Likes And Dislikes

3). What was it about this class that you liked? What do you think needs improvement?

What I liked most about this class was its independence in the assignments. Unlike most class settings where there are very specific guidelines as to what we may write about this class kept it somewhat open-ended.

For instance, the weekly posts usually had one question where we got to choose a concept from the book and write about it. What this did was not only give me some freedom, but it also motivated me to read and find something that no one else talked about and make it interesting.

Plus, with this sort of freedom I noticed that multiple perspectives were given by my peers about topics I had read but had not written about myself. This was a strategic way for us to get the book’s topics covered without each person having to write about each topic within the text.

Lastly, what I think needs improvement is not this class per se, but the financial state of the college. I would have liked to do the public speech assignment (I miss that butterfly-stomach feeling), but I understand why it was not possible due to budget cuts and furloughs. I have never been in an SJSU online class and would have liked to have met you, my brilliant peers. Honestly, there are some excellent writers in this group!

Creating Celebrities: You've Got the Power

Immediately when I read this question “active listening” came to mind. Without a doubt Trenholm, I am sure, could have gone on for pages about this topic alone. The only reason she did not is because she had to cover a much broader view of communication.

The reason I feel that this topic would take up an entire book to adequately cover is because I feel it is the most important aspect of communication. This is why some people have all the friends they do, and why some have no friends at all. People do not listen. I do not think that it is because everyone loves to talk so much. It is because they do not know how to listen, and instead they resort to talking. In this unfortunate mix relationships end before they are ever started. There is so much that we can learn about each other if we just ask, then ask some more.

My advice is this: bring up Youtube and put on a clip from any David Letterman interview. Look at the nonverbal behavior of the star as they enter the talk show. Then notice how the celebrity loves talking about themselves. Just as that celebrity loves the attention, our friends and family love that attention as well! Give it to them some time, and make them feel special, because they are.

Nonverbally Speaking...

1). What concept/s in this class have you found most interesting? What was it about the concept/s that you found interesting?

The most interesting topic I found in this class was nonverbal behavior. Through reading through some excellent journals I realize that nonverbal behavior can also be the most noticeable.

Today I had my final in Tae Kwon Do at San Jose State. We had to perform skits that we wrote in groups, and enact them for the class. Some groups did serious ones while others made up parodies while incorporating moves and techniques we have learned. One group in particular brought to mind the subject of nonverbal behavior.

Their skit had no lines or dialogue except their kihap, or yell they made, when they would strike. Their leader would direct them with short, one-syllable Korean words. The confidence and discipline this team leader showed told so much more about himself than words could have. His focus, precision, and discipline in those four minutes showed hours upon hours of training he had done in the past.

All of this one could gather from just observing his movements. All of this could be seen from his nonverbal behavior.

Conflicts of Interest

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

In chapter eleven, Trenholm writes about ethics in the media, and how to harness the potential for conflicts of interest within a news company. How can a reporter report the facts in an unbiased manner when they are human beings with emotions, opinions and belief systems?

There is mentioned an example of a reporter sending one hundred and sixty wired hangers to politicians to appeal to a pro-abortion issue. Another reporter was seen demonstrating in an activist rally. Some speculate that these actions paint reporting the news with a pre-mature skew, because the reporters have conflicts of interest. Perhaps the solution is accountability.

With some organizations the act of omission is the same as a lie. Put it so that if there is evidence for blatant and willful neglect to report a balanced and reasonably accurate event then legal action will ensue. This is something that should be taken more seriously because of the power and influence that is wielded in a short news segment.

This solution does not deprive a news reporter of their personal views or opinion. What it does do is further ensure a more accurate report which can legally protect a news agency, the subject(s), and the reporter themselves.

The TV Is Warming Up

2). Do you agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, i.e. that 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? Evaluate his idea that television is a cool medium.



I have to agree with Marshall McLuhans concept of the medium being the message. I also have to disagree with McLuhan’s assessment of TV being a cold medium, in the context of modern television.

First, like nonverbal communication, the medium tells something to the receiver before they even find out what the message is. You may or may not have heard of the new movie “The Messenger” which depicts the lives of army personnel who have to deliver news of soldier’s deaths to the soldier’s family. They deliver the news in person. Several times parents or loved ones who see these uniformed and solemn-looking men approach already know that the news is bad. They perceive the message by deducting from the medium, which is a message within itself, much like nonverbal communication. Once within sight the message is already communicating before a word is spoken.

