My favorite concept

If you have been a reader of my blog at all, I think that you can see that my favorite concepts in this book have to do with ethnography. Ethnographic research has illustrated interpersonal relationships that lack pure subjectivity, yet they yield accurate and replicable results. In order to do ethnographic research, a researcher has to obtain some of the other communicative skills that we have been reading about over the course of the semester. These types of researchers have to decided where they want to provide self-disclosure or whether they want to take a more impersonal observer only approach to their research. They also must decide what type of relationship they want with their research subject which can become complicated and messy.

I have mentioned before that I hope to go into the field of ethnographic research which is why I like it so much. A career in research is not going to be the easiest path to take, but it is a path that will provide personal fulfillment and happiness (hopefully!). I hope to use ethnographic research to study the affects of waitresses in corporate settings, and am formulating a research question in order to address some issues that they face! So far the literature review for topics regarding waitresses have formulated tons of questions that I think could be asked, so I'm hoping to find my niche and provide some new information for people to read!

I feel like there were a lot of new concepts that I learned throughout this class. I took 2 communications courses over summer, and some of the ideas overlapped, but I think it helped me gain a better understanding. A concept that I never really took into consideration before reading about it was the nonverbal section of this book. Nonverbal behavior can appear as a natural behavior, and I liked reading and writing about it. I also liked how the book incorporated research methods, because without research methods, the writer of this book wouldn't have much reliable information for us to read about. Medicine, law, social studies, science and so on all rely heavily on research, so I thought it was great that the author of our text book included some of the methods for students to do their own research.

My favorite thing about this class was the fact that our professor was readily available at all times (or let us know if she wouldn't be). This came in very handy for me due to some mishaps with my computer, and with the sending of the wrong file for my journal. I really appreciated Carol's understanding, and availability to her students.

It's hard to say that I disliked something about this class, but if I had to say one thing, it would be that the quizzes and tests in general were very specific and at a high level of difficulty. I am a better writer and have a hard time having my answers boxed into true false or abc answer questions. Multiple choice is a more difficult method of testing for me, so I wished there could be some short answers in combination with the multiple choice. Yet, as a student I understand the time restrictions during summer and that teachers must grade quickly and this class was online.

Interesting concept

The most interesting concept for this class this semester was filtering theory. Filtering theory includes the sociological, preinteraction, interaction, and cognitive cues. I remember when I read this section of the text I was just nodding my head in agreeance over how we rule out potential partners. This theory may not apply to everyone, but I know from my personal experience that the process fits with me and many people that I know. Obviously we have to be in physical proximity of someone at some point to be intimate, so the sociological cues are very important because you have to be physically close at some point in order to gain a deep interpersonal relationship. Preinteraction cues are the step where many potential relationships are hindered due to physical attractiveness, or even because they are wearing shoes you don't like. Not everyone eliminates a potential partner over interaction cues, but for some physical appearance is an important factor in the process of selecting a partner. I also found the filtering most interesting due to my personal experience with my co-worker who I almost eliminated as a potential partner due to the fact that I was turned off at the preinteraction stage. Being able to see this process in real life makes me realize that theory itself is very interesting because it can predict, or help predict, the ways in which humans behave.

Cultural studies perspective

After reviewing chapter 2, I noticed that there wasn't much covered about the cultural studies perspective. Culture has been a key element to our discussions about communication, and I found this perspective to be one of the most important in understanding communication and power. Most of us in college have heard about media influence on our lives, but what caught my eye about this theory was when the text stated

According to them, cultures are constituted through a particular set of discursive
acts. Any given culture is, in fact, a web of interconnected acts of communication,
all of which carry meaning, much of which lies below the surface. These texts play off
of one another, as collective beliefs and experiences move from one medium to
another. Because they are linked to social forces such as capitalism, patriarchy,
racism, colonialism, and so on, texts exert power over the people who consume
them (p. 36, para. 1)

We have discussed mediums, and some of the ways that communication occurs through mediums. Television, the internet, and radio are a few, and sometimes the messages that are sent through these mediums do not have obvious power relations. The media is also monopolized into very few owners who hold the power to shape collective beliefs. Power relations exist with a sense of invisibility which cause the oppression of certain groups. In my other online class we discussed how a TIME magazine cover of OJ Simpson was photo shopped in order to darken his skin color. In turn, this cover increased the chance that the public would view him as more of a villain, and TIME was later called out on their alterations to OJ's skin color. Newsweek posted the original mug shot of OJ Simpson, and it was clear that TIME magazine had changed the photograph in order to make OJ look darker. Such a powerful magazine exerted their power in order to play on racist beliefs and to further villainize OJ. There isn't a doubt in my mind that OJ was a murderer, but the fact that TIME darkened his skin color for their magazine, thinking nobody would ever know, illustrates some invisible power relations.

