In my future endeavors, I think I will feel more confident in my writing because I won't be afraid to share it as much. Speaking and writing are such completely different experiences; I can feel confident with what I've written, but I'll be too afraid to read it out loud, mostly because I was a lousy speaker. I'm going to be able to give impromptu speeches if need be because the extemporaneous style we've used will have given me the tools to do that. The profession I'm trying to go into doesn't require too much speaking, but just the daily, social interactions of life - that's what I'll use the lessons from this class for. I'll be more conscious of audience and citations. My friends like to debate a lot and so I think this class will help me prove my points. 

Favorite

The demonstration speech was my favorite because I liked the visual aid aspect. I did "How to Solve a Rubik's Cube," but I planned to make it a little quirky. The consequentialist approach was something that I came up with during my research and it ended up working really well with the formatting of the speech. It wasn't one of my better grades because I neglected to verbally cite my sources, but I never forgot from that speech on so I suppose it was better that I learned then rather than later. I also really enjoyed watching everyone else demonstrate their speech. The hands on approach seemed to alleviate some of the awkwardness - we were able to lead into it and then preform. Doing something with your hands - especially something that you know how to do - helps the extemporaneous process. It wasn't a particularly technical speech and I was working with something that people tend to have at least some familiarity with. I didn't have to define scientific terms or any of the other things you have to do with, for example, the persuasive speech or informative speech. It was just fun - to go up there, talk about a product that I sell at my toy store, and give a playful speech that I felt comfortable talking about. So that was my favorite speech - because it was easy, fun, and less awkward than all of the rest.

Debates

At the toy store I work at, political debates are quotidian distractions. Half of us are liberals; the other half are conservatives. We all get along perfectly well, but we like to discuss our differences. In a more recent instance, I recall talking to my coworker, going on tangents, and eventually coming to the subject of environmentalism - specifically, global warming. I'm usually very passive about my opinions and open to other perspectives, but global warming is an issue that I refuse to stand down on. 
When my coworker began citing his own personal hypotheses about the "true" nature of global warming, I got annoyed. He didn't have sources for his opinion - merely latent concepts he adopted from what he heard at the dinner table with his highly conservative family. He didn't rely upon logos, pathos, or ethos - he was simply borrowing ideas and asserting them as facts. 
In my own demure fashion, I made a series of rebuttals to his arguments. The difference between our styles of reasoning was distinct - I had sources. When I  do decide to voice my opinion, I make sure that I have a sizable arsenal of facts and objective references. I wasn't citing some amateur correspondant from leftist media sources, I offered university-backed research, expert analyses, and, at one point, I even broke out my laptop to present a visual aid when the discussion turned to the human vs. nature debate on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I used logical reasoning exclusively.
In the end... he still fundamentally disagreed with me, but didn't want to discuss it anymore. In our debate-happy toy story, that typically means I won that day. 

Flickr on Sexist Language

The Flickr thread started off with one person making a fair point about the use of certain language in tagging pictures. In particular, the commenter honed in on the word "girl" and explained why that word was offensive to adult women. The first person to respond was, coincidentally, an adult women who felt indifferent to the use of that word and backed up her defense by pointing out the arbitrary nature of words (which the textbook also discusses). The respondent was supplemented by a series of other comments, which went on to prove that language is relative. One recurring example came from the UK where the word "girl" and "boy" have no negative connotation. It isn't gender neutral, but it is inoffensive according to those with an English background. "What's next?" the commenter's begged. What words should be tossed out for the sake of political correctness? The opposition tended to agree with the first part of the textbook; the part that described language in and of itself. Yes, language is arbitrary. Yes, language is ambiguous. Yes, language is abstract. But they also tended to disagree with the latter part of the textbook; the part that discussed language through the context of culture and gender and so forth. By putting limitations on language, the commenters insisted that any perceived offensive would become inherent: in other words, by turning certain language into forbidden fruit, it became more tempting and inherited negative qualities as a consequence. In my opinion, language should be used at the discretion of the writer/speaker. If you want to use racy language - use it, but be prepared for the fallout. And if you're making a speech, chance are that you shouldn't use racy language because you don't want to ostracize any members of your audience. It's a simple matter of discretion that I think the Flick thread did a good job of exemplifying.

