Chapter 12 describes dialogue as an "Aesthetic Moment" on page 162-163, and defines it as "A fleeting sense of unity through a profound respect for disparate voices in dialogue." This boils down to the fact that no matter how precious or profound a moment may be, it will pass. This makes me sad when I think of the romantic times my wife and I have shared, or that my son is now 5 months old and these moments are gone forever, but happy because we still have a lifetime to create new ones. Every step of the way has its own joys and excitement.
In our own lives, it is important to make every moment count, treat it as if it were our last so that we don't regret one thing when our life is over. Life is so short, and these wonderful, "aesthetic" moments are makes it all worth living.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Social Information Process Theory
One of the big themes of this chapter is that Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is vastly impersonal as compared to face to face communication. The author argues that so much gets lost in translation when communication is typed or displayed through the means of a computer. When face to face, a conversation is filled with non-verbal cues galore, the inflection of someone's voice, the look on their face, body language, etc. Over the telephone one at least has the sound of someone's voice to work with. Any misunderstanding can immediately be cleared up because of the instantaneous nature, but in written communication all non-verbal cues are lost. People's interpretation of written text can be grossly misinterpreted. Negative feelings can result from these misunderstandings, leading to further inflamatory conversation.
I have been developing a website for some time now related to one of my biggest passions - baseball. The biggest challange and my biggest goal is to convey myself in a manner where there is no misunderstanding whatsoever of my intentions - to pass the passion of the game onto future generations. It can be a daunting task, but the amount of time and energy that is going into will be well worth it in the end. The static "Coming Soon" page is here. I hope that nothing is lost in translation when it is finally launched and everyone that reads it will be inspired in some way.
I have been developing a website for some time now related to one of my biggest passions - baseball. The biggest challange and my biggest goal is to convey myself in a manner where there is no misunderstanding whatsoever of my intentions - to pass the passion of the game onto future generations. It can be a daunting task, but the amount of time and energy that is going into will be well worth it in the end. The static "Coming Soon" page is here. I hope that nothing is lost in translation when it is finally launched and everyone that reads it will be inspired in some way.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
An alternative metaphor
Professor Cyborg posed an interesting question while commenting on another blog in regards to Social Penetration Theory - "Could you come up with an alternative metaphor for the theory?"
Her own view point was that of a maze. I liked where she was going, because there are indeed a series of channels, turns, dead ends, etc. that we all go through to become more intimate with anyone we come in contact with.
So, without any further ado, here's my attempt at a metaphor. The first thing that came to my mind was a high-tech, ultra high-security skyscraper with many levels and hallways and many office suites within each level, each with a different level of security.
In this building, everyone has access to the lobby but they have to get past the security desk to get to the elevator. If they do something stupid or alarming (like waving a gun around or hassling other people in the lobby) the security throws them out, and they are on the "blacklist" - meaning anytime they come around again the alarm sounds and they are watched like a hawk. In real life this would equate the initial interaction and weather or not you decide to continue the interaction. Those that do not resonate well with you or do something to immediately break your trust, you will be more wary of.
If you get past security in this building, that means you have been cleared and everyone that has been cleared gets a card-key to swipe upon entering the elevators. When you swipe your card, the security system knows which floors you are allowed to enter and which ones you are not. The higher the security clearance level equates to the higher the intimacy level. Likewise, on each floor, the different offices have different security levels.
This office-building metaphor works because we all have many, many people coming in and out of our lives all the time. Each person has a different role (office) and different level of intimacy (security clearance). We are always evaluating and re-evaluating our intimacy level with people based on our interactions and it is ever changing. The office building metaphor is similar to the onion in that there are levels, but takes it a step further because there is a constant flow of many, many people in and out of our life and we are monitoring each one's level of security clearance constantly.
Her own view point was that of a maze. I liked where she was going, because there are indeed a series of channels, turns, dead ends, etc. that we all go through to become more intimate with anyone we come in contact with.
So, without any further ado, here's my attempt at a metaphor. The first thing that came to my mind was a high-tech, ultra high-security skyscraper with many levels and hallways and many office suites within each level, each with a different level of security.
