tim said: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.
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).
Communication is the superficial purpose of language. When we speak the words have meaning, other wise nothing would be communicated. The meaning of a word is how a word creates its value. Through the value a word creates, a person has understanding. Through that understanding we communicate. For example, if a person tells a story and they say, "Rock," the people listening to the story have done a few things mentally that are taken for granted by the person telling the story. The first is that the listeners have understood the meaning of rock. The listeners knew to picture an object of a general size, and pyhsical characteristics.
When someone says rock an image of an object with certain features comes into ones imagination, we cannot imagine the specifics of the rock;size, shape, color, ect, but we all have some general idea of what is meant when some one says the word rock. The reason that an image that can be classified as 'rock' appears in our minds and not one that we consider to be 'car' instead is bc through language we understand the imaginary value a word has and is used to create when we associate that word with an object. For example if we cannot understand the meaning the word possess then the word has no value to us. If i were to say "povate" when telling a story the word has no meaning b/c it is a word I just made up. With out meaning we cannot create that general image thus the word has no value to be communicated. The value in language is the general universal understanding that the people who speak that language share. Words are created that by themselves mean nothing, and then value is assigned to these words when we associate a word with something concretely understood. Language creates value, that value allows us to communicate.
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.
The ability to motivate is nothing more than the ability to create strong interest in a topic. That ability is directly related to being able to identify the beliefs of the audience and speak in a manner that creates more value for those beliefs. By emphasizing the importance of the value of those beliefs the people who possess those beliefs feel more justified by possessing them, thus they are more likely to act on them b/c the feel they are: more correct, more moral, more truthful, more insert any word that is seen as a stronger reason to act here. This is a very easy way to manipulate a group of people into doing what someone wants. It is actually a tool used in logic. If you can start at point A(which is the core belief of the audience spoken to) and then reason form that point to point B( your agenda) then not only will most people change their beliefs to the replacement you have provided but they will praise you for your genius. In reality genius could could be substituted with the words 'strong will and creativity.' The reason that we accept logical reasoning is bc the reasoning itself takes advantage of our aesthetic bias. Reasoning moves from one point to the next and to the next assuringly creating relationships that have meaning and seem to show how one point come from the one prior and leads to the following, it is an aesthetic bias that generates from the error in thinking that similarity is equality.
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.
My response in my first paragraph above applies here to your comments on value and language.
The meaning given to the words is actually a skill of the orator or communicator. Poets are famous for crafting prose that can be openly interpreted or be specifically interpreted. This is their skill with language. If value is to be assigned to language and words it comes from the manner (and often circumstances) in which they were delivered. A great example of this is a comedian telling a joke at a comedy show, but when retold by someone from the audience to their friends later it isn't funny; "I guess you just had to be there".
Now you are talking about the message the language creates and more so about the delivery of that message. The way an individual put together words with meaning, that is an art.More meaning can be found if the words are used more creatively by one person than by another, but again that is in the delivery of the words and the value that those words as a message create fro the listener. Which is another aspect of communicating language. But the ability of the message to motivate depends on the beliefs of the person/s listening to it.
For example ,Friedrich Nietzsche, is notoriously gloomy and evil philosopher whose views are decedent to life in some peoples opinion, but in the opinion of others his writings are creative and written by a free spirit, they are good and motivate life. The reason these opinions exist is b/c the opinions are created people reading, understanding and reflecting the meaning of Nietzsche's writing and then making a decision on them which can be shown by the opinions I have listed above.
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.
I apologize if you felt i was selling the delivery and creativity of the art of putting words together creatively to prove a point short. I agree delivery does matter. But delivery is again one aspect of language per my explanation in the first paragraph of this response.
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.
So where I disagree is that these filters can be overrun by a good communicator (aside from the problem of getting them to read/listen/etc in the first place). The "selling ice to Eskimos" euphemism is a very apt description of a good communicator that is able to sell their message, despite the filters/bias. I have a friend who gave a presentation on his work. Basic gist of it was that he'd spent 4yrs discovering that something was completely useless. But by the end of the talk, his enthusiasm for his work, the information he'd presented, the brilliant communication he had used, all had you believing that he hadn't wasted his time and that he should be given more money to follow-up his work. Language when used correctly is a very powerful tool that can convince you despite the material itself.
If he learned something then he did not waste his time b.c he learned what not to do, information was gained that could be used. That information was what did not work, or what was meaningless. That sounds very valuable to me. A good speaker, who in this case is a sales person for a particular belief,scientific or otherwise, can only bypass filters if they are talking to an audience that is not an intelligent thinking audience. It is extremely difficult to change the mind of an intelligent person who has reasoned to their beliefs and thought hard about why it is they believe what they believe even when using the manner I described above. [If you can start at point A(which is the core belief of the audience spoken to) and then reason form that point to point B( your agenda) then not only will most people change their beliefs to the replacement you have provided but they will praise you for your genius.]
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.
At a guess I think that the problem here is that yourself and others have never heard a presentation that should be so boring that Elvis would rise from the grave to provide a bit of entertainment 30 seconds into the talk, but instead is done so well that you actually want to hear more (selling ice to Eskimos). And conversely you probably haven't heard an interesting topic that you have driven 1000's of kilometres to hear only to have it butchered by a poor communicator.[/QUOTE
I'm not a big fan of his either but it is motivational you have to agree.