Have you ever noticed how some people are great at giving apologies? I was taught that it is a very important life skill to be able to apologize correctly. The first rule was to tell someone that I wanted to apologize about (insert my offense here). This was to be followed by an explanation of how I knew I was wrong. Finally, an apology was coming to a finish with an explanation of what I would do differently in the future and if needed, ask for forgiveness. If an apology was presented sincerely without any kind of excuses, it was a solid effort (whether accepted or not). Things to avoid were "I'm sorry but if you hadn't", or excusing your behavior by explaining it, such as "i was only trying to". A good apology got right to the point, didn't make excuses, recognized the offense, had a plan for fixing the behavior (mine, not theirs) and actually asking for forgiveness or understanding. That's it. That's the whole thing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Howard Stern once told his audience that it was very important for a good communicator to not use interjections like "um". He said that his father taught him to be very aware of 'filler words' like um, uh, like, well and so. His point was that if you wanted to come across as confident and deliberate that you would eliminate these interjections from your daily speech. When i first heard Howard explain this practice I spend the next two weeks listening to other people talk. I was surprised to see how often people use filler words absentmindedly. I put effort into becoming aware of, and eliminating my own usage of these interjections and i thought it was difficult at first. It gets easier with practice, and i thought that my speaking sounded more deliberate when I became conscious of how I used or eliminated these expressions.

I was noticing this in a big way over the last 10 years when it comes to the media and politics. "Woke" certainly means something, but if you ask someone to define it you probably wont get a very standard definition if you get an explanation at all. "Woke" certainly isn't used as a complement. Its used as a label of derision. "Sheeple, qanon, immigrant, patriot, liberal and maga" all have connotations that are meant to be exclusionary and divisive. I'm a bit startled at how many words have been hijacked or created to minimize and dismiss entire groups and populations in the recent years. I think its interesting to ask someone what the definition of some of these terms are. I don't often get a comprehensive or definitive explanation as much as i get a response of the emotion behind the buzzword.

Not only are the words you choose to use important in conveying a sense of professional acumen or expertise, the tone and speed that you use is equally important. Want to convey a sense of comforting control? Slow your speech down and drop your voice down an octave or two.<br /> Want to have people listen to you carefully? Speak a little softer to make a listener put effort into hearing you. Want to get people to spring into action and get orientated? Nobody does it better than a drill sergeant with the voice of command booming across a room. Using the right jargon for the environment will clearly convey your message and give you credibility. How you say those words will allow your listener to be in the right frame of mind to absorb your words as you mean for them to be heard.

There was a great scene in a movie called 'dead poets society' where the professor (played by robin williams) is trying to convince his students that they should be diverse and passionate in how they explored and used language. The professor encourages his students to use synonyms to elicit better emotional responses to communication. He says that instead of saying you are sad, to instead say you are morose... I looked up the quote. “So avoid using the word ‘very’ because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women - and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays.”

Subject + Verb + Object + Adverb Of Place + Adverb Of Time. I don't think i was ever directly taught the order that words were supposed to go in for the english language. It is so obvious from a lifetime of practice that there simply is a natural way to format our sentences.<br /> I thought it was interesting to learn that in spanish certain words go out of order when compared to english, or in the korean language organizes by subject-predicate-object.

I had a professor who made an interesting point. He said that if you took a person (of any age, but it works best if the person is very young with a mind that's attuned for language formation) and simply had them observe people speaking over time, that observer would start learning the basics of the spoken language. Syntax, different tenses, singular and plural... all of it. But if that same person spent years observing writing without being directly taught the basic rules of written language, then that person wouldn't learn to write without instruction. The point was that learning a spoken language was innate over time, but writing took specific instruction and practice.

Of all the supporting materials to give your topic boost, testimony has got to have the greatest potential. Theres and old saying 'If i say it, its a lie. If you say it, its the truth'. People are naturally skeptical with presentations. Audiences have a natural aversion to being sold to or manipulated. Using a well chosen person whose testimony supports the subject can take the focus off of you being the sole source of potential bias. It helps when a little granny talks about how she relies on medicaid, or how a farmer relies on livestock guardian dogs to protect a herd. Relatable testimonies will give your subject legs and naturally help your audience trust both your argument but also your intentions.

Statistics have taken a hit in presentations for a while now. I think audiences have been oversaturated with statistics that are questionable, not explained well, not sufficiently backed up by credible sources (sources that need time to be explained outside of simply saying that 'so and so source says this statistic'. I would use statistics sparingly, if at all; and if I did use them I'd actually take the time to work through how those statistics were created at least for the first part of the presentation to build my own credibility.

I prefer using a whiteboard to present ideas if I'm talking about something that has a thought process. Using diagrams and explanations really helps both myself and my audience to stay focused and to follow the train of thought. Sometimes my presentations have math involved, and while it isn't important to have an audience that needs to work through the math with me, I do need to show how the information I'm presenting has a basis for the conclusions of the lecture.

I like to choose a topic that I can simply ramble on about naturally for at least 30 minutes. If I drive from boise to mountain home and can talk to myself about the subject the entire time, then I'm probably going to be off to a good start with being comfortable and familiar with the material.

This has got to be the most important starting point for creating a presentation. I, myself, have given presentations to audiences that didn't make a connection simply because I failed to think about what my audience would be interested in. Since people engage in things that relate to them, I would imagine that it would be paramount to ensure that a topic be broadly relatable to the people listening. If your audience is largely children, stay away from talking about taxes. If they are mostly elderly women churchgoers, probably don't talk about how awesome the big city nightlife scene is. If its mostly macho men, maybe stay away from talking about which carebear what the cutest and most awesome. This has got to be the most important thing to consider when starting. The rest of the presentation will fall into place nicely if you choose your topic wisely. This doesn't mean that you have to pick a topic that your audience will agree with however. It's ok to talk about something controversial or upsetting... your audience still needs to be interested and orientated.