In this building, everyone has access to the lobby but they have to get past the security desk to get to the elevator. If they do something stupid or alarming (like waving a gun around or hassling other people in the lobby) the security throws them out, and they are on the "blacklist" - meaning anytime they come around again the alarm sounds and they are watched like a hawk. In real life this would equate the initial interaction and weather or not you decide to continue the interaction. Those that do not resonate well with you or do something to immediately break your trust, you will be more wary of.
If you get past security in this building, that means you have been cleared and everyone that has been cleared gets a card-key to swipe upon entering the elevators. When you swipe your card, the security system knows which floors you are allowed to enter and which ones you are not. The higher the security clearance level equates to the higher the intimacy level. Likewise, on each floor, the different offices have different security levels.
This office-building metaphor works because we all have many, many people coming in and out of our lives all the time. Each person has a different role (office) and different level of intimacy (security clearance). We are always evaluating and re-evaluating our intimacy level with people based on our interactions and it is ever changing. The office building metaphor is similar to the onion in that there are levels, but takes it a step further because there is a constant flow of many, many people in and out of our life and we are monitoring each one's level of security clearance constantly.
Axioms
Berger's axiomatic theory is very in depth and thorough, capturing the way we interact within ourselves based on the cues of others. In short, it is intense! As I read each axiom, I caught myself saying for each one "I do that." When I was finished reading all 8 axioms and thought about how much information Berger covered, then I was amazed that we do all of this in a matter of seconds. Our cues come at us instantaneously and we react/adjust just as fast.
I thought the differing perspective of William Gudykunst and his Anxiety/Uncertainty Management theory was interesting also, that we seek for "effective communication rather than closeness or relational satisfaction." I wonder if each theory has its place. When I am speaking to an audience or speaking up in class, the goal is definitely clear communication. When I am 1 on1 with someone, I think relational closeness is the goal.
I think in the end we all have a goal of communicating clearly so we are properly understood, and to do so in a manner where our anxiety or uncertainty level is is at the lowest level possible. No one likes to feel awkward. Its crazy that we go through all these mental gymnastics without knowing it to reach our goal.
I thought the differing perspective of William Gudykunst and his Anxiety/Uncertainty Management theory was interesting also, that we seek for "effective communication rather than closeness or relational satisfaction." I wonder if each theory has its place. When I am speaking to an audience or speaking up in class, the goal is definitely clear communication. When I am 1 on1 with someone, I think relational closeness is the goal.
I think in the end we all have a goal of communicating clearly so we are properly understood, and to do so in a manner where our anxiety or uncertainty level is is at the lowest level possible. No one likes to feel awkward. Its crazy that we go through all these mental gymnastics without knowing it to reach our goal.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Think before you speak - The Comparison level
The social penetration theory is one that I was familiar with from past Comm classes and can easily relate to my own life, but this chapter shed some new light on it for me. The first new idea was within the metaphor of the onion. Although I had heard this metaphor before, I just now picked up on the notion that when intimacy penetrates layers, it becomes easier to re-penetrate a subsequent time. I suppose its something that I've experienced all my life, personally and with other people, but just never thought about it to realize the fact of it. Once layers are peeled away, a person is exposed forever. Sure, you can retract and try to re-establish these layers, but ultimately privacy is gone and privacy would have to be re-established over a period of time and with new life experiences.
The second principle that I have never realized but participated in is the comparison level principle of human behavior. I realized from this reading that I am always evaluating every situation unconsciously to make the best decision, whether it is to open my mouth and say something, put my hand in a beehive, or whatever, I am evaluating what the best possible outcome would be, what is the worst, and based on that information, should I do it? Although all of us do this to some capacity, I am still amazed that many seem to exercise this principle less than others. The wisdom of "think before you speak" illustrates this very well, and I am a big fan considering the situation, people and surroundings before acting. Basically, every action we make has a consequence - it could be a good consequence, or a bad consequence. The extra little effort to deduct an outcome always benefits any situation.
