I had a chat about this last night, plus I received a comment on here that relates to this topic. The topic is performance.
There are a lot of people out there who have fears of performing. Some studies have showing more people fear public speaking (or any kind of performing in front of people) than fear death.
I've always been under the impression that the fear isn't really the performance. The fear is that they won't be able to make the correct decisions if things go bad. Often times in public speaking things go terribly wrong; you stumble of the words, you don't speak loud enough and they don't hear you, you bore them to death, etc etc. Every performer has suffered from it numerous times, but what separates the ones who are comfortable from the uncomfortable is that they have a preplanned response, or they're good at making decisions on their feet.
Most people are pretty good at acting--they do it every day of their life. It's not that people are bad at "acting" and need more practice, it's that they need to be more comfortable and confident. Most of the acting problems I've worked out with people have been problems in which they worry more about how they look than actually doing the acting. The thought processes kind of block off part of their acting abilities and limit them. One of the easiest fixes a director can do is to assure the actor that they're doing a good job.
In any case, when an actor or other performer understands the big picture (that their job is to entertain, and that even when they mess up they are still entertaining**[follow the stars down to the bottom where I talk about this more]), they become 10x better at performing. Performing is more about confidence than acting.
You can apply this truth to a whole bunch of other things, like dating. Try being conscientious and worried about whether or not your date will like you. Now try to build a relationship in which that is ALL you do. --see, understanding that there is a bigger picture than just impressing the other person can help them get what they really want: a relationship. (they don't care if you're the shiz, they care if they can have a good relationship with you)
Apply it to sales. When you worry whether or not they will buy the product or not, you limit yourself from discovering what the customer really wants and how you can fulfill that need with your product. (they don't care whether or not the product is awesome and has a lot of features, they care about how it can help them)
----
**Take a look at why people go to theaters: a) they want to be entertained for a couple hours because regular life is boring b) they want to experience humanity in a way that can only be observed c) they want to exert their mind d) they want to critic the story/actor/whatever.
When you recognize that even if you goof up here and there you're still fulfilling SOMEONE's need for watching the show, you also realize that you have nothing to fear about acting.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Picture Proof
I have a saying that I like to mock around with everyone I talk to. The situation is usually like this: they tell me how awesome something was that happened to them and I respond by saying "It didn't happen unless you have a picture of it". Usually it is just to see if they will produce a picture so I can enjoy the moment as well. Occasionally, I say it just to see if they'll get riled up and defend the truth.
In any case, every time that they have been lying about the event my line has stopped them in their tracks because they fear having to produce evidence for something that isn't real.
"Dude, I swear I just saw sasquach with my friends"
"It didn't happen if you don't have a picture of it."
"..well...jim saw it...he'll prove it"
"Does he have a picture?"
"No."
"..."
"..."
"..."
"..."
"...ok."
Do I really think you need picture proof? No. In fact, working in the film industry I already know how easy it is to tweak photos to make them look real. --And videos.
Rhetoric is the real trick. Prove it to me in words and I'll believe you.
In any case, every time that they have been lying about the event my line has stopped them in their tracks because they fear having to produce evidence for something that isn't real.
"Dude, I swear I just saw sasquach with my friends"
"It didn't happen if you don't have a picture of it."
"..well...jim saw it...he'll prove it"
"Does he have a picture?"
"No."
"..."
"..."
"..."
"..."
"...ok."
Do I really think you need picture proof? No. In fact, working in the film industry I already know how easy it is to tweak photos to make them look real. --And videos.
Rhetoric is the real trick. Prove it to me in words and I'll believe you.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Government Shutdown Friday
I've been studying this issue for a month or so now and I swear the only comments that Dems. are making about the issue is that they think the reps are being unreasonable, and the only thing the reps are saying is that we need to cut between $61-100bill from the budget. Tea Party of course support the cuts. As do libertarians. So it's really just coming down to an issue of whether or not the Dems. will stop complaining about losing budget cuts and will actually MAKE THE CUTS.--I don't see any way around this issue with the way politics are at this time...cuts will be made and next election the supporters of such cuts will be reelected while the biggest opponents to cuts will be evicted.
Republicans have a pretty strong claim right now that we are $6trillion in debt and can't continue, it's causing economic effects and making plenty of people worried about the U.S.'s future as a world power, and just as history has proven in the past: economic problems take the forefront of American votes. If you have a valid solution for the economic problems and your opponent doesn't, you'll win every election.