McLuhan’s assessment of television being a cold medium, meaning more participatory, was truer during his time then it is now. I disagree with it in the context of modern television I do understand that this “hot” and “cool” are on a continuum, leaving me to say that it is simply less cold today. The reason being that TV now may present a realistic and participatory spin with shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, but in my opinion the evidence showing how the judges responses are pre-written casts doubt on these being different than scripted movies.

Plus, with commercials now using the same soundtracks, camera lens, dramatic effects, visually stunning animation I would say that TV has become much more an appeal to the visual senses, and leaves much less room for conscious efforts at pieces details together.

Cyberspace: A Tool, Not A Solution

1). Have you made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace? If so, how are they different from f2f relationships? If you have not formed cyber relationships, why not?

I have formed cyber relationships before, but have not retained them exclusively to cyberspace. This I have done for two reasons. First, online interactions do not lead to meaningful friendships in and of themselves. Secondly, because I am a person by nature I wish to avoid potentially deceptive or false relationships from coming to fruition.

I applaud technology for making it easier for friends to meet and to stay in contact with one another. While I agree that this technology is handy for people to meet, I do not think it is a healthy medium to interact in exclusively.

My point being that there is so many subjective and ambiguous features to this interaction that a real meaningful and grounded relationship could not possibly come from it.

Texts or emails are void of one very important characteristic- nonverbal behavior. In my opinion only pseudo-relationships can be formed from solely online interaction, not full, healthy ones.

Secondly, I am cautious of this medium because it is too easy for one to deceive the other. Face-to-face relationships are already ripe with obstacles leading to potential pitfalls. Cyberspace increases the “pitfall” percentage dramatically.

These are some of the reasons why I use cyberspace as a means, not an end, to relationships.

Disclosure and Its Risk

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.

Disclosure is something that everyone does at some level. This is why I find it very interesting. Because disclosure can be such a sensitive tool it is important to use in a controlled environment where you can minimize potential fallout. Following is an example I experienced about the wrong way to disclose.

I am sure that everyone in this class has come across people who prefer to admit everything about themselves, even when it is not asked of them. I remember riding the light rail and I could hear a lady talking to a man she had just met, and going into sordid detail about her illnesses, family situation, drug addiction, and even her love life.

Perhaps if she spoke in hushed tones it would have been slightly more couth, but I was in the back row and could hear every syllable, as could all fifteen people between her and I.

While disclosure is a healthy mechanism which is meant to draw people together through empathy and understanding, it can also serve to our detriment if that information ends up in the wrong ears. In this lady’s case, hers was not a controlled environment where she could manage the intake of her private information.

Who knows how that information could later return to haunt her from the now sixteen random individuals now loose with her information in the city?

Filters and Standards

2). Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?

After thinking over Duck’s theory of attraction, some examples of my own filtering of romantic partners come to mind. In terms of determining unattractiveness as potential partners there are two categories I go by- initial and subsequent. Also, how these two filters relate to Duck’s sociological, pre-interaction, interaction, and cognitive cues.


There are a few characteristics that I use as immediate filters for romantic partners. These result from the initial contact. One is copious amounts of tattoos on the girl. This tells me that she has a mistaken concept of long term-thinking and lives in the moment too much, leaving a tendency to act spontaneously to the point of extreme in a relationship.


Another initial disqualifier is rudeness or disrespect to parents, either theirs or mine. I judge this to be a propensity to how my partner will treat me in the future.


As for subsequent filters, these come a little later and can manifest themselves after going out with this person for an extended period of time. If she is constantly in need of rescue emotionally it may indicate to me that she is not yet mature enough to handle life responsibility.


Secondly, if her spending habits do not match her income it becomes a red flag. Marriage counselors attribute that over half of divorces stem from financial problems. If she cannot reign in her spending then that is a definite filter I abide by.


The initial filters line up closely with Duck’s pre-interaction cue, in that these filters can be employed without even speaking to the girl at all. I can disqualify her from a distance for these things without even interacting with her at all. The subsequent filters align with Duck’s interaction and cognitive cues because these deal with conversations and belief systems. As for the sociological cue, I do not recall when I ever went by this method of filtering.

Submission and Self-Esteem

1). Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?

Of these patterns submissive symmetry would be the most difficult to change.

The reason is that it is more difficult for a weak personality to take on stronger traits. Now if someone has a strong personality it seems more likely that they would fall into the “rigid” category, thus relinquishing control is less difficult than attaining it.

In my opinion, the role or pattern that damages relationships most is the submissive symmetry. Analyzing not only the frustration this stance causes to the receiver, but also to the sender.
It is the senders who does not stand up for themselves and try to constantly relinquish control who end up becoming dissatisfied in these relationships because they are foregoing assertion which damages the most component of relationships- self-esteem.

