Just like my last post, I had a hard time finding something to write about here. I was flipping through the book and the nonverbal section looked interesting and then soon after, I found myself reading the section of Increasing Nonverbal skills.
In order increase our non-verbal skills Trenholm states that we need to just be more aware of the things we are not being told by words but by body language and gestures. As simple as that may seem, it is very true. I work retail and every customer tells me so much with their body language rather than their words. This may seem like a "typical salesman" but there are some dead giveaways that customers do that tell me they are not going to buy anything and I should not waste my time. The customer will constantly look at their watch or phone to check the time, they avoid eye contact, they pretend to be on the phone when they see an associate in the area, they take pictures of the products and price tags, their pace of walking increases when they are approached by an associate...the list goes on. Trenholm also states that we need to be aware of our own nonverbal cues and we can even be offensive or threatening to others. When we stare at people for too long, walk in front of them when he/she is looking at something like a television in a store.I have taken my personal experiences from the time I spent selling televisions and when I apply it to the textbook, it is very true.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Week 16 - Interesting Concept
There are so many different concepts that we have covered and learned in this course. I feel that picking just one would not display what I enjoyed most about this course in terms of learning from the textbook. If I had to pick one concept to discuss from the entire semester that I enjoyed, I would pick table 10.2 on page 283 pg 283 pf the textbook.
This table shows different ways to end a public speech. When I was taking public speaking at Sacramento State, the professor required us to end our speeches a certain way. According to the textbook there are six examples, which I believe there are a lot more, of different ways to end a speech. I never really thought about ending a public speech with a personal intention. A personal intention is when the speaker leads by example in hopes that the audience will feel the same way. An example of this is - "I know for sure I am voting Yes on measure J, because it is the right thing to do for our community and I hope you do the right thing too."
I give a speech in front of people almost once every other month, not just in the major but with family and friends. Whenever there is a get together due to an occasion, usually speeches are required by popular demand (people chanting for individuals like myself to give a speech)and I am ALWAYS chosen. It has come to the point where I anticipate giving a speech even though no one has told me before hand. The speeches are usually impromptu but I give it a twist when I pull out note cards. It gets a few laughs but for the most part, people still want and expect me to give a speech about something.
With that said, I think next time I will try these new methods. Believe it or not, my other textbooks do not even have this table or something close to it.
This table shows different ways to end a public speech. When I was taking public speaking at Sacramento State, the professor required us to end our speeches a certain way. According to the textbook there are six examples, which I believe there are a lot more, of different ways to end a speech. I never really thought about ending a public speech with a personal intention. A personal intention is when the speaker leads by example in hopes that the audience will feel the same way. An example of this is - "I know for sure I am voting Yes on measure J, because it is the right thing to do for our community and I hope you do the right thing too."
I give a speech in front of people almost once every other month, not just in the major but with family and friends. Whenever there is a get together due to an occasion, usually speeches are required by popular demand (people chanting for individuals like myself to give a speech)and I am ALWAYS chosen. It has come to the point where I anticipate giving a speech even though no one has told me before hand. The speeches are usually impromptu but I give it a twist when I pull out note cards. It gets a few laughs but for the most part, people still want and expect me to give a speech about something.
With that said, I think next time I will try these new methods. Believe it or not, my other textbooks do not even have this table or something close to it.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Week 16 - Research Method
Out of all the different types of research in table 13.3, I feel that ethnography is the most interesting out of all of them. I feel that getting in there and seeing everything unfold first hand whether the researcher is undercover as a pretend participant of the cultural group or his/her presence is being known and the people of the group are aware they are being observed, there is no experience like it. I have conducted many ethnographies as a Communication Studies major and I must admit, at one point the assignment no longer feels like an obligation and it becomes pleasure. The level of personal interest that I had in all my ethnographies were either extremely high or it got better as each day progressed.
If I were to conduct (another) case study of my choice, I would choose to study the culture of shoe collectors pertaining primarily to Jordan and Nike fanatics. The research question I would ask is - "What causes the fetish of shoe collecting for those who seem to spend all their free time and extra money into shoes, primarily Jordans and Nikes and is there any correlation between the shoes and sexual arousal."
I personally wanted to conduct this research before I graduated but unfortunately for me the classes I took in the last three semesters did not assign any ethnographies or case studies. Since I am graduating this May, I no longer have the opportunity to conduct this research for a grade. I am extremely interested in doing ethnographies overall because I learn so much and I am exposed to a whole new aspect of thinking and behaving. It was actually thanks to my Comm 156 (Qualitative Inquiry) course that made me drive to finish college. I conducted an ethnography on the football team I was coaching at the time, on locker room culture and how it is different from one the field behavior before, during and after practice and games. It was not my findings of the players that convinced me to get my college degree, but it was when I interviewed the other coaches. To make a long story short, I interviewed the coaches and based off their answers, I realized that a college degree is more powerful than I thought. The other three coaches do not have any college education and their answers were not only incomplete, they would contradict what they JUST said less than two minutes prior to the answer they were giving. Throughout the season I decided to continue my observations of the coaches and it just got worse each day. During the presidential election when Obama became president, NONE of the other three coaches(and keep in mind that the head coach is in his mid sixies, the assistant head coach is in his early thirties and the other coach is in his mid twenties), knew that the electoral college was what decided who becomes the next president. When I explained that to them it was like I was telling them 2+2= 5. They were not only in shock but told me I was wrong. Later, when they realized I was right, they all went on about how the electoral college is bullshit and it was "not like that for the other presidents."
As you can probably already tell, I have a passion for conducting ethnographies. I can seriously write a 30 page paper on the sneaker fetish without even blinking. I would choose the ethnography over the other methods because I get to experience something new in a hands on manner and what I find is going to shock me one way or another. The other styles of research involve studying and observing, whereas ethnographies require a hands on experience. There is no doubt in my mind that ethnography is the most interesting one to me. =)
If I were to conduct (another) case study of my choice, I would choose to study the culture of shoe collectors pertaining primarily to Jordan and Nike fanatics. The research question I would ask is - "What causes the fetish of shoe collecting for those who seem to spend all their free time and extra money into shoes, primarily Jordans and Nikes and is there any correlation between the shoes and sexual arousal."
I personally wanted to conduct this research before I graduated but unfortunately for me the classes I took in the last three semesters did not assign any ethnographies or case studies. Since I am graduating this May, I no longer have the opportunity to conduct this research for a grade. I am extremely interested in doing ethnographies overall because I learn so much and I am exposed to a whole new aspect of thinking and behaving. It was actually thanks to my Comm 156 (Qualitative Inquiry) course that made me drive to finish college. I conducted an ethnography on the football team I was coaching at the time, on locker room culture and how it is different from one the field behavior before, during and after practice and games. It was not my findings of the players that convinced me to get my college degree, but it was when I interviewed the other coaches. To make a long story short, I interviewed the coaches and based off their answers, I realized that a college degree is more powerful than I thought. The other three coaches do not have any college education and their answers were not only incomplete, they would contradict what they JUST said less than two minutes prior to the answer they were giving. Throughout the season I decided to continue my observations of the coaches and it just got worse each day. During the presidential election when Obama became president, NONE of the other three coaches(and keep in mind that the head coach is in his mid sixies, the assistant head coach is in his early thirties and the other coach is in his mid twenties), knew that the electoral college was what decided who becomes the next president. When I explained that to them it was like I was telling them 2+2= 5. They were not only in shock but told me I was wrong. Later, when they realized I was right, they all went on about how the electoral college is bullshit and it was "not like that for the other presidents."
