Time after time, speech or presentation after speech and presentation, one theme always seems to come up again and again – preparation. I am able to work to get the content, I can eventually find a coherent organization for it, and I can fit words to get my point across. But all too often, it just seems to end there. Which is quite obviously an issue. Sometimes I'll only get around to putting the final content together the night before a presentation, which leaves little room for preparation. This chronic lack of time to prepare for the delivery shows itself in many ways through my speeches.
For one, it makes me so much more nervous when I actually get up there to do presentations. Will it be long enough? Will I rush? Will I even manage to get sentences out that make sense? Thankfully I had prepared for the recent civic artifact speech more than I usually do, which reduced the nerves that I was feeling a significant amount. Unfortunately I feel that I was still in the 'valley of awkwardness' when I gave my speech, which caused my pace to rush as I was just trying to get through it without making any mistakes. It also showed itself through my hand gestures. When I was practicing, I found that it was calming to use repetitive hand gestures to keep my body under control and to keep a somewhat decent pace. Unfortunately I was not able to rid myself of this habit when I actually went to deliver my speech.
In order to improve this, I think it is essential for me to spread the practice time on presentation and speeches over a much longer period of time. Even if I dedicate the same amount of time overall to practice, I think spreading it out over a longer period of time will let it sink in and let myself become more comfortable with the material that I am presenting. I think this will allow me to focus more on reducing repetitive gestures that distract the audience and pacing myself better to actually let the audience hear what I have to say.
I feel that improvements in preparation will trickle down into other aspects of my presentation, leading to an overall improvement in the entire package. So it's kind of like trickle down economics, only it actually works!
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Tobacco in America
Thesis: The perception and use of tobacco in America has gone through a complete reversal due to federal legislation on tobacco use, despite the reverent opposition given by the tobacco industry through advertisement. (I need to integrate the significance of the shift more into the thesis - I could either focus on the shift causing a public that is more concerned with the safety of what it puts in its body, or how the blatantly untrue advertisements precipitated a distrust of advertisement in the public)
General Structure: After going through the introduction, I will briefly talk about the use of tobacco early in the American colonies (it was seen as a healthful medicine) before jumping forward to the early 1900s and the use of tobacco before/around the World Wars. This along with the mid 1950's is where a lot of content will lie, as it is where the government started to institute legislation combating tobacco due to scientific studies that had started to come out against the healthfulness of tobacco. I will trace the legislative actions that were taken as well as what effect they had on the public. There is a gap between these and the late 1900's/early 2000s where there were further acts like the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Throughout this, I would be supplying statistics that back up the change in perception that I talk about. After the shift is identified and traced, I will talk about the significance and other movements we see that come out of the same central change in public ideologies on what is healthy.
Sources I've found:
General Structure: After going through the introduction, I will briefly talk about the use of tobacco early in the American colonies (it was seen as a healthful medicine) before jumping forward to the early 1900s and the use of tobacco before/around the World Wars. This along with the mid 1950's is where a lot of content will lie, as it is where the government started to institute legislation combating tobacco due to scientific studies that had started to come out against the healthfulness of tobacco. I will trace the legislative actions that were taken as well as what effect they had on the public. There is a gap between these and the late 1900's/early 2000s where there were further acts like the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Throughout this, I would be supplying statistics that back up the change in perception that I talk about. After the shift is identified and traced, I will talk about the significance and other movements we see that come out of the same central change in public ideologies on what is healthy.
Sources I've found:
- The Story of Tobacco in America by Joseph C. Robert. The book was published in 1949 so more recent developments will not be included in the volume, but for getting a better idea of the state of tobacco in America before the 1940s it seems invaluable. It also contains statistics that could prove to be useful like consumption per capita
- "Increasing Tobacco Cessation in America: A Consumer Demand Perspective" This article in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine takes a closer look at the various legislation that was put in place in the past decades to curtail tobacco use, especially within the younger demographic. This article can serve as a jumping off point for delving deeper into the more recent changes that put the capstone on the shift.