It is self-esteem that dictates how you feel about yourself. If you feel that you do not have the ability to make a tough decision, or even a menial one like where to go eat with someone else, then there could be a lack of confidence in yourself.

Peircing Cultural Perimeters

1). Do you agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture" and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture? If so, how can we break through the limits of our cultures?

I think it is accurate when Ruth Benedict says that we are creatures of our culture.

What else do we know than what we were taught or what we have seen? Just as objects do not randomly appear into space I think likewise that “other-cultural” ideas do not also.

In order for there to be a cultural shift there must first be an exposure to ideas and imaginations outside of one’s own culture. If someone asks how cultures originated the answer may be that environments caused them to form. Look at the clothing comparison between Eskimos and Bedouins, one dresses warm with fur and animal skin while the other has to dress with loosely fitting, breathable linens. Their environment shaped their cultural apparel.

I think if we are to break through the limits of our culture we must travel. Exposure to other ways of life provides life experience and worldliness (the good kind).

Thumbs Wars

2). Although nonverbal messages are more universal than verbal messages, nonverbals do not always carry the same meanings in other cultures. Can you give examples of some of the nonverbal displays that take on different meanings in other countries? If you have moved around within this country, have you ever encountered regional differences in nonverbal meaning?

It is quite remarkable how simple gestures can be mistook or perceived to mean something else in certain cultures.

For instance, eye contact for prolonged periods of time in a conversation can mean disrespect in some Asian cultures, while it means confidence and attentiveness in ours. In fact, you may fail a job interview if you cannot keep proper eye contact with your interviewer! I wonder if the consequences are the same in Asian cultures if their eye contact norm is violated.

Also, giving the “thumbs up” sign is meant to mean “good job” or “well done” in American culture. You can most likely find a poster or t-shirt with this symbol on it and it is understood to mean a positive thing. Then if you were to go to Iraq and throw this gesture around it would be the same as “flipping the bird”.

I have yet to find out where our version of the “bird” means “good luck” or “well done!” in another culture.

Nothing To Yawn At

1). Because nonverbal messages can be ambiguous, they are open to misinterpretation. Have you ever been wrong about the meaning of someones nonverbal message? Describe what happened. How can people increase the accuracy with which they interpret nonverbal message?

One nonverbal cue that leaves me stumped is the yawn. I have done it to people in conversation and they have done it to me, leaving both of us confused about our listener’s interest level.

Not until recently did I learn that when someone yawns while you are talking it does not necessarily mean that they are bored. In fact, yawning could mean that someone is captivated by a speaker and in high concentration, which could slow their breathing while raising their body temperature, and the yawn is to cool the brain down. This was found in a study by Gallup AC & Gallup GG Jr (2007).

This explanation cleared a lot of mystery for me because sometimes when I was genuinely interested in a conversation, and in deep attentiveness, usually in one-on-one interactions a yawn would just creep up! I have been in fights before, but I have never won with a yawn.

A good way to clear the ambiguity and get an accurate interpretation of this nonverbal cue would be to understand that just because a person yawns does not mean they are bored. Also, realize that someone may be interested in what you are saying; they just may be tired at the same time.

That is why if I yawn awkwardly in a conversation I will just tell them scientifically what just happened, that it means I am just really interested and concentrating on what they are saying. Most of the time I am sure this is the case.

Comfort And Space

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that has not already been discussed this week, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.


Personal space is something that greatly differentiates and defines Americans from other cultures. I can say that in my lifetime I have seen clearly that Americans love their space. Arguments, quarrels, and fights have erupted due to the exhausted excuse, “They got all up in my face!” denoting a violation of someone’s space.

Take for example the line marker at your local Kaiser hospital. Instead of having a normal line running from the receptionist desk to the waiting area there is a marker on the floor about ten feet back telling you where to stand in order to give the present customer their privacy.

I have noticed that in other cultures, particularly the eastern cultures, people converse in closer proximity to one another. I wonder if one underlying factor could be that the American culture is more individualistic, leaving people to be more solitary-minded which spills over into their physical/ spatial comforts.

Since numerous studies have shown that personal contact and relationships are necessary for healthy living, it would be interesting to see what effect would take place if Americans downsized their circles of comfort by a few measurements.

Can We Train Our Perception?

1). Is it possible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make, more fair?


Thinking long and hard on this question I have come to the conclusion that if it is not impossible, then it is extremely difficult NOT to judge/ categorize or size-up someone during an initial perception phase. We can however, train ourselves to perceive fairer and more accurately.