As you can probably already tell, I have a passion for conducting ethnographies. I can seriously write a 30 page paper on the sneaker fetish without even blinking. I would choose the ethnography over the other methods because I get to experience something new in a hands on manner and what I find is going to shock me one way or another. The other styles of research involve studying and observing, whereas ethnographies require a hands on experience. There is no doubt in my mind that ethnography is the most interesting one to me. =)
Friday, April 30, 2010
Week 14 - New Concept - CMC
In the textbook, there is a section on page 325 about Computer-Mediated Communication and it is about the communication through the internet and how it has grown so rapidly over the years. Books too 400 years to develop, Newspapers in 200, magazines in 170, sound recordings in 60, movies in 50, radio in 40 and television in 30 years in order for consumers to ascend the use of it. It took only 15 years for the internet to not only be accepted as a norm, but to become a media powerhouse.
I absolutely loved this section because in my journal #5 I wrote about the growth of the internet and how it has changed the way things work in today's society. It is so true that internet is the newest and largest medium for mass communication. An extreme example of this is when I saw on the Philippine news channel that an actress had a sex tape scandal with her doctor and it was released by the doctor on the internet and instantly she was defamed by the media. The doctor expressed his deepest apologies but it was too late, millions of people in the Philippines and in America had already seen it. Her reputation was instantly destroyed all because of the internet. That is just one example of how powerful the internet is and with the way our technology keeps moving, it will only become more powerful.
I absolutely loved this section because in my journal #5 I wrote about the growth of the internet and how it has changed the way things work in today's society. It is so true that internet is the newest and largest medium for mass communication. An extreme example of this is when I saw on the Philippine news channel that an actress had a sex tape scandal with her doctor and it was released by the doctor on the internet and instantly she was defamed by the media. The doctor expressed his deepest apologies but it was too late, millions of people in the Philippines and in America had already seen it. Her reputation was instantly destroyed all because of the internet. That is just one example of how powerful the internet is and with the way our technology keeps moving, it will only become more powerful.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Week 14 - Marshall McLuhan Theory
McLuhan's theory is very interesting to me. I actually felt that it was so interesting that I would have chosen this as my concept for question 3 lol.
I feel that McLuhan has something going when he stated that the channel through which the message is being sent is just as important as the message itself because in a way he is right. When he stated that printed advertisements like flyers use linear logic, a sequence that follows one after the other, and television uses mosaic logic, bits and pieces of information are all over the place and it is our job as viewers to put it together, I felt that he had a point. Then I realized that McLuhan is wrong.
I have noticed so many times in public places and even on the SJSU campus that there are advertisements for everything that are more than just word after word, sequential idea after the other using only linear logic. I have seen collages, elaborate portraits, a simple picture and very little to zero words on it and the advertisement says so much. A picture says a thousand words and artists and creative advertisers have taken printed ads to a new level.
When it comes to television, it is no different. McLuhan states that television advertisement uses mosaic logic, bombarding us with changing bits of information that we must cognitively reassemble. I feel that this is also a wrong statement. TV does not just throw out a bunch of random clips, unordered mixed signals, which leaves us to put together on our own. If anything, commercials, with the exception of the few humorous ones, are very straight to the point. Even if McLulan is referring to older commercials, I still disagree with his statement because even in the 1980's, when Apple first came out with Macintosh, it had scrolling text on the screen as a narrator read it aloud.
I think that McLuhan to an extent is correct when stating that television is a "cool" medium, meaning that viewers must fill in detail. I think even today we all still have to fill in details to some commercials but for most of them, there is almost nothing to fill in. Let's take a look at the newest Old Spice High Endurance Body wash commercials with comedian Terry Crewes. He has so many commercials where he "fights odor" and his comedic skills are what make the message funny. After watching one of those commercials, what detail is there to fill in? There is nothing left up to the viewer to figure out. This is just one example of many out there.
I usually read theories and agree with them or at the very least find them interesting, but I think this is the first time I read one and did not agree with it after assessing it for a few minutes.
I feel that McLuhan has something going when he stated that the channel through which the message is being sent is just as important as the message itself because in a way he is right. When he stated that printed advertisements like flyers use linear logic, a sequence that follows one after the other, and television uses mosaic logic, bits and pieces of information are all over the place and it is our job as viewers to put it together, I felt that he had a point. Then I realized that McLuhan is wrong.
I have noticed so many times in public places and even on the SJSU campus that there are advertisements for everything that are more than just word after word, sequential idea after the other using only linear logic. I have seen collages, elaborate portraits, a simple picture and very little to zero words on it and the advertisement says so much. A picture says a thousand words and artists and creative advertisers have taken printed ads to a new level.
When it comes to television, it is no different. McLuhan states that television advertisement uses mosaic logic, bombarding us with changing bits of information that we must cognitively reassemble. I feel that this is also a wrong statement. TV does not just throw out a bunch of random clips, unordered mixed signals, which leaves us to put together on our own. If anything, commercials, with the exception of the few humorous ones, are very straight to the point. Even if McLulan is referring to older commercials, I still disagree with his statement because even in the 1980's, when Apple first came out with Macintosh, it had scrolling text on the screen as a narrator read it aloud.
I think that McLuhan to an extent is correct when stating that television is a "cool" medium, meaning that viewers must fill in detail. I think even today we all still have to fill in details to some commercials but for most of them, there is almost nothing to fill in. Let's take a look at the newest Old Spice High Endurance Body wash commercials with comedian Terry Crewes. He has so many commercials where he "fights odor" and his comedic skills are what make the message funny. After watching one of those commercials, what detail is there to fill in? There is nothing left up to the viewer to figure out. This is just one example of many out there.
I usually read theories and agree with them or at the very least find them interesting, but I think this is the first time I read one and did not agree with it after assessing it for a few minutes.
Week 14 - Cyberspace Friendships
I think to some extent everyone, at least in college, has cyberspace friendships whether they be a lot or a little. Social networking websites are making such a big boom and they are only getting bigger. Websites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter allow people to connect or reconnect with each other without having to meet face to face. I personally have multiple friends that I only seem to talk to through Facebook. Just about all of those friends on Facebook are people I have met before in person but either rarely see them face to face or never have seen them face to face since I met them. Since I am friends with them on Facebook, I am able to talk to them and see what they are doing and our friendship never goes beyond Facebook. So I do technically have friends that are exclusively on cyberspace.