Pragmatic perspective

Thinking about communication as a patterned interaction makes sense to a certain degree. The book uses an example of a person crying, and says that you would have to know what event that occurred before the person started to cry in order to understand the communication better. The pragmatic perspective emphasizes that there are sequences of events that happen that are ordered without rules or laws. These sequences (or patterns) are what create communication. I think the pragmatic perspective is most useful with dyadic or interpersonal situations, and how they don't rely strictly on personality. The text states "we should focus on interaction rather than personality" (p. 35). In many personal conflicts, or when there are barriers to communication, people are quick to try and blame the problem on the other's personality, rather than looking at the the events that led up to the conflict. The pragmatic perspective is much like a game in the sense that there are sequences of events that go on in interaction. One person speaks, then the partner speaks, the conversation is sequential and dependent on the other making a move. Communication can be seen as more than a game though. The pragmatic perspective does not take context, rules, or personality into account at all. In a game, someone may be the aggressor and some of these things could come from personality or culture. Communication is also more than just a game. Serious real life consequences can stem from bad communication, and it's not all about winning or losing. Games generally always have a winner or a loser, and in communication I don't think there is always a winner and a loser. I stand by the social constructionist perspective in a way because I believe context, norms, and laws that govern communication are very important in communication.

Bulding worlds through communication

According to the social constructionist perspective, our worlds are built through communication. Communication constructs our world because talking and being vocal have a lot to do with what we believe or value. The text states "If everyone around us talks about the world in a certain way, we are all likely to think of the world in that way and fail to question whether we are seeing things accurately" (p. 30). One of the first things we learn to do when we are young is how to talk. Communication from parent to child or friend to friend contains certain subjects and particular topics which in turn become beliefs or values. Instead of ideas or beliefs coming from "direct" experience, information flows from communication. For example, say someone just took a trip to Hawaii. You have never been to Hawaii before in your life, but your friend tells you it never gets cold and it is the most beautiful place on earth. A few weeks later, another friend tells you s/he is taking a trip to Hawaii. You tell this friend that Hawaii is always warm, and that it is the most beautiful place on earth, even though you have never been there yourself. This is how your world is constructed through communication. Your ideas about Hawaii are constructed from things you have heard or seen and not through direct experience.

The thing about communication is that it is also cultrually specific. There are topics that we discuss in American culture that would never be talked about in other cultures. Trenholm states "communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality" (p. 30). In the U.S. we contain a highly consumeristic culture. Although money is important to people across all cultures, the U.S. has seen a culture of extreme consumption compared to other places in the world. Our communication has a lot to do with what we do to make our money, what we want to buy next week, what fancy phone we are saving our money for, and other related communication regarding consumption. This may not be the case in other countries who do not communicate about hoping to save money for a new BMW or Lexus or million dollar home that they have dreamed about since they were little. Communication is culturally specific, and success and happiness is definitley affected by the consumer culture. Kids grow up with shows like American idol that give them the idea that anyone can be a rich and famous star. Parents tell their children they can be whatever they want to be when they grow up, when in reality not everyone has the means to achieve stardom or hold the presidency. There seems to be a disconnect between reality and fantasy which leaves many of us feeling empty or unsuccessful because we are always searching for the next product that will fill the emptiness.

Experimental research

Experimental research is interesting to me because the research I do in my field of study doesn’t contain much experimental research. Doing experimental research for social significance is more difficult compared to the medical field or other fields where groups can be controlled. I thought the example of smiling was also very intriguing because in my own experience, I find the data to be true. I am a waitress, and I thought it was funny how the experiment showed that waitresses who smile more are given larger tips. I get made fun of at my work for being the most “fake” with my customers, but in all honesty, I make more money when I am in a good "smiley" mood. When I come into work really mad, and can’t put that smile on, people are turned off by my lack of smiles and kindness that they expect when they go out to dine. I think experimental research is one of the most difficult to obtain results from due the fact that they have to think of all environmental factors, but in the end, I think they have a tendency to come up with the most accurate results.

