Why Do People Talk?

I enjoyed reading what Ira Glass had to say about interviewing, and talking in general. She talked about how it's such a rare thing in our lives to have someone genuinely listen to what we have to say. Klosterman describes Glass as amicable and sincere, and she describes herself as legitimately curious about what people have to say. It seems this interest and sincerity would certainly help a person to open up to Glass in an interview. It's like when someone speaks to us excitedly and that excitement is contagious, the interviewee would respond to Glass with the same sincerity. Also, being genuinely interested in what a person has to say would help an interviewer because I think people would be more apt to respond simply because it is such a rare thing to have someone wholly listen to you. In class, or even out with friends, we don't hang on our professors', acquaintences', or friends' every word. In class or conversation, we get the gist of the physics lesson or the story about our friend's cat, enough for us to get by. In an interview, we are looking for interesting things for our paper or article; looking for direct quotes to add character and reliability; we really have to listen. This gives the speaker control and they may like that, as well, giving them another reason to respond.

something instead of nothing

Why do people answer the questions you ask them? Is there a unifying force that prompts people to respond? I thought these questions were interesting. I believe that not by saying anything, you are saying something. For example, if Susan's business is being portrayed in bad light in the media for something they are accused of doing, Susan may be asked questions by reporters. If she says nothing in response, reporters can turn that around and make assumptions out of her saying nothing.

Another thing i wanted to point out before we conduct our final issues deals with interview questions. I'm a broadcast journalism major and have spent the past few years conducting many, many interviews. One thing i've found is that preparation is very important. Preparing the questions you plan to ask can help the interview move smoothing. However, it's important to really listen to the interviewee for their responses. Some of the best material i've gotten for stories have been from spontaneous questions branched off of something the interviewee had said. Also, it's important in an interview to steer the conversation. If there's a stance or an angle you are trying to convey, you have to guide your interviewee in the direction sometimes. You have control over the outcome of the interview so if you end up with crappy material, it's because you didn't do your job thoroughly enough.

something instead of nothing

This was a very interesting article and it got me thinking a lot about interviews. I think It was interesting when klosterman was talking about the reasons as to why he even answered question when they were asked. His reasons for this was that he felt he had something important to say, it was his job, he has some type of craving for attention, he had nothing better to do, he was a nice person and lastly when asked a direct question its human nature to respond to the question. I think that all six of these reasons are very accurate. I do not think anyone would be able to argue that any of these six ways are not why people answer questions when they are asked. I feel like most people when asked a direct question they like expressing their own opinion about a topic because people always feel that they are right and that everyone should agree with them. People like voicing their opinions to other people to get a reaction out of someone and to see whether or not they agree.

I tried to remember the last time that I was interviewed for anything. It was actually last year when I was a freshmen I was sitting outside the dorms one day and a girl approached me and asked me if I would let her ask me a couple of questions about being a freshmen and the transformation it has been moving out of home. And right now I am trying to think of why I said yes to her and allowed her to interview me. And honestly I believe that the only reason I said yes to her was because I wanted to be a nice person and I didn’t want to shut her down and say no. which is exactly on of the reason that klosterman had presented and talked about in his paper.

Something instead of nothing

I enjoyed Klosterman's article "Something Instead of Nothing." He brings to mind questions that I am not so sure I would ever think to consider myself but indeed they are still interesting. Why do any of us feel compelled to answer a question? I definitely agree with Morris's statement that if people are expected to talk, "they do talk." This seems to make a lot of sense to me. I find that I often do many things simply because there is an often unspoken assumption that I am expected to (i.e. showing up for class). I also really liked the connection Klosterman made with Heath's statements; we do not necessarily answer questions because we are flattered by the attention but because we "feel as though we deserve to be. . ." possibly because the millions of us who aren't famous feel we are unheard and of course we value our own opinions. I feel like this all the time! I typically like answering questions in classes because I get to state aloud my thoughts and opinions and people (usually a teacher) have to at least pretend to be interested. Which brings to mind another point: people are more willing talk if they feel that the interviewer is genuinely interested in their story. I think that this is sort of a giving but actually seeing it helped me realize that when I conduct interviews for our final paper, I am going to have to be really attentive and sincere. I think I am going to learn that is much easier for me to be the interviewee than it is to be the interviewer. Yes, as the interviewer I don't have the burden of being misqouted or misunderstood in a personally detrimental way that maybe the interviewee does but I have an obligation to ask interesting questions that provoke interesting answers and interesting consequences. I am worried I won't be so good at this whole process but as Klosterman says, "It's something instead of nothing."