I would say that the differences between the face to face relationship versus the cyberspace relationship can be both a good and bad thing. The good is that it allows people the capability to connect with others without having to spend the time and money meeting up with them. Sometimes in a friendship all there is to talk about is what is new in their lives and how things are and meeting up is not necessarily needed. The bad thing about cyberspace is that it takes away from the intimate emotions that come as an attachment to the friendship. If two lonely people only talk to each other online and never meet, it is possible that a great friendship, or more, is being sacrificed. Cyberspace becomes this barrier between people and friendships, although could be massive in numbers, lacks intimacy.
I would say that the differences between the face to face relationship versus the cyberspace relationship can be both a good and bad thing. The good is that it allows people the capability to connect with others without having to spend the time and money meeting up with them. Sometimes in a friendship all there is to talk about is what is new in their lives and how things are and meeting up is not necessarily needed. The bad thing about cyberspace is that it takes away from the intimate emotions that come as an attachment to the friendship. If two lonely people only talk to each other online and never meet, it is possible that a great friendship, or more, is being sacrificed. Cyberspace becomes this barrier between people and friendships, although could be massive in numbers, lacks intimacy.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Week 12 - Rules of Disclosure
The section in the text book that covers disclosing personal information really intrigued me because I applied it to my own personal experiences and I must say, Trenholm hit it on the nose with this one. Disclosing with confidence to someone is always a major risk no matter who it is that you could be talking to. Some of the closest people in your life can really turn on you and expose your personal business to anyone at any time. The scariest part is that you do not know that until it actually happens AFTER you have already told them.
I reflected back to some of my own friends who randomly share things with me when the moment is inappropriate and I will admit that I do not keep their information to myself. I go around and I start to tell so many people about their personal information, but that is not 100% my fault. It is actually mostly their own fault for sharing sensitive information at the wrong time. A particular situation where it was not my fault and actually their fault was when me and few friends went to a bar. We drank a lot and we had a good time and we talked about the typical guy stuff. The night was going well, when out of nowhere the designated driver (who happened to have a few beers in him, bad I know) started to vent about his girlfriend drama. He shared that his girlfriend has a father or uncle ( I do not fully remember) who disrespects him and one day threw bones at him while they were eating lunch or dinner. As sad or messed up as it sounds, I laughed so hard at him. That night I had so many beers, I'm having a great time, I want to relax from a long day at work and out of nowhere I hear this story. How was I supposed to know it was supposed to be serious? Not only that, but I had a fair amount of alcohol in my system so I am not in a state where I can be serious.
Trenholm in this section covers the different rules, which seems to be more like common sense, on the when, how and why someone should disclose personal information to anyone. As simple as these rules are, people should read it just so they can appropriately share personal information and not have to worry if it was the right time or not to do so.
I reflected back to some of my own friends who randomly share things with me when the moment is inappropriate and I will admit that I do not keep their information to myself. I go around and I start to tell so many people about their personal information, but that is not 100% my fault. It is actually mostly their own fault for sharing sensitive information at the wrong time. A particular situation where it was not my fault and actually their fault was when me and few friends went to a bar. We drank a lot and we had a good time and we talked about the typical guy stuff. The night was going well, when out of nowhere the designated driver (who happened to have a few beers in him, bad I know) started to vent about his girlfriend drama. He shared that his girlfriend has a father or uncle ( I do not fully remember) who disrespects him and one day threw bones at him while they were eating lunch or dinner. As sad or messed up as it sounds, I laughed so hard at him. That night I had so many beers, I'm having a great time, I want to relax from a long day at work and out of nowhere I hear this story. How was I supposed to know it was supposed to be serious? Not only that, but I had a fair amount of alcohol in my system so I am not in a state where I can be serious.
Trenholm in this section covers the different rules, which seems to be more like common sense, on the when, how and why someone should disclose personal information to anyone. As simple as these rules are, people should read it just so they can appropriately share personal information and not have to worry if it was the right time or not to do so.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Week 12 - Filters
For me, I feel that I have filters just like everyone else does when it comes to deciding whether or not someone can be a potential romantic partner. I typically find it very attractive when a girl wears Jordan shoes and has a sense of humor. If those two things are not within her traits, then it might take me a little longer to consier this person to be a partner. I learned when I was in high school that I found myself more attracted to girls who wore Jordan's rather than girls who did not, but the of those girls who worse Jordan's I did not enjoy being around them or wanted to talk to them if they did not have a sense of humor. On the flip side, when there were girls who had a great sense of humor, even though I enjoyed being around them I subconsciously was not attracted to them. I met probably a few girls when I was in middle and high school that had both traits and I tried my luck at them but of course, I did not succeed.
Before any of you who are reading go on to disagree or think of me as shallow, I just would like to say in my defense that girls who don't wear Jordan's are NOT ugly to me. I do not think girls are horrible romantic partners based off their shoes, I just automatically have this bias towards girls who do wear Jordan's versus the ones who do not when it comes to finding out if I would like to have a romantic relationship with her or not. There has been times where I meet a girl who wears Jordan's but as soon as I get to know her, I find out the hard way that she is NOT what I am looking for in a partner. There's just something about those shoes that really attract me and plenty of other guys. In the culture of loving shoes, I would say in some cases that shoes can literally make someone physically attracted to someone, I am a product of that theory. The reason I went into such detail with that is because it follows one of the four filters in Duck's Theory.
Duck's theory does make sense to me because I do agree that in order for a relationship to occur, these steps are usually taken, sociological cue, preinteraction cues, interaction cues, cognitive cues. The reason why it makes sense to me is because when I look at my own relationship I have with my girlfriend, we went through this process. We liked the fact that we both went to college, we lived within a minute drive from eachother, our body language did not conflict with eachother's, we were able to hold conversations for long periods of time without any awkwardness and we were open to each other with our own values and beliefs.
When it comes to whether or not I have eliminated sociological or preinteration cues only to reconsider a girl based only on interaction and cognitive cues, I would say yes, very much so. Before I ever got into the relationship I am currently in, I was considering talking to girls who lived far away and/or had body language that did not compliment my own (the way she dressed vs the way I dressed) and only considered in a romantic relationship with them because of the way we were able to talk to each other an enjoy each others company. It obviously did not work out because of the living situation, but that's more than OK with me because I am very happy in the relationship I have now. =P
Before any of you who are reading go on to disagree or think of me as shallow, I just would like to say in my defense that girls who don't wear Jordan's are NOT ugly to me. I do not think girls are horrible romantic partners based off their shoes, I just automatically have this bias towards girls who do wear Jordan's versus the ones who do not when it comes to finding out if I would like to have a romantic relationship with her or not. There has been times where I meet a girl who wears Jordan's but as soon as I get to know her, I find out the hard way that she is NOT what I am looking for in a partner. There's just something about those shoes that really attract me and plenty of other guys. In the culture of loving shoes, I would say in some cases that shoes can literally make someone physically attracted to someone, I am a product of that theory. The reason I went into such detail with that is because it follows one of the four filters in Duck's Theory.
