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 agree with McLuhan when he says that the medium is the message. Trenholm also agrees with him by saying that “it’s as important as the message itself and that the channel, in fact often determines which messages will be transmitted and which will be ignored” (307). In my opinion, everyone is different when it comes to mediums which include the media in particular such as computers, televisions, and cell phones. Text messaging and email seem to be the things that a lot of people focus on rather than the old fashioned telephone call or snail mail. For example, at work I am always calling someone rather than emailing because to me it’s faster and more efficient when physically speaking to someone. However, when I do call sometimes, and there is no answer, I tend to email. The email is answered before the voicemail is responded to and sometimes that amazes me.
McLuhan’s idea that television is a cool medium because “it demands that viewers fill in detail…We become impatient with nonpictorial stimuli and with nondramatic messages” (Trenholm, 307-308). When reading a book I look to see if there is a movie out so that I can put pictures to the words I am reading. Also, I am very annoyed that commercials are constantly on when I’m trying to watch an interesting TV show. I like watching TV shows without commercials and I think my DVR is the greatest invention!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Week #12--Question #2
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
A concept from the reading I found interesting was selective attention. Trenholm states it as only listening to parts of the message (309). I always thought there was only such a thing was selective hearing but it is interesting to know that there is selective attention as well. There are times when I am watching television and I do not like what music is on even though I enjoy the whole show as a whole. I will usually change the channel because it does not interest me and find something else more appealing. My attention span seems to be limited mainly because I get bored easily. I think selection attention is focused on people who get bored easily and at times need some spark in their life because change is needed!
A concept from the reading I found interesting was selective attention. Trenholm states it as only listening to parts of the message (309). I always thought there was only such a thing was selective hearing but it is interesting to know that there is selective attention as well. There are times when I am watching television and I do not like what music is on even though I enjoy the whole show as a whole. I will usually change the channel because it does not interest me and find something else more appealing. My attention span seems to be limited mainly because I get bored easily. I think selection attention is focused on people who get bored easily and at times need some spark in their life because change is needed!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Week 12--Question #1
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?
When I was in the 7th grade and the internet was a completely new world to me, chatting in cyberspace was all I did. I begged my mom to get AOL so that I could go into all the cool and interesting chatrooms they had. The one that was awesome to me at the time was the “NSYNC” chatroom. I remember there was a boy in the room that swore he was Justin Timberlake and we would talk for days! I would sneak on the computer at times just to email him or even talk to him. I think it’s ridiculous now, but back then, it was my favorite thing to do!
They are different from face to face relationships because you actually know and have met the person you are interacting and befriending. You are able to see their face gestures, hold their hands, hug their bodies, and have actual face to face interactions with them. With cyberspace, the only thing you know about them is what they are telling you. You do not know if what they’re telling you are lies or actually real.
When I was in the 7th grade and the internet was a completely new world to me, chatting in cyberspace was all I did. I begged my mom to get AOL so that I could go into all the cool and interesting chatrooms they had. The one that was awesome to me at the time was the “NSYNC” chatroom. I remember there was a boy in the room that swore he was Justin Timberlake and we would talk for days! I would sneak on the computer at times just to email him or even talk to him. I think it’s ridiculous now, but back then, it was my favorite thing to do!
They are different from face to face relationships because you actually know and have met the person you are interacting and befriending. You are able to see their face gestures, hold their hands, hug their bodies, and have actual face to face interactions with them. With cyberspace, the only thing you know about them is what they are telling you. You do not know if what they’re telling you are lies or actually real.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Week 11--Question #3
1). How are organizations tied to the environment? What is the relationship between the school you attend and the city or town in which it is situated? What, if any, ethical obligations does an organization like a college or university have to the local community?
Organizations are tied to the environment according to Trenholm. “Organizations are linked to their environments. Organizations depend on their surroundings for resources and energy” (215). We all have specific duties and roles in our environments that we need to work with in order for our environment to run smoothly. For example, I am a personal banker and my services at work are necessary in order for my branch to run. We need to adapt to change in order of a successful environment.
