This is a static copy of In the Rose Garden, which existed as the center of the western Utena fandom for years. Enjoy. :)
There's this one book on Jewish secrets for accumulating wealth called "Thou Shall Prosper" that's written by a rabbi who's also a business consultant and entrepreneur, and one of his simplest and most effective pieces of advice is for public speaking. He claims that simply by reading out loud 20-30 minutes a day, one can become very good at public speaking, and that this piece of advice is so simple that very few of the corporate executives and politicians who pay him for this advice believe him and take it. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would read the Bible out loud. The author, Daniel Lapin, reads Winston Churchill's works.
Who do you recommend that I should read? I'm thinking Bertrand Russell, at the moment.
Offline
Actually, I am very suspicious when I hear something very difficult require something very simple: like reading out loud.
A good speech comes from many factors: charisma, intelligence, verbal skills, a knowledge of rethorical structures & body language, emotional intelligence and good pronunciation.
Cicero wrote something important about rhetoric. I guess your lecture depends on what do you want to understand better.
Offline
Well, Lapin also talks about getting rid of notes and dividing the lecture into intro, body, and conclusion, and then subdividing those 3 sections into 3 sections of their own, and then assigning keywords to those sections to help you remember them.
But ultimately, public speaking isn't any different from normal speaking, or rather, it's no more complicated. In fact, it's less complicated. Weightlifting isn't hard because it's complicated, it's hard because of the sheer magnitude of the strain involved. Public speaking is the same way. I guess if you lock yourself into a path and a certain diction and a certain voice, you'll have captured the essence of public speaking.
And your skepticism is exactly what keeps those CEO's from doing as he advises.
Offline
Skepticism doesn't mean I wouldn't do that - skepticism means I wouldn't do only that. If it were simple, politicians wouldn't hire PR experts to help them do it.
I don't think the number of people is the only factor. When you talk with your friends, you have other purposes than a person who speaks up. When I speak to my friends I don't want to make something important happen. We talk because it's enjoyable, we get social, we solve some problems. I don't want them to take action. I don't want them to pay taxes or go to war. I don't want to be elected by them.
Usually we speak in public to make something happen. I don't have to very persuasive to make my friend visit me. A politician who wants to be elected has to be much more persuasive than a typical person. If that were simple, it would be easy to be elected, which is not. Being a professional football player is diffent because you are a professional - you have to be more skilled, right? Being a professional when it comes to speaking in public is different from being a regular person who can speak.
Persuasion is crucial. Reading out loud can help you notice some good frases, may enrich your vocabulary and make you a little bit more persuasive, but it doesn't gives you tips what a good speech should posess. I won't give you the knowledge why so structures are better than others. It won't show you the rules.
There are people who watch subtitled soap operas for decades and they are capable of saying few frases in Spanish but they are incapable of talking in Spanish. I guess reading out loud is similar to that when it comes to the skills you develop.
Also, I get the feeling a conversation online may be a great exercise when it comes to persuasion. Right now we're trying to present our point of view as totally understandable, reasonable and interesting.
Offline
The need to be persuasive is probably why Abe Lincoln and George Washington read aloud from the Bible: it's a text with a great degree of gravity, regardless of what one may think of it.
Also, reading out loud entails a deeper form of involvement than watching a soap opera would. There is also the matter of content.
And I feel that public speaking really is able to be decomposed down to the skills learned from reading out loud. It's "harder," but it's also simpler, because the script is already pre-written, and there is no need to respond to others. Public speaking seems difficult because the vast majority of people are not used to following a script and speaking as if they will not be spoken to, but reading aloud from a venerated text would acclimate people to doing just that.
Last edited by zevrem (07-14-2013 10:34:06 AM)
Offline
Actually, there are soap operas based on really great books, so the content isn't bad (trust me, I studied Hispanic Studies). Acting is bad and pacing is horrible but content is ok. But let's assume you're right: reading out loud is a more involved activity. It doesn't make that activity creative, it doesn't make you more aware of concepts of rhetoric such as inductive or deductive reasoning. You may be "acclimated" to read out loud and have a very good verbal memory and still be terrible at convincing people to agree with you. I've never heard of a president with eideitc memory. Have you?