Duck's theory does make sense to me because I do agree that in order for a relationship to occur, these steps are usually taken, sociological cue, preinteraction cues, interaction cues, cognitive cues. The reason why it makes sense to me is because when I look at my own relationship I have with my girlfriend, we went through this process. We liked the fact that we both went to college, we lived within a minute drive from eachother, our body language did not conflict with eachother's, we were able to hold conversations for long periods of time without any awkwardness and we were open to each other with our own values and beliefs.
When it comes to whether or not I have eliminated sociological or preinteration cues only to reconsider a girl based only on interaction and cognitive cues, I would say yes, very much so. Before I ever got into the relationship I am currently in, I was considering talking to girls who lived far away and/or had body language that did not compliment my own (the way she dressed vs the way I dressed) and only considered in a romantic relationship with them because of the way we were able to talk to each other an enjoy each others company. It obviously did not work out because of the living situation, but that's more than OK with me because I am very happy in the relationship I have now. =P
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Week 12 - Hardest pattern to change
When I first read this in the textbook I was seriously undecided about two specific patterns, submissive and symmetrical, in terms of which was hardest to change. I had to really sit back and think about it and although I found reasons for why both were valid reasons, I knew I had to pick one. When I finally came to a decision, I felt that the HARDEST to change is the submissive pattern.
The reason I chose this one over the symmetrical pattern is because the symmetrical pattern is a battle of who wants power and who will get it. When a couple fights for the dominant position, tempers can flare and arguments will eventually arise. One major set back that I saw in this one that does not make it as hard to change is the fact that I have personally seen a number of couples, married and not married, in this pattern. Usually when there is a disagreement over a decision that needs to be made by both sides, they usually have to compromise whether it is meeting the middle of that immediate decision or one partner gets to decide now and the other gets the next decision on something else. This pattern, from what I've seen, can worked around by slightly altering the one-up position for those in the relationship. I think the reason why people are willing to change when they are in this position is because their love for the other person is greater than their desire for dominance. On the contrary, some people love the other too much to establish dominance.
The reason why I feel that the submissive pattern is the hardest to change is because, I have seen this in couples, but only the non-married ones, and I am yet to see one of these kinds of couples get married. They never make a quality decision without getting approval from the other person. Nothing moves forward until both can not only agree but make sure that the other is happy with the decision. It seems that both are scared to take the dominant position because he/she does not want the other person to feel bad or controlled. When I am at work, selling a TV to a couple or family that comes in, the ones that take up most of my time are the ones who cannot seem to make a decision because person A is not showing any interest and will take what person B wants. Person B in this situation will not choose a TV until person A makes a decision as to which one he/she likes.
For example: A man and a woman came in and the man wanted a TV with certain features, which we had a few that fit his description. So far so good. Then after a few minutes of talking about it, the man asks the woman which of the three TV's she wanted. She did not care, she just wants a TV. The man kept asking which one and the woman kept replying by telling him to pick one he wants instead. Then they got into an argument in front of me, the man started saying that he wants her to pick the TV she wants since she will be watching it too, then the woman said the same thing back. The end result, they left the store without buying a TV because they could not decide on which one to get because neither wanted to get a TV the other might not like.
That is just one example of many that I have seen, and in my particular case, my girlfriend and I go through something like this too and we end up fighting over it. A simple example would be when we both cannot decide where to eat. It will be 6:00pm and we end up eating somewhere around 9:00pm or not at all because we both would continuously say to each other that the other should pick. I think this is the hardest pattern to change because both people will always feel bad for trying to be dominant.
The reason I chose this one over the symmetrical pattern is because the symmetrical pattern is a battle of who wants power and who will get it. When a couple fights for the dominant position, tempers can flare and arguments will eventually arise. One major set back that I saw in this one that does not make it as hard to change is the fact that I have personally seen a number of couples, married and not married, in this pattern. Usually when there is a disagreement over a decision that needs to be made by both sides, they usually have to compromise whether it is meeting the middle of that immediate decision or one partner gets to decide now and the other gets the next decision on something else. This pattern, from what I've seen, can worked around by slightly altering the one-up position for those in the relationship. I think the reason why people are willing to change when they are in this position is because their love for the other person is greater than their desire for dominance. On the contrary, some people love the other too much to establish dominance.
The reason why I feel that the submissive pattern is the hardest to change is because, I have seen this in couples, but only the non-married ones, and I am yet to see one of these kinds of couples get married. They never make a quality decision without getting approval from the other person. Nothing moves forward until both can not only agree but make sure that the other is happy with the decision. It seems that both are scared to take the dominant position because he/she does not want the other person to feel bad or controlled. When I am at work, selling a TV to a couple or family that comes in, the ones that take up most of my time are the ones who cannot seem to make a decision because person A is not showing any interest and will take what person B wants. Person B in this situation will not choose a TV until person A makes a decision as to which one he/she likes.
For example: A man and a woman came in and the man wanted a TV with certain features, which we had a few that fit his description. So far so good. Then after a few minutes of talking about it, the man asks the woman which of the three TV's she wanted. She did not care, she just wants a TV. The man kept asking which one and the woman kept replying by telling him to pick one he wants instead. Then they got into an argument in front of me, the man started saying that he wants her to pick the TV she wants since she will be watching it too, then the woman said the same thing back. The end result, they left the store without buying a TV because they could not decide on which one to get because neither wanted to get a TV the other might not like.
That is just one example of many that I have seen, and in my particular case, my girlfriend and I go through something like this too and we end up fighting over it. A simple example would be when we both cannot decide where to eat. It will be 6:00pm and we end up eating somewhere around 9:00pm or not at all because we both would continuously say to each other that the other should pick. I think this is the hardest pattern to change because both people will always feel bad for trying to be dominant.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Week 9 - Premise
For the most part I do believe in all three premises; mutability, perfectibility and rationality but only to certain extents for each.
The rationality premise comes from many American institutions and I do think that the average person is more than capable of making a good decision but that all depends on how this person was raised. If this person grew up in a household where an eye for an eye is the way life should be, then how would this person make a good decision as a judge when deciding if someone should go to jail or die for committing murder? In that example, this particular individual will have a bias for killing the convicted felon because of the way he/she grew up. Not everyone is as open minded as they should be so some decisions might not be as good to make. This premise should focus more on college graduates or college students rather than "any average person."
The prefectibility premise comes from the old Puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. For this premise I do fully believe this. It does not matter who you are or what you have done, if you want to change you can. The only exception is if the individual has some sort of a mental disorder. Other than that extreme circumstance, I feel that people who want to change can change and that there is no such thing as having "no choice."
