Further Discussion.

One concept I feel could use a bit more discussion and exploration would have to be the idea of upward communication, and what it is that a subordinate truly wants or needs from a leader. I personally would like to delve further into this idea because I help run a small record label, and tend to have a really hard time making my employees feel comfortable. I've tried the whole "buddy-buddy" approach and the "machine-like boss" approach -none of which seem to work. Perhaps the answer is rather something in the middle. Certainly this notion is justified by the lessons we've learned in class.

After going through that chapter in the text, I feel I've gained a bit of insight into what these workers may actually want, but I certainly would like to discuss it more. Perhaps an organizational communications course would be a good option for me to take in the future.

This Class...

Over the course of this semester, I feel I've learned a great deal about functioning around people. Specifically, I feel I've gained some understanding into the world of perception: the perception of your message ultimately supersedes the intent. This wasn't exactly something we actually studied in the class curriculum, but by operating in the medium of this online classroom, I've come to find that the intent of my messages can be lost if not explicitly stated. Sarcasm doesn't translate over text. Neither do inflections or tones, etc. In a sense, this factor was both my least favorite and favorite part of the course. I initially found difficulty, but felt that (by the end) I had finally learned to adapt, and could even take these lessons away from the course for every-day application.

In hindsight, I'm not sure I would change anything about this online course. The lessons were concise and to-the-point, and the discussions were incredibly relevant. Overall, I had a pleasant experience :)

Interesting Concept.

This full-speed ahead approach to these Summer courses can certainly make it difficult to stay on top of things, but I truly feel I've grown in this course. Personally, one of the concepts that affected me the most was the social constructionist perspective. More specifically, I found this concept to be incredibly interesting in the context of Americans and the nationalist mentality. Especially as the Olympics sweep through network Television, we can easily notice the "America is the best" sentiment. Naturally, we cheer for our nation, but rarely do we wonder how other nations must view us. The social constructionist perspective states that our world-views, norms, perspectives, etc. are a product our social environment. As our environment chants America is the best, we begin to believe it. In some strange sense, "social construction" is a form of communal brainwashing, and I find it fascinating. It is due to applications like this that I've found the social constructionist perspective to be the most interesting concept I've analyzed this semester.

Different Names For The Same Thing: Chapter 2

In studying Chapter 2, I think of everything I read the biggest thing that stood out to me was in reference to models, and how they are used and understood in communicative research. More specifically, I was mainly drawn to the idea that many different models can be used to explain one facet or process of communication. I think models are incredibly effective for explaining certain phenoms within communication, though I do enjoy noting the exception to these rules and models. In these types of situations, perhaps multiple models and principles can be used to "triangulate" and find possible explanations. Personally, however, I love the unpredictable element of chaos within so much structure.

In a sense, I think the idea of models being seen as "theories" allows for principles to help dictate research and studies, but also allows for them to be recognized as such -not true laws of communication.

Pragmatic.

The pragmatic perspective is incredibly interesting to me, in the sense that I've always criticized my friends for playing the "game" of communication. In a sense, the patterned interaction of communication is reflected in those instances when we encounter someone we know (but don't want to talk to) on the street. According to the rules, you both say "hi" and "how are you?", to which both would then reply "I'm doing good, man." "We should really get together sometime!" "Totally! Hit me up on Facebook!" "Sounds good!" None of these individuals really have any intention of getting together again, but simply followed the rules of courtesy. Another example can be noted in the comedic rule of offering something. In these situations, someone offers something, and the other person declines. The offer is then presented again, and is responded to with a "nah man, I couldn't do that." "No, I insist!" "A-a-are you sure? Well, ok..." It's a game, or rather a dance with specific rules and steps to follow, in order to  be successful. Communication is a game in the context of "pleasantries". Once things move on to self-disclosure, or more complicated forms of communicating a message, I believe things become more legitimate and honest.

Social Construction.

Self-made. Successful. Love. Dreams. The idea of the American Dream is one that we are all quite familiar with -considering it's been shoved in our faces since childhood. From Leave It To Beaver, to the latest Disney Channel Original Movie, the idea of achieving true "happiness" has been the goal of our lives. This happiness can seemingly be distilled into the concept of the American Dream. The effects of this "dream" are a prime example of how a socially constructed idea can build a world of ideas and aspirations within a culture. Because of this socially constructed world, it's weird to see someone NOT be married, or have children, and it's certainly disconcerting to see someone without financial means. The American Dream has built a world in which success and happiness (two extremely arbitrary ideas) are determined by very specific factors, thus creating a private world within our own culture.