I am currently attending San Jose State and live in the Evergreen community. Also, making sure that funding for both are taken cared in order to ensure an efficient community.
In my opinion, ethical obligations an organization like a university has to a local community are whether or not what they’re doing for the community is to their benefit personally or as a whole because there are certain things that people are more concerned with than others—we all have our differences. They both are trying to better their environment by focusing on the cleanliness of both—making sure that both are taken cared of and that proper security is in place in order to provide a safe yet clean environment for all.
Organizations are tied to the environment according to Trenholm. “Organizations are linked to their environments. Organizations depend on their surroundings for resources and energy” (215). We all have specific duties and roles in our environments that we need to work with in order for our environment to run smoothly. For example, I am a personal banker and my services at work are necessary in order for my branch to run. We need to adapt to change in order of a successful environment.
I am currently attending San Jose State and live in the Evergreen community. Also, making sure that funding for both are taken cared in order to ensure an efficient community.
In my opinion, ethical obligations an organization like a university has to a local community are whether or not what they’re doing for the community is to their benefit personally or as a whole because there are certain things that people are more concerned with than others—we all have our differences. They both are trying to better their environment by focusing on the cleanliness of both—making sure that both are taken cared of and that proper security is in place in order to provide a safe yet clean environment for all.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Week 11--Question #2
2). Review the etiquette rules suggested in the text. Respond to each one. Have you ever been bothered by cell phone, answering machines, or beepers? What do you feel about call waiting? Is it rude to put people on hold to take another call?
There have been numerous amounts of time when I was bothered by a cell phone. The most annoying time I can think of is when I’m at the grocery store waiting in line. I understand that emergencies happen and that we need to answer our phones, however, when you’re in the middle of a transaction about to pay and you’re rummaging through your purse just to find your credit card/cash payment and your cell phone rings, and there are 10 people in line behind you…just ignore the cell phone! However, there were many times when people just answer and start talking and forget what they’re looking for in their purse! I just find it rude to stop what you’re doing, have everyone including the cashier wait while you finish your phone call about what you’re doing next Friday night.
I think call waiting is a great invention just because you are able to speak on the phone with another person and still be able to wait for a call from another person. You do not have to limit yourself to who you are talking to just because the person you are waiting for has not called yet.
In my opinion, there are times when it is rude to put people on hold to take another call and there are times when it is not rude. The reason is because if you are not expecting a call from another person and it suddenly comes up, then by all means, take the phone call. However if you are talking on the phone and another person calls to chitchat and you put the other person you were talking to on hold just to talk to the other person, then I think that is rude.
There have been numerous amounts of time when I was bothered by a cell phone. The most annoying time I can think of is when I’m at the grocery store waiting in line. I understand that emergencies happen and that we need to answer our phones, however, when you’re in the middle of a transaction about to pay and you’re rummaging through your purse just to find your credit card/cash payment and your cell phone rings, and there are 10 people in line behind you…just ignore the cell phone! However, there were many times when people just answer and start talking and forget what they’re looking for in their purse! I just find it rude to stop what you’re doing, have everyone including the cashier wait while you finish your phone call about what you’re doing next Friday night.
I think call waiting is a great invention just because you are able to speak on the phone with another person and still be able to wait for a call from another person. You do not have to limit yourself to who you are talking to just because the person you are waiting for has not called yet.