The mutability premise comes from universal education all around. This premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and in order to improve we must do so to their mental and physical circumstances. I feel that we do not have to change physical and psychological circumstances to improve. There are times when improving someone will only require a mental adjustment or inversely just a physical adjustment. If someone grows up as a farmer but is really overweight, it will be hard for this person to perform his/her job without being too tired, especially with limited mobility. In terms of the mental part, this farmer already knows all there is to know about the job, he/she just might not be able to do it effectively or at all die to his/her limitation in movement. Dropping some weight should do the trick for this farmer. If someone in grade school were to sleep over at a friend's house but the person who is sleeping over is not used to his/her friend's customs in the home, he/she has to make the mental adjustment only.
I do feel that these premise are very interesting to read and to some extent are correct, but in actuality, we all know that what everything comes down to is whether or not the individual has the capability to perform or think at a certain level.
The rationality premise comes from many American institutions and I do think that the average person is more than capable of making a good decision but that all depends on how this person was raised. If this person grew up in a household where an eye for an eye is the way life should be, then how would this person make a good decision as a judge when deciding if someone should go to jail or die for committing murder? In that example, this particular individual will have a bias for killing the convicted felon because of the way he/she grew up. Not everyone is as open minded as they should be so some decisions might not be as good to make. This premise should focus more on college graduates or college students rather than "any average person."
The prefectibility premise comes from the old Puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. For this premise I do fully believe this. It does not matter who you are or what you have done, if you want to change you can. The only exception is if the individual has some sort of a mental disorder. Other than that extreme circumstance, I feel that people who want to change can change and that there is no such thing as having "no choice."
The mutability premise comes from universal education all around. This premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and in order to improve we must do so to their mental and physical circumstances. I feel that we do not have to change physical and psychological circumstances to improve. There are times when improving someone will only require a mental adjustment or inversely just a physical adjustment. If someone grows up as a farmer but is really overweight, it will be hard for this person to perform his/her job without being too tired, especially with limited mobility. In terms of the mental part, this farmer already knows all there is to know about the job, he/she just might not be able to do it effectively or at all die to his/her limitation in movement. Dropping some weight should do the trick for this farmer. If someone in grade school were to sleep over at a friend's house but the person who is sleeping over is not used to his/her friend's customs in the home, he/she has to make the mental adjustment only.
I do feel that these premise are very interesting to read and to some extent are correct, but in actuality, we all know that what everything comes down to is whether or not the individual has the capability to perform or think at a certain level.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Week 9 - Creatures of our Culture
I agree with Ruth Benedict that we are all "creatures of our culture" but only to a certain extent. In the sense where we look at infants and how their lives are started to be shaped is definitely out of their control. Nobody when they are born can pick and choose his/her family. Therefore, that means the cultural beliefs that are being presented to the infant is how the infant will start out and for a number of years feel that what he/she believe in is what is right and what he/she are told is wrong will also believe that too. Culture is created by humans and we naturally will sometimes push our culture onto others whether that be religion, politics, school, ethics, health and even sex. Where I feel that I had to disagree with Benedict is when I noticed she does not go into detail about what she said. She does not even mention once that individuals through the years tend to sometimes create their own culture with other people and it might not always be something that this individual grew up with. Individuals at times grow up and realize that his/her family beliefs or ways of living is something he/she is not into and does not want to be a part of.
An Example -
I grew up in a very traditional and strict Filipino family. One of the biggest things Filipinos are passionate about is religion. My parents not only pushed religion onto me but put it in my head that Catholics are the right religion and everyone else is wrong and we have it right. For years and years I grew up thinking that the Roman Catholics was the real and true religion and all other forms of religion and even Christianity were wrong. It was not until recently when the whole debate about Prop 8 came around and the Catholic church not only supported it, but some people of the church would get very violent or be verbally abusive over it. I was shocked that the same church that claimed that God loves all and we are all equal and we should love thy neighbor no matter what is bashing on homosexual people. Then I realized that made no sense and I sort of took a step back and questioned what I thought was my religion. Currently, I still am a Catholic but I do not know if the Roman Catholics got it right, their beliefs and ways of putting on to other people puts me in absolute shock.
I am sure there are people out there who have a story just like this even if it is not as extreme or something apart from religion. I feel that at one point, we do not have to be creature of a culture that we were born into.
With that said, I feel that in order for us to break through the limits of our cultures, we need to have an open mind and be not afraid to question initial beliefs. I personally voted no on Prop 8 even though my religious views said otherwise. I felt that looking at something as a whole and getting the facts right, although is not always easy due to bias and in some cases stubbornness, will help people step out of their cultural circle and possibly find something new. Just remember, it all starts with an open mind.
An Example -
I grew up in a very traditional and strict Filipino family. One of the biggest things Filipinos are passionate about is religion. My parents not only pushed religion onto me but put it in my head that Catholics are the right religion and everyone else is wrong and we have it right. For years and years I grew up thinking that the Roman Catholics was the real and true religion and all other forms of religion and even Christianity were wrong. It was not until recently when the whole debate about Prop 8 came around and the Catholic church not only supported it, but some people of the church would get very violent or be verbally abusive over it. I was shocked that the same church that claimed that God loves all and we are all equal and we should love thy neighbor no matter what is bashing on homosexual people. Then I realized that made no sense and I sort of took a step back and questioned what I thought was my religion. Currently, I still am a Catholic but I do not know if the Roman Catholics got it right, their beliefs and ways of putting on to other people puts me in absolute shock.
I am sure there are people out there who have a story just like this even if it is not as extreme or something apart from religion. I feel that at one point, we do not have to be creature of a culture that we were born into.
With that said, I feel that in order for us to break through the limits of our cultures, we need to have an open mind and be not afraid to question initial beliefs. I personally voted no on Prop 8 even though my religious views said otherwise. I felt that looking at something as a whole and getting the facts right, although is not always easy due to bias and in some cases stubbornness, will help people step out of their cultural circle and possibly find something new. Just remember, it all starts with an open mind.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Week 7 Useful Concept
A very interesting concept I liked in the text was the entire section called "Territory and the Use of Space." This section talks about the concept of territoriality. In the text it is defined as, "The need to create boundaries, to control areas of space and make them ours. Trenholm explains in better detail that there are four different types of this, which are; public, home, interaction and body. "Public" is the space we create on our own in settings like parks, shopping malls and sidewalks. We all know that these places are open to the public but what we are comfortable with in terms of what we can and cannot do all depends on the individual. "Home" is the space we create in the comfort of our own living space. This is where we as individuals are more free and have the most amount of space to be ourselves. "Interaction" is when we are at a social party with friends and/or family and for the most part we are comfortable in this type of setting but obviously not as much freedom is granted here compared to home. Sometimes, in order to allow a higher level of comfort, sometimes people who are considered to be outsiders, will not be welcomed to join the party. Finally there is "body," this one is what each individual sets for themselves and what we allow in terms of our bodies being touched. According to Trenholm, this is the most restricted territory for any individual. Even with loved ones like lovers, friends and family, we still set limits of how much we allow to be touched by them.