The second principle that I have never realized but participated in is the comparison level principle of human behavior. I realized from this reading that I am always evaluating every situation unconsciously to make the best decision, whether it is to open my mouth and say something, put my hand in a beehive, or whatever, I am evaluating what the best possible outcome would be, what is the worst, and based on that information, should I do it? Although all of us do this to some capacity, I am still amazed that many seem to exercise this principle less than others. The wisdom of "think before you speak" illustrates this very well, and I am a big fan considering the situation, people and surroundings before acting. Basically, every action we make has a consequence - it could be a good consequence, or a bad consequence. The extra little effort to deduct an outcome always benefits any situation.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Polar Opposites part 2 - Finding Common Ground
Week 2, 3rd Post
In revisiting Chapter 4, I think the author rounded out the chapter with a great topic to round out the second week: Common Ground.
Griffin devised a chart where each quantitative theory has a parallel qualitative one. Some of them were a stretch, but it gave me a glimpse that the two ends of the communication spectrum can live in harmony and even thrive off of one another. One cannot live without the other.
I have always been a dreamer and completely bought into the notion that you can achieve anything you can dream. I've proven myself right on a couple of occasions, which fuels my future dreams. However, no matter how big or intricate my dreams might be, the most efficient way to achieve them is to 1) decide what I want, 2) CREATE MEASURABLE STEPS, and 3) take the first step!
Anytime I get one of my big ideas and I set off without a plan, it may not fail completely, but it will most definitely be a road with a lot of potholes. My dad is the objective one between the two of us, I operate mostly out of gut feeling. He has taught me the value of quantifiable steps to achieving a task.
Being objective is something I have to practice, it takes effort to make my dreams quantifiable. On the other side of the coin, I know there are a lot of people with an affinity towards the quantifiable aspects in life with zero imagination whatsoever. We need each other.
But as I mentioned in my post "Polar Opposites," it starts with the big idea, then resorts to finding a way to make it a reality. It takes an almost blind ignorance to accomplish some dreams. If we always gauged our dreams on quantifiable probability, nothing great would ever get accomplished - few risks would ever be taken. We would give up before we began. It must start with the idea and the passion. Is passion quantifiable? I don't think so.
In revisiting Chapter 4, I think the author rounded out the chapter with a great topic to round out the second week: Common Ground.
Griffin devised a chart where each quantitative theory has a parallel qualitative one. Some of them were a stretch, but it gave me a glimpse that the two ends of the communication spectrum can live in harmony and even thrive off of one another. One cannot live without the other.
I have always been a dreamer and completely bought into the notion that you can achieve anything you can dream. I've proven myself right on a couple of occasions, which fuels my future dreams. However, no matter how big or intricate my dreams might be, the most efficient way to achieve them is to 1) decide what I want, 2) CREATE MEASURABLE STEPS, and 3) take the first step!
Anytime I get one of my big ideas and I set off without a plan, it may not fail completely, but it will most definitely be a road with a lot of potholes. My dad is the objective one between the two of us, I operate mostly out of gut feeling. He has taught me the value of quantifiable steps to achieving a task.
Being objective is something I have to practice, it takes effort to make my dreams quantifiable. On the other side of the coin, I know there are a lot of people with an affinity towards the quantifiable aspects in life with zero imagination whatsoever. We need each other.
But as I mentioned in my post "Polar Opposites," it starts with the big idea, then resorts to finding a way to make it a reality. It takes an almost blind ignorance to accomplish some dreams. If we always gauged our dreams on quantifiable probability, nothing great would ever get accomplished - few risks would ever be taken. We would give up before we began. It must start with the idea and the passion. Is passion quantifiable? I don't think so.
The Self Fulfilling Prophecy
In chapter 5, I was intrigued by the notion of the "Self Fulfilling Prophecy" and how our mental state can indeed dictate the outcome of any given situation.
Our "generalized other" is a very powerful tool for success; where the chapter uses examples of how a negative consequence could be a result of self fulfilling prophecy or generalized other, what about a positive result? Couldn't a positive viewpoint of what the world is expecting of you push you to fulfill a great accomplishment the same as a negative one?
I believe it can. When you look at inherent characteristics of the most successful people in our society, they have a generally positive outlook, are eternally optimistic, and instead of sulking in the face of adversity and asking "why me?" they take action to better the situation. They realize that they are only victims if they let themselves be.
