Week 9 Blog: Persuasion in Advertisements

Its surprising how many times a day I'm bombarded with mini persuasive speeches. When I sit down and analyze how many advertisements I come across daily, I feel a little blindsided. The majority of my everyday encounters try to appeal to my emotions, needs or logic. Unfortunately, the ones that really stand out to me are ones that appeal to my emotions.

During political elections especially presidential elections, scare tactics are most popular in the advertisements. Most often the opposing political party would feature ads that predict horrific outcomes should their opponent become president. An example of this was during the 2008 Presidential Election, Senator McCain sponsored advertisements that talked about President Obama’s inability to defend the nation from foreign threats. If Obama won, our country would be in great danger. I must admit, those ads were particularly memorable to me because it made me speculate and hypothesize about negative outcomes that could result. That scare tactic didn’t necessarily scare me, but it made me think twice about which candidate to vote for.

Other great examples of persuasion are the “target market” advertisements that talk about the negative consequences of smoking. These advertisements are particularly memorable because their scare tactics are so extreme and in-your-face. I remember a particular one where they drove a bunch of dolls to the corporate headquarters of a major tobacco company. The dolls represented however many people died in a year from tobacco-related deaths. In a way they were mocking the company and educating them about the effects of their product at the same time. As an audience member, who doesn’t smoke but is an observer of the message, I feel the advertisers are educating and mocking me too. I know the consequences of smoking, but to see a physical representation of the statistics appealed to my emotions greatly. It made me feel as if I should do something to help end tobacco use and that perhaps I may be partly responsible for these deaths too. It was an odd experience.

Can you recall memorable advertisements where the persuasion technique involved the advertiser attempting to appeal to your emotions instead of logic? Was it effective and do you think that is most effective method to get the public to change?

Week 5 Group Communication Memories

I took a group communication course in the past. It was a very interesting and thought-provoking course. The class was divided into groups of seven and we were given many tasks to complete. At the end of the semester, we had a major class project and presentation to complete. It was fun completing the tasks and analyzing the group dynamics as they emerged in my group. We were very cohesive. We had a democratic leader who largely shared her duties with others in the group and only had one conflict the whole semester. It was only a minor conflict, too. However, there were many times where groupthink emerged. Because our group experienced such a high level of cohesiveness, we found ourselves afraid to introduce new ideas or to break out of the roles we established in the beginning. For example, the leader didn't think we needed to start working on our final project a month ahead. I expressed that we need to at least gather sources, brainstorm ideas and determine who was to perform which tasks. We had a conflict that lead to us eventually going home that day and not accomplishing anything. Surely, the next day our teacher expected us to hand in an outline of our ideas and sources. The first thing that I observed from this experience was that I expressed myself very cautiously. I didn't want to disturb the order of things and was willing to accept whatever the leader wanted even though I knew it was wrong. The second thing I observed was that other group members wanted to express the same thing, but felt they didn't want to make the leader angry or create an uncomfortable situation for everyone else. They told me this later. Unfortunately, we handed in our outline late and was penalized a bit. Looking back though I still considered that semester the best group experience ever and I'm willing to sacrifice efficiency for group harmony.
That particular group was a positive experience for many reasons. We let a leader naturally emerge and she was willing to share the role with others who were interested. She wasn't a dictator but she still kept things in order. Everyone in the group were easy going and was extremely focused on getting an A in the class. We had the same goal and mesh well together personality-wise. I had a lot of fun. We even started hanging outside of class for social reasons. The bad experiences with groups I've had were in situations where there was a lack of a leader or a tyrannical leader. Group members had varying degrees of interest and commitment and personalities were just too different. I think certain people just don't get along. These could be due to cultural factors or just based on simple things like a lack of understanding humor. Currently I'm taking English and our class has a lot of group activities. I always get that person that doesn't want to be there and usually doesn't have anything to contribute. Either they did not do the assignment or they are unwilling to tell us what they did. I'm not sure. There is a particular young man who always comes to class sits down slouching with his legs extended forward and crosses his arms in front of his chest. He usually wears a frown and looks at the clock every 5 minutes. I hate being in a group with him because it feels like I'm pulling teeth. In spite of everything I do enjoy that class, but I dread being put in a group with people like that.
I've expressed good and bad experiences with groups. Have you experienced being in a group that was so cohesive that it stifled individualism and created conformity? It is easy to see that especially when you think about friendships in high school. High school cliques are almost always built on conformity. Did you know of someone who never wanted to participate? Or maybe you were that person. I've always wondered if non-participating members do it because they have the grouphate phonemonon. Perhaps they hate working with others and have such a strong individualistic personality that they go into those situations with negative assumptions already. Do you think these people manifest what they hate about groups?