Something instead of nothing

I really enjoyed reading “Something Instead of Nothing” because it made think about things that have never really crossed my mind. For example, why should people answer any of the questions I’m asking? Or what makes the interviewee want to keep talking to me? All the questions that the interview with the Norwegian journalist brought up were all valid to me. Realizing that the stuff you’re answering doesn’t even matter to you at all, or possibly even the people in Norway, doesn’t seem like it would give you much of an incentive to do interviews like that.

I really enjoyed Errol Morris’ thoughts on interviews as well. I can see exactly what he is saying when he says he feels he knows the interviewer more than himself at the end of an interview. And while what he said about someone who doesn’t talk a lot is harder to trust is a little harsh in my opinion, I still think that someone who talks more can leave a better impression of themselves on someone.

Something Instead of Nothing

This article by Chuck Klosterman was very similar to when we read the Sims article. He takes something so simple such as a video game, or in this case an interview, and analyzes it in a whole different way than anyone else would think. He asks the questions why do we even care enough to conduct these interviews with people we dont really care for and really for no benefit for themselves. Its a typical Klosterman article just because it goes so deep. I don't know if I agree with it because it is just an interview. I'm more of a simplistic person I don't know why these people want to interview and I don't think there is a real reason of exactly why they do. There really isn't any benefit to themselves its just human nature. Although I think that Klosterman may take some of these questions to a ridiculous level, he definately knows how to make them interesting.

In-Class Cool

Both the simpsons episode we watched and the Malcolm Gladwell article connected the idea of the irrationality of what is cool. At the end of the Simpson's episode, both Marge and Homer are perplexed by what is considered cool and ask Bart and Lisa several times if what they're doing is cool, but each time the kids respond that what their parents are doing is not cool. The article also talks about how the "cool-hunters" could spot who they considered to be a "cool kid". What is considered cool is often influenced moreso by the person that decides it is cool, as that person is a very influential figure in style and has a peer pressure type of effect.

in class: Simpsons/ "Coolhunters"

Last Friday's Simpsons episode can be connected to the Gladwell reading because Homer was shocked to find out that he was uncool according to Bart because he was stuck in his time of what he thought was cool from when he was younger and he was not up to date on all the new trends and things that were in. Homer also tries to be cool by taking his kids to a concert for a band they liked because he was trying to follow the trends by following what his kids considered to be cool. It connects to the Gladwell reading of how the two girls are constantly scouting for the new trends and searching for next new thing.

Simpson's vs. Gladwell. -in class

Homer tried to undergo many changes to fit in with the stereotype of "cool". When at the music fest, Homer bought a reggae hat thinking it would make him appear cool and hip. Unfortunately, that was not what the crowd saw as "cool" and it backfired. Homer was accidently hit by a cannon and was given a job opportunity with the traveling freaks. Homer saw this proposal as an opportunity to look "cool" so he took the job. After a while of traveling, he was damaging his body and his doctor told him if he was hit by one more cannon he would die. Homer decided that death was not worth being "cool". He wanted to be a good father and at the end of the episode he realized that to him, being a good father was considered "cool". We can connect this to the article because Gladwell talked about appearance when looking "cool" and dressing in the right fashion. Also, doing activities you usually wouldn't, like Homer traveling with the Freaks, would make you cool. In the end, Homer found out what cool meant to him and that was his family. Gladwell also points out that what is considered "cool" changes so rapidly. Homer found this out when jamming in his car to music he thought was cool but the next generation thought it was so uncool. Gladwell also points out that when he grew up LA was alot cooler than what it is today. Cool changes so fast and what you think it cool when you're a teen, its most likely considered uncool by the time you're an adult.