The "Leading" Question.

The concept of a "leading" question is absolutely genius to me. Being a Perry Mason fan for years (yes, I'm old school), I've certainly grown to appreciate the use of questioning to lead to a preferred response or a desired answer to be used by the jury. In a sense, these questions help to break-down the human psyche -allowing the prosecution to achieve a certain response or result, simply by using the "back door" rather than a direct approach.

Certainly, the "leading" question technique is used often in the court room, but also in many other scenarios. I can think of countless times the idea was used in the classroom by teachers, or even by my parents (which seems a bit manipulative, in the context of interpersonal relationships and communication). While "crafty" in a sense, the use of a leading question seems to be an incredibly effective way to persuade or gather information, when used properly.

Moral Dilemmas.

I believe a common moral dilemma faced by ethnographers might be that, within the research field, they are subject to or observe illegal activities or abuse of some kind -but cannot act for fear of jeopardizing the research. This occurrence makes a lot of sense and can even seem justified from a research standpoint. However, it seems there are certain moral principles that should be adhered to, regardless of research.

In order to address this problem as an ethnographer, I would align myself with some form of law enforcement. Rather than simply observe abuse and crime with no power whatsoever, I would utilize the collected data for 2 purposes -one being research, and the other, detective work. Now, I realize how romantic and over the top this proposal seems, but why not? If one can collect data for research, why not also collect data to be used by the police as evidence? It certainly would be an exciting resolution to the problem!

13.3

The research method that stood out most to me would have to be ethnographic research, which centers around cultural phenomena. I find this the most interesting because it seems to be based on experience and immersion within a culture. In a sense, it's the "Indiana Jones" of research methods. Particularly in studying an aspect of "deception", I believe this method would be the most engaging form of research -mainly because it would involve me perhaps getting "my hands dirty". In a sense, it seems it would allow for situations like "Never Been Kissed", where a journalist goes undercover as a high school student to better understand the culture for an article.

A reasonable research question would perhaps be: "why are some individuals more conditioned to lie,
than others -even when no consequences are present?" Ultimately, ethnographic research would work best, allowing me to perhaps study their upbringing, culture, and better understand why they function the way they do.

Chapter 8

The concept of "upward communication" really stood out to me -being a flow of information/messages from the bottom to the top, organizationally. I think this stood out to me mainly because it doesn't seem to be a very commonly utilized means for interpersonal communication. For example, I've often found myself in an awkward position at work, where my boss has assigned a certain work slot that I'm unable to fill, based on prior commitments. The situation is made difficult for me, though I find myself reluctant to communicate this with my boss, for fear of being replaced with another worker. While this particular scenario may not be relevant to everyone, it certainly represents a communicative problem in relation to the upward flow of communication. Subordinates find themselves wary of negative messages in upward communication, for fear of disturbance (being fired, etc). It is due to this type of scenario that I found the concept particularly interesting and applicable to my own life.

TV is cool.

McLuhand's statement that the "message is the medium" rings true in my opinion...in almost every avenue. Particularly, I've seen this within the presentation of television in 90's culture. Within that era, TV was cool  in a sense. Perhaps one might say that this notion was perpetuated by slobby, nacho-consuming, TV-watching meathead cartoon characters like Beavis and Butthead within pop culture, or perhaps even within the "I don't care" mentality of the "grunge movement". For whatever reason, TV (being a medium through which a message is communicated) was deemed cool.

In this sense, it seems that TV became a message in and of itself. Not only was television noted a means to communicate information, but it was a cooler means to receive this information than perhaps a magazine or a newspaper. While this explanation may not have been what Mcluhand initially intended, I find relative truth to his statement within this 90's pop culture phenomena.

F2F vs Cyberspace

Over the course of my SMS experience (AOL, MySpace, Facebook, etc), I've never formed a relationship that was strictly based in cyberspace. I typically only "add" people to my network that I've already met in an f2f situation. I also believe that this is because I'm slightly biased against online-relationships...similar to an old man's perspective on SMS relationships. While many of my friends have seemingly established long-term, meaningful relationships over cyberspace, I've managed to keep strangers at arm's length.

