communication today

I must admit that I am not proficient when it comes to using PowerPoint, nor was I aware of just how deeply it impacts the way we communicate today. The ability to organize information in an orderly fashion has many advantages, and people can certainly benefit from having information presented in different ways. Verbal and visual communication are important for getting an idea across, and theoretically PowerPoint allows the two to become one.

The notion of limiting your ideas to seven words and seven sentences is an acceptable rule of thumb because it forces you to prioritize and systematically evaluate information, but it should not be an absolute. Different types of arguments require different ways of organizing. As Clifford Nass pointed out, sometimes the process behind the argument is lost in translation.

After having read this article I will consider becoming familiar with PowerPoint in order to communicate more effectively, but I do not desire to become someone who must read information off of a slide. Nothing communicates knowledge more effectively than being able to talk comfortably about the information on the screen rather than just repeating it verbatim. In order to communicate properly there must be a balance between explicit systems like PowerPoint, and more personal rhetoric by an individual.

Your truth or mine?

Know it all

ends with a simple question: your truth or mine? The question supports my belief that wikipedia is a place not for the last word on a subject, but rather for the first word. Wikipedia is a wonderful example of something which has come to be known as crowd sourcing. Rather than relying on a small group of individuals to make decisions, a given project is opened to a larger group with a potentially greater ability to accomplish a given task.

Most people when discussing wikipedia seem to focus primarily on its accuracy and ability to transmit information effectively, and correctly. However, I think that discussion is narrow and does not foster much genuine insight. What is more promising about wikipedia is the commentary it has allowed surrounding democracy. It began with somewhat of an anti-authority mentality, and seemed to favor a system more closely related to anarchy. It is interesting that even given the great level of success, a need eventually arose for not only informal guidelines, but an eventual acquiescence to more explicit rules. For me this article was a gentle reminder that individual liberty functions best within explicitly defined parameters. Self-governance is the beginning of freedom.

bad romance

Pygmalion truly exemplifies the genius of Shaw. His work may be considered by many to be too didactic, but it is precisely this quality that appeals so strongly to me personally. It has long been argued that the purpose of art is to instruct and delight. This idea goes back to Aristotle, and is stated more explicitly in the maxims of Horace.

The fact that the Shaw describes this provokes much reflection upon completion of the story. A romance typically concludes with a commercially satisfying ending that would generally be the result of the hero and heroine falling in love. In his epilogue, he describes it as being a romance only due to its improbability, although the story is actually more common than one might think. The idea of romance seems to lean a little more toward the delight end of the instruct and delight dichotomy, and I think Shaw is attempting a valuable criticism of it. Romance has always been the battle cry of freedom in many ways, but Pygmalion seems to do a splendid job of showing just how much of a restraint it actually is. The convention has become so hammered into our minds, that considering an alternative seems almost blasphemous.

The liberation of the individual from formulaic convention was Shaw's great contribution, which was sadly undone in My Fair Lady. Some may react to Pygmalion as if it were a bad romance. This would seem fair and appropriate given the standard nature of a romance, but I believe it entirely misses the point. Shaw is too careful of a person to simply fail at writing a proper romance, rather I believe he drew attention to the idea of it as a romance for the purpose of critically evaluating its function.

Not a pebble

Pygmalion is a play I have been meaning to read on my own for quite some time now, so reading it for class makes the task that much more approachable. The story seems to be about Mr Higgins transforming a plain flower girl named Eliza into a Duchess. However, with a little more reading it is not quite that simple.

In the first place, Higgins is treating Eliza as if she were just pebbles that he can do with as he wishes. Although they establish the fact that she has no family or husband, he neglects to consider that deep down she has a sense of self ownership. Despite the fact that this girl is supposed to be considered "simple" in the most derogatory way, there is evidence early on that she has a wit about her. She is defiant sometimes without reason, but can certainly manipulate circumstances to her advantage.

Secondly, the notion that Higgins will be able to do this all on his own seems obviously impossible. For a girl who has never had a proper bath, transforming her into a Duchess by means of phonetics alone seems an impossible task. Yet there is an admirable amount of determination in Higgins, even despite the fact that it is all for his own self gain.

Any story involving change naturally appeals to me. I think as people we desire to change, and studying the ways in which other people go about this task can be enlightening. Thus far I have been reminded that rarely is change simple, and more often than not it relies on both external and internal factors, not all of which can be controlled.