Survey Research

Awkwardly enough the research methods listed on Table 13.3 that seem most interesting is the survey research. I am someone who is a logical thinker and information based when it comes to decisions. So surveying is something that is very analytical for me. A question I word form off of the methodology would be, “what is the reason for drinking and partaking in drugs in high school?” Like I said previously I would choose this method because it seems like it would be the most analytical out of them all. Based off of facts and is very basic when it comes to gathering information. On the other hand, the method of Conversation Analysis would be too difficult for me when it comes to analyzing. That for me is over analyzing if that makes sense. Same goes for Content Analysis, it is a little too analytical for me. It requires you to find things within the context.

Finally, the end of the semester and what I enjoyed!

Throughout this course I have learned a lot of very different things on communication that I never thought I would have. The concepts covered I would have never even thought of, which amazes me. One thing in particular that caught my eye this semester in this course was the filtering theory proposed by Steve Duck. After reading about the filtering theory I realized how I judge people and the process I undergo in my head when making friends and forming relationships. I find it so interesting also because it is so interesting to think about the natural thought process. Another concept I found intriguing was the analyzation of facial expressions, unintentional and intentional. I find it so interesting for the same reason as the previous concept, it is just fascinating to see how people act intentionally and unintentionally. The brains process of things naturally is one of the things that has fascinated me most in school.

Media, NOW!

One thing this chapter covers is the media, and I feel the only reason for the media is for everyone's desire for the quick paced life. Everything from text messaging, instant messaging, commercials, emails, cell phone apps, information resources, and even social networking. If it isn't going to instantly gratify anyone they will they will not pay attention. If they do choose to pay attention, they will probably pay attention for short period of time due to everyone's desire for instant gratification. If you would compare today's news and information sources to a couple decades ago it would be two different worlds. Back in the day news was either delivered through the radio or newspaper and comparing that to today's sources it is probably one hundred times slower. I feel like it is beginning to affect kids in school because I know as a student I wanted everything to happen instantly, I couldn't sit there and listen to the teacher read the book or slowly go over something. Everything other than media for people is becoming a necessity to have instant gratification.

Marshall McLuhan

I do agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, the format or logic of a medium is as important as its content and, in fact, determines what content will be broadcast through that channel. It involves just about most of your senses when watching television, (all except feel to the touch). Like the textbook said, reading periodicals, the information is in an orderly fashion whereas with television its all in one instant effect, and you have to process it to the best of your abilities. Just how he says, television is a mosaic logic. However while watching this medium people may have selective processing and only process things they wish or how they wish, not always easy in an orderly fashion like other methods. I do believe over time with the mass amount of people watching television they expect everything to be instant and that is one of the contributing factors to everyone wanting instant everything. Everything now days is about instant gratification, even the media takes approach to that. Quick commercials, text messaging, etc.

Internet Relationships...

It might be weird to say but yes I have made friends that exclusively live in cyberspace. When I was a kid in middle school and high school I played a lot of online video games. In those video games you are able to create friends list with people that you met online and you can either build a greater relationship, play together online, or whatever else you wish. I had one friend I met playing online one night. I added him to my friends list and for a while we would just play together online. After a while we started chatting outside the online realm through email or texts. Over time we became really good friends but after a while we both grew up and stopped talking. Mostly it didn't work because I was never able to see him due to the fact that he lived across the United States. What I learned from that relationship online was that it is nothing like a f2f relationship. It requires much more time and effort and I hate to say it was too much for me when I looked back on what I had done. I haven't formed one since then.

Friendships in the Workplace

One of the topics in this Chapter is the discussion of work place relationships, friends and romantic. I have learned over several different personal experiences that dating in the workplace is something that should not ever be done, regardless on the situation. I did it once and it was weird because the person I was dating wanted to express public affection in the work place and I found it very inappropriate because we were there to complete a task not have personal time. Granted the work place was one that was very relaxed I just had standards when it came to being professional. In the long run she was turned off because the way I was acting and I had to explain to her that it was just weird to me. I have also learned on several different counts that it may be hard to work with someone if you have become very close with them on a personal level. Friendships can sometimes get in the way of things. One specific instance something has occurred in the workplace that wasn't tolerated and the employee that was doing it thought that I was friends with them. I still had to notify someone on the actions, and in the long run he was upset because he thought I had his back.

