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.