You think the public speaking really is able to be decomposed down to the skills learned from reading out loud. I can't agree with you, because being pre-written won't enhance your creativity and a good speech isn't a copy and paste of the former ones. A good speech is not boring and an extraordinary speech is the one that hasn't been already written and read out loud. The linguistic study implies there's always a need to respond to others: for example a president tells something about the actual political situation, he doesn't talk about his favourite songs, right? A speech is always some kind of a response. Always.
So... if you try to convince me - be persuasive and convince me with arguments I won't be able to fight back. I get an impression you use the arguments of prestige all the time (what Lincoln or Washington did), so maybe I'll try a similar one: I've never heard Barack Obama read out loud anything to be a better at public performances.
Let's pretend your posts were your speech. Even people who just read somehow respond to your words - maybe they don't say anything, but your speech will shape your relationship with them. People may comment later what you've said, the journalist will describe your speech and a dialogue will be different from chit-chat with your friends, but there will be a communication between you and others. Voters don't talk with a candidate, but the mute vote is a response to the words of a candidate. I'm sure you see that as a part of communication. I guess I showed you why speaking in public forum doesn't mean there's no discussion. I'd appreciate if you told me why do you find reading a Bible correlated to being persuasive. It would be nice to know why my arguments didn't convince you - your lack of reference here makes your discussion more abstract than it ought to be. Instead of saying why my arguments didn't change your point of view you just wrote again that you feel that public speaking really is able to be decomposed down to the skills learned from reading out loud.
We're having a debate here.
Offline
When I said that others don't respond to a speech, I mean that people don't talk to you in the middle of a speech and have you adjust to what they say. I hope that clears things up.
And obviously you should practice your speech before you give a speech. And I didn't say that reading out loud would help you write speeches, I said that reading out loud would help you give them.
Regarding foreign soap operas, I really don't know how that's related to reading something out loud in a language you DO understand. You're making a connection that doesn't really exist. I hope you won't be too offended if I say that that characterizes most of what you've posted.
Last edited by zevrem (07-14-2013 07:41:34 PM)
Offline
Regarding foreign soap operas, I really don't know how that's related to reading something out loud in a language you DO understand.
Relation between watching subtitled soap operas and learning Spanish: you learn frases, you are not learning rules of Spanish grammar. You don't learn much.
Reading out loud and knowing how to make a speech: you learn frases, you're not learning rules of rethoric. You don't learn much.
I hope that clears things up. When two things aren't related at all, you can expose it logically and make the opponent's argument invalid.
The fact that others are quiet during the speech doesn't seem to be a difficulty. It's easier to do something when no one disturbs you. Your argument doesn't convince me. Let's say we're talking about just MAKING a speech and you'll have a pre-written text: reading out loud doesn't help you how should you use your tone, when should you make a pause. There's also a body language. If you don't find it correlated, I recommend TED Talk of Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are. Linguistics and sociology aren't black magic - they are fields of study, they are based on facts. So... if you want to show that your opinion that public speaking really is able to be decomposed down to the skills learned from reading out loud is reasonable, tell me how reading out loud enhances your skills related to body language.
I won't get offended at all. Actually, I find it hilarious. I felt your lack of argumentation made me think I proved my point.
Offline
I think you've looked over my posts and read something that's completely different from what I actually wrote.
Offline
Wait I thought this thread was going to be about life tips.
Offline
What up? Let's keep it on topic. Dlaire, if you have a life tip, please post it; arguing about speeches any further is pointless and that derail is over as of now.
My life tip? Bar Keeper's Friend is amazing and I highly encourage anyone who wants things to be shiny to find and use it. It makes me so happy
Just wear gloves. I cleaned all the things, and also I cleaned the top layer of skin off my hands. At least I knew they were shiny too
Offline
OK, I'll end my offtop here.
My tip: When you learn foreign language from the zero level, you can watch cartoon and kids show to learn the most useful vocabulary. There are also the frequency dictionaries.
Offline
[Derail of thread that is now deleted. Instead, have a life tip:]
People rarely notice when you wear mismatched socks or miss a spot shaving. If they do notice, even if they do care in that moment, which is itself incredibly unusual, they'll have forgotten about caring within a short period of time. This holds true for everyone who doesn't have issues with obsessing.
So, don't spend the day holding your hand over that one chipped nail, pimple, or the bit of your neck or knee you didn't get all the hairs off smoothly. Don't wear a hat, indoors, or a blazing hot day because your hair is frizzy. And if you make a casual mistake, don't draw attention to it, so that everyone can just forget.
