four main categories of fallacies are:
1. Faulty assertions
2. Flawed evidence
3. Defective reasoning
4. Erroneous responses
Looking at the blip on fallacies in the chapter in addition to looking at the handy dandy fallacy table in the text, I can't help but think that media and all of the people in it are feeding the public fallacies by the earful/eyeful/mouthful. Jeez. But I am pretty sure that I have already had that ranto, so...
Claim-based fallacies stem from an error in basic assumptions or assertions. Types of claim-based fallcies include False Dilemma, Begging the Question, Slippery Slope, and Ad Ignorantiam.
Fallacies in evidence are a result of the evidence being irrelevant, inaccurate, insufficient, or even having nothing to do with the claim. Red herring, Comparitive Evidence Fallacy, Ad Populum, and the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy are types of fallacies in evidence.
Fallacies in reasoning are errors in the way that the speaker links the evidence to the claims. They include the Division Fallacy, the Hasty Generalization Fallacy (the bane of Ents everywhere), the Post Hoc Fallacy, and the Weak Analogy Fallacy.
Finally, we have fallacies in responding, in which the listener makes errors while critiquing a speaker's argument. These include the Ad hominem Fallacy, the Guilt by Association Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, and the Loaded Word Fallacy.
I feel like watching the election coverage is going to get a lot more entertaining with this better understanding of fallacy in argument.
1. Faulty assertions
2. Flawed evidence
3. Defective reasoning
4. Erroneous responses
Looking at the blip on fallacies in the chapter in addition to looking at the handy dandy fallacy table in the text, I can't help but think that media and all of the people in it are feeding the public fallacies by the earful/eyeful/mouthful. Jeez. But I am pretty sure that I have already had that ranto, so...
Claim-based fallacies stem from an error in basic assumptions or assertions. Types of claim-based fallcies include False Dilemma, Begging the Question, Slippery Slope, and Ad Ignorantiam.
Fallacies in evidence are a result of the evidence being irrelevant, inaccurate, insufficient, or even having nothing to do with the claim. Red herring, Comparitive Evidence Fallacy, Ad Populum, and the Appeal to Tradition Fallacy are types of fallacies in evidence.
Fallacies in reasoning are errors in the way that the speaker links the evidence to the claims. They include the Division Fallacy, the Hasty Generalization Fallacy (the bane of Ents everywhere), the Post Hoc Fallacy, and the Weak Analogy Fallacy.
Finally, we have fallacies in responding, in which the listener makes errors while critiquing a speaker's argument. These include the Ad hominem Fallacy, the Guilt by Association Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, and the Loaded Word Fallacy.
I feel like watching the election coverage is going to get a lot more entertaining with this better understanding of fallacy in argument.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Recent Discussions In Which I Have Been Charmingly Persuasive
Huh. Well of course I am drawing a complete blank here. I feel like I don't do a lot of arguing/persuading nowadays, though I am sure that my room mate would say otherwise. In reading the text, I probably use all of them, and probably more often than I think. I took a Critical thinking class with Alastair Moles a number of years ago (totally recommend that class) and I learned quite a bit about logic, as well has how to make more solid claims. But I think I am a lot better at unraveling other people's flawed logic, and pointing out fallacies in other people's words. Because, well, that kind of stuff tickles me.
If I had to narrow it down I would say that I probably use causal and analogical reasoning the most, and I tend to try to appeal to logos and pathos more often than not. I think they are what I respond to the most, and therefor I feel like they are more powerful tools for me personally. I like facts and statistics. I like information to be well sourced. When someone makes a claim but they can't back it up I usually don't pay attention to it. I think that appeals to pathos can be very strong, but that it is also very easy to manipulate people emotionally, so one needs to be careful in their appeals to pathos, and also be wary when someone uses your own emotions in order to sway your opinion. I like causal reasoning because I like If-Then statements, and they seem to follow the causal train of thought, though I suppose you can really do anything with If-Then statements. And i like analogical thinking because i can relate concepts to other concepts easily enough, which can make it easier to make my point to someone who perhaps relates to things differently than I do. All I have to do is find out what they geek out on and relate to that.
An Example being last night in my Tai Chi class. We had a new guy come in and the instructor was having me work with him for the class. After going over a few positions and movements, as well as addressing the gentleman's posture, my instructor stopped us and asked us to tell him what the differences were in three or four stances that he showed us, all from different martial arts styles. The guy starting saying that the hand placements were slightly different, and the feet had different angles to them, but I knew my teacher was asking a trick question. There were all the same stance. I said as much , and the new student was having a hard time wrapping his brain around that, as clearly the hands were in a different position in each of them, and yadda yadda yadda. After listening to my teacher try to explain the concept for a few minutes and not get anywhere, I said, "it like putting Monet, Picasso, and a woman in a red dress all in the same room. If you have Monet and Picasso paint the exact same woman, they will still come up with hugely different paintings. It's the same subject, but their styles are so incredibly different that you would wind up with two very distinct pieces of artwork." And that cleared it up right quick.
