Tim said:You do have to admit that most of last year there seemed to be yet another article or video of Kai that set him up as some kind of survivor of hardship that was ever so humble and philosophical. Got pretty old, especially in the Mr O lead-up.
There is something to be said for being who you are, not selling who you were and how you got here.
You can like the banal and shallow. In Mr Holland's Opus there is a line where he describes how crap The Beatles are yet how much he loves them. Star Wars is filled with some of the worst acting and scripting ever put to film, yet it remains a timeless classic. It isn't about ignoring strengths and highlighting weaknesses in any subjective assessment, but rather weighting them. As such my comment was about johnny5's lack of information upon which to weight his assessment.
It does have to be justified. He may like it for a reason that is not being given any weight by another person (such as myself, I may not be giving weight to Kai's exploration of alternate speaking topics for a BBing medium). I'm in an industry that requires oral communication and desemination of complex ideas, as such hearing good public speakers, while not common, is something I am regularly exposed to. So when I hear Kai speak I am less than impressed, so my subjective opinion has a weighting based on communication of topic, clarity, enthusiasm, knowing the topic, concise use of language, etc. As such I feel that someone who says Kai is a good speaker hasn't really been exposed to many good speakers to draw that conclusion.
Maths has been used to quantify beauty and the like, measures of social attractiveness are actually pretty quantifiable.No, it should be apparent that more than one scale is being used to give value to the subject matter at hand. Giving judgment as a musician Mr.Holland may have believed that the Beatles were crap. But, possibly from a social aspect, he loved them. You cannot use the same scale and both hate and love something at the same moment, it is, because of the measurement of time and the constraints of mathematics as a tool to asses value, impossible to do so.
This is part of what I've already stated.Johhny 5 create value for Kai's speaking, just on a different scale than you did Tim. You two are not seeing eye to eye bc you are using two different scales to measure the value of what Kai is saying. Johnny does not understand that their are two different phenomenas to be addressed here:
1. The technique used to get the point across, the actual performance of the words said. Which can be assessed on an 'objective' scale.
I understand your point but disagree. While individuals will relate to certain topics or ideas more keenly, whether through alligned ethos or social conditioning, the value in the words still has a lot to do with delivery and quality of the words. The greatest orators in history have been able to tap into emotions, values, beliefs and channel them with the correct choice of words to do so. The individual words can be spoken by two different people with profound differences. To say that you can assign value to the words alone is negate the delivery, which creates a fundamental conundrum, as there cannot be words without delivery.2.The value each person gives to the words spoken. Which is entirely subjective and relative to each individuals beliefs. Their is no right or wrong here, just as their is no right or wrong in morality only preference.
He does not. He speaks like he is regurgitating a bunch of stuff he has read and not understood. In one part of the video (the one where his coach is cooking his meal) he is straight up parroting a section from one of the books. If he had understood it he would have needed to adapt its message to his situation and would have relayed the message with his own cultural shapings and personal ethos attached.The reason I am saying this is b/c Kai answers in a manner that is consistent to the way a philosopher writes, and I am not referring to the self help garbage. Kai starts from the beginning of an issue and then reasons point by point to his answer.
Yes, agreed. But I never said he had to be, only I was contesting the statement that he was.As a public speaker I have to agree with Tim, Kai's technique really is not that great. But honestly, Kai does not have to be a great public speaker. Kai is a professional bodybuilder and he is should not be judged by the platform of a professional speaker.
As a bodybuilding fan, and a fan of Kai Greene, the in depth answers Kai gives to questions allow for a better understanding of what he has experienced and where he came from, which allows his fans to give more value to Kai's answers and Kai himself. This is where Kai should excel and this is where Kai does excel. Kai has the tools that are appropriate for his platform. Kai is an absolute expert in the one area that is relevant to giving a great answer to a real bodybuilding fan who want to get to know the bodybuilder, Kai's self. And in this area i agree with Johnny Kai is great.
Maths has been used to quantify beauty and the like, measures of social attractiveness are actually pretty quantifiable.
You missed my point. I was not saying that a statistic could not be created based on the opinions of the preferences in societies. My point was that two separate scales were being used to give the mans opinion in the statement you quoted. One from a musicians point of view the other from some other point of view, most likely personal preference.Two separate number lines must exist to create these values. The opinion given must also include all variables in that area that can be measured(given value), if not the opinion is less quantifiable and is a less accurate measure.
Their must be two separate number lines for it to be possible for two different values to be given. The number lines represent the different scales: one from the musicians point of view and the other from a personal preference or what ever point of view he used for the second measure he gave. Mr.Holland, on scale of a musician, says the Beatles sucked, and on the scale of personal preferance, he says he loved the Beatles. Two separate scales are necessary to give the opinions.