Unless you are genuinely famous, you're not that important. Enjoy that.
Last edited by Decrescent Daytripper (07-15-2013 10:46:32 AM)
Offline
When you wash towels, put in a cup of white vinegar with the wash water. This will help keep towels from getting musty-smelling and also get rid of any fabric softener that may have accumulated. (Note: Do not use fabric softener of any kind when washing towels with vinegar.)
Offline
1. Love your enemies. Really. It's not just a Christian thing. Think how beautiful the world would be if everyone was nice to someone they hated for one day. There would be no war for a day.
2. There's nothing wrong with being different as long as you are not hurting yourself or anyone else.
3. In order to achieve your lifelong dream you must have the three t's: talent, training, and tenacity.
4. For God's sake, always brush your teeth before a date and don't eat garlic during it. I can't tell you how many guys with bad breath I've kissed.
Last edited by Riri-kins (07-16-2013 10:36:47 AM)
Offline
Riri, I love your tips.
My tip: When you feel overwhelmed with work, divide the task into small steps. Make deadlines for every step you take and reward yourself. Always make your goals measurable.
Offline
You can purchase and print shipping labels from USPS, UPS, and through Paypal to save you a trip to the post office or a 10 dollar strip of stamps. USPS will send you a variety of shipping supplies, including flat rate boxes, for free.
Shampoo has detergent in it. It will clean the fuck out of your clothes. It lathers, though. So hand wash.
Stop hanging around people who are angry a lot. People who are forever moody, testy, easily offended and quick to growl without apology. The more they get to know and like you, the more comfortable they are, the more they will vent at you, snap at you, act surly and passive aggressive when you don't do or say what they want. Surround yourself with people who apologize when they do that shit. Surround yourself with people who will tell you what's hurting when something is wrong, and not just expect you to deal with whatever they do to you without explanation. Surround yourself with people who accept help. Surround yourself with people who think about you and consider your feelings just as much as you think and care about theirs.
So, you know, that person in your like who is super funny and shares a lot of interests with you, and who is basically a good person, but always seems to snap at you, or shock a room into tense silence with their attitude, and whose emotions you never know how to deal with because their anger never lets you? Who you feel you are always having to bite your tongue around, because your advice or concern never seems welcome?
Distance yourself. You deserve better.
Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (07-16-2013 05:01:31 PM)
Offline
That last one... sounds like it comes from experience. It also feels very useful to me. Throughout reading that, I kept wondering if I was that person. I've known a few like that, so maybe it's infectious? Or maybe I was the demons all along?
Last edited by zevrem (07-16-2013 07:25:49 PM)
Offline
zevrem wrote:
That last one... sounds like it comes from experience. It also feels very useful to me. Throughout reading that, I kept wondering if I was that person. I've known a few like that, so maybe it's infectious? Or maybe I was the demons all along?
It does. I feel like I tend to accidentally befriend or am aways surrounded by the kind of people who tend to let their anger -at anything- affect the way they treat others. One of my sisters is like that, and so is my father. I guess that's why I've always been drawn to these people and able to shrug off their tempers.
I think as long as keep your friends in mind despite your mood, and apologize when you accidentally snap or ruin a fun evening being upset about some unrelated thing, you are good. I feel like if you cannot help but be angry and moody around your friends, you have to also be honest with them and willing to let them help you. Anger is a very powerful thing, it draws all the attention to you and inspires some amount of fear in others. Indulging in it often just because your friends and loved ones will ignore it and let you get away with it... it's selfish.
Now having someone you can rant with and complain with is one thing, and I have a friend I do that with. We both get super angry or depressed over something and talk to each other about it. We vent, give some advice, even if it sucks, and one of us cracks a joke and then we both feel better. We don't get angry at something and then just treat the other one like shit for an hour on Skype.
Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (07-16-2013 08:06:49 PM)
Offline
What do you think would happen to those people if you and your group were to stop letting them prey on you passive-aggressively?
Oh, and to keep this on the topic of life tips: pretty much everything to do with human psychology is associative conditioning and operant conditioning. People do things because they desire rewards. The reward in the case of "irrational" people is usually attention. By being "nicer" and giving them attention, you're reinforcing that behavior. Although you seem to understand that already.
When dealing with other people, determine precisely what behavior you want from them, and reinforce that, and only that behavior.