This is by far the most useful section of chapter 9 for me. Actually seeing how the preceding suggestions and explanations were tied together in a format is just the kind of template that I can compare my own presentation outline to. Using this example will be a good reference to make sure I don't miss or forget about any areas that need to be included.

lol, this picture and description is flat out rude

Just a side note from personal experience. A bit random. I used to be really thin. Kind of scrawny. When I was 25 I started to exercise every day. After about 3 years of lifting weights, I had really changed. I gained about 60 lbs and needed a whole new wardrobe. I noticed that people started treating me differently and I liked it a lot. But it took about 6 years for the more athletic me to finally show up in my dreams. One night I was dreaming about something (i think I was in a dream fight) and instead of having trouble with what or whomever I was fighting with, I was kicking butt. My new physical self concept had finally shown up in my dream, and it totally rocked. I wonder if that was my subconscious finally thinking of myself differently. I also wonder if it works the same for some people who lose 100 lbs, or had an accident and now can't walk. How long until their new identities show up in their dreams?

This is gold, and i think its one of the most important lessons and attitudes about life. I think I can tell within about 10 minutes of casually chatting with someone if they've been much of a world traveler or not (without overtly asking if a person has travelled). From a lifetime of observation alone, I've found that people who travel extensively for both work and enjoyment tend to be much more openminded and comfortable about other cultures and values. Seeing how people live in relative poverty or in different communities can certainly help a person appreciate where they themselves come from. Travelling can help a person feel more curious and less threatened by new experiences and ideas that are different from the norms back home. Generally I find that people who never left their home states tend to be fearful about the world, unable to understand different religions and value systems, and are very certain that the way things are done 'back home' are the only acceptable way to do things. That's a shame. The world is such a big place, and its much more interesting when you have an open mind and a willing attitude for exploring and experiencing.

This seems like leftover hunter-gatherer/feeding-breeding attention parsing. When I'm alert for intruders, my eyes notice motion and my ears discern sounds that stand out. If I'm hungry, I notice the smells of food. In contrast to that, my brain turns down the 'noise' from things that aren't top priorities. If I'm full of food, I don't get distracted by the smell of pizza. This kind of automatic deciphering is attached to the autonomic nervous system I think.

I read that the sense of smell is highly vigilant when it comes to telling a person if something is dangerous or not. The article said that we first notice some smells because the brain is trying to see if its something related to fight or flight, such as smoke from a housefire, gas from a stove, or bodyodor from a teenager. Once the brain has determined (either consciously or subconsciously) that the smell isn't deadly or dangerous then it stops processing the smell in a way that causes alarm. That's why some smells seem to go away, but are really still there. Its an explanation as to why some people are 'nose blind' after being around a smell for long enough.

There's a lady in Boise who teaches this group communication skill called 'yes, and'. The crux of the skill really shines when people share ideas during a group event. It's been noted that many people in group setting don't share what could be great ideas because they are often met with people who say 'but, or that wont work, or the problem with that is...' and this kind of reaction both negatively reinforces the sharing of the idea and can make the person sharing become defensive in short order. Using words like 'yes, and' encourages people to share ideas by staying away from responses that are critical or negative.<br /> For example, if someone says that wearing comfy shoes to work helps to make it through a long day, and another person in the group responds by saying 'Yes, and its possible to have shoes that are both comfy and professional', that response encourages the original thought sharer to express other ideas because they were recognized, supported, and other ideas were combined to help make the original idea grow. In contrast, if a person shares that 'Comfy shoes might make the long day more bearable', and another person in the group responds "Comfy shoes aren't professional', the original sharer is likely not to offer ideas in the future for fear of criticism and lack of support. 'Yes, and' has become a really useful tool for me in the group discussion setting for encouraging sharing without negative criticism shutting down ideas.

So true. If I need to prepare for a presentation, performance or conversation I really benefit from spending time talking myself through the event first. By practicing replies, thinking about the words I'd like to use or being intentional about the key ideas that I'd like to be sure are clear, i feel really prepared for being fluid and confident with my communication efforts. I think its a good idea even practice taking pauses to ask questions and listen to responses to get a feel of the conversation flow you'd like to have.

Not totally sure about this statement. Since this would be the most familiar and intimate of all the communication groups, I'd argue that this could/should be the type of communication where miscommunication and misunderstandings would be the most infrequent. A person who knows you should be able to interpret your meaning due to being familiar with you. Maybe conflict is more frequent due to this kind of communication allowing for a level of emotion being expressed that the other types don't allow for.

The military has its own form of group communication. During morning physical training (PT) your leadership will yell out the expectations for each exercise and the enlisted personnel will answer back with an enthusiastic reply or a cadence count of a sort. The purpose is to keep uniformity during a mass event, motivate and encourage all participants, and end each training with directions for expectations for the rest of the working day. All directions are acknowledged and affirmed which closes the communication loop.

A piano recital or a performance of a philharmonic orchestra might be a sort of public communication. It has a source of info (the music) eliciting emotions and thoughts being interpreted by the audience. I'll bet a play at the Shakespeare festival would be another form of public communication. My dogs are really fond of public communication near certain bushes and rocks while we go on our daily walks.

I read about a guy (https://www.boredpanda.com/not-everyone-having-internal-monologue/) that did an informal study about people not having an inner monologue. I was a bit shocked. I thought everyone had that voice that they argued with inside their head, sometimes quietly, sometimes aloud while working or driving. It's probably a bit lonely without having that pesky voice blabbing in the background all day.