- 20th century tobacco advertisements: This rather brief article from the National Museum of American History gives a good sense of the tobacco advertisements that were utilized in that golden age.
- Cigarette Smoking Behavior in the United States: a statistical study put out by the National Cancer Institute. May be good for some statistics, but no real 'meat' here.
- Gallup Poll on Tobacco: very useful Gallup poll on tobacco and smoking; can pull current perception of tobacco out of this.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Shifting the Paradigm
Tobacco in America:
One example of a paradigm shift is the dramatic shift in America in the general opinion of smoking and tobacco use. After the civil war, cigarettes were a huge part of American culture, and this trend was seen through the 1900s. Cigarettes and tobacco were included in TV shows, movies, magazines, and other forms of media. Tobacco was everywhere, and advertising for tobacco was everywhere. This started to change in the mid to late 1900s as the health affects of smoking were slowly discovered and reinforced by the government. For instance, after World War II the government let anti-smoking television ads air at no cost. Further restrictions like the Surgeon's General warning on tobacco packaging continued to fuel this shift in mindset. It was thanks to this effort by the government and the health industry that the paradigm shift was instigated. In modern America, there is a profoundly negative opinion on smoking. Most people silently shame smokers in public, and more and more smokers are making the move to quit.
Anti-Vaccination Movement:
It all started with Edward Jenner who came up with the first vaccine for smallpox by introducing cowpox material into a small boy's arm. Since then, vaccines have eradicated smallpox and are close to eradicating polio. One would think that the general public would be completely in praise of vaccines as a modern medical marvel. However, rather recently in the 2000s a small yet incredibly vocal group of people started coming out against vaccines and vaccination, citing dangerous chemicals included in the vaccines. Without proper medical studies or anything of that sort they were claiming that vaccines caused, among other effects, autism in children. I think this paradigm shift can be linked very closely to the ever popular 'natural' movement, where the public is becoming more and more concerned with artificial chemicals (to the point where just the word chemical is seen as a bad thing). The natural movement is not a bad thing as it forces corporations to be mindful of customer's desires and the business practices they are partaking in; it just may have a few unfortunate consequences.
One example of a paradigm shift is the dramatic shift in America in the general opinion of smoking and tobacco use. After the civil war, cigarettes were a huge part of American culture, and this trend was seen through the 1900s. Cigarettes and tobacco were included in TV shows, movies, magazines, and other forms of media. Tobacco was everywhere, and advertising for tobacco was everywhere. This started to change in the mid to late 1900s as the health affects of smoking were slowly discovered and reinforced by the government. For instance, after World War II the government let anti-smoking television ads air at no cost. Further restrictions like the Surgeon's General warning on tobacco packaging continued to fuel this shift in mindset. It was thanks to this effort by the government and the health industry that the paradigm shift was instigated. In modern America, there is a profoundly negative opinion on smoking. Most people silently shame smokers in public, and more and more smokers are making the move to quit.
Anti-Vaccination Movement:
It all started with Edward Jenner who came up with the first vaccine for smallpox by introducing cowpox material into a small boy's arm. Since then, vaccines have eradicated smallpox and are close to eradicating polio. One would think that the general public would be completely in praise of vaccines as a modern medical marvel. However, rather recently in the 2000s a small yet incredibly vocal group of people started coming out against vaccines and vaccination, citing dangerous chemicals included in the vaccines. Without proper medical studies or anything of that sort they were claiming that vaccines caused, among other effects, autism in children. I think this paradigm shift can be linked very closely to the ever popular 'natural' movement, where the public is becoming more and more concerned with artificial chemicals (to the point where just the word chemical is seen as a bad thing). The natural movement is not a bad thing as it forces corporations to be mindful of customer's desires and the business practices they are partaking in; it just may have a few unfortunate consequences.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Making Your Words Go Further
When writing rhetoric, your choice of words and style may seem like the most critical component of your piece. This is especially true due to the way that we learn our writing and our speaking skills in school. At least for me, in past years, English classes have been pretty much entirely dedicated to textual components, things like ethos pathos and logos. After reading chapter 4 on kairos however, this view of mine has changed considerably. Now it seems that a speech or a magazine piece that is timed well, even if may not be written amazingly, has a much larger impact than a well crafted piece that has missed the kairotic moment. Timing and taking advantage of the pressing issues of the day has such a profound impact on how your piece will be received.