Trenholm says that the more freedom that is allowed in terms of personal space, the more comfortable someone is to be themselves. I do not fully agree with that because there are shy people in the world who are conservative both when they are at home and in public. There are some people who just do not like to socialize and would rather be alone. Even though, it is agreed that the more private and open a space will be, a person's true personality comes out. If I am not mistaken, what Trenholm refers to when she wrote that sentence is that people will be more social and talkative and less conservative. I do not think that is always the case. I truly feel that there are people in the world who act the same in public as they do in private in their own home. Whether it be the quiet conservative type, or it be the wild and crazy type. Not everyone fits Trenholm's description, but I will say she is right about setting territories.
Trenholm says that the more freedom that is allowed in terms of personal space, the more comfortable someone is to be themselves. I do not fully agree with that because there are shy people in the world who are conservative both when they are at home and in public. There are some people who just do not like to socialize and would rather be alone. Even though, it is agreed that the more private and open a space will be, a person's true personality comes out. If I am not mistaken, what Trenholm refers to when she wrote that sentence is that people will be more social and talkative and less conservative. I do not think that is always the case. I truly feel that there are people in the world who act the same in public as they do in private in their own home. Whether it be the quiet conservative type, or it be the wild and crazy type. Not everyone fits Trenholm's description, but I will say she is right about setting territories.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Week 7-Nonverbal Messages in Other Countries
Growing up I always thought that the peace sign was always something appropriate. The peace sign for those of you who do not know what it is, it is when the index finger and the middle finger straight up and the other fingers are kept down by being held down by the thumb. I did not know until I got to college that the peace sign can mean the F word if held up the wrong way. I also did not know that sticking your tongue out to people in China (I could be wrong) is also considered to be the F word. I also heard that pulling down the skin under one of your eyes and sticking your tongue out is also like saying the F word. I do not know where, but I also heard in parts of the middle east, a thumbs up is also like the F word. It is interesting to know that people in different parts of the world accept or reject certain body gestures. Perhaps if there were more awareness for the people in America to know what is not acceptable body gestures in other parts of the world, maybe other countries would hate us less. =)
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Week 7 Ambiguous Nonverbal Messages
I have been wrong so many times with how I interpret nonverbal messages from people. I do it almost everyday actually. At school or work I see people all the time who give off these messages with their actions. I've seen couples fight, people become excited, people get sleepy and so much more, all without them having to say a word. Those things are easy to figure out when they happen but there are times when something seems very ambiguous and the interpretation of the meaning can be wrong.
When I worked at Circuit City before it closed down, I had a coworker in my department who always seemed to have the majority of her shifts match with mine. Every time she came into work, she would always get excited and smile and tell me how much fun we are going to have because we are working together. She was very friendly and very nice to me every single time we worked together and I thought it meant that she was interested in me both emotionally and physically. One day she was telling me how one of the co-workers we had kept hitting on her and she was telling me how much she did not like him. To me it was just confirmation that she was into me and I decided to ask her out. Of course, she had a boyfriend and to top it off, I wasn't her type and needless to say, I was embarrassed.
I think if I applied what Trenholm says in the text about how there are three ways to increase the accuracy of a nonverbal message, I would not have been embarrassed. If I would have checked the "context" I would have noticed that she is probably nice to me because she is a nice person overall and is nice to everyone. If I would have compared her "current behavior" to her "baseline behavior" I would have noticed she always tells me how much fun we are going to have at work and that never changed because she probably just likes working with me and that's it. If I would have simply just asked her, if she had a boyfriend, I would have saved myself from so much embarrassment.
When I worked at Circuit City before it closed down, I had a coworker in my department who always seemed to have the majority of her shifts match with mine. Every time she came into work, she would always get excited and smile and tell me how much fun we are going to have because we are working together. She was very friendly and very nice to me every single time we worked together and I thought it meant that she was interested in me both emotionally and physically. One day she was telling me how one of the co-workers we had kept hitting on her and she was telling me how much she did not like him. To me it was just confirmation that she was into me and I decided to ask her out. Of course, she had a boyfriend and to top it off, I wasn't her type and needless to say, I was embarrassed.
I think if I applied what Trenholm says in the text about how there are three ways to increase the accuracy of a nonverbal message, I would not have been embarrassed. If I would have checked the "context" I would have noticed that she is probably nice to me because she is a nice person overall and is nice to everyone. If I would have compared her "current behavior" to her "baseline behavior" I would have noticed she always tells me how much fun we are going to have at work and that never changed because she probably just likes working with me and that's it. If I would have simply just asked her, if she had a boyfriend, I would have saved myself from so much embarrassment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Week 6 - Useful Concept
A concept that I found to be useful in the reading was "Euphemisms." According to the textbook on page 77, Euphemisms are inoffensive words that are used instead of highly charged terms. This means that we can say things that do not sound as harsh and still get the message across. Trenholm uses the example that we can say "collatoral damage" instead of civilian deaths. When I read that, I knew exactly what was meant behind that. It allows us to be less offensive and talk about painful things and still address what needs to be addressed. When I learned that my friend has an issue when he gets too drunk by being too agressive and does unthinkable things I had to let him know immediately but I did not want to make him evasive by saying it the wrong way. So instead of me saying that I think he needs to stop drinking and told him that his actions are horrible, I told him that when we go out, we are not having a contest of who can drink the most. Immediately he understood what my intentions were and he actually apologized for his actions when he gets drunk. Now, he does his best to stay away from hard liquor and to just stick to beer and if possible, to take a taxi to the bar and back home instead of driving, even if he is not the driver because when we leave the bar there are taxi's lined up waiting for people to get in. That means we do not have to walk 2 or 3 blocks to get to the parking garage where the car is and risk him either getting into fights with strangers or something of that nature. Euphimisms can be applied to any situation just like this one and it could save anyone from a night in jail or worse.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Week 6 - Men vs Women in Language
I feel that men and women do use language differently. I also feel that men and women use it differently in the same situations too. I feel that men tend to be a lot more masculine around eachother and wen we speak we want to be tough. When we speak to the opposite sex we then tend to change our tone and be more sensitive and our choice of words are limited or completley changed. I also noticed that when I am around my freinds I speak in a joking tone with friends and always tend to make fun of them and talk about drinking beer and getting drunk and all that stuff. Then when I am with my girlfriend I do not really talk about getting drunk. I will say nicer things around her and I only make fun of her in good taste that is not as harsh because I do not want to say anything that she might take differently as my friends would. I also notice that my girlfriend talks to me one way but when she is talking to her friends it is like she is one of those gossiping hair stylists you see on tv that always hsve something to say about everything. I feel that we do this because we are conscious of our surroundings and we just naturally know what is appropriate and what is not.
Week 6 - Judgement
Before I ever took a course in communications, I felt that it was possible but hard for people to not pre judge other people. I learned that is not the case after I got to college. Trenholm discusses different types of schemata in Chapter 3 and one of them (Person Prototype) we as humans will prejudge people without even meeting, talking to, or listen to them. When we see people, we judge them before we even hear them speak regardless if we judge them from the start and automatically assume we know everything about them, or if we assume very little about them. In either case we made a pre-judgement and in most cases it can be considered wrong. Pre-judgement can both be negative and positive, if we were to be set up on a blind date and we see our date for the first time, we automatically judge them by the way they look instantly. I feel that this is a natural thing we do as humans and we cannot help ourselves. I believe that we can try to work on not judging people prior to actually meeting them but in all honesty, it cannot go away.