If I had to narrow it down I would say that I probably use causal and analogical reasoning the most, and I tend to try to appeal to logos and pathos more often than not. I think they are what I respond to the most, and therefor I feel like they are more powerful tools for me personally. I like facts and statistics. I like information to be well sourced. When someone makes a claim but they can't back it up I usually don't pay attention to it. I think that appeals to pathos can be very strong, but that it is also very easy to manipulate people emotionally, so one needs to be careful in their appeals to pathos, and also be wary when someone uses your own emotions in order to sway your opinion. I like causal reasoning because I like If-Then statements, and they seem to follow the causal train of thought, though I suppose you can really do anything with If-Then statements. And i like analogical thinking because i can relate concepts to other concepts easily enough, which can make it easier to make my point to someone who perhaps relates to things differently than I do. All I have to do is find out what they geek out on and relate to that.
An Example being last night in my Tai Chi class. We had a new guy come in and the instructor was having me work with him for the class. After going over a few positions and movements, as well as addressing the gentleman's posture, my instructor stopped us and asked us to tell him what the differences were in three or four stances that he showed us, all from different martial arts styles. The guy starting saying that the hand placements were slightly different, and the feet had different angles to them, but I knew my teacher was asking a trick question. There were all the same stance. I said as much , and the new student was having a hard time wrapping his brain around that, as clearly the hands were in a different position in each of them, and yadda yadda yadda. After listening to my teacher try to explain the concept for a few minutes and not get anywhere, I said, "it like putting Monet, Picasso, and a woman in a red dress all in the same room. If you have Monet and Picasso paint the exact same woman, they will still come up with hugely different paintings. It's the same subject, but their styles are so incredibly different that you would wind up with two very distinct pieces of artwork." And that cleared it up right quick.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Oh, Speech Buddies....
Let's hear it for this week's round of speech buddy videos.
Lisa's blip on breast cancer was pretty short, but what I did notice was that she was doing a pretty good job relating the topic to the audience. Bring it on home, honey.
Brandi on not feeding the wildlife: While I thought her narrative was alright, I thought it was a little long to be a part of the introduction. At least it seemed to be the introduction. I thought it was kind of like pulling out the big guns a little too early. Also, I found her voice to be rather flat, and she breezed through everything really quickly, making me feel as though she was more reciting information instead of being an "expert" on the topic.
Hans gave me the impression that he himself needed to cut back on the sugar. Settle down there Hans. I found his speaking approach to be a little too contrived, and it made me feel like I was being patronized. I feel like his speaking style would have been appropriate had he been presenting on Sesame Street, but not to a group of adults. I couldn't focus on the technicalities of his speech because I was too focused on how much I didn't like his speech pattern. Which was actually good food for thought. Though I have to say that I am not in the habit of talking to small children like they are small children, much less adults.
I thought Dixie did alright with her pro homeschooling speech. She outlined her points well enough, everything had a nice flow, she seemed well-researched. Her voice was a little boring, but that's just me being picky. I thought she made her point quite well.
In contrast, I didn't care for Robert's cons of homeschooling speech at all. His whole speech felt vague and put together with a generic formula, rather than organized and professional. I also completely disagreed with him, and I thought that he could have gone a hundred different routes to make a better argument against homeschooling than, "We just can't expect parents to do their job and raise their kids, that's what teachers are for." I do think, however, that Robert's points did an excellent job of highlighting how skewed our perception is of how education "should" work. Education starts in the home, and while I don't expect every parent to be able to teach Advanced Placement Chemistry to their kids, they should be able to handle teaching their kids the basics of our society. And I have a huge problem with the whole "Should parent's be expected to give up their careers just so they can teach their kids?" mentality. It is not okay to just dump your kids off at school and expect the teachers to do all the hard work for you. If you are a parent, you damn well better be taking an active role in your kids life as it is. And that's what I think about that.
And hooray for having one more speech done. Only one left to go! Wahoo!
Lisa's blip on breast cancer was pretty short, but what I did notice was that she was doing a pretty good job relating the topic to the audience. Bring it on home, honey.
Brandi on not feeding the wildlife: While I thought her narrative was alright, I thought it was a little long to be a part of the introduction. At least it seemed to be the introduction. I thought it was kind of like pulling out the big guns a little too early. Also, I found her voice to be rather flat, and she breezed through everything really quickly, making me feel as though she was more reciting information instead of being an "expert" on the topic.