This battle over the budget is just a long postponed fight over how we will fix the economic crisis that started several years ago (about 10 years). The problem has been swept under the rug for a long time as people refused to tackle it, it's just a shame that we're being forced to handle it now during the low point in our economy.
Personally, I think the government really is going to shut down for a day or two. If I were in the position of conservative senators right now I'd refuse to accept any deal with a number less than $61bill for this year and a promise of even more for next year's budget.
It really does come down to the democratic senators whether or not they'll accept the budget cuts or accept a surefire ticket out of office next term. But if I were in the democrats situation I'd keep blaming the republicans all the way to hell because the moment they side with them they lose SOME of their voters. It's a catch-22: they either side with republicans on the deal that cuts out $100billion and they lose the support of a lot of liberals; or they refuse to make any cuts, let the government shut down and then they lose the support of all moderates and many liberals. The pressure is so high that they probably aren't thinking straight, because you would never want to lose the ability to work with moderates.
The president, who has said very little about the issue until recently, is of course sideing with democrats and blaming republicans. It's a political move so he can later say "hey, I was just doing what my party elected me to do, I didn't REALLY agree with the government shut down" and he could also pass the buck a second time with, "it's the republican's fault for not being willing to bend". So far, what I'm seeing of his presidency he's merely used rhetoric to get what he wants and does very little as far as execution goes. His ETHOS is lacking on the side of action, but it is also boosted by the rhetorical victories he has had throughout his career. (rhetoric isn't everything though!)
I'm going to make a prediction on the outcome of these budget talks:
Next election the democrats are going to be completely ousted from the senate, the president will be a moderate republican. A shutdown will occur, and the american people will wine and complain for a while like a baby calf weened from its mother, but in ten years we will have cut 4trillion from our national debt, and we'll be back on top of our game. At that point democrats will slowly build up power again and push in new programs that they want the government to pay for.
Taxes will probably rise slightly, but not for two or three years.
It will be a long time before racist america votes another black president into office, the last tainted by the economic problem.
Tea Party will grow slightly and then disappear before the 10 years is up.
And we'll have opened a lot of new markets in other parts of the world, particularly the middle east and china.
Republicans have a pretty strong claim right now that we are $6trillion in debt and can't continue, it's causing economic effects and making plenty of people worried about the U.S.'s future as a world power, and just as history has proven in the past: economic problems take the forefront of American votes. If you have a valid solution for the economic problems and your opponent doesn't, you'll win every election.
This battle over the budget is just a long postponed fight over how we will fix the economic crisis that started several years ago (about 10 years). The problem has been swept under the rug for a long time as people refused to tackle it, it's just a shame that we're being forced to handle it now during the low point in our economy.
Personally, I think the government really is going to shut down for a day or two. If I were in the position of conservative senators right now I'd refuse to accept any deal with a number less than $61bill for this year and a promise of even more for next year's budget.
It really does come down to the democratic senators whether or not they'll accept the budget cuts or accept a surefire ticket out of office next term. But if I were in the democrats situation I'd keep blaming the republicans all the way to hell because the moment they side with them they lose SOME of their voters. It's a catch-22: they either side with republicans on the deal that cuts out $100billion and they lose the support of a lot of liberals; or they refuse to make any cuts, let the government shut down and then they lose the support of all moderates and many liberals. The pressure is so high that they probably aren't thinking straight, because you would never want to lose the ability to work with moderates.
The president, who has said very little about the issue until recently, is of course sideing with democrats and blaming republicans. It's a political move so he can later say "hey, I was just doing what my party elected me to do, I didn't REALLY agree with the government shut down" and he could also pass the buck a second time with, "it's the republican's fault for not being willing to bend". So far, what I'm seeing of his presidency he's merely used rhetoric to get what he wants and does very little as far as execution goes. His ETHOS is lacking on the side of action, but it is also boosted by the rhetorical victories he has had throughout his career. (rhetoric isn't everything though!)
I'm going to make a prediction on the outcome of these budget talks:
Next election the democrats are going to be completely ousted from the senate, the president will be a moderate republican. A shutdown will occur, and the american people will wine and complain for a while like a baby calf weened from its mother, but in ten years we will have cut 4trillion from our national debt, and we'll be back on top of our game. At that point democrats will slowly build up power again and push in new programs that they want the government to pay for.