Connection

This weeks topic of communication was rather different discussing the topic of organizations being tied to the environment, which at first made no sense and now it sort of does. Educational institutions are tied to the environment in a sense of helping people, educational wise. The ethical obligations that are present between city and university would be looked at as to what the students are going to give back in the long run. Knowledge? More well informed place to live? Applying what they have learned to their community and environment? The book also states colleges are intertwined with cities on a communal level. If the college expands, it puts pressure on the environment in terms of energy, transportation, housing needs, and communication in terms of emergency. When I say communication in terms of emergency I mean the school needs to respond properly in conjunction with the city to make sure everyone is safe.

Adapting to technology...

As new technology emerges just about everyday we need to adapt to it in respect to others. Things like smart phones, tablets, and even laptops are starting to do just about everything for us and consume us more than technology ever has. We can do almost anything we want at our finger tips. I work at a coffee shop and people are ALWAYS on the phone when in line, then when it comes to ordering their drink, they are still on the phone. That I think is one of the rudest gestures, others however seem to not. It might be different on my end as the employee because they act like you are a burden on their day asking what they want while they are on the phone as if I am suppose to wait. The book provides several examples on where not to use your phone, and constantly I see people doing exactly what the book says. Phones still go off in the library, movies, and in class. They are becoming so common in everyone's life and most people are attached to them I guess everyone understands. Another cell phone etiquette that should be observed is texting people while in an actual verbal conversation. Its almost similar to calling someone and then putting them on hold for the other line.

When it comes to putting people on hold I don't think it is rude, unless you don't tell the person there is another call. I find it even more rude to leave the other person on the other line sitting there and having it ring. If it ever happens to me I answer the other line and acknowledge them and tell them I will get back to them. I don't ever swap back and forth between phone calls.

Becoming a more responsile communicator....

The section I want to talk more in depth about is the section titled "Becoming a More Responsible Communicator." I really enjoyed reading this section because it is something I pride myself on as an individual. Not only do I enjoy taking responsibility for things I say and/or do, but I also look at it from a growing stand point. If you are able to sit back and ask yourself the three questions (1. Am I personally proud of this action? 2. Am I comfortable with this decision? 3. Would I feel uncomfortable or embarrassed if this decision were known to my colleagues, friends, spouse or children?) than it really says a lot about who you are, you are able to respond to your own actions and learn and grow from them. You grow on a personal level as well on a relationship level. Because I also find that if you are able to realize those three things on what you say, relationships tend to be a lot better because your not playing verbal games in a sense. One thing I feel I do not follow too much is the four way test. I would like to follow it all the time however in some situations it is just hard.

Thank You Steve Duck

When looking over the filtering theory created by Steve Duck I sort of laughed in amazement because it is exactly how people work when forming friendships and relationships. When meeting someone new some things I take into account before moving forward, or what I deem to be attractive, would be someone who presents themselves in a calm manner, easy going, overall positivity, and their morals. It may be weird to say but I think everyone has their ideal person in mind from the start, or it is developed over time through failed relationships. So with that said I believe I do use and have eliminated someone based on sociological or preinteraction cues. If I don't succeed with finding their sociological or preinteraction cues attractive I will not pursue it any further. However if those circumstances are met I will then proceed in hopes interaction cues and cognitive cues are found.

Change is never good...

Out of all the patterns, rigid complementary, competitive symmetry, and submissive symmetry, the most difficult to change in a relationship would have to be competitive symmetry. My belief is based off of logical standpoint as well as personal experience. One reason why symmetry would be the hardest to change is because each person usually seems to be the controlling type, so it just seems that they butt heads too much. They both want it to go their way and most of the time they aren't really up for change either, in the way of them controlling each and every situation. Another reason is because over time one person in the relationship will be fed up of not being able to control situations. That is from a personal experience, it may not be in every situation though. When it comes to individual feelings, out of all three I believe submissive symmetry would be the most damaging in terms of the individuals self esteem. Mostly because it is always a struggle to be in control, so they must seem confused.