Regardless, I'd like to relate a relationship I've witnessed through a website called "eHarmony". My close friend recently met someone through this dating website and connected over similar interests, and self-disclosure. I noticed that the high-degree of self-disclosure they experienced seemed a bit more in-depth than would have been appropriate if they were meeting f2f. In this sense, perhaps the lack of physical presence allowed for a degree of safety and comfort that wouldn't have been the case in an f2f situation.

Prototype.

A concept that stood out to me from Chapter 7 was one that I've seen countless times throughout my social and educational experience. The idea of the "group prototype" seems to be one of the most common, unspoken group principles in the social world -especially with teens and musicians. Naturally, people want to draw near to those they can find comfort with, and those that share their interests. Depending on who you're talking to, these "interests" will generate a bit of a mold that group members will often fit. This also tends to be quite common with bands seeking new members. Often times, a band will go through quite a few auditions before ultimately finding someone who not only can perform, but also fits the "vibe", or group prototype of the band. I've found that the concept of the prototype, while seemingly "exclusive", isn't often seen that way by those perpetuating the mold. It often is presented as a broader problem (i.e. "he just doesn't fit in", etc.)

Filters.

I find that filters often times can help in avoiding unpleasant engagements -at least I felt that way back in High School.. For instance, I can think of a particular time when I spotted an unknown individual picking his nose when he thought no one was looking...albeit this was a rather trite gesture, this was enough for me to realize that he was NOT the dude I wanted to befriend in my 11th grade Chemistry class. The crass gesture communicated a lack of self-awareness and therefore cued a distaste in my perception...all pre-interaction. However, there are certain instances when an individual was perceived one way, pre-interaction, but was realized completely differently after interacting with them. This was the case with my current sporty girlfriend, who was once perceived as a "tough girl" based on certain signals she put off (pre-interaction). After getting to know her, however, I found that she was a much softer person (post-interaction).

Patterns.

Certainly, each of these patterns could become more difficult to change, depending on the person. Generally speaking, however, I believe the most difficult pattern to change would be competitive symmetry. Additionally, I also believe this pattern can also be the most damaging to the individuals in a relationship and self-esteem -considering the concept is built of self-value and competition. In each of these situations, there are occasions when competition must be put to rest, and unless there is absolute symmetry in a relationship (in all circumstances, at all times), chances are that one partner might desire to "let-down", when the other is still responding to pressure. In this case, it seems there is a great deal of potential for not only relational harm, but also damage to one's self-esteem. Unless both parties are willing to adjust to the other (which seems the antonym of competition, I absolutely believe the competitive pattern would be the most difficult to break from.

Ethnocentrism

I found the concept of ethnocentrism to be particularly interesting -especially within the context of the "American mindset". Personally, I have never really attributed myself to the nationalist way of thinking. It seems that everyone likes to think that they're the ones who are right..."we're the good guys". I believe the idea of "good" is completely relative, and that looking at the world through an ethnocentric lens will only lead to a superiority complex. One must also take into account the idea of moral and cultural trajectory -meaning that what seems "wrong" or "immoral" to us as Americans, may be perfectly acceptable within another culture. I think this concept stood out to me because it seems like such a dated way of thinking. The world today seems to be falling apart. Believing your culture is better than anyone else's will only cause more problems, divisions and hurt in an already hurting world.

Premises

Rationality - I absolutely believe in this premise, which states that individuals will use reason and logic to find truth. This seems like the natural course of action for the thinking individual.
Perfectibility - "We are all flawed, but can ultimately overcome these flaws through hard work." To me this seems like a very "old world" way of thinking -however, I do generally agree with the notion that we do have flaws of sorts that we need to work through.
Mutability - "People can be positively influenced by their surroundings." This premise I think may be the easiest to believe, considering it is measurable in some ways, and can be observed.
I think churches are centered around the premise of perfectibility in a sense, encouraging people to better themselves and turn from "sin". Additionally, our educational institutions allude to the the "truth" behind the rationality premise, while the mutability premise is embodied in community service programs for criminals.