Week #4 Nonverbal Communication and Knowledge is Power

Nonverbal communication often speak louder than words. I observe nonverbal communication everyday and use it often too. I’m the first to admit that I’m terrible at eye contact and sometimes use too much hand gesticulations. It can be overwhelming. When I talk to people, I often observe how often they make eye contact and where they are looking. Sometimes I wonder if my lack of eye contact is cultural and how that effects my family life versus my academic or professional life. At home when I’m speaking with my elders, I only make eye contact sometimes. It’s common for me to look down or elsewhere while speaking to my grandparents especially my grandfather. I didn’t realize this was a sign of respect or even submission until I read about it in Chapter 5. I’m Asian-American and it is a sign of disrespect to make direct eye contact longer than quick glances. Sometimes I don’t even realize it. However, when I’m with my friends or I’m at work, I tend to make eye contact more. I look directly at people’s eyes to show that I’m attentive and care about what they have to say. If I don’t make eye contact in this scenerio, my conversation partner would perceive me to be uninterested and even rude. When I’m in class or meeting with my professors, eye contact is essential because they are an authority figure whom I want to impress. If I didn’t make eye contact when I spoke to my professors, my teacher would most likely perceive that as rude. Even in class, I always try to look at my instructors in the face unless I’m trying to avoid answering questions in class. Do you use different nonverbal communication skills when you confront different cultures? Do you experience dichotomous cultures that require different communication in your daily life also?

I am a big believer in education and I think everyone in our class believes in it too. Otherwise, why are we in college? People who have knowledge tend to make more money because others depend on their expertise to improve their own lives. Because of this dependency, it would appear as if the people who have knowledge have power over others who don’t. If this is true, than to some degree everyone has power. It’s just based on what kind of knowledge is regarded as important in a given situation. Sometimes I feel very powerless depending on who I’m surrounded by. When I’m talking to my cousin, Hlee, who is an attorney about her opinions on congressional laws, I feel powerless. I feel especially powerless because she is an expert on criminal law and can impart knowledge about something affects many people. I can not. Have you ever experienced a situation where you feel you can’t contribute useful information or perhaps you have experienced the opposite. Did you feel as if your knowledge or lack of knowledge on the subject affected society as a whole?

On a side note, I know the textbook says that it’s possible to inform without persuading, but it’s really hard to be perfectly objective. By choosing certain information to present we are always leaving out other pieces of information. In a way, you are persuading whether or not you intend to. I wonder if others feel the same way. Can we as humans truly obtain objectivity?

Week #3 There's more to a presentation than organization

The most memorable presentations are the ones that are organized well, included a variety of visual aids and presentation methods and spoke passionately about their topics. Every time I look at President Obama's speeches, all of those things come to mind. (Even though we all know he does not write his own speeches, he is still a rather captivating speaker.) With all of that in mind, I must talk about a speech last year that I was an unfortunate witness of. His speech had all those things and was still hard to watch. I took a special education class last spring semester. We all had to talk about a specific area of special education that we were interested in and give a presentation on it. This particular young man's topic was on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the controversy behind its treatment methods. The topic was very intriguing. His powerpoint presentation included very vivid visual aids and the information was well organized. Everything looked good... until he spoke. He didn't seem that nervous either. He kept talking about drugs and asking other classmates if they wanted drugs. He, then, talked about personal experiences with his parents when they were on drugs that made everyone uncomfortable. He included statistics on death and related it to Ritalin and it's impact on children with ADHD.