In some regards, the generalized other may be a hindrance in and of itself. If we are too wrapped up in other's expectations, we'll lose sight of the task at hand. I can see where the generalized other can become quite debilitating.
However, when we realize the power our mental state and create a positive situation for our generalized other, our self-fulfilling prophecies may come out more favorable.
Our "generalized other" is a very powerful tool for success; where the chapter uses examples of how a negative consequence could be a result of self fulfilling prophecy or generalized other, what about a positive result? Couldn't a positive viewpoint of what the world is expecting of you push you to fulfill a great accomplishment the same as a negative one?
I believe it can. When you look at inherent characteristics of the most successful people in our society, they have a generally positive outlook, are eternally optimistic, and instead of sulking in the face of adversity and asking "why me?" they take action to better the situation. They realize that they are only victims if they let themselves be.
In some regards, the generalized other may be a hindrance in and of itself. If we are too wrapped up in other's expectations, we'll lose sight of the task at hand. I can see where the generalized other can become quite debilitating.
However, when we realize the power our mental state and create a positive situation for our generalized other, our self-fulfilling prophecies may come out more favorable.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Polar opposites?
Week 2 Thoughts, Chapter 4
After reading about the "Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory," there were two that jumped out at me as complete opposites, even conflicting. This could largely be because I can completely relate to one of them, and the other makes me break out in a cold sweat.
The first theory of interest was the "Socio-Psychological Tradition." This is the theory where scholars "believe there are communication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation...that predict when a communication behavior will succeed and when it will fail" (Griffen 42).
Although I have not yet taken the "Quantitative Communication" class, I have a hunch this tradition is the foundation from where quantitative analysis is founded.
This is the theory that I have no affinity towards. While I know I use many of the statistical and quantifiable findings in my own life, my perception of the world is mostly in terms of feelings and a person's story - the things that make us human...which brings us to the contrasting tradition I spoke of:
The "Phenomenological Tradition."
In this tradition everything is in the eye of the beholder and "an individual's story is more important - and more authoritative - than any research hypothesis or communication axiom" (Griffin 49).
With these traditions being on such opposite ends of the spectrum, is it possible for them to coexist?
Absolutely. As I read further (when I turned the page), I found figure 4-3 entitled "A Survey Map of Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory." It is pictured as an intertwining spectrum of the 7 traditions, with "Socio-Psychological" on the left side and "Phenomenological" on the right.
Polar opposites? It looks that way.
But, interestingly enough, one cannot exist without the other. In fact, one depends on the other.
I would have drawn the spectrum the opposite way, with Phenomenological on the left, because I believe all theory, qualitative or quantitative, stems from this.
It was said in my Qualitative Communication class that through qualitative observations, quantitative scholars get their motivation to quantify it, duplicate the results, and predict based on those findings. I can't remember the exact language or who it was that said it (I will find out), but the thought is fundamentally the same. Basically it means that as humans we feel it first, then we ask why and seek to answer that question.
I know that I am inherently wired toward the Phenomenological, but am excited to dig other traditions on the spectrum and combine small quantifiable proof to support my qualitative hunches.
Sources: Griffin, Em "A First Look at Communication Theory, Seventh Edition."
After reading about the "Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory," there were two that jumped out at me as complete opposites, even conflicting. This could largely be because I can completely relate to one of them, and the other makes me break out in a cold sweat.
The first theory of interest was the "Socio-Psychological Tradition." This is the theory where scholars "believe there are communication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation...that predict when a communication behavior will succeed and when it will fail" (Griffen 42).
Although I have not yet taken the "Quantitative Communication" class, I have a hunch this tradition is the foundation from where quantitative analysis is founded.
This is the theory that I have no affinity towards. While I know I use many of the statistical and quantifiable findings in my own life, my perception of the world is mostly in terms of feelings and a person's story - the things that make us human...which brings us to the contrasting tradition I spoke of:
The "Phenomenological Tradition."
In this tradition everything is in the eye of the beholder and "an individual's story is more important - and more authoritative - than any research hypothesis or communication axiom" (Griffin 49).