We cannot discuss one phenomena at the same moment of time using the same scale and give it two different values at that very moment, it is impossible. It is impossible bc of the constraints of mathematic theory. One point cannot take up two places on any number line at the same time. It would be like you being in two places at once at the same moment. That is what i am saying.
This is part of what I've already stated.
I understand your point but disagree. While individuals will relate to certain topics or ideas more keenly, whether through alligned ethos or social conditioning, the value in the words still has a lot to do with delivery and quality of the words. The greatest orators in history have been able to tap into emotions, values, beliefs and channel them with the correct choice of words to do so. The individual words can be spoken by two different people with profound differences. To say that you can assign value to the words alone is negate the delivery, which creates a fundamental conundrum, as there cannot be words without delivery.
You can assign value to language alone. You have read plenty of books and statistics and i am sure you hear your voice in your head when you read them, or some voice that you found irrelevant in comparison to the words themselves. You need to separate the variables of what is being communicated and how it is being communicated.
I will use your example and group it with my categories.
Take any speech that any famous orator has given. Now you must remove the memory of having heard that speech form your mind so you have nothing to compare it to. That speech says nothing more or nothing less than what is written. When we read we give that speech value on our own by our understanding of the words written in it. Now when we hear someone who has mastered the ability of speaking dictate the speech to us now we have an entirely different speech perhaps. The reason we have an entirely different speech is not b/c we found any more value in the words, the words have not changed so it is impossible that the words are more valuable now than when they were written. A person finds more value bc of the speakers ability to communicate those words. These are two separate entities. The words themselves and the delivery of those words are separate. And each creates their value on their own. Just because we heard them simultaneously through verbal communication does not mean we cannot separate them through writing.
He does not. He speaks like he is regurgitating a bunch of stuff he has read and not understood. In one part of the video (the one where his coach is cooking his meal) he is straight up parroting a section from one of the books. If he had understood it he would have needed to adapt its message to his situation and would have relayed the message with his own cultural shapings and personal ethos attached.
Hmm to say that he does not understand what he has read is an AWFULLY bold statement to make, and it is very unlikely you are able to legitimately make that statement and make it in a manner that has any value to it what so ever. The second half of this statement is border line stereotyping. How do you know that Kai did not understand the words in that exact manner. In all likelihood if Kai had been reading self help books non stop, and he communicates with oscar in that way, and we can see that he does in his arm training video Oscar talks to Kai like Oscar is a self help book, then Kai's mind set might have been exactly that, the spirit of those combined books. I can speak from experience that if you have read one self help book you have basically read them all. So to say that he has not absorbed that information and applied it in a manner consistent with his thought assumes that Kai should be acting a certain way. No only is your statement stereotypical in nature it is idealistic, why should Kai act in any other manner than he does? Why does understanding have to be your description of how understanding is presented? Presentation is all relevant to belief systems, mood, and personality.
Yes, agreed. But I never said he had to be, only I was contesting the statement that he was.
This is exactly why the categories I created are all the more relevant. You find more value in things that are objectively measurable, thus your emphasis on on the delivery of language. Johnny finds value in the word spoken and has not separated the difference between the verbalization of the words and the words them selves which is why he says Kai is a good speaker. Two different scales to create the value of Kai's interviews are being used, it is obvious.
Can't argue with this. But I can say I haven't been endeared to Kai through any of his videos. If anything I have been endeared to his work ethic and won over a bit by his physque (which I'm still not a fan of). Also while I'm on the point; Kai's spouting of philosophy about winning, etc, and then the juxtaposition of his body language leading into the Mr O night show smacks of someone who is deperately seeking self belief. I wouldn't be surprised if he is reading all the philosophy because he is trying to address a competitive flaw he has.
Kai has stated in interviews that the reason for his body language on Olympia night was because after all of the hard work he had done and all the prep he put himself through, which by no means makes him any different than any one else, he knew he aimed at the wrong ideal package to prepare for and lost motivation when he felt it was not possible for him to achieve the goal he had set forth.
No he said that Kai was a good speaker. Completely different statement.co05 said:Well, gee, Johnny said he liked Kai's videos so what's the point in arguing about that?
So, He does not deserve to win shows he has a bad physique?
I've actually been through many conferences and presentations on complex topics and have always been amazed at what a skill public speaking is. This skill is completely quantifiable and I'm afraid that this discussion has become solely about whether or not someone places value in the message rather than what I originally stated (Kai isn't a good speaker). I'm not going to continue this because I sense your bias is clouding this debate.