In my Interpersonal Comm course we learned that no matter what we do, when we see people we automatically judge them even if we just pass by them when we are walking. Something interesting that I learned, and completly agree with, is that when we engage in a conversation with someone for the first time, within 5-10 minutes (maybe even less) of the conversation, we start to evaluate if the other person is up to our own standards of whether or not we would want to have sexual activity with them. Sometimes we do not assess if we would want to have secual intercourse but we ask ourselves self-consciously if we would want to and also if we were to try and pursue it, would we succeed. We do not do it on purpose, but even the most loyal people in committed monogomous relationships will at one point have it cross their mind.
I feel that in order for us to better ourselves and to start pre-judging people positivley rather than negatively, we should just keep an open mind and not always judge a book by its cover. Someone who dresses in baggy clothing and smokes cigarettes everyday are not alaways going to be drug dealers, high school drop outs, thugs and gang members. If we can possibly reserve judgement until after actually talking to someone, stereotypes would be reduced and each indivdual would not automatically be classified in a stereotype because the stereotype can be wrong.
Trenholm elaborates a little bit on this schema by stating, "Person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person....Although prototypes give us a quick take on someone, they ignore individual details and can lead to stereotyped responses."
In my Interpersonal Comm course we learned that no matter what we do, when we see people we automatically judge them even if we just pass by them when we are walking. Something interesting that I learned, and completly agree with, is that when we engage in a conversation with someone for the first time, within 5-10 minutes (maybe even less) of the conversation, we start to evaluate if the other person is up to our own standards of whether or not we would want to have sexual activity with them. Sometimes we do not assess if we would want to have secual intercourse but we ask ourselves self-consciously if we would want to and also if we were to try and pursue it, would we succeed. We do not do it on purpose, but even the most loyal people in committed monogomous relationships will at one point have it cross their mind.
I feel that in order for us to better ourselves and to start pre-judging people positivley rather than negatively, we should just keep an open mind and not always judge a book by its cover. Someone who dresses in baggy clothing and smokes cigarettes everyday are not alaways going to be drug dealers, high school drop outs, thugs and gang members. If we can possibly reserve judgement until after actually talking to someone, stereotypes would be reduced and each indivdual would not automatically be classified in a stereotype because the stereotype can be wrong.
Trenholm elaborates a little bit on this schema by stating, "Person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person....Although prototypes give us a quick take on someone, they ignore individual details and can lead to stereotyped responses."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Week 3 - Useful Concept
A concept I enjoyed reading, although short, was the paragraph on criticizing the pragmatic model. It follows too closely to the systems theory, which I learned in Comm144, Organization Communication which I took a couple of semesters ago. Systems Theory in a paraphrased definition states that every (person) is part of a machine and in order for that machine to operate correctly, each part of the machine needs to do its part. If there is a weak part or a part that is not fully operating correctly in the machine then the machine falls apart. This theory looks at people as things and basically have a linear look on what people can and cannot do. It is so old fashion and closed minded, it is mind-boggling to know there are people who still think that way when it comes to people.I enjoyed reading that small paragraph because everything that it had stated was exactly almost what I wrote in my second question and also mirrors my true feelings on the subject. The pragmatic model and systems theory belong to a communist country, which we are not. (No offense to those who feel communism is great, but the fact is, history proves communism fails…it is impossible to have doctors and comic book cashiers make the same wage, it just does not work.)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Week 3 – Pragmatic Perspective
According to Trenholm on page 32 of the textbook, the Pragmatic perspective is when communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time. Scholars who are more pragmatic will claim that communication is a game.
Trenholm says the way communication is like a game is that there are “players” and there are “moves” that each player will make. Each move will then require another move and then another then another. Just like chess, depending on what your move is, will determine my next move and vice versa. The key is that each player needs an opponent, there can be no game without an opponent. Also, if the opponent who is playing the game does not make a “move” that is still considered playing the game, that means the opponent is refusing to move or chooses to forfeit. Each move has a meaning behind it, ignoring, laughing, crying can all mean different things whether they are sincere or a disguise to trick someone. Regardless, when two people are communicating they are playing a game of give and take and each “move” is determined by the last move their “opponent” made. Although some scholars feel that this is an appropriate way to look at communication, it is more than just a game.
What makes communication not like a game is the emotions hidden and the nonverbal cues that cannot be seen or figured out. Pragmatic communicators disregard the “why” and the “how” and only look at the “what,” “where” and “when.” Intentions behind each action does not get considered and what happens outside the box is not even thought of. If someone simply ignores the other person, that does not mean he/she is forfeiting his/her turn to make a move and therefore loses. When someone ignores someone or thing it can mean that they are trying to save a relationship by not saying anything to further escalate an argument, or they are simply tired and does not want to continue with a conversation. Just because someone will make an attempt to compliment someone or to give them a hug, it does not always mean they want to go on a date with them, use them for money, suck up or have sex with them, which is constantly mistaken and that can be because of “the game” that is being played. Intentions can be hidden, and can only be deciphered if analyzed passed “the game.” It can easily have all the intentions of something positive in the long run, but if it is taken the wrong way then the nonverbal cues serve no purpose in “the game” that we play when we communicate.
Trenholm says the way communication is like a game is that there are “players” and there are “moves” that each player will make. Each move will then require another move and then another then another. Just like chess, depending on what your move is, will determine my next move and vice versa. The key is that each player needs an opponent, there can be no game without an opponent. Also, if the opponent who is playing the game does not make a “move” that is still considered playing the game, that means the opponent is refusing to move or chooses to forfeit. Each move has a meaning behind it, ignoring, laughing, crying can all mean different things whether they are sincere or a disguise to trick someone. Regardless, when two people are communicating they are playing a game of give and take and each “move” is determined by the last move their “opponent” made. Although some scholars feel that this is an appropriate way to look at communication, it is more than just a game.
What makes communication not like a game is the emotions hidden and the nonverbal cues that cannot be seen or figured out. Pragmatic communicators disregard the “why” and the “how” and only look at the “what,” “where” and “when.” Intentions behind each action does not get considered and what happens outside the box is not even thought of. If someone simply ignores the other person, that does not mean he/she is forfeiting his/her turn to make a move and therefore loses. When someone ignores someone or thing it can mean that they are trying to save a relationship by not saying anything to further escalate an argument, or they are simply tired and does not want to continue with a conversation. Just because someone will make an attempt to compliment someone or to give them a hug, it does not always mean they want to go on a date with them, use them for money, suck up or have sex with them, which is constantly mistaken and that can be because of “the game” that is being played. Intentions can be hidden, and can only be deciphered if analyzed passed “the game.” It can easily have all the intentions of something positive in the long run, but if it is taken the wrong way then the nonverbal cues serve no purpose in “the game” that we play when we communicate.
