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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi HodgePodge85!
ReplyDeleteI really liked that you had to say about pragmatic perspective. The last part caught my attention. You are right about how a baseball pitcher can choose not to throw the ball. But in communications the 'ball' will always be thrown back and forth between the two communicators. If someone chooses not to communicate, then it really wouldn't be called communication and then the 'game' would end.
I think that if you really wanted to, you can look at any type of communications as some sort of game. In my blog I used interviewing as an example of a type of 'game' that is played between two communicators. It all just depends on how you look at it.