Cool Hunters and The Simpsons

In Gladwell's article, he pointed out the paradox of cool - as cool becomes known or mainstream, it becomes uncool. For this reason, what is "cool" at any given time can be hard to name. This irony is portrayed in The Simpson's episode when the parents ask the kids if they're cool. The kids insist their parents aren't cool, and even though their mother says she doesn't care about being cool - her indifference still isn't cool. So what is? They don't really know, either.

Simpsons/Coolhunters

Both the article and the show demonstrate that cool is being sold to you. In the Simpson's episode, the festival that Homer went to had ads and flyers everywhere showcasing the "cool" things.

Also, in the article he talked about how you can't really force trying to be cool, and in the Simpson's episode, that was exactly what Homer was doing with the cannon.Cool can't also just be "explained", for example how Homer just stumbled onto being hit by the cannon.

Gladwell also mentioned in his article how it's the cool people that decide what is cool and that was reflected in the Simpson's episode well with the Smashing Pumpkins, Cypress Hill, etc.

The Cool Hunt- Simpsons Style

The definition of cool is always changing and people are always looking for the new "it" thing. It went from Teenage Angst songs to watching people get hurt. Rock and roll, that lost it's title of cool was moved to the oldies and newer music was the next best thing. Homer was caught in a struggle between thinking rock was cool then trying to be the new, updated version of cool by working at the freak show in Lollipolluza. The kids and youth seem to be the group that dictates what goes and what stays, even if the older population doesn't understand or doesn't agree with that idea. The Simpsons episode may have exaggerated some ideas in the episode when it went from thinking music was cool to thinking strange is cool. In today's society we see that. Specific example- people focused on Lady Gaga's music at first but then she started dressing a bit more.. out there... and the idea of cool shifted from music to "freak show." Homer was trying to be a freak to be accepted in society and by doing so he was famous. In the readings, a boy liked a womens' shoe so the company tried to advertise it towards men. By being a little different, the company found a new "cool."

Simpson's Coolhunt - In Class.

Homer was just basically trying to find a way that he could be cool, but according to the article, in order to be cool you must be instinctively cool. In the Simpsons episode, we learned that if you don't care if you're cool or not, you aren't cool. And, if you have to be told that you're cool, you're not cool. This is the same idea portrayed in the article. The "cool" kids that Baysie and DeeDee sought after were just cool - they didn't try to be cool, and they didn't have to be told they were cool.

Homer finally realized that what was cool when he was young isn't cool anymore - he was made fun of for being his version of "cool." This coincides with the fact that the word "cool" is very, very subjective, and what it defines is ever changing.

Is How it's Said More Important than What is Said?

I don't know how I felt about this article. It was extremly interesting for sure but it seems to me that everything Chuck Klosterman writes about tries to be at least that, extremely interesting. What makes his style extremely interesting is that he poses the questions that everyone else subconsciously wonders but either is too shy, to inarticulate, or too arrogant to ask or even to consider asking. Maybe that's being harsh but as I tried to digest what Chuck was saying, I started thinking more and more about how and even why he writes especially in the manner that he does. Any journalist can ask a question but Klosterman asks the right questions. I'm not sure I can explain what the "right" questions are other then what I already mentioned that the most people don't think to or just don't ask the questions that he does. As I thought of that in the context of the two readings of his that were assigned, personally, I thought that only someone who knew he wanted answers, knew exactly what he wanted answers about, and though I find Klosterman more than a bit cocky about his own musings, he is more curious than conceited about getting answers from anyone who is willing to talk to him. I feel that whoever has the ability to support himself or herself under Klosterman's approach of the Spanish Inquisition is already a great and deep thinker just like Chuck which is why most people are intrigued enough to read his work. Whether you like his opinions (or style) or not, almost everyone wants to find out what ridiculous questions he has ready for his interviewing prey. It makes him lucidly enigmatic. People know he won't beat around the bush and usually people like straightforwardness. Like Errol Morris' list of interviewees on First Person, Chuck usually finds these larger than life people to talk to. It's a dynamic concept mostly because he can get those people to talk to him. That works to his advantage.