You cannot be a good speaker just by having a message that people relate to. The more you see presenters and general people speak on similar topics and how well you become engaged in the talks the more you realise that you cannot just draw the distinctions you are trying to draw. I myself have literally taken a talk that someone else had given and presented it myself. It went from the talk that was rated the worst by the audience to the one that rated as "the first time someone has explained the topic clearly". I have this appraisal on file as I consider this a small personal achievement (I used to hate and suck at public speaking), especially given the subject matter was boring and banal.
Because you are a fan of something or someone will immediately predispose you to wanting to hear what is said. Fine. But don't then think that this means the topic or presenter were actually any good. They are not "two different scales", it is merely the interest level, not how well that interesting thing is being presented.
I agree I could be wrong about Kai. He may have actually grasped all the philosophy, he may be very well versed. It still doesn't change my observation that he mumbles his way through without any real train of thought.
No he said that Kai was a good speaker. Completely different statement.
No. The primary purpose of language is to communicate. Communication by its very definition requires effective conveyance of information between the speaker/communicator and the audience. Thus without effective communication skills, something Kai is lacking, the communication is poor, ineffective or boring (which can lead to ineffective communication).Creating value is the sole purpose of language and nothing more! When a word is given to describe an object we have created value for that object by giving it a title or description. We use language to communicate and understand these human created values for these objects/phenomonas.
No. There is no real guru, no "assigned standards". What I was referring to was the actual attributes that make for good communication. These are largely understood by those that use them effectively, frequently and display an ability to "rally the troops". As by way of an example, the soundbite or quick grab has become popular on the news, this is an example of making your key point or points in a very short statement. This is about making a clear and concise message for the audience taken to an extreme. This is just one of the key attributes to communication and public speaking.I acknowledged that public speaking was a skill, and that whom ever is the guru of public speaking sat down and made the decision about what good attributes one should posses to be a good public speaker, one who speaks with proper use of the language itself. I understand what you are saying. The presentation of the language, the delivery of the language is how you classify the value of what someone says.
No I believe you are wrong. You are talking about the way language is used, not the aspect or value of usage. If you use ambiguous statements (e.g. political speak) then you are deliberately creating a subjective viewpoint. Politicians do this in order to leave themselves wriggle-room when/if things go awry, others do it through poor communication; others do it because they are being vague due to poor understanding of their actual point or due to a lack of concise language skill.Now hear me when i say that delivery is ONE aspect of language. The other aspect is the meaning people give to the words being spoken. In science this aspect of language is universally agreed upon. If two scientists read the same description and got two different understandings then the science would not be very objective now would it. By its very nature science must control the subjective value creating aspect of language. It is obvious why you over look this value creating property of language with you being a scientist, this value creating aspect of language is not allowed to cross over into a subjective experience bc in order for words to have meaning in science they must follow scientific method which means remaining objective as possible.
Not just how well it is understood, but also an understanding of the point, the themes, the emotion, everything. Don't sell this short because you want to break up language arbitrarily.Thus your conclusion that the value of speaking comes from the delivery of the words b/c the better the delivery, which in your case means reasoning, the better the topic is understood.
I agree and disagree. There is a simple saying: "He could sell ice to Eskimos". Clearly the way information is taken in is always run past personal filters. We have a guy at work that will conveniently miss all of the key points (even if they are written out in big bold letters) in favour of his own interest in the information. These filters are essentially our biases being brought to bear on the material. Your's and johnny5's bias here is that you are Kai fans (while I couldn't care less, I'm just interested in BBing), as such you have watched Kai's videos and interviews because you are interested in anything and everything he has to say. As such your interest level and filters will be different, but this has little to do with actual language use by Kai, or any other communicator. You were already interested in what Kai had to say before he said it, not because of what he said or the way he said it. Please do not confuse this with assigning value to his words or other nonsense.This is not the case in all communication. Objectiveness in not the rule in all fields, thus the TWO aspects of language, its delivery and its subjective meaning to the people hearing it. The same point can be made to 2 different people one can love you the other can hate you, the point was the same, the language was the same. What was different was the value that those words created and what that value meant to each of those individuals.
I wish I hadn't used that quoted analogy, as you seem to have gotten hung up on analysing it rather than understanding my actual points.The same remains true with your Mr.Holland comment. He said the Beatles sucked, which means in an objective sense on some value creating scale related to music the Beatles fell short, but when the music hit his ears subjectively he loved them for what ever reason. Two separate scales.