Rationality, Perfectability, and Mutability

 Rationality premise states the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis. Which seems to be a true statement when you think of it from a logical stand point. However the perfectibility premise states that everyone is born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness. That statement I only believe somewhat, just the part where is states everyone is born sin is where I don't follow. It could be because I don't follow things that are old Puritan ideas. Although I can see people who partake in “bad” things could possibly achieve overall goodness. Lastly, the mutability premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and that the way to improve is to improve their physical and psychological circumstances. That one is one of the ones I find to be true because a lot of peoples surroundings really influences what they do and who they are. I can see the mutability premise being applied to someone going through school, such as K-12^th grade because where they are and the people around them really shape who they become.

Stereotyping

One thing I want to touch on that is in this chapter is "stereotyping," mostly because it happens anywhere and everywhere. Just as the book says, it makes us believe what goes on around us and why. They say that we believe Japanese are workaholics, Central Americans have lack of ambition, and Germans are obsessed with order. Which may be true however, I just believe we shouldn’t make those assumptions without actually knowing the people for who they are. This goes back to people pre-judging before they even know the truth. Which is sad, because sometimes it is true and sometimes it is not. It could lead to wrong conclusions and others the right. My point is that although a lot of people do it, it doesn’t make it right. Your walking down the street and you see someone in all black clothes that are sort of goth-like, you instantly assume that they are emotionally screwed up and hate the world. When in all reality they could be the nicest person. Overall, it is not a nice action, however people don’t know exactly what you are thinking.

Culture Shock

Yes I do agree with Ruth Benedict's statement that we are "creatures of our culture" and when I say we, it is a global statement. Anywhere you go across the world it is a culture shock. It is very different from the way you live. An example is going from California, or anywhere in the United States, to Hawaii. Everything there is very laid back in a sense. Going to McDonalds here is very speedy and that is there main goal, whereas in Hawaii, it will take more than an hour to get your food. It is just their culture there, to not care about much. Same goes for any other country as well, like Europe and the United States and the coffee scene. One way to break the “habit” of our culture is for everyone to be independent. Everyone sort of has to do their own thing and not follow other people. However that is hard because there are so many people.

Facial Expressions

One of the few topics covered in chapter five that caught my eye was the concept of facial expressions. They say that your body making facial expressions is partly natural and partly something that you learn as time progresses. Which is interesting because what they basically say that our facial expressions are pretty much pre wired into your brain. Which studies show that a lot of the “pre-wired” facial expressions are shared universally across the globe. Studies propose why we smile when we are happy and we cry when we are sad are just part of our biological inheritance. All of how the brain functions really interests me, just because it is so complex. Another concept that is covered is that however we may have these expressions “pre-wired” we learn over time to modify them to fit within our culture. Some expressions are intensified while others are de-intensified depending on the culture.

Interpretation...

I don't want to say I never make wrong assumptions when it comes to nonverbal messages but seldom do I encounter that issue. Mainly because over time I have learned not to assume things when it comes to nonverbal messages. Growing up with my mother was very expressionless when it comes to things, she is very straight forward, nothing is sugar coated. Even when she is saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Birthday" there is no smile, nor frown just neutral  Therefore growing up I believed she was mad majority of the time. Goes to show, she was never mad she just doesn't show expression. So for half of my life I lived thinking she was angry. I think I take after her though and don't express myself therefore I don't judge other peoples nonverbal messages mostly because I don't even think about them. However since I don’t think about nonverbal messages sometimes I may give off the wrong one accidentally. Prime example is me being someone who uses their hands to describe a lot of things and people always think I am crazy or mad, or both.