Something Instead of Nothing

This article is quite profound in the respect that no matter the amount nor content of questions being asked, nothing is really accomplished. We try to seek truth through questions, but when it comes to journalism and interviewing, what is the real point? What is the point of asking stupid questions? Is it because of an insatiable need to know? I certainly think so. The author makes a valid point that in order to fully understand the complexities of the world, we need to know what others' perceptions are. By knowing how other people see the world, a reality is unanimously created. What is real is beyond me, but when understanding what is real in other peoples' lives, a piece of theirs becomes mine. Whether or not I want to accept it or agree with it, is up to me. Sometimes though you have to sit back and look at the big picture. You have to manifest yourself within the other person in order to achieve a certain knowledge that ultimately forms your own reality. It forms your identity. Once you've understood the experience of interviewing, whether it's pointless or not, you've learned something about not only the interviewee, but yourself as well. I feel that that is ultimately the point of interviewing. As quoted in the article, "We have to do it, because it's better than nothing". Asking questions and answering questions may be pointless in the respect that nothing is physically accomplished, but knowledge is at least something.

The Cool Hunt

This article brought an entirely new side of the business world to my attention. I knew there was research and surveys done frequently to find out what people are interested in, but I never knew there were actual "cool-hunters". As I read the article, I felt like it never explicitly stated why things are considered "cool", just the fact that some things are cool and some things aren't. It's almost described as this random phenomenon that catches on and is extremely contagious. I liked the anecdote about the suede slippers that weren't selling well at all, but suddenly people in Soho thought they were cool, and then the shoes ended up becoming best-sellers. There really seems to be some innate sense of what is cool, as described in the article. Somebody looks at something and decides it has qualities that they like, and much of the population seems to agree for some reason. I think it's funny to see all the new trends that come and go, and I've definitely participated in some regretful ones, but then again, it seems like everybody does at one point.

Cool Hunters

I think that a lot of people would be able to relate to this article. I used to think that a lot of the things in my life were cool when really they weren't. Like for instance growing up with six brothers and sisters we always had to have what was hot and what everyone was wearing like shoes. If you had on the latest pairs of shoes then you were the coolest person I knew. We used to spend all of your time finding out what was hot and what everyone at school was wearing so we could get them and wear them them. If i knew what i knew now I would have never wasted my time. I couldn't believe that i wanted all of the same things that other people had just to look cool. But I do think that the converses in the story will never die. I understand why DeeDee used teen speech in the article to set herself apart from other people so that she could fit in with them. Everyone I know has tried to be "cool" or at least become apart of it somehow. I think that now that term is way overrated. Why cant everyone just be themselves and act and look they way they want to instead of trying to look like someone else. The way people see them selves trying to keep up has gotten a bit ridiculous.

Cool Hunting

My Zumba Instructor says that when anything cool comes to the United States it's gonna be from New York or Los Angeles. She was talking about Latin and other styles of dance, but I also think that's true for the majority of merchandise.

I definitely think it's true about the innovators, early adopters, early majority, and late majority. First it's just a few people that start using or wearing a trend, then it catches on and they have followers, and then those people have followers, and then those last people figure they should "get with the times" and join the wagon. Walk into any suburban high school and you'll see this. I remember when leggings came back into style when I was in 9th grade. First there were just like 3 girls at school who wore them. When I saw them I wasn't quite sure I liked them, but then I started going to Hollister and Wetseal and seeing them on the racks so then they started to appeal to me. And sure enough, by the time sophomore year rolled around, every girl including me had a pair. Most of the early adopters were cheerleaders or track stars who ran for student council and whose parents never failed to drop them some cash for shopping. Once I got to college, I realized those girls weren't cool, though! Most likely because they weren't really unique or innovators at all. Cool to me is being comfortable in your own skin and thinking outside the box.