Taxes will probably rise slightly, but not for two or three years.
It will be a long time before racist america votes another black president into office, the last tainted by the economic problem.
Tea Party will grow slightly and then disappear before the 10 years is up.
And we'll have opened a lot of new markets in other parts of the world, particularly the middle east and china.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Done with my life?
So my roommates today tried to convince me that I am not intelligent because I thought Demetri Martin was actually pretty stupid. --for starters let's just point out that opinions aren't signs of intelligence. Sorry, but if that were the case then Donald Trump, Bill Gates, and Einstein, all of which are very opinionated people, would be stupid. So using that argument falls pretty flat.
In any case, I'll roll with this idea and argue why I think Demetri Martin is a fairly stupid individual. Let's take a look at his comedy style: It is NOT high comedy. It's not so much witty comedy as it is obvious comedy. All of his jokes are about obvious things that people should naturally know. Here are just a few:
"Some guy looked at me from a far away distance gave me a smile. He started running twords me, looked at me, and said, 'Sorry, I thought you were someone else.' I said, 'I am.' "
Let's break that down and analyze it: The humor comes from the obvious: demetri really is what the guy said. It's ironic humor. The audience laughs because they are led to believe throughout the whole joke that they are smart people and that this joke isn't going to be ironic and it's not going to "catch" them offguard. But when they get to the punch line they think: "I'm an idiot, of course this is true"
"My favorite fruit is grapes. Because with grapes, you always get another chance. 'Cause, you know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you're stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. But if you have a crappy grape, no problem - just move on to the next. 'Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.' "
Ok, where is the intelligence in that? He made a simple observation that when you buy grapes you eat a bunch of them at a time rather than just one sour apple. And what he failed to realize was that whole bunches (that means about a half barrel) can be bad grapes under certain conditions.
Finally (I'm doing this randomly but I figure I'd throw out 3):
"The digital camera is a great invention because it allows us to reminisce. Instantly. " This is a cleaver joke. Only people who understand that the world reminisce implies looking back after a long period of time, but does this prove that Demetri is intelligent?
He's a comedian. He gets paid to write (does he write his own jokes anymore?) jokes and tell them. I have several friends who are comedians and I find them very humorous most of the time. But the truth is, I don't think they are "intelligent".
Demetri was given a full ride scholarship to NYU law school. Do scholarships mean intelligence? --I know many people who have full ride scholarships. That means they fulfilled the requirements to the scholarship, not that they are intelligent. In fact, most scholarships presented by private enterprises (which is all of them) are designed to give people an education so that they will: A) be recruited by the capitalist or elite class because of their new understanding of life or B) because the foundation feels obligated to give someone an opportunity because they themselves were given that opportunity.
The rest of the story about demetri is that he dropped out of law school and had a mid life crisis (he's only 37 now).
With all that said, I also need to point out that Demetri's comedy is solely designed to make the audience feel stupid, feel awkward about being stupid, and laugh out of embarrassment. People who would find that humorous are people who have an ego and think they are smart yet get fooled by the obvious things. I thought it was completely stupid, not because I somehow "got" all of the jokes, but because that's not my style of comedy. I like situational comedy that can only be enacted. Stories help, sure, but they aren't stories about being witty, they're stories about life that I enjoy and make me laugh. Things like saying "it can't get any worse" then to have it REALLY rain and get worse.
My comment about Demetri (after my roommate brought him up) was simply: "what has he done with his life?"
My other roommate jumped in to say "What have YOU done with YOUR life?"
I have done things with my life. More things than anyone in that room had ever done. I didn't really have a response to them because I recognized that it was just one of those situations where people let their own egos control them (both of my roommates are pretty arrogant and I often have to just let it blow right past me because I think they're ridiculous when they act that way, but of course I don't say anything)
I'll write a simple answer to that question on here:
What have I done with my life?
I have served an LDS mission. I have graduated High school, entered college, my GPA is doing fine (it's only a 3.15 but that's better than most people and it's what I want to be at anyway) I've successfully started up a relationship coaching business and I'm nearly finished with a book related to it. and I've started into a film making career (which is better than quite a lot of people). I turn 22 in June. I'm usually the youngest person in any group of individuals I work with. I know it's not a lot, but considering I am always working towards goals, I'm always progressing, and I'm always happy with my life, I'd say I've accomplished the main goal I want to have in life: Remain Optimistic and Happy with the way things turn out.