I cannot imagine just seeing someone without judging them. Especially when I meet someone all sorts of things run through my mind involuntarily. Things such as their honesty, credibility, and character get evaluated. In fact, receiving a firm handshake can force you to judge someone as strong or weak just from the mere contact.

Without this instinct most people would leave themselves vulnerable to all sorts of “predatorial” approaches. But can we become fairer in the perceptions we make of people? The issue of racial profiling comes to mind. Some may call racial profiling among police officers good policing, because people those who fit the profile of most criminals are singled out and detained. But then we have to ask ourselves if this tactic is equitable even though it may be effective.

As far as making it fairer when evaluating people, I think the most reasonable course of action to take is to educate yourself about the categories of the people you judge most strongly, whether positively or negatively. Information, education, and logic should be the brush strokes that paint a fairer and more accurate picture. What drives people to make rash judgments is ignorance and irrationality. This is not to say that because everyone becomes educated that everyone will be friends. What I mean to say is that with the proper tools people will get sized-up more accurately. These are just some of the ways how we can train to give ourselves more precise judgments of people.

Side Note: I highly recommend the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell for an interesting read on our subconscious perceptions, and how powerful they really can be.

Social Constructionist Perspective: Virtual Walls

1). 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 of success (or the lack of these) in our culture?

So far as the social constructionist perspective goes, what comes to my mind when thinking of constructing world views is the law enforcement culture. John G Stratton, a police psychologist, wrote in his book Police Passages (1984) that police officers construct a worldview of an “us vs. them” mentality as a result from the volatile and hostile encounters they have with citizens who, are most of the time, at a time of crisis in their lives.

The nature of police work leads these officers to build emotional walls, and to detach themselves emotionally so as not to feel the immense grief and tragedy they witness on a daily basis. What a citizen might see on the outside is a callous and cynical officer, but under the surface is a survival mechanism developed out of necessity.

While this concept is not exclusive to our western culture, there are ideas and concepts of communication that are. I am referring to the communication phenomena of virtual realities. The game, Second Life, offers users a chance to live a life through avatars, or characters developed by the user. Through this venue real life relationships have been built and even corporations have set up meetings via their avatars meeting at a spot in this virtual world.

While this technology may very well have instilled feelings of popularity, inclusiveness, and even happiness to millions in America, there are of course people who have learned to use them negatively. People who use their avatars to sexually harass other avatars is an issue that is still being confronted by Linden Lab, the company who developed Second Life. This leads one to conclude that even this modern communication technology can be used in a positive and a negative manner.

Patterns: Our Adaptive Nature At Work

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

The “patterns” that result from the interactions people have brings up some interesting points (Trenholm p. 34). First, it speaks a lot about human’s adaptive capability, and secondly, how these patterns affect our lives.

As humans we learn to adapt to our surroundings and take whatever steps are needed in order to find an easier path. Resistance and pain are not at the forefront of our desires. As Trenholm discusses the evolution of pattern-making what I see is really an adaptation by individuals who shape their interactions based upon fruitful and unfruitful moves. For instance, if Harry realizes that Sally will not like him because he makes fun of her freckles he will stop if he wants to keep her as a friend. The fact that people learn and become accustomed to this interaction is amazing, especially considering the people who retain friendships and marriages for multiple decades! They have honed the craft of establishing positive patterns.

Secondly, it can be said that people’s lives are formed around these patterns. Family members who will not speak to each other because their interaction results into negative outcomes will go out of their way to avoid each other. This affects their offspring, their network ties, sometimes their friends, and the list goes on.

Ways of life are determined based upon these patterns. It speaks volumes of our human nature as we adjust to our communication arenas, and it also says a lot about the the results of our decisions.

The Game: A Pragmatic Perspective

2). Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?

I believe very much that communication can sometimes be described as a “game”. Usually what escalates this game is when one person’s action sparks a reaction to whomever they are communicating to.

Having served in customer service for the past five years I have picked up quite a few “tells” of how people play this game. On occasion we will get someone in our store who is drunk, a panhandler, or just a troublemaker, and they will approach you in a very distinct manner. Usually they come off speaking loudly while making eye contact- something a lot of timid people avoid, and they know this. To me these individuals were in fact playing a mental chess game as Trenholm mentions (P. 33).

Their first move was “A. Intimidate”. The flaw I soon found with their initial tactic was that they had no counter to it if it was played right back at them. I would respond to them in a reasonable tone, but a few volumes louder than they spoke to me, while making solid eye contact. They would almost without fail drop the act. Their tone would change, their volume decreased, and eventually they would move on. What I think took place in these interactions was actually nothing more than a subconscious game of dominance.