Creatures of Culture

The presented statement, "we are creatures of our culture", truly asks the quite common question of "nature vs. nurture". Personally, I absolutely believe that our beliefs, hopes, and personal limitations are shaped and created by the environment and culture in which we exist. For example, a young boy raised in a plush, safe neighborhood, with incredibly attentive parents and a good teacher will be more likely to grow educationally than a boy raised in the slums, with little attention from parents or administration. In order to break through this "bubble", one must first understand that they actually exist in a bubble in the first place. By recognizing their environment and culture for what it is, they can then move forward accordingly. In a sense, this concept is mirrored in the film "The Matrix", which symbolically presents an individual coming to terms with a larger reality, outside of his own little bubble.

Women & Men

In my own experience, I've found that men and women use language quite differently. I've heard it said that men are less emotionally driven than women, therefore certain words hold a higher or lesser degree of meaning -based on which gender you're talking to. For example, I've heard the word "love" tossed around casually between men and women. In some cases, I've noticed that men seem to place less importance on the word -using it casually. In these same cases, however, women tend to place more importance on the word. I realize how obtuse this example might be, but I feel it presents some form of an example for the topic at hand. I've also noticed that men and women generally use language differently in the context of a phone conversation. Men tend to be quick and to-the-point, with the focus on facts and information exchange. Women, however, tend to be more focused on the emotional connection, and "catching up".

Judgmental Perception

In today's world, it seems almost impossible to meet or see someone without developing some form of an idea (no matter how big or small) of who they might be. Simply by noting what a person is wearing, o how they talk...one can generate some form of stereotype or opinion as to what type of person they are. I believe this only becomes dangerous when people act heavily on those assumptions. Generalizations are normal in a casual context, however, you must be willing and ready to set those judgments if proven incorrect through personal engagement. I also believe there is a huge difference between "perceiving" or generalizing, and being prejudiced towards a stereotype. It's critical that we don't allow our "skin-deep" perceptions to judge a person's worth and character (which sadly, is quite common).

Essentially, I believe my personal rule can be boiled down to this: casual, general observation is permissible. Judgmental prejudice, however, is not.

Chapter 10 "Extemporaneous Speaking Style"

One aspect brought out of the reading that stood out to me was one of the points discussed in the summary. The "Extemporaneous Speaking Style" is a technique I've utilized quite often in public speaking. I've found that outlining my speeches and addresses help me to better gauge the audience on the day of the presentation. This allows me to deliver it in such a way as to cater to the audience, rather than boring them with a recital. As far as persuasion is concerned, I've also found that this method is quite effective -allowing the speaker to prepare various points, while allowing for open discussion.

Considering this facet of our Chapter 10 discussion, I thought it appropriate to draw attention to its various advantages. Personally, I've found that this method allows for a high degree of perceived authenticity, which some might argue is the greatest asset in communicating for purpose or persuasion.

Influential Speaker

I go to church quite often, and have become quite accustomed to powerful sermons and speeches. Some might say I've become almost too comfortable with moving speeches...almost to the point where I've become a little jaded towards motivational speakers. However, I can recall one particular speech in recent history that has impacted me greatly. In 2009, one of my professors gave a speech about maximizing your potential as a student, and contributor to society. It was stirring, and encouraged me to rise to action -expressing a frightening, yet encouraging concept: no will ever hold you down more than you stunt yourself. I remember feeling so inspired...I wanted to take on the world. That year, I opened up a small record label, to navigate the music industry and work with musicians. The message that was shared by that speaker was ultimately successful -stirring me to a point of making a desired action.

Socially Constructive.

"Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we "build worlds" through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness or success (or the lack of these) in our culture?"


The ever-elusive concept of the "American Dream" has been a driving force for individuals since the earliest days of this country. In a sense, one might even say this concept has played a rather large role in culturally shaping the desired-trajectory of one's life here in the United States. According to the American Dream, happiness is self-sufficiency, provision for your family, financial stability..."the self-made man". 


Considering this, I believe the social communication of the American Dream within our culture has shaped what we deem happiness and success to be. When we see a homeless man, or a family that isn't financially thriving (perhaps struggling to pay the bills), we instantly judge their degree of success, and perhaps even happiness. By perpetuating the American Dream, we have socially constructed a world in which we can gauge success and happiness based on externalities like a nice house (or lack thereof), class, financial standing, etc.

Hi,

My name is Tyrone Q, and this is my ridiculously titled blog. I'm currently working 2 jobs, and am getting ready to graduate in August. I've taken the majority of my classes online, to great success. I'm looking forward to a great semester, as this will more than likely be the last class I ever take!

Hoping to go out strong!

-TQ