Chapter 11

The textbook did a fine job setting boundaries for presentation media. It went through various digital and traditional options and emphasized the importance of clarity. I was actually surprised by how up-to-date this textbook was as far as technology and digital media went. The author provided tips and pointers about how to make the most of your media while also warning the readers of some common errors such as superfluous text, obnoxious fonts, and all of the other possible distractions associated with digital media (i.e. powerpoints). However, I’m not sure that I agree with the author about audio media. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a speech where audio has been utilized effectively. In my experience, audio is more distracting than its visual counterpoint because it directly interferes with what the speaker is vocally saying. Ideally, the audio could be used to “set a mood,” but that’s a tricky task. Much of the time, background music is effective at doing one of two things: lulling an audience to sleep or making the speech sound corny and forced. I’m open to the possibility that audio could enhance the speech’s effectiveness, but until I’ve seen it done, I don’t quite believe it. 

Apple Release Speech Critique

I didn’t necessarily “attend” the iPhone 5 release speech in San Francisco the other month, but I did watch a live broadcast, so I think that counts for something. Also, it should be noted, I’m not a huge apple fan boy – I have an Android – but there’s always so much buzz and controversy about the release that I felt compelled to watch it. Apple products are famous, in part, for their aesthetics, so it’s only natural that their release would coalesce striking visual media into the unveiling. While the speaker did a great job of communicating the significance of each innovative tweak, the media offered elements the speech couldn’t: aesthetic appeal and visual examples of how the new features worked. The media set the tone for the release. It was smooth, slick, futuristic, and minimalist. As the speaker went through his speech, the media changed to reflect the topics. Sometimes it was just a static image of the new phone and other times it was animated. The screen would display a virtual menu and would go through new programs and features just as the consumer would when the phone was available for purchase. The effectiveness of this process was the only distraction. I know that sounds contradictory, but what I mean to say is that the media was so interesting and pertinent to the speech that it was hard to decide which to pay attention to, the screen or the speech. I didn’t see much room for improvement as far as presentation goes. 

Presentation Media

Presentation media allows speakers to communicate their ideas without verbally stating them. It is a useful tool that can help audiences connect to the subject and draw from a larger pool of information than that offered by only the speaker. At the same time that it can be useful, however, there are some aspects of presentation media that speakers should be weary of. For example, digital media (i.e. photos and audio clips) can be manipulated and altered in order to present subjects from biased perspectives. It is the speaker's responsibility to research the media that they choose to include. The best way to ensure that your media is unaltered is to extract it from the original source. If the original source is lost in the sea of digital information, critical discretion should be heeded. Does the photo portray the subject in a negative light? Is it an objective portrayal of the subject or is there evidence of bias? It should be fairly simple to determine by asking questions like these, but it isn't a foolproof method. Also remember context and ask yourself questions about it. When using audio clips, for example, be sure to listen to the entire dialogue so as not to misrepresent the person speaking in the clip. If the clip seems to be taken out of context, it is the speaker's ethical responsibility to avoid it and use something that presents their subject in a more objective light.

Connections

I tried paying really close attention to the “Connect Your Topic to Your Audience” part of chapter 13. For my informational speech, I’m going to be talking about an issue that is often really difficult to communicate to audiences. I’m talking about environmental science and though I haven’t quite narrowed down my topic yet (I’m leaning towards ocean acidification) I know that the content of my speech will have to be presented in a specific manner so as not to distance the audience from the issue. The example that the book gives about connecting to your audience isn’t going to be as useful to me as it might be to other speakers. Ocean acidification isn’t something that average people think about or interact with (consciously) on a daily basis – it’s something that they’ve probably heard of or learned about, but people tend to forget that it is a current and pertinent dilemma. I’m just hoping to take those lessons that the Speech Buddies videos and the textbook provide and do my best to connect this issue to my audience. 

Self-Evaluation Assignment #1

            My personality type is fairly averse to extemporaneous speaking, so naturally most of my concern comes from the impromptu side of the public speaking spectrum. While I do believe that I did a good job (“good” being a relative term considering the introductory level of this class), I see much room for improvement.