The point of my blog is that there are other factors beyond what we learn in the textbook that makes a good presentation. The presenter should know what is appropriate. They must understand the audiences' level of comfortableness and present things in a more professional manner. In the speech language pathology community (I'm a communications disorders major so I'm familiar with the jargon), we would diagnose him with pragmatic social disorders. Pragmatics are things like picking up on social cues and knowing appropriate mannerisms and when to use them, which he seemed to lack. He was trying too hard to entertain and shock the audience into paying attention to him that it became his downfall. We did pay attention to him... but for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes its better to have a few audience members sleeping in the back than to over do a presentation and become a distraction. The audience doesn't get the message of your presentation and they are paying attention to all the wrong things.

Controversial Topics and the Internet

It is interesting how choosing a topic and researching go hand in hand. After reading the chapters, I found that I usually do the opposite. I often research various things before choosing a topic. There are so many things I can talk about because I have such a diverse interest. I have to find out more about my interests before committing myself. The one thing Chapter 7 should have touched on more is the appropriateness of a topic. For example, the speeches that usually yield the most trouble are usually persuasive speeches. People, including myself, find it very difficult to stay away from controversial or political topics especially in a classroom setting where the audience is usually captive and very diverse. In my previous public speaking class back in high school, it was difficult to watch persuasive topics on abortion, the death penalty, and socialized health care. These topics should not be allowed in persuasive speeches because it is like "arguing apples and broccoli". The different arguments against and for a specific topic are based on two totally different perspectives that are both positive and often are not related to each other. For example, abortion is about women's rights and humanity's right to live at the same time...both totally different topics about the same issue. In addition, these topics are too emotional and the logic is based on subjective things such as religion. We should stay away from these when we do our persuasive speeches... but then what ever will we talk about?
I didn't realize how similar researching for a speech is similar to researching for a paper. It truly is just as lengthy and just as detailed. It is becoming more apparent that a diversity of sources is the best method for obtaining valid and fair information. I liked how the chapter warns us to be aware of internet sources because they may not be the most truthful information available to us. Anyone with a computer can put anything they want out there. I would like more specific tips on how to detect a valid internet source from an invalid one. Though the book does talk about writing down who wrote the site and finding out when the document was created...etc, I don't feel that is a reliable method to tell the good sources from the bad ones. Blogs need to be addressed specifically. What if I find a political blog written by a politician on a congressional issue I'm speaking about. Should I exclude it because it's an opinion piece? OR include it because the politician is a primary source? Also, how do I tell that it is truly him that wrote it. The validity of internet sources should be a chapter on its own and blogs should be covered thoroughly. My rule of thumb on sources is that if it looks questionable, don't use it. The book even warns about using statistics with caution. I don't think using statistics is necessarily a negative thing. People just need to address the context and circumstance in which the data was produced. Too many people misinterpret the information and use it to relate to topics that have no precedents. Statistics are good we just need to be more aware of what we're using it for.

Most Embarrasing Moment

I would say the most embarrassing moment happened when I wasn’t there live in person. This is a true story. I was only in high school at the time and I had begun dating my now husband, Jason. His family is very conservative and religious. They resemble the Cleavers very much. Though I had met them a few times, I did not know them very well and we were all still getting acquainted. I had just gotten into a large fight with my mother and sister when Jason called me to see if I was coming over to have dinner with his family. I was very annoyed when he called and I told him to leave me alone because I had to clean the “god d*** living room because my mother and sister were being f****** b******”. Little did I know that I was on speaker phone because his family wanted to greet me also. It was and still is terribly embarrassing. My husband and I have never talked about that incident because we both know just how conservative his family is and just how humiliated I was. I’m glad I wasn’t there in person to experience the humiliation and I’m glad that no one has ever brought it up.

When I look back on it, I still feel the shame and embarrassment. His family was merely trying to welcome me into their family and I appeared very vulgar and classless. It is a big deal meeting a potential mate’s family especially when you want to make a good impression and build a family with them someday.

In relation to the public speaking class, I think I have the same issues with public speaking and communication in general. Sometimes I am not aware of my audience and I say inappropriate things or the manner I say things are inappropriate. For example, when I speak to my professors sometimes I use the filler word “like” or I use slang to describe something. It makes me look unprofessional and can indicate my lack of commitment to school. I refer to my embarrassing moment to help remind me to think before I speak because the repercussions can be very detrimental to relationships I’m trying to build or maintain.