Heynabonics

With our commercial analysis speech due in a couple of days, I've been thinking a lot about how I talk.

I'm from Simpson, Pennsylvania. The closest city anyone's ever heard of to Simpson is Scranton. Even then they probably have only heard of Scranton because of The Office. So basically it's one of those small towns in the middle of nowhere that no one ever leaves and even if you're lucky enough to escape your family's always trying to pull you back. Since we're pretty much isolated from the rest of the country we've developed a certain dialect. It's not very different from normal speech, but I'll notice that I sometimes pronounce ceratin words differently than others. For example sometimes I'll say "Mayan" instead of "mine."

The main thing I've noticed, however, is my tendency to run words together. For instance I'll often smash "did you eat yet" into something like "djeetjet." It's almost like I'm mumbling, but at a higher volume. In normal conversation my lack of enunciation isn't really a big deal, but when making a formal presentation or speech it's a problem. When speakers don't enunciate, they seem sloppy, like they don't care about the speech enough to even put effort into forming proper words. I want people to judge how much effort I've put into my speech based on the content, but if I sound like I don't care then why should you care? Most of the time, with enough concentration, I can remember to enunciate, but sometimes I still slip up.

Honestly I should be grateful I only have to deal with a minor lack of enunciation. Some of the people from Northeast PA sound like complete idiots when they talk. I once heard someone order "a couple two, tree hadags, two wit kraut one wit not" which in plain English would be "three hotdogs, two with sauerkraut, one without." Godda love da Valley, heyna?

The video explains a lot more about Valley speak.

Today's special is Ethos...

Did you ever have one of those moments where you are thinking about something and then your brain makes a leap to something that does not seem related at all? That happened today to me during class. Professor Kramer told us that if we do not know the answer to a question about our presentation we should say something like "I'm not sure. I'll look into it and get back to you," and the first thought that popped into my head was "Oh, that sounds like what I say when I'm waiting tables at Frank's Place." I mean they just seem completely unrelated, rhetoric and waiting tables. Then I started to think about it a little more and found some interesting connections (like I was wearing my  Frank's place shirt today and didn't even realize it until now).

I wait tables for the tips. On a busy Saturday night I can make a decent amount of money, but only if I establish ethos with the customers. I need to know what I am talking about, have a pleasant attitude (even if I'm swamped), and make sure all of their needs are taken care of in a timely fashion. These correspond to the three necessary components of ethos in rhetoric, intelligence, good will towards the audience, and good moral character. All three of these things are necessary if I want a sizable tip. If just one is out of place, it can negatively affect the experience for everyone involved (including my bank account).

For instance, if I can answer questions about the menu with a smile on my face, but it takes an hour for the customers to get their meal, I'll be lucky if I get fifteen percent. The moral character aspect of my job, taking care of the customers in a timely fashion, was violated, therefore the customers consider me a low-ethos waitress (and my tip goes down accordingly). Although I will say if I mix up two dishes while trying to explain them to the customers, my tip does not suffer as much.

This realization got me to think about if audiences value certain aspects of ethos, over others, like my customers value fast service more than knowledge of the menu. I think both my customers and an audience would agree that good moral character is the most important part of ethos. If someone giving a presentation simply mixes up a fact or mispronounces a word once, not much damage is done to the speaker's ethos. However, if a someone giving a presentation about immigration reform is revealed to be a racist, there is little he can do to salvage ethos. Even Sarah Palin's slip about our alliance with North Korea (she meant South Korea) is better than a racist giving a presentation on immigration reform. What do you think? Are some parts of ethos more valuable than other?

Trolling on Facebook

Lately I've taken to what's commonly known as "trolling" my Quidditch friends on Facebook. "Trolling" is saying something inflammatory, extraneous, or completely off-topic online to provoke an emotional response from someone. After today's discussion of kairos, I couldn't help but notice that without meaning to some trolls provide the perfect opportunity for discussion of larger, more complex issues. Even comments as annoying as "the game" can spark a discussion of the realization that all desire and knowledge leads in one way or another to loss (or it can if you're Hank Green).

It's true that once that perfect moment to say something is gone, it's gone. You lost that opportunity. However, the internet troll has shown me that there are so many more different opportunities out there. Maybe you won't get the chance to convey your message at that moment, but the great thing about life is it will provide you with another moment. Just be sure you're ready the next time.

Also I'm sorry to all those who lost the game by reading this blog. If you have no idea what the game is I'll let Hank explain both the game and the lessons that we can learn from it.