Body Language

Throughout the globe various body gestures carry different meanings and using one from one part of the globe could mean something a whole lot different at a different point in the world. I have never traveled outside of the United States to experience the various hand gestures but it is something we learned about in International Relations. Our textbook used an example of creating a circle with your thumb and index finger means "okay" in the United States, however in Germany it is a very rude gesture. There are a couple other similar situations, such as, tapping on your nose in England means "You and I are in on the secret," whereas in Wales it means "You are very nosy." So a simple gesture can really go a long way. One that I found really funny was tapping ones temple means "You're crazy" in Western Europe, and in Netherlands it means "You're very clever." Another thing to take into account with gestures and meanings within other countries is personal space. When meeting someone in or from a different country be sure not to approach them very close because not only could you invade their personal space but you may come off rather aggressive towards them.

Storage and Retrieval

An interesting topic that Chapter 3 covered was the concept of listening and retaining the information. This chapter proves that you may be listening however if you don’t retain the information, listening was a waste of time. I find this topic mostly because I have such a hard time retaining information and I have since I was a kid. Test taking for me is never a good situation, because my memory is shot in a sense. This chapter went over some key points that won’t only help me understand why I can’t remember some things but makes me analyze a lot of things in more of a sense to memorize them. It states that in some scenarios where you are under high amounts of stress your body will naturally forget things due to high amounts of stress. Not only that but we also forget things that may have conflicts with our assumptions or desires. On top of all that, we also forget things that could be painful, physically and emotionally. Lastly, one way you can accidently misinterpret things or forget is when multiple pieces of information is being directed to you. Your brain may jumble the two things being said together and what you think is what they just said, could be totally wrong. This subject also greatly interests me because it goes a little into the function of the brain.

 Some ways to better your memory is to:
1. Mentally rehearse what was said
2. Take quick yet detailed notes, only containing brief necessities
3. Create acronyms for some things to remember

Why do you have to be so judgmental?

To answer the question logically, yes it is possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them. However, majority of us are so quick probably to judge people no matter how hard we try. Its almost a natural process in the brain to compare someone else to who we are and hold them up to our standards. In a way it us looking to see if we approve of them in a sense. A good standard I try to view every situation as is not only do you not know what that person has gone through but we are all on the Earth to live. We are all here doing somewhat of the same thing, just different goals. Approaching situations in that manner sort of allows you to have a blank canvas. Even when I am approaching somebody I try not to judge them at all, however I know I do. If I catch myself judging someone in a more unfair manner or even judging at all I will still keep that thought just not hold them to it. I try to give the person a chance to prove themselves, because my mentality comes back to the previous rules I mentioned, you never know their situation, who they really are, and their thoughts. On top of that, we are all humans on Earth to live. In the gist of things I find that the human brain is calculating way too many thoughts to even not process the concept of judging, like I said its almost natural.

Men vs. Women?

Overall the way the book described men and women using language differently seemed like a weird argument. My main reason why is because when you look at the big picture it all seems to come back to your personal views, personality and/or how you were raised. Personality plays a big role in who you are and what you are going to say regardless of your gender. Sure maybe majority populations of the two genders don’t get along but there has to be a good portion of the two genders who do get along. Whose personalities run together when they are around each other. I just feel vague saying that male and female have different communication techniques. I may also have this view because I look at the whole world as the big picture and there are so many different people, personality wise, and I do not feel gender plays a role in who you are or what views you may have, therefore communication should not be different.

Steve Jobs

It may be nerdy to say that when I am asked to think of a speaker who is credible, attractive (by means of the books definition, not physically), and powerful, I think of Steve Jobs; previous co-founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of Apple. Whenever he would be the main speaker at the events where they release new product, consumers would have one hundred percent of their attention directed at him, almost drooling. Not only because he was releasing a new product that they wanted to get their hands on but because of his power and credibility. He was the person who invented several of apples well known products; therefore he was a genius and leading technology revolution to an extent. He had it all, people looked at him and wanted to be him. Overall though, I do not think Steve Jobs needs to work on anything. Throughout the decades of presenting new products over and over again he seemed to figure out what he was doing not only technology wise but presentation wise.

Best and worst...