Cool-Hunting.

This article made me laugh, honestly. It had a lot of valid points, though. Baysie and DeeDee seemed about as real as reality TV, so they have to be supercool and know how to find "cool."

People want to know what is in, and what isn't. To find out, everyone goes on "coolhunts" from time to time, and everyone's coolhunts are a little different. "Cool" is such a relative term when talking about temperature - let alone when trying to describe something as "the next big thing." Things that I think are cool are not going to be the same thing someone else thinks is cool. And some things that people think are awesome, I do not understand. For example, I will NEVER understand why girls think it's a good idea to have a big messy bun right on top of their heads. But so many people do it, so it MUST be cool, right? Sure, it is for them - not for me. (If you're reading this and you're one of those girls, please don't take offense. I'm just not "cool" enough, I guess.)

I love that cool works up a ladder instead of trickling down. It starts with kids on the street doing something out of the ordinary, and then moves on up. This is so true. Someone does something unique or original, and then everyone wants to be unique with them (oxymoron). So in a way, being cool is just being collectively original.

Cool Hunting

"Coolhunting is not about the articulation of a coherent philosophy of cool. It's just a collection of spontaneous observations and predictions that differ from one moment to the next and from one coolhunter to the next."

For this reason, among others, cool hunting isn't all that reliable. Clearly, cool isn't the same to everyone, everywhere. While there are magazines and websites for alternative rock, there's the same for hip-hop, for pop music, for country. With these come different styles and products. Baysie was looking for a different "cool" with Converse than with Reebok. The kids in the shoe store in New York where she realized she should move one sneaker to the boys' section could careless what type of shoe Kurt Cobain was wearing when he died. Location determines cool, too. As DeeDee said that Texas is behind New York in "cool," she would probably say that the kids in the village where I'm from are even behind the nearby cities, but it seems to me that Texas should have a different idea of cool from New York and villages from cities.

One good observation that Gladwell made was the paradox that as the cool hunter's find cool, it changes. As band's become mainstream, many people who never heard of them think they're a cool new band while many of their original fans turn their backs for selling out. Before Twilight made it big, the kids who read vampire novels like Ann Rice's were considered "goth" and mocked by the "cool" kids. The popular social networking sites have changed with time, from Myspace, to Facebook, to Twitter. Soon people will be updating on a new site and leave their Facebooks to be forgotten as they have their Myspace accounts. Cool hunters will pick up on this, followed by advertisers, news and radio stations, and then the cool will move on once again.

Cool

I found this article very interesting. It really made me think about what I think is cool. I remember thinking some of the things mentioned were cool, like when I was little I thought my older babysitter was the coolest, but now I just think her 90’s styles were funny looking and I probably would never wear them now. The things I think are cool, I wouldn’t say are necessarily trendy. I have my own style made up of all kinds styles new and old, that I find “cool”. Lately my style has been forced, because I work almost everyday and go straight from class to work, my style consists of jeans and a black shirt. I guess if people didn’t know that they would just think I really like black shirts! Since I have to wear them so much I really don’t like wearing plain black shirts now, because they make me think of work. Maybe I’ll start a trend! Someone like DeeDee will see me walking around in my black shirts and who knows everyone will be wearing plain black shirts and jeans! It is very interesting to think about how all the trends started. To just think one person thought a combination of canvas sneakers with a star logo would become such a large trend. Converse is still trendy even today. I have three pairs and find myself wanting more! My reasoning more for comfort and I like the way they look too. I wasn’t always this way, when I was young and still becoming myself, I followed the “cool kids” but that is all a blur now. Cool is merely a word I use to describe something that catches my eye.