With these traditions being on such opposite ends of the spectrum, is it possible for them to coexist?
Absolutely. As I read further (when I turned the page), I found figure 4-3 entitled "A Survey Map of Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory." It is pictured as an intertwining spectrum of the 7 traditions, with "Socio-Psychological" on the left side and "Phenomenological" on the right.
Polar opposites? It looks that way.
But, interestingly enough, one cannot exist without the other. In fact, one depends on the other.
I would have drawn the spectrum the opposite way, with Phenomenological on the left, because I believe all theory, qualitative or quantitative, stems from this.
It was said in my Qualitative Communication class that through qualitative observations, quantitative scholars get their motivation to quantify it, duplicate the results, and predict based on those findings. I can't remember the exact language or who it was that said it (I will find out), but the thought is fundamentally the same. Basically it means that as humans we feel it first, then we ask why and seek to answer that question.
I know that I am inherently wired toward the Phenomenological, but am excited to dig other traditions on the spectrum and combine small quantifiable proof to support my qualitative hunches.
Sources: Griffin, Em "A First Look at Communication Theory, Seventh Edition."
Why an Odyssey of Communication?
As a Communication major at SJSU, I am realizing that I couldn't have chosen a better focus of study for our information-heavy times. I originally chose it back in 1999 as a student at Pepperdine University because I am very much a people-person and enjoy communication on many levels. Today, in 2008, as I work toward finishing this degree, it is a completely different major than it was 9 years ago because of the prevelance of internet activities. We cannot survive or be a contributing member to society without having an intimate knowlege of the internet.
What's more, I am thrilled to be learning the tools to be a contributor of information rather than just a consumer of it.
"Commodyssey" represents the journey that started in 1999 at Pepperdine, continued in 2000 at Mission College, in 2001 at UC Santa Barbara, through an academic hiatus to persue 2 different career endeavors and finally rounding out at SJSU to finish a major that I couldn't have predicted to be so influential.
COnsider the Meriam-Webster breakdown of the word "odyssey." Note the final definition....
ODYSSEY
Function:
What's more, I am thrilled to be learning the tools to be a contributor of information rather than just a consumer of it.
"Commodyssey" represents the journey that started in 1999 at Pepperdine, continued in 2000 at Mission College, in 2001 at UC Santa Barbara, through an academic hiatus to persue 2 different career endeavors and finally rounding out at SJSU to finish a major that I couldn't have predicted to be so influential.
COnsider the Meriam-Webster breakdown of the word "odyssey." Note the final definition....
ODYSSEY
Function:
- noun
- Inflected Form(s):
- plural od·ys·seys
- Etymology:
- the Odyssey, epic poem attributed to Homer recounting the long wanderings of Odysseus
- Date:
- 1889
1 : a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune
2 : an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest
While my personal communication journey is mainly an intellectual one, I see simililarities between trek of Odysseus to get back home and my own to finish my degree.
Odysseus' hardships and continued setbacks were opportunities to halt the journey altogether. He could have given up at any time and forfeited any chance of seeing his family again. He made the choice to press on; he never gave up, realizing the prize.
My choice is two fold:
-To finish this degree because I believe that I will be better equipped to face our current world
-To do so in a manner that I may be a contibutor rather than simply a consumer
My academic hiatus has allowed me to appreciate this opportunity so much more and have a perspective that never could have been realized without taking it.
I am thrilled to be right here, right now, and will be taking full advantage of my prize at the end of my journey.
2 : an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest
While my personal communication journey is mainly an intellectual one, I see simililarities between trek of Odysseus to get back home and my own to finish my degree.
Odysseus' hardships and continued setbacks were opportunities to halt the journey altogether. He could have given up at any time and forfeited any chance of seeing his family again. He made the choice to press on; he never gave up, realizing the prize.
My choice is two fold:
-To finish this degree because I believe that I will be better equipped to face our current world
-To do so in a manner that I may be a contibutor rather than simply a consumer
My academic hiatus has allowed me to appreciate this opportunity so much more and have a perspective that never could have been realized without taking it.
I am thrilled to be right here, right now, and will be taking full advantage of my prize at the end of my journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)