#greek

So today, actually at this moment while I am typing, I am "listening" to a guest lecturer speak on... We'll something. He is saying something about why ancient literature on how Hannibal crossing the Andes mountains is significant for something. In case you havn't noticed I have entirely lost interest in this lecture, mainly because most of it is in greek and latin and partly because I don't see the point in this lecture. He is talking about a man taking an army across a mountain, and the purpose of the speech has nothing to do with war tactics or overcoming mountains.

But more importantly I noticed his method of delivery is dry. Listening to this man ramble on about... something made me wonder why positive psychologists are more entertaining to listen to than ancient historians. Then I thought of my communications class (because that is the subject on which I am pondering, why one communicator is successful and he other not so). Why are historians lacking in communication while therapists communicate wonderfully on average? I suppose I can't generalize that far.

My conclusion is that historians don't try to connect to their audience or to draw them in, they assume if the audience wants to listen they will just automatically listen and follow the historians content. I think therapists overcome this easily by their subject matter. Therapists are always talking about how humans work, and si their first sentence always goes something like, " im going to tell you how you or your friends work," which all of us are interested in and so we listen. Historians don't have that advantage, they should tell us at the beginning what their material has to do with us, either as an individual or as a human race, to attract our attention.

I guess what I really learned today is how important it is to connect with your audience.

~Birdy