The "Cool" Sensation

That "cool," tingly feeling people are striving to experience is something that is not unheard of and that has been done many, many times before. "Cool" is a repetition and a come-back of old things since new, original ideas are not "in" now a days. Our friends, The Backstreet Boys, tried their cool come-back when they sang "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)" but their lyrics were a little off:

Am I original, yeaaaah
Am I the only one, yeeeeaah
Am I seeeexual, yeeeaaahhhh!

Sorry, boys. You're not original, you're not the only ones, and a big N-O to being sexual. Nice try, though.

Trends are something that repeat, only with one or two things that have been changed about it. Take Ugly Sweaters, for example. This year, around Winter, horrendous looking sweaters were “cool” party themes. The only thing that is different from the old, retro, granny sweaters is that people changed them and cut to show a bit more cleavage and that the sweaters no longer smelled like moth balls. We keep relying on old styles for our new fashions and to make them even more “hip,” we add some razzle dazzle to them.

Something that I think is trying to achieve cool-status now a days isn’t a fashion statement, but a personality quirk. It is cruelty. Go on the internet and look around Youtube, Facebook, even MSNBC news articles (just look down in the comments section) and you will see people saying horrible, terrible things about others. Sarcasm, profanities, and flat-out heartless comments litter the page. Look at what people say about Rebecca Black. Not only is she being harassed on Youtube on her own video, but also by people like Jay Leno. We get our humour from being mean to others. This cruelty has been around for years, but with the internet and sites allowing people to be anonymous, it is in the spotlight more. Especially with the cyber-bulling that caused teens to commit suicide. When I look around Facebook, people don't post nice things, or if they do, they are rare. People are usually saying "My Prof sucks... this friend of mine sucks... This artist sucks.." I have even seen people say people like Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black should go die. Now, I'm not a huge fan of either of them but just because they make music that isn't the best doesn't mean they are not real people with feelings. They read these comments and Rebecca Black even said on Good Morning America that someone wanted her to get an eating disorder and cut herself so she knew what it was like to be beautiful and then to kill her family. Whoa. Whoa. These comments come out of peoples' mouths without them giving it a second thought. It had become a natural response to have a mean comeback or to just say something heartless to someone in passing.

I think this internet cruelty is something that is spreading like an annoying, hurtful disease. It is "cool" to be sarcastic and to "Hate" on others, which, in my opinion, is the worst thing that could be described as as being cool. I hope that this plague is something that will vanish and the new "cool" thing will be genuine kindness.

The Cool Hunters

This article is interesting because I think the author expected to find different results than what he did. When he started the writing I think he thought that cool hunting would be more of a science and that he could learn how to do it himself. After talking to DeeDee and Baysie I think that he realized that finding these new trends is more of an instinct or an art form. He wrote that he expected to be able to write an encyclopedia on cool before he started this research. Then he stated how he thought cool was more of a moment to moment thing, which I believe is true. I also believe there are many forms of cool, he only really covers what DeeDee and Baysie see as cool. They were looking for the trends that Reebok would have been interested in but I think that he should have stated that they don't define cool. The people define cool and not all people are in the demographic that Reebok is interested in.

In Class Power Point is Evil

I think that a PowerPoint presentation can be executed well, but it can also end up cheesy and unprofessional if you get carried away with all the effects or don't provide relevant information. When I see someone's powerpoint slides, I can tell how long the person spent on it by the neatness of it and also how much content is there. Even if someone has 20 slides it could in reality only be 2 sentences worth of information.

PowerPoint

I would have to disagree with this article in the fact that PowerPoint is a very useful tool that helps to present things to people in an easy to understood manner. These presentations can be boring sometimes, but overall they are very informative. And yes I would have to say that they are scripted in the sense of being almost play-like. You have your intro body and conclusion, you know what is expected to be seen and what is coming next. In all of my group projects that I have done in college I have used PowerPoint to assist me while presenting information to my class. PowerPoint has always been very helpful to me throughout my whole life, and I will say that I still know how to write a paper. It’s not like I don’t know how to do it all, as I have been taught everything from school and PowerPoint is just one tool that I have utilized in my experiences.