I have no regrets about my life, and most of the problems that people my age have and see as their biggest problems, are not problems in my own. I don't know how that worked out but somehow relationship problems, not knowing what I want to do with life, and not knowing how to be happy are all things I'm actually quite skilled at.
I DO things with my life; a day doesn't go by that I wouldn't be able to say I am DOING something, whether it's film, or relationship coaching, or marketing, or having a relationship, or church. I DO things. Need I prove that one too?
In any case, I'll roll with this idea and argue why I think Demetri Martin is a fairly stupid individual. Let's take a look at his comedy style: It is NOT high comedy. It's not so much witty comedy as it is obvious comedy. All of his jokes are about obvious things that people should naturally know. Here are just a few:
"Some guy looked at me from a far away distance gave me a smile. He started running twords me, looked at me, and said, 'Sorry, I thought you were someone else.' I said, 'I am.' "
Let's break that down and analyze it: The humor comes from the obvious: demetri really is what the guy said. It's ironic humor. The audience laughs because they are led to believe throughout the whole joke that they are smart people and that this joke isn't going to be ironic and it's not going to "catch" them offguard. But when they get to the punch line they think: "I'm an idiot, of course this is true"
"My favorite fruit is grapes. Because with grapes, you always get another chance. 'Cause, you know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you're stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. But if you have a crappy grape, no problem - just move on to the next. 'Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.' "
Ok, where is the intelligence in that? He made a simple observation that when you buy grapes you eat a bunch of them at a time rather than just one sour apple. And what he failed to realize was that whole bunches (that means about a half barrel) can be bad grapes under certain conditions.
Finally (I'm doing this randomly but I figure I'd throw out 3):
"The digital camera is a great invention because it allows us to reminisce. Instantly. " This is a cleaver joke. Only people who understand that the world reminisce implies looking back after a long period of time, but does this prove that Demetri is intelligent?
He's a comedian. He gets paid to write (does he write his own jokes anymore?) jokes and tell them. I have several friends who are comedians and I find them very humorous most of the time. But the truth is, I don't think they are "intelligent".
Demetri was given a full ride scholarship to NYU law school. Do scholarships mean intelligence? --I know many people who have full ride scholarships. That means they fulfilled the requirements to the scholarship, not that they are intelligent. In fact, most scholarships presented by private enterprises (which is all of them) are designed to give people an education so that they will: A) be recruited by the capitalist or elite class because of their new understanding of life or B) because the foundation feels obligated to give someone an opportunity because they themselves were given that opportunity.
The rest of the story about demetri is that he dropped out of law school and had a mid life crisis (he's only 37 now).
With all that said, I also need to point out that Demetri's comedy is solely designed to make the audience feel stupid, feel awkward about being stupid, and laugh out of embarrassment. People who would find that humorous are people who have an ego and think they are smart yet get fooled by the obvious things. I thought it was completely stupid, not because I somehow "got" all of the jokes, but because that's not my style of comedy. I like situational comedy that can only be enacted. Stories help, sure, but they aren't stories about being witty, they're stories about life that I enjoy and make me laugh. Things like saying "it can't get any worse" then to have it REALLY rain and get worse.
My comment about Demetri (after my roommate brought him up) was simply: "what has he done with his life?"
My other roommate jumped in to say "What have YOU done with YOUR life?"
I have done things with my life. More things than anyone in that room had ever done. I didn't really have a response to them because I recognized that it was just one of those situations where people let their own egos control them (both of my roommates are pretty arrogant and I often have to just let it blow right past me because I think they're ridiculous when they act that way, but of course I don't say anything)
I'll write a simple answer to that question on here:
What have I done with my life?
I have served an LDS mission. I have graduated High school, entered college, my GPA is doing fine (it's only a 3.15 but that's better than most people and it's what I want to be at anyway) I've successfully started up a relationship coaching business and I'm nearly finished with a book related to it. and I've started into a film making career (which is better than quite a lot of people). I turn 22 in June. I'm usually the youngest person in any group of individuals I work with. I know it's not a lot, but considering I am always working towards goals, I'm always progressing, and I'm always happy with my life, I'd say I've accomplished the main goal I want to have in life: Remain Optimistic and Happy with the way things turn out.