In my opinion, there are times when it is rude to put people on hold to take another call and there are times when it is not rude. The reason is because if you are not expecting a call from another person and it suddenly comes up, then by all means, take the phone call. However if you are talking on the phone and another person calls to chitchat and you put the other person you were talking to on hold just to talk to the other person, then I think that is rude.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Week 11--Question #1
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading (not already discussed for this week) that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
A concept from the assigned reading that I found useful and interesting as well was message filtering. Trenholm defines filtering as a serious problem in formal communication because details are either omitted, added and the gist of the message is lost in the process. In my opinion, this is how drama gets started. One person tells another person one thing and it just keeps going and going until the last person eventually hears it and the story is completely different. I remember in high school I told my friend that a classmate of mine had died her blonde to be like her mom and the next thing I know some person I never met comes up to me and tells me I shouldn’t be talking “crap” behind someone’s back…when in fact all I said is that her hair looks like her mom’s and the 100th person that heard the story heard that I said “her mom shouldn’t have colored her hair because it makes her look like a tramp!” What a completely different story!
A concept from the assigned reading that I found useful and interesting as well was message filtering. Trenholm defines filtering as a serious problem in formal communication because details are either omitted, added and the gist of the message is lost in the process. In my opinion, this is how drama gets started. One person tells another person one thing and it just keeps going and going until the last person eventually hears it and the story is completely different. I remember in high school I told my friend that a classmate of mine had died her blonde to be like her mom and the next thing I know some person I never met comes up to me and tells me I shouldn’t be talking “crap” behind someone’s back…when in fact all I said is that her hair looks like her mom’s and the 100th person that heard the story heard that I said “her mom shouldn’t have colored her hair because it makes her look like a tramp!” What a completely different story!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Week 10--Question #3
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?
In my opinion, the most difficult pattern to change would be the submissive symmetry because as defined in the book, both parties struggle to relinquish control (Trenholm, 148). Because both partners avoid control, they do their best trying to control who makes the decision. I think it’s the most difficult pattern because both parties are not confident in their decision making and doesn’t think that the other person trusts them enough to make a strong decision. Strong decision making and trusts are important aspects in a relationship because to me, it’s what builds a relationship together. Putting pieces together in order to become a strong whole is what a relationship to me is.
The pattern that is most damaging to a relationship is the competitive symmetry. Trenholm defines it as both members fighting for the one-up position. Not only is it harmful in a romantic relationship, it is harmful in any kind of relationship. For example, two friends competing for the same position is hurtful on not only the ego, but on the individuals as well. The reason for this is because whoever wins in the end, the loser will feel that he or she is not comparable to the person who won and will feel as though he or she is not good enough or does not have the same qualities as the person who won.
I believe that the competitive symmetry is also the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because of how frustrating it is on both parties. Even though both individuals do their best to win the competition, one will always lose and will have a hurt ego due to the fact that he or she is not as “good” as the one who won regardless of the matter. For example, we all know that men lose weight faster than women. However, my boyfriend and I are always competing as to who loses the most…in the long run, I’m always the one who’s going to get hurt because his hormones allow him to lose weight faster regardless if I’m the one running and starving myself. It just sucks, but it’s something that I have to deal with. I’m always going to lose the competition and even though it’s all based on hormones, it just sucks.
In my opinion, the most difficult pattern to change would be the submissive symmetry because as defined in the book, both parties struggle to relinquish control (Trenholm, 148). Because both partners avoid control, they do their best trying to control who makes the decision. I think it’s the most difficult pattern because both parties are not confident in their decision making and doesn’t think that the other person trusts them enough to make a strong decision. Strong decision making and trusts are important aspects in a relationship because to me, it’s what builds a relationship together. Putting pieces together in order to become a strong whole is what a relationship to me is.
The pattern that is most damaging to a relationship is the competitive symmetry. Trenholm defines it as both members fighting for the one-up position. Not only is it harmful in a romantic relationship, it is harmful in any kind of relationship. For example, two friends competing for the same position is hurtful on not only the ego, but on the individuals as well. The reason for this is because whoever wins in the end, the loser will feel that he or she is not comparable to the person who won and will feel as though he or she is not good enough or does not have the same qualities as the person who won.