Over the years I have seen a great amount of speeches, some good some awful. Now looking back on all of the speeches I have seen, I know what I am looking for quality wise, in a good or bad speech. Then I don't think I really did unless the speaker was persuasive or not. One presenter who means a lot to me, not only for what she does but for how strong she is, is Stephanie Sherer. She is an activist and a lobbyist, and carries herself very well. No matter how awkward the situation is if it is, she holds a strong presence and doesn’t crumble under pressure. She expresses a lot of expertness as well as trustworthiness towards the public. The main reason why I believe she is so influential is because she is so passionate in what she does, which takes everything to a whole different level. Looking back, it is kind of hard to remember a poor speech, however one speaker that instantly comes to mind when you say poor speaker, is George W. Bush (the most recent president of the Bush family). I don’t know too much politics behind him, but his overall presence and demeanor was awful. Not one thing he said I would really believe because all I saw when he was on stage was a child with ADHD. He just didn’t have a strong presence or desire it seemed. He wasn’t too persuasive either in my opinion. Like I said I don’t know too much about his politics side but he did not present things well in my opinion.

Credibility is KEY!

When speaking to an audience you must have many source characteristics conveyed. One of the main characteristics you must express is credibility. If you don’t express credibility, how do you expect to sell your audience on what you are talking about. Sure you can be fun and interactive in front of a crowd but you have to persuade the audience you know what it is exactly you are talking about. The book states that there are two ‘dimensions’ of credibility, expertise and trustworthiness, and they say you must have one when presenting. However I feel you must carry out both when it comes to public speaking. You need to sell to the crowd not only what you are talking about but you need to sell yourself in a way. The audience must trust you as a person, because if they don’t they are most likely not going to pay attention to what you are saying let alone have good vibes from you. I look at it not only marketing a subject, but a person as well, someone who presents and sells it.

S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G

Dell Hymes developed a model to help better describe communication as a whole, as well as provide observational tools for communication. In the text it is described as being put in the same shoes as anthropologists, attempting to explain cultures and their strange differences (36). Easily enough it is in a simple acronym format that goes as stated, S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G (Situations, Participants, Ends, Act Sequences, Keys, Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genres). He believes that you must understand the situation and environment where the communication event is taking place. On top of understanding the situation you must understand the participants as well and their ends which is also the key goal in communicating. Another observation necessary is how the communicator expresses what they say, their tone and/or visual representations. One of the not so important observations to make on the list would be the beliefs and values attached to the communicator. Lastly, one of the key observations to make has to do with the goal of the speaker, the genre. Addressing what kind of communication it is, prayers, orations, curses, or any other type (38). The main reason why I chose this topic is because it really opened my eyes when it comes to observing a speech. Not only has it opened my eyes but now I think of the acronym S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G when witnessing a speech or conversation. However it doesn’t work in every situation, it still helps to one degree or another.

Building worlds....

The social constructionist model is a process in which a collective group creates their perspective of reality based off of the languages/symbolic codes, cognitive customs, cultural traditions, and the sets of role. This model also expects that we never actually experience the world in its direct entirety, but we live it through our beliefs and customs. It states, "...most of what we know and believe about the world comes to us through direct communication rather than through direct experience" (28). Which I had never looked at it that way, because its totally true. For a while when I was younger I lived a somewhat sheltered life, I was very ignorant and biased upon several things, such as the topic of other countries and/or cultures not being worthy enough. Which is also a big topic I feel throughout our society, people aren't open to too much change or something that is culturally different. I have learned that I am not the only person on the planet and everyone is not only entitled to their own opinion but belief as well. Who knows really who is right or wrong. A lot of what we do action wise and communication wise is widely based on our beliefs.

Pragmatics

The pragmatic perspective is a form of analyzing communications, which is composed of observing the concept of a conversation as a game. The two key rules in this 'game' is that you must have a minimum of two people and those two people must interact in such pattern where eventually they reach an end point for a particular pay off. Looking at conversations from a logical stand point, the concept of conversations being pragmatic does make a whole lot of sense. People bounce thoughts off each other so to say, in hopes to reach a particular goal. Whether it is to figure out how the opponent’s day was or to argue a specific topic with someone, the purpose, emotion, and personality is irrelevant. Just as long as they are following the basic patterned structure of exchanging ideas for a specific goal is all that needs to occur. The best game to compare it to would be volleyball, in means of setting the ball (beginning the conversation), volleying back and forth between opponents (interacting with each other, or conversing), and the main goal is to come to an end result (having your opponent miss the volley, in the end one of them wins).