Being able to harness kairos rather than letting it slip away is the difference between a successful piece and a piece that gets lost in the hustle and bustle of the world. News sites try to hold onto this kairos by linking (hopefully) relevant articles at the bottom of headline news stories. They realize they need to take advantage of the situational opportunity in order to make their smaller stories get the views they need to stay in business.
In fact, when you think about it, many businesses, especially those whose success depends on page views, rely on kairos. Take YouTube for example. They have employees who are entirely dedicated to tweaking the 'related videos' algorithm in order to supply the most rhetorically relevant videos to the viewers in order to 'strike while the iron is hot,' to get them to watch just one more video, to get one more ad shown.
Kairos is such a universally relevant element that is used everywhere, even if we may not consciously think about it. We have to know when to talk to get the largest impact, companies must know when to present their products to customers to get the most viewership. Kairos amplifies your message, letting it reach a larger more receptive audience.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Internal vs. External Development
Scientific research is such an enthralling idea. All of the technology around us that we take for granted was made possible due to tedious research and development. The research that is being done now in private industry as well as in universities all over the world will end up integrated into products that save lives, make our days easier, and protect the future of the environment. For my passion blog, I want to take a look at some current research being done, and see how it may improve our lives in the future. The one thing that I must still determine is the scope that I should adopt.
One possibility, that I am favoring more at the moment, is to focus on current research that is being done here at Penn State. The benefit of this is that it would provide a much more personal feel to the blog (at least for readers here at Penn State) and inspire some sense of pride and ownership for the developments being made here. Because all of the faculty doing the research is right here at University Park, it would also be feasible to actually talk to the professors or students in the labs and get a more intimate view into the research. I particularly like this scope because it would force me to start looking into all of the research that is being done here before I start trying to get into lab work myself.
The other scope that I am considering is world-wide. I would get to cherry-pick the most exciting and promising research and development that is occurring all over the world, which may lead to a more engaging blog. On the down-side, without careful consideration of my composition, it could easily lead to being a technology news type of publication that one could easily find on CNN or the BBC.
Both blogs could be successful and engaging and each has unique pros and cons, but I think I would take more enjoyment out of writing about what is happening right outside my dorm. Just focusing on Penn State would also create a much more unique experience for the readers and show just why Penn State is one of the best research universities in the country.
One possibility, that I am favoring more at the moment, is to focus on current research that is being done here at Penn State. The benefit of this is that it would provide a much more personal feel to the blog (at least for readers here at Penn State) and inspire some sense of pride and ownership for the developments being made here. Because all of the faculty doing the research is right here at University Park, it would also be feasible to actually talk to the professors or students in the labs and get a more intimate view into the research. I particularly like this scope because it would force me to start looking into all of the research that is being done here before I start trying to get into lab work myself.
The other scope that I am considering is world-wide. I would get to cherry-pick the most exciting and promising research and development that is occurring all over the world, which may lead to a more engaging blog. On the down-side, without careful consideration of my composition, it could easily lead to being a technology news type of publication that one could easily find on CNN or the BBC.
Both blogs could be successful and engaging and each has unique pros and cons, but I think I would take more enjoyment out of writing about what is happening right outside my dorm. Just focusing on Penn State would also create a much more unique experience for the readers and show just why Penn State is one of the best research universities in the country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)