I believe that the competitive symmetry is also the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because of how frustrating it is on both parties. Even though both individuals do their best to win the competition, one will always lose and will have a hurt ego due to the fact that he or she is not as “good” as the one who won regardless of the matter. For example, we all know that men lose weight faster than women. However, my boyfriend and I are always competing as to who loses the most…in the long run, I’m always the one who’s going to get hurt because his hormones allow him to lose weight faster regardless if I’m the one running and starving myself. It just sucks, but it’s something that I have to deal with. I’m always going to lose the competition and even though it’s all based on hormones, it just sucks.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Week 10--Question #2
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?
When I think about the filters I use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners I turn to earlier stages in my life when I did have a romantic partner and look back at both the positive and negative views on the relationship. I pick out the negative ones and make sure that my “potential romantic partner” does not show any qualities of my negative view points yet only the positive. For example, my ex boyfriend used to think that women were there simply for pleasure and nothing else. Women were there just to feed, entertain, and do anything her boyfriend wants her to do. And this is something I just cannot adhere to. I am my own person and having someone tell me what I have to do in order to stay in a relationship is something I will not have in my life.
Characteristics/Behaviors that lead me to judge others as unattractive are negative behaviors. When people think only negatively and never look at the positive view points of life then it makes me not want to be around them whether it be romantically or friendly. For example, I have a co-worker who is always complaining and whining about her life and it just bugs me to hear all the negative aspects. Yes your life right now may not be in the best condition, but there are positive outlooks to every negative one.
Yes, Duck’s theory makes sense to me because of the 4 phases he includes in his model: intrapsychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing. All of which I believe to be important and necessary is an interpersonal relationship.
I am guilty of eliminating someone by using a sociological cue and have reconsidered them based on interaction. There have been instances where first impressions take a toll on me but once I do get to know the actual person, 9/10 chances I enjoy being around them. When I was 16, my boss at my old job used to terrify me because he always had this stern look on his face and was never happy with life. However, when I was able to get past his upset look, I was able to see that there is a reason to his unhappiness and he just needs to have a little bit of positive influence.
When I think about the filters I use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners I turn to earlier stages in my life when I did have a romantic partner and look back at both the positive and negative views on the relationship. I pick out the negative ones and make sure that my “potential romantic partner” does not show any qualities of my negative view points yet only the positive. For example, my ex boyfriend used to think that women were there simply for pleasure and nothing else. Women were there just to feed, entertain, and do anything her boyfriend wants her to do. And this is something I just cannot adhere to. I am my own person and having someone tell me what I have to do in order to stay in a relationship is something I will not have in my life.
Characteristics/Behaviors that lead me to judge others as unattractive are negative behaviors. When people think only negatively and never look at the positive view points of life then it makes me not want to be around them whether it be romantically or friendly. For example, I have a co-worker who is always complaining and whining about her life and it just bugs me to hear all the negative aspects. Yes your life right now may not be in the best condition, but there are positive outlooks to every negative one.
Yes, Duck’s theory makes sense to me because of the 4 phases he includes in his model: intrapsychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing. All of which I believe to be important and necessary is an interpersonal relationship.
I am guilty of eliminating someone by using a sociological cue and have reconsidered them based on interaction. There have been instances where first impressions take a toll on me but once I do get to know the actual person, 9/10 chances I enjoy being around them. When I was 16, my boss at my old job used to terrify me because he always had this stern look on his face and was never happy with life. However, when I was able to get past his upset look, I was able to see that there is a reason to his unhappiness and he just needs to have a little bit of positive influence.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Week 10--Question #1
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
Dyadic Communication is very interesting to me just because it’s a very personal type of communication. It also allows one to get to know another more intimately by adapting their contributions to their partner’s intellect interests. I think dyadic communication is used mostly in romantic relationships solely because of how strong you intimately interact with another. It is a type of communication that have free minds involved because ideas need to be freely exchanged and need to be well aware of who they are interacting with. They give us security and give us self-esteem because we have control over who we are with dyadic communication. Dyadic communication is interesting and is useful in my interpersonal relationships but not with my business relationships solely because I am not comfortable disclosing who I am to others. I find it amazing as to how strong dyadic communication is and how useful it is when we are in the process of freely speaking about ourselves to others we trust and welcome into our lives.