Hans gave me the impression that he himself needed to cut back on the sugar. Settle down there Hans. I found his speaking approach to be a little too contrived, and it made me feel like I was being patronized. I feel like his speaking style would have been appropriate had he been presenting on Sesame Street, but not to a group of adults. I couldn't focus on the technicalities of his speech because I was too focused on how much I didn't like his speech pattern. Which was actually good food for thought. Though I have to say that I am not in the habit of talking to small children like they are small children, much less adults.
I thought Dixie did alright with her pro homeschooling speech. She outlined her points well enough, everything had a nice flow, she seemed well-researched. Her voice was a little boring, but that's just me being picky. I thought she made her point quite well.
In contrast, I didn't care for Robert's cons of homeschooling speech at all. His whole speech felt vague and put together with a generic formula, rather than organized and professional. I also completely disagreed with him, and I thought that he could have gone a hundred different routes to make a better argument against homeschooling than, "We just can't expect parents to do their job and raise their kids, that's what teachers are for." I do think, however, that Robert's points did an excellent job of highlighting how skewed our perception is of how education "should" work. Education starts in the home, and while I don't expect every parent to be able to teach Advanced Placement Chemistry to their kids, they should be able to handle teaching their kids the basics of our society. And I have a huge problem with the whole "Should parent's be expected to give up their careers just so they can teach their kids?" mentality. It is not okay to just dump your kids off at school and expect the teachers to do all the hard work for you. If you are a parent, you damn well better be taking an active role in your kids life as it is. And that's what I think about that.
And hooray for having one more speech done. Only one left to go! Wahoo!
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Ethics of Persuasive Speaking
Did anyone else's Dashboard explode into a Wonkafied color-tastic display?
It's really easy for the speaker of a persuasive speech to only supply the facts and evidence that support their claims. As persuasive speakers, we have a responsibility to provide a wide range of information to the audience to allow them to decide for themselves. Persuasive speakers provide their audience with all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports their claims.
One must also represent research for what it is, and not what the speaker would like it to mean. Personal or professional bias shouldn't necessarily come into play, even though you should clearly be advocating your point. I see this a lot in the media. particular with nutrition research. There was one study that came out not too long ago about red meat consumption, and once the media got a hold of it, they did the typical "Red Meat Will kill You!' spin. The media didn't bother to take into consideration the fact that the percentage of participants who consumed red meat also had a higher tendency to smoke and not engage in physical activity. Additionally, sedentary smokers often have a crappier diet than people with an active lifestyle. So while a correlation between red meat and mortality was made, none of the evidence was taken into consideration before these claims were made. Super frustrating, and a great example of the media attempting to manipulate the public.
Manipulation also come in the form of an abusive of power. I liked the books example of a doctor overstating dire health consequences for an uncooperative patient. Also, I happen to be reading The Devil Wears Prada, ( I just finished the A Dance With Dragons, the fifth Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire Book, and I needed something light after the whole epic fantasy thing...) and it is a perfect example of a manipulative boos with her assistants wrapped tightly around her pinkie finger through the threat of her displeasure. It's a great light read, I'd recommend it.
Persuasive speeches are just like persuasive essays. Clearly represent the pros and cons of the the topic, and leave out personal bias while advocating one position or another.
It's really easy for the speaker of a persuasive speech to only supply the facts and evidence that support their claims. As persuasive speakers, we have a responsibility to provide a wide range of information to the audience to allow them to decide for themselves. Persuasive speakers provide their audience with all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports their claims.
One must also represent research for what it is, and not what the speaker would like it to mean. Personal or professional bias shouldn't necessarily come into play, even though you should clearly be advocating your point. I see this a lot in the media. particular with nutrition research. There was one study that came out not too long ago about red meat consumption, and once the media got a hold of it, they did the typical "Red Meat Will kill You!' spin. The media didn't bother to take into consideration the fact that the percentage of participants who consumed red meat also had a higher tendency to smoke and not engage in physical activity. Additionally, sedentary smokers often have a crappier diet than people with an active lifestyle. So while a correlation between red meat and mortality was made, none of the evidence was taken into consideration before these claims were made. Super frustrating, and a great example of the media attempting to manipulate the public.
Manipulation also come in the form of an abusive of power. I liked the books example of a doctor overstating dire health consequences for an uncooperative patient. Also, I happen to be reading The Devil Wears Prada, ( I just finished the A Dance With Dragons, the fifth Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire Book, and I needed something light after the whole epic fantasy thing...) and it is a perfect example of a manipulative boos with her assistants wrapped tightly around her pinkie finger through the threat of her displeasure. It's a great light read, I'd recommend it.
Persuasive speeches are just like persuasive essays. Clearly represent the pros and cons of the the topic, and leave out personal bias while advocating one position or another.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)