Week 3 - Social Constructionist Perspective
The Social Constructionist Perspective according to Trenholm on page 30 of the textbook is, "communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality.
The way we "build words" in our culture is through the people around us. According to Trenholm, if the people around us talk one way about the earth, it is natural for us to take that as fact and think of the world the same way even though it may not be truth. Mentalities and attitudes are caused by the social culture we are exposed to as children all the way until we reach high education assuming each person does obtain that opportunity.
In the culture that we live in today as college students in the San Jose area and including the people of the entire Bay Area, we feel as a whole that gay marriage should be legal. College students in different parts of the country might feel that gay marriage is disgusting and against God's will. The reason for that is because of the different areas we live in, that is why our cultures clash. When a college student from a conservative area has been raised to believe one way, it is hard to open their mind to something they are not used to. The same goes for liberal areas that are used to being so open minded, when someone is in an area where there are more rules, he/she will feel uncomfortable.
This causes disagreement between people and this can lead to much more. Since there is a split between the people of the United States, let alone California, about something like gay marriage, there will never be true happiness among different cultures. This does not go for just gay marriage, it also goes for legalizing marijuana, bearing arms, legal drinking age, legal driving age, health care, abortion...the list goes on. As long as the people of different cultures continue to disagree about just about everything that is supposed to bring us together, there will be not such thing as happiness among different cultures.
The way we "build words" in our culture is through the people around us. According to Trenholm, if the people around us talk one way about the earth, it is natural for us to take that as fact and think of the world the same way even though it may not be truth. Mentalities and attitudes are caused by the social culture we are exposed to as children all the way until we reach high education assuming each person does obtain that opportunity.
In the culture that we live in today as college students in the San Jose area and including the people of the entire Bay Area, we feel as a whole that gay marriage should be legal. College students in different parts of the country might feel that gay marriage is disgusting and against God's will. The reason for that is because of the different areas we live in, that is why our cultures clash. When a college student from a conservative area has been raised to believe one way, it is hard to open their mind to something they are not used to. The same goes for liberal areas that are used to being so open minded, when someone is in an area where there are more rules, he/she will feel uncomfortable.
This causes disagreement between people and this can lead to much more. Since there is a split between the people of the United States, let alone California, about something like gay marriage, there will never be true happiness among different cultures. This does not go for just gay marriage, it also goes for legalizing marijuana, bearing arms, legal drinking age, legal driving age, health care, abortion...the list goes on. As long as the people of different cultures continue to disagree about just about everything that is supposed to bring us together, there will be not such thing as happiness among different cultures.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Renaissance
A concept that got me very interested was on page 8 and 9 of the textbook. The Renaissance and Medieval period was a very interesting time. I did not know that kings, queens and priests were illiterate and had to hire professionals to explain laws and religion to them. I wonder, if any professional dictator said the wrong thing on purpose to a king, queen or priest and then it would get passed on to the people and then through time, that made up thing becomes fact. This makes me wonder how much of what we know about religion is false caused by an unethical dictator.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Orators
I agree with the ancient Greeks and feel that an orator should be morally good. For many years in Greece the people there were illiterate and they had no other way to learn about anything besides trusting what the orator told them. On pages 8 and 9 of the text, Trenholm talks about the Renaissance and how even priests were illiterate and had to hire professional dictators to teach them about religious dispensations. During this time, preaching was very important and if a priest needs a professional dictator to teach him about the word of God, then it would be unethical to tell a priest the wrong thing because then he would preach it out to other people and then it just branches off from there. The connection between goodness, truth and public communication is if something is told publically to people that is true then only goodness will come out of it, at least for religion and laws.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Admired Speaker
In my life I have experienced a number of great speakers. The most recent person that I heard give a speech and felt was a great speaker was my manager at my work. I would say there is a combination of both pathos and logos in my manager's style of speaking with a twist of ethos depending on what he is talking about. He uses logic to explain why certain things are important and what it can lead to and how it benefits us as sales associates. His ability to arouse emotions in us gets us motivated to accomplish the goals he sets for the department. If I had to pick which of the two he is more focused on in his speaking, I would say it is his logos. Everything he says and tries to explain makes perfect sense when he speaks whether it is one on one with an associate or it is to the entire department or even the whole store. I feel that I use logos a lot when I speak to customers or when I am having a friendly debate with family and/or friends. It mainly comes from when I am speaking with a customer where I use the most logos and throw in some pathos and ethos as well to give it some flavor. I do my best to explain to the customer the benefits as to why he or she needs to get a certain accessory to go with his or her purchase and why the extended warranty is worth the extra money in the long run. Since every customer is different, I sometimes need to take a different approach when trying to sell the same stuff to different people. I think that when I also use ethos and pathos I present an image of credibility to the customer and that usually helps closing the sale. As for my manager I think that Aristotle's classification scheme seems to work for my manager in his style of speaking. Besides, he makes nearly six figures a year and I am pretty sure he did not get promoted and got to where he is now without his speaking abilities helping him along the way.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Class Intro
I am a Communication major and I have experienced this major with different schools. My communication experience these past years have been with 3 different colleges. I started off at Sacramento State which I quickly decided was not for me, then I transferred back home after one semester and went to community college at De Anza and I also decided that was not for me either. After only one quarter at De Anza I went to SJSU and I can honestly say, without bias, that SJSU suits me best. I am in a diverse, open minded community with professors that can not only relate to the students (unlike CSUS and De Anza) but care about their students success.
I have no experience with online courses at all, so I am new to this but I always wanted to try one out, so this semester I signed up for two online courses which I hope is not as overwhelming as some people say it might be.
My interests are watching football, basketball, playing friendly non-high stakes poker, street fighter 4 and going to Las Vegas with my girlfriend and friends. I think in the past two years I have been to Las Vegas 5 times and I plan to go back for spring break and again in the summer. I cannot seem to get away from that place and can never get enough. I NEVER come out with more money than I came with but I learned very quickly, that Vegas is a lot more than just gambling.
What I hope to get out of this course is to learn more about society and see where we (college students) are as a culture. I really do not know what to expect from this course but I am looking forward to finding out.
I have no experience with online courses at all, so I am new to this but I always wanted to try one out, so this semester I signed up for two online courses which I hope is not as overwhelming as some people say it might be.
My interests are watching football, basketball, playing friendly non-high stakes poker, street fighter 4 and going to Las Vegas with my girlfriend and friends. I think in the past two years I have been to Las Vegas 5 times and I plan to go back for spring break and again in the summer. I cannot seem to get away from that place and can never get enough. I NEVER come out with more money than I came with but I learned very quickly, that Vegas is a lot more than just gambling.
What I hope to get out of this course is to learn more about society and see where we (college students) are as a culture. I really do not know what to expect from this course but I am looking forward to finding out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)