Dyadic Communication is very interesting to me just because it’s a very personal type of communication. It also allows one to get to know another more intimately by adapting their contributions to their partner’s intellect interests. I think dyadic communication is used mostly in romantic relationships solely because of how strong you intimately interact with another. It is a type of communication that have free minds involved because ideas need to be freely exchanged and need to be well aware of who they are interacting with. They give us security and give us self-esteem because we have control over who we are with dyadic communication. Dyadic communication is interesting and is useful in my interpersonal relationships but not with my business relationships solely because I am not comfortable disclosing who I am to others. I find it amazing as to how strong dyadic communication is and how useful it is when we are in the process of freely speaking about ourselves to others we trust and welcome into our lives.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Week9--Question #3
2). Do you believe in the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises? What social institutions and practices are based on these beliefs?
I believe in the rationality premises. Trenholm stays that’s the rationality premises is the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis-underlies many American institutions, including democracy, trial by jury, and free enterprise, all of which are based on the idea that the average person can be trusted to make good decisions.
We are all capable of making our own decisions and we rely on our instincts and our learned knowledge to make these decisions. We learn by trial and error and by history. We look back at what other people have done and we go from there.
A social institution/practices that are based on this belief is the court system. Cases are conducted each and everyday and decisions are made everyday. With these decisions made, judges and lawyers look back at past similar cases and make their judgments and decisions based on previous cases—this is how we learn. We take our own decision and look back at what others have done and come up with a general reasoning behind it.
I believe in the rationality premises. Trenholm stays that’s the rationality premises is the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis-underlies many American institutions, including democracy, trial by jury, and free enterprise, all of which are based on the idea that the average person can be trusted to make good decisions.
We are all capable of making our own decisions and we rely on our instincts and our learned knowledge to make these decisions. We learn by trial and error and by history. We look back at what other people have done and we go from there.
A social institution/practices that are based on this belief is the court system. Cases are conducted each and everyday and decisions are made everyday. With these decisions made, judges and lawyers look back at past similar cases and make their judgments and decisions based on previous cases—this is how we learn. We take our own decision and look back at what others have done and come up with a general reasoning behind it.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Week 9--Question #2
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that has not already been discussed during this discussion week, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
A concept that I found interesting in this week’s reading was culture shock. Trenholm defines culture shock as, “the anxiety that results from losing all of our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse.” I have been to many different states within the past year and I am constantly in culture shock. However, one country that I have been to that has given me an impression was Paris. Not that I didn’t like being in Paris, it was just completely and totally different. The lifestyle they lives was completely different than the one we currently are living as well as the food and their everyday activities. Having four-hour lunches/breaks during the middle of the day amazes me. They are so laid back there that it allows them to focus on the important things rather than stress all day. Here in America, stress is constantly following us and we are always looking for a break. We are given a 2-week break every year where in Paris; they are given a 6-week break. When I came back to America, I looked at everything from a different perspective and I am happy to say that I enjoy the life I live even though there are times when I wish I was living someone else’ life.
A concept that I found interesting in this week’s reading was culture shock. Trenholm defines culture shock as, “the anxiety that results from losing all of our familiar signs and symbols of social intercourse.” I have been to many different states within the past year and I am constantly in culture shock. However, one country that I have been to that has given me an impression was Paris. Not that I didn’t like being in Paris, it was just completely and totally different. The lifestyle they lives was completely different than the one we currently are living as well as the food and their everyday activities. Having four-hour lunches/breaks during the middle of the day amazes me. They are so laid back there that it allows them to focus on the important things rather than stress all day. Here in America, stress is constantly following us and we are always looking for a break. We are given a 2-week break every year where in Paris; they are given a 6-week break. When I came back to America, I looked at everything from a different perspective and I am happy to say that I enjoy the life I live even though there are times when I wish I was living someone else’ life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)