            I feel as though I definitely achieved the purpose of my speech. I remembered my main points, remembered the anecdotes I wanted to share, and introduced my “consequentialist” approach to solving the Rubik’s Cube in the way I had visualized in the pre-planning stages of the speech. My confidence was notably higher than in the previous two speeches, which made the extemporaneous aspect of the speech much easier and more organic. I didn’t feel as though the audience was judging me, but that they were genuinely interested in what I had to say.

            As far as improvement goes, I think there is a lot of room. The content of my speech, I felt, was great. I tried to keep it interesting and felt I succeeded in that. Ideally, I think my goal for content in the next speech would be to integrate more research-based elements into it. The delivery could have been better. Sometimes I stumbled, sometimes I lost my train of thought, and the timing of it all could have been improved substantially. It’s where I lost point for restating main points – timing. So, I think that would be my number one goal for delivery: to time it all better. Overall, if I could go back and change some things about my speech, I think I would have been more deliberate in my stating of main points. I understand the importance – to give the audience an outline that they can follow and understand in chunks – but I fell a little short in that sense. I prepared adequately, I felt. I didn’t want to memorize the speech, but at the same time I didn’t want it to seem so impromptu that it came across as unorganized, so I felt my level of preparation was good. As I said before, I needed to verbally cite my sources for the research involved in my speech. That one was an honest mistake – I never read the part of the instructions that said that they had to be communicated verbally in addition to the written citations. Reading the instructions, I suppose, would be another point to stress improvement in.

            Considering my delivery, I think the introduction could have been better. But that’s also the pinnacle of my anxiety when it comes to public speaking – the introduction. It’s a matter of gaining more confidence and feeling less shy around my audience. A lack of confidence comes across in a variety of ways. For me, there are two points that go along with that idea, which could have improved my speech. My eye contact, for example, wasn’t as great as some of the speakers I saw go up. Some people were able to start speaking without looking at a single notecard. That’s ideally where I would want to be, but that’s going to take some training. I still rely on flashcards when I’m in a pinch, so if I were to scale my eye contact from 1-10 (10 being the best it could be), I would rate myself at a 7. I didn’t just stare at my cards the whole time, but I also didn’t have the ability to do what those other speakers did. The second part that goes along with confidence was the interjection words I used periodically. I said “um” more than I should have. After saying it enough, people start noticing and I think it could have been a bit distracting after awhile. 

Statistics

I'm actually taking statistics this semester and every now and then my professor will play excerpts from a documentary about statistics. The weird things is... it's not nearly as boring as one might imagine. Using statistics in the right way can make any presentation better in my opinion - you just have to be sure to introduce statistical information in an interesting and engaging way.
The best time to use statistics is when you're doing an informational/descriptive/persuasive speech. These rely heavily on logos, which is definitely buttressed by statistics and facts. Not only do statistics give you credibility as a speaker, but they are useful for the audience. Facts rather than ideologies give audiences something almost tangible to take away from your speech. Also, statistics can be exemplified in a visual format, which is also useful for the audience. Whether you're using a standard pie chart or a histogram or whatever, visual representations of statistical information gives your audience something that is often neglected in speeches - facts. Facts allow people to make their own decisions about the content of your speech because regardless of the speakers analysis, the facts do a little bit of speaking for themselves. I hope I didn't miscommunicate what I was trying to say - bear in mind, I used the words "statistics" and "facts" synonymously though statistics are not infallible - a point to certainly consider both as a speaker and as a member of an audience.

Speech Buddies

Courtney’s speech on light pollution was very engaging, but her delivery lacked some of the core skills that were evident with other speakers such as Matthew. Both did a great job as far as the content of the speech went, but Matthew’s delivery as well as his confidence made all of the difference for me. He connected to his audience by posing a serious issue without chastising those in his audience who had probably consumed alcohol over the course of their college careers. I think that the reason that I liked Matthew’s was that he didn’t make light of the dangers of alcohol, but he also wasn’t ignorant to its ubiquity and general social acceptance. He navigated the audience and allowed them to make the final say, but provided them with the tools to make better decisions. Plus, his confidence really shone though. This was contrasted starkly with Courtney’s speech, which I felt lacked the confidence it needed in order to make a firm connection to her audience. In short – all of the speakers had the logos and ethos, but Matthew had the pathos. He drove it home by connecting on an intellectual and emotional level.