Concepts....

The overall concept I was greatly interested in was the analyzation of public speaking and characteristics to look for in a presenter. I have seen many speeches I have just never thought anything of them to go into depth analyzation like the text did. It gave me a greater understanding. It discusses the methods Aristotle believed when it comes to persuasion of an audience; ethos, pathos or logos. Whenever I see a presentation now I sort of address it in that way. Although it doesn't work in every situation. Not only did Aristotle introduce the three modes of proof. He also created the five canons of rhetoric. Which was a form of descriptions that divided communication into five parts; Invention (clear descriptive analysis and argumentive discussions), Style (selecting proper words to convey a message), Arrangement (ordering ideas effectively), Memory (ability to retain content, style, and clear minded approach), and Delivery (key to using graceful gestures and soothing voice).

Orators...

When it comes to public speaking and overall presentation I believe one does not need to be morally good. Everyone for the most part is going to have overall different views on a lot of things. So classifying someone to have good morals is vague, because are you to classify his or her morals as good. As long as you have confidence and/or knowledge on what you are talking about, you should present well. When thinking about it, you don't really even need knowledge you completely make something up you just have to sell it. Presidency is a great example. In most cases Presidents will say one thing and fail to do it. They are somewhat similar to a car salesman. Not only that but the Greeks were considered orators when they weren't necessarily carrying out good morals. Although once again, who am I to make the call on what's right and what's wrong. In conclusion, I don't find a connection between goodness, truth, and public speaking.

Admiration is key....

The industry I use to work in is a very controversial industry, both politically and medicinally. For two years I worked at a medical cannnabis collective, running operations and ensuring we are abiding by the law at all times. Me going into detail about the industry is a never ending conversation I feel, but just saying what industry it is, some people already have raised a brow. With that said, Steven DeAngelo, an individual that everyone knows in the medical marijuana industry, is the person I admire when it comes to public speaking. Some of you may have seen him on Discovery Channel when they were airing the controversial show, Weed Wars. He is very admirable not only for me but many people in the medical marijuana community. Mostly for his overall compassionate beliefs, courage, intelligence, calm personality, and trustworthiness. Majority of his power I feel comes from ethos, with his main goal of caring and showing true compassion for one another. Not only is ethos a big contributor for him, but logos as well. He comes off as a rather intelligent, hospitable business man trying to do what is best for the constant under threat community. When I use to go about my day to day work life at a medical marijuana collective, I tried to come off just as he did, if not better, very professional, respectful, understanding, knowledgeable, and compassionate. People instantly think of people who consume medical cannabis as someone who is a waste to society and/or hoodlum. My goal was to remove that image from cannabis users and allow people to be open minded to who uses and who doesn’t. If you saw me, you would not think I even had any knowledge or interest in the plants medicinal benefits. I find my greatest trait when it comes to public speaking to be my level of confidence. Whether or not I really know what I am talking about my confidence in whatever I am talking about will allow you to believe just about anything I say. Overall, Aristotle’s classification does work on Steven DeAngelo, and the best classification would be style. Only because his wording and overall logical speeches persuade the mass crowds.

Welcome

My name is obviously John, I am taking this course in hopes to fulfill my degree requirements for an Associates in Financial Accounting. I only have six more units after this semester to complete, so I am kind of in an awkward position, almost done but not. I will have to say majority of my educational history at Sierra College has been through the online portions. Right now I am doing three online courses and two on campus, and this is the most I have had to be on campus. It just works better for me, I am not sure why. I was also homeschooled half of my high school career, so that could be why? I am looking forward to this course, just because the overall topic seems interesting. I hope to use information in this class for some part of my professional career. This class seems fun on a blog format and I am looking forward to the following fifteen weeks!