Last edited by zevrem (07-16-2013 09:21:48 PM)
Offline
zevrem wrote:
When dealing with other people, determine precisely what behavior you want from them, and reinforce that, and only that behavior.
That's not so much a tip as a "Hey, I think I can control people by using basic psych skills."
Here's something a bit more practical and less unnerving.
Put a straw through a strawberry to remove that gross stem.
Breadclips are great for labeling and organizing cords.
A Carabiner is great for latching bags together if you live on a higher floor. Grocery shopping now simplified.
Offline
Why is it unnerving?
And I don't think it'll control all behaviors, just the simplest, most blatant ones.
And it's actually quite practical. Operant conditioning in the form of reinforcing good behavior in kids is known to work quite well. Gold stars, special attention, M&M's for days without bad behavior from "problem children," the number of ways to implement it is more or less limitless.
Last edited by zevrem (07-16-2013 10:35:27 PM)
Offline
Operant and Classical Conditioning do not work very well on human beings for anything other than shaping some pretty hilarious reactions via association. Behaviorism has been pretty unanimously considered by professionals in the psychological field for quite some time to be insufficient on its ownfor shaping human behavior -be that dealing with symptoms of a mental disorder, controlling an addiction or teaching your children to clean their rooms without telling them. I hate pulling this card, but I do have at least a bachelors in Psychology, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person somewhat studied in it on this forum. Basically, conditioning works super well for tricking your friend into flinching at the sound of a horn, but not so much at convincing them that gay marriage is okay. Even then, the conditioned response goes away, whether you keep up the conditioning or not. Behaviorism just doesn't really account for (in fact, it pointedly ignores) the complex cognitive and emotional motivations that influence human attitudes and behavior.
Life tip: Toothpaste will clean your headlights. Just smear it on and buff it off with a rag, then wash clean.
Edit: And it does not work with children. The token economy you are talking about is dependent on pairing that positive reinforcement with explanations that suit any particular child's age. You don't just reward good behavior, you explain why it is good (i.e, you incorporate cognitive and developmental psych perspectives) in a way that gradually advances in moral complexity the older the child gets. Authoritative versus authoritarian. Even then, such practices have been shown to, in the long run, decrease intrinsic motivation for doing an activity.
Okay I'm done spewing Psych 101. Kitsa-Bell is more studied than I in this particular department, and works with kids, so they might be able to explain this better.
Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (07-16-2013 10:49:57 PM)
Offline
Conditioning basically concerns itself with behavior and not with "attitudes," regarding the latter as fantasy and metaphor. So instead of your friend's attitudes towards gay marriage, concern yourself with his behaviors that are associated with that attitude, such as positive statements about "tradition." You could reward this with silence and a still face, which unnerves people, especially emotional people who associate expressiveness with normality, or you could go further and narrow your eyes subtly. Or you could deride these statements.
And yes, you're right, it does destroy motivation, because it associates reward with an artificial social structure, while those "explanations" associate reward with the environment, even if they may do so fallaciously. So it's important to create a strong association between the desired behaviors and the bigger picture.
Last edited by zevrem (07-16-2013 10:51:14 PM)
Offline
zevrem wrote:
Conditioning basically concerns itself with behavior and not with "attitudes," regarding the latter as fantasy and metaphor. So instead of your friend's attitudes towards gay marriage, concern yourself with his behaviors that are associated with that attitude, such as positive statements about "tradition." You could reward this with silence and a still face, which unnerves people, especially emotional people who associate expressiveness with normality, or you could go further and narrow your eyes subtly. Or you could deride these statements.
Yup. And it wouldn't work. At all.
And yes, you're right, it does destroy motivation, because it associates reward with an artificial social structure, while those "explanations" associate reward with the environment, even if they may do so fallaciously. So it's important to create a strong association between the desired behaviors and the bigger picture.
It destroys intrinsic motivation by replacing it with extrinsic, which is never a strong motivating factor once any person has obtained the means for a comfortable lifestyle. People do not learn to enjoy what they do or to appreciate the benefits, tangible and intangible, of being a "good" person that way. I recommend giving Drive:The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us a read for more explanation on why many of the tenets of behaviorism that have been used to stimulate worker productivity are no longer relevant, if they ever were effective in the way people assumed they were. It was assigned to my Criminal Justice Management students because it's very informative and widely applicable while still being approachable.
Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (07-16-2013 11:03:02 PM)
Offline