While it is like a game, it is at the same time different because in a game of baseball a pitcher can choose not throw the ball, whereas, if two people are conversing, they are constantly throwing balls of communication at each other. The phrase “You cannot not communicate” sums up the major difference between a game and communicating.

Communication Concept: The Vigorous Style

*3). Pick one concept from the reading assignment this week (Ch.1) that you found interesting or useful and discuss it. Please discuss a concept that has not already been discussed this week so far.

The “Vigorous” style of delivery is one that I found intriguing. It belongs to the “Style” category, one of five parts to the canons of rhetoric (Trenholm, p. 7). This style, largely based on pathos, was meant to evoke an emotional response from the audience. What piqued my interest was how commonly this approach is used today in excess by politicians and other power figures.

Cicero warned of using this approach too often, and he recommended against using it without logos or ethos, or logic and character. Plenty of examples can be found where this occurs; particularly on the US presidential campaign trails. Immense and outlandish promises are passionately made, people shout in exhilaration, wave their candidate’s banners, and chant triumphantly, yet voters are notorious for blindly following politicians just because they are of the same party.

There is a reason why these events are called “rallies”. Rallying initially occurred when a military leader would inspire his soldiers with a moving address with the hope of inciting passion and vigor- things necessary for the battlefield. Yet modern day politicians abuse this tactic by “rallying” their supporters, and draining as much emotion as they can to garnish a support base, while depriving them of badly needed reasons why they should be so excited. I think Cicero was onto something.

Qualities of a Great Speaker

*1). Think of a speaker you admire (please do not use the President of the United States as an example). Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

A speaker whom I admire greatly is my friend Jason Dulle, a scholar, theologian, and apologist for the Apostolic/Pentecostal movement. Jason is almost finished with his PhD in theology at the age of 27, while supporting his wife and two children. He is one of the most sought after speakers in the United Pentecostal Church.
When you hear Jason speak about the validity of Biblical teachings, the existence of God, and other such arguments you hear reasoning that is drenched in hours upon hours of study. For a single 50 minute lesson he will admit to spending over 20 hours in study. This gives him both ethos and logos rarely seen in individuals who teach upon complicated and sometimes unclear biblical issues.

The logos in his style is plain to see because he is well versed in his field. Because of his long hours of study he is so confident while he is teaching that complicated streams of information are broken down to laymen's terms in matter-of-factly fashion.

This confidence also exudes ethos, or honesty, because almost anyone who is confident about something means that what they are saying is well-thought out, and what they are saying comes from the heart.

The qualities that make me effective in communicating are similar to Jason's, but with a little bit of variation. I am effective when I am confident about my subject matter. Words and reasoning will come easily because I will be comfortable in my confidence. Secondly, my empathy for the audience also helps me get my message across, becaue if I can understand where they are coming from then I can relate my message to them even better.

Question 2: Morality in Communication

*2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?

I agree with this statement. The lines of communication between the audience and an orator are delicate enough, and would be even more obstructed if the speaker was viewed as one who could not be trusted. And the fact that goodness and truth are closely tied into communication even further cements my belief in this notion.

The chances are very good that each person participating in this class have been in the audience of both good and not so good speakers. Sometimes one mistake or one flaw in the speech, such as a lack of confidence or eye contact, could turn an otherwise good speech into a painful or cringing space of time. The point is that that channel of communication between the speaker/ orator and the audience is delicate.

Now just imagine that the orator is known to be an immoral person. Where does that leave your confidence level at as a member of their audience? The whole reason you are there is because you trust this speaker to teach you something. That trust is undermined by their violation of trust with someone else, whatever it may be. They have lost a great portion of their effectiveness as a speaker even before their introduction because of their immorality. This will in turn cause their credibility to dwindle.

As a country we still hold the same standard that the Greeks did in terms of morality. Just take a look at the lack of sponsorships singer Chris Brown has, and the lack of support for Senator John Edwards after news of his affair. These people have done immorality in the sight of the public and have not only lost their credibility, but potentially their public forums as well.

This is why I believe that goodness, truth, and morality are necessary in order to be an orator. They are the underpinnings of effective communication.

Intro

Hi, My name is Jeremy and I am a senior who is planning on graduating this December. This and a P.E. class are my final two classes before I receive my bachelors degree in Justice Studies. Although I am not majoring in communications, this subject has been my favorite throughout junior college (West Valley), and even up until now- my last semester at SJSU. My favorite book is Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends and Influence People" which really inspired me to further my communication knowledge.

I am involved in Chi Pi Sigma, a criminal justice fraternity on campus, and I have been with a catering company for the past 4 years. Currently I am in the hiring process with several law enforcement agencies.

This is my first online class, and I hope to see it through to the end!