Hardships in ethnographic research

I love talking about this type of research, because it is the type I hope to conduct when I graduate with my sociology degree. Ethnographic research can be a very complicated form of research because researchers are in contact with their subjects. The text talks about how an ethnographer can have a moral dilemma when deciding whether to be covert or overt with their study subjects. This is a very important decision to make because ethnographers spend a great deal of time immersed in the culture or group that they are studying that an early decision needs to be made. You may lose trust with your subjects if you begin your research as covert, and later decide that you feel bad for lying, and then you decide that you now want to tell them the truth and become overt. Ethnography is all about building rapport with the people you are studying, whether you tell them you are or you don't.

Researchers are supposed to stay as objective as possible, but ethnographic research acknowledges that the researcher is a participant and that it is not the worst thing in the world for them to be a little subjective. This may be another moral dilemma regarding a researcher using this method because you have to identify your own bias and your own beliefs and make sure that they are put aside. In my Qualitative research course last semester there was an example of an ethnographic study of women who had joined a white supremacist group. The researcher held strong beliefs that racism and prejudice was repulsive, but she had to put her own feelings aside in order to get the data that she needed. In her interview after the publishing of her study, she talked about how hard it was to not interrupt or disagree with the women that she was studying. She had to put her own morality aside, and suck it up for the sake of learning something about her subjects.

Ethnography

This chapter about research methods is something I have studied in classes such as qualitative research and quantitative research methods. I was happy that this communications book had a little bit about ethnography. Ethnography is a form of qualitative research that puts the researcher among its subjects. I find it to be the most interesting form of methodology because I feel that you gain some of the most valuable information through participant observation and interviews compared to a piece of paper with a questionnaire. Actually speaking with another individual gives the researcher an advantage to pick up on nonverbal cues as well as voice inflection as well as open ended answers. Instead of someone having to check agree or disagree on a survey, researchers get to hear the answers that interviewees or subject of their research have to say outside of a checked box.

A research question that I would use ethnographic methodology to study about deception could be "How do wives communicate suspicions of deceit with their husbands of over 5 years?" I would choose ethnography to answer this research question because I feel I would get the best answers. If I went to interview people who have been married over 5 years, and asked them questions about what happens when they feel like they are being lied to or cheated on, I am going to get thorough answers that could not be answered as in depth with other research methods.

Organizations

There were so many topics that I could relate to in Chapter 8, but the idea of downward, and upward communication made me think about communication in my own job. This chapter stresses the issues that arise from all three types of organizational communication, and I have seen the problems first hand as a server for a corporate restaurant. Problems arise with downward communication at my place of employment because we are receiving too much information, and too little all at once. We are told an overwhelming amount of information pertaining to goals and expectations, but we are not given the information about how to succeed. Conflict occurs when the servers are being criticized for not meeting the goals when we feel that our means for achievment were never communicated in the downward form of organizational communication.

Upward communication is full of tension in my line of work. There is no doubt that servers withold negative information from managers. We are always in a struggle to keep a customers complaint or an accidental broken glass a secret from managers because we don't want to be seen as incompetent. Superiors then don't know they need to order new glasses, or that a customer is going to go tell 3 other people that they had a terrible time dining at our restaraunt. As a tight coupled organization, effective upward and downward communication are important because if the manager knew they had to replace a glass, or maybe give the unsatisfied customer a coupon to come back, then the servers would have sufficient glassware, and more customers coming in for them to make money.

Mediums and Messages

I would have to agree with Marshall McLuhan about he medium being the message because of my own personal experience with all different kinds of media. Reading about the oil spill with "linear logic" would give me a much different impression than when I would watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC which employs "mosaic logic". Mediums are as important as the message because "[the medium] often determines which messages will be transmitted and which will be ignored" (p. 307). What will be broadcasted depends on the type of media. The text talks about the users of Internet as a medium gets to search for his or her own interests, while ignoring interests that are different from theirs. Television as a medium broadcasts tries to broadcast to the masses, so essentially their message will be different than the Internet. The television experience will create a different message than the Internet because the user of the medium receives different messages from each media.

I like McLuhan's idea about television being a "cool medium" because I have to fill in detail while watching television. There are times when television is not sequenced or rational giving it the "mosaic logic", unlike print media. Because television focuses on personalities of people, performers or public figures must have a certain "coolness" in order for them to be successful on TV. People who are too rash or abrupt would would have a much harder time being successful on television. Television as a cool medium requires personalities of casts and other television figures to have a certain type of personality.

Cyberspace

If my recollection is correct, I don't believe that I have ever made or had a friendship EXCLUSIVELY online. My father was always very protective over the Internet, and heavily regulated the people I talked to online. Most of my