I have no regrets about my life, and most of the problems that people my age have and see as their biggest problems, are not problems in my own. I don't know how that worked out but somehow relationship problems, not knowing what I want to do with life, and not knowing how to be happy are all things I'm actually quite skilled at.
I DO things with my life; a day doesn't go by that I wouldn't be able to say I am DOING something, whether it's film, or relationship coaching, or marketing, or having a relationship, or church. I DO things. Need I prove that one too?
Monday, April 4, 2011
The truth is out there to be found
This has been on my mind a lot lately. Particularly though while watching general conference. We literally have all of the truth of life placed before us--often right in front of us. We just need to look for it among all the garbage. I would relate it to skimming through a massive book for a two sentence quote without having read the book before. It can be very challenging but you can do it. Plus, while you're looking for a specific quote you usually find other amazing things.
While watching general conference I noticed that everything that the prophets said isn't new. They repeat the words of previous prophets and if necessary they relate it to our time, but usually the words are already applicable to us. This is what I find most facinating about the Lord's gospel: it always applies.
I am not the type of person to be afraid of anything, but I am developing a fear of reaching a point in my life where I really need to know the truth, but that it will be too close in front of me to notice it. About like being unable to read a book when it is an inch or two from your face and your eyes can't physically focus on it (I'm far sighted). That would be terrible I think. That's why I'm writing this blog--to give myself a brainstorming place that I can explore the truth through writing and rhetoric.
While watching general conference I noticed that everything that the prophets said isn't new. They repeat the words of previous prophets and if necessary they relate it to our time, but usually the words are already applicable to us. This is what I find most facinating about the Lord's gospel: it always applies.
I am not the type of person to be afraid of anything, but I am developing a fear of reaching a point in my life where I really need to know the truth, but that it will be too close in front of me to notice it. About like being unable to read a book when it is an inch or two from your face and your eyes can't physically focus on it (I'm far sighted). That would be terrible I think. That's why I'm writing this blog--to give myself a brainstorming place that I can explore the truth through writing and rhetoric.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Wisdom
There are many people who live on this earth with excessive amounts of truth. They have lived and been shaped by truth. This weekend is LDS general conference. The people who will speak at this conference possess wisdom beyond their years (and they are very old).
I'm going to bow out of writing an article tomorrow because I think whatever I would have to say is well beyond important compared to what these men and women are going to speak to the world.
I'm going to bow out of writing an article tomorrow because I think whatever I would have to say is well beyond important compared to what these men and women are going to speak to the world.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Magazines
I really look forward to the magazines that I subscribe to (I only subscribe to one presently but read my parents' magazines as well).
I don't know what it is but there is a certain kind of pleasure that comes from getting a glossy, ink doused binding of papers. I think I like the experience that magazines create the most: they're better than the internet, but the internet has the potential to be similar. Essentially Magazines are really asthetic. When they take photos for a magazine, they know relatively what the article will look like on the page and they use intricate designs and framing to make the photos match with the pages. Plus, all of the magazines that I read use modern photos, usually the first sighting of that photo is right there in my hand because it hasn't been published anywhere else yet.
Think a little longer about the way magazines are designed and I think you can understand how important asthetics, or the overall experience, really is. Truth be told, if you do a shotty job here and there on your individual parts, yet you can make the "asthetic" look great, you'll hide all of those blemishes. For instance, walk around your house paying close attention to the joints and corners--chances are there is something wrong with them, yet you don't really notice it living there for several years.
There's some deep truth in this that I'm only scratching the surface on and will likely explain later.
I don't know what it is but there is a certain kind of pleasure that comes from getting a glossy, ink doused binding of papers. I think I like the experience that magazines create the most: they're better than the internet, but the internet has the potential to be similar. Essentially Magazines are really asthetic. When they take photos for a magazine, they know relatively what the article will look like on the page and they use intricate designs and framing to make the photos match with the pages. Plus, all of the magazines that I read use modern photos, usually the first sighting of that photo is right there in my hand because it hasn't been published anywhere else yet.
Think a little longer about the way magazines are designed and I think you can understand how important asthetics, or the overall experience, really is. Truth be told, if you do a shotty job here and there on your individual parts, yet you can make the "asthetic" look great, you'll hide all of those blemishes. For instance, walk around your house paying close attention to the joints and corners--chances are there is something wrong with them, yet you don't really notice it living there for several years.
There's some deep truth in this that I'm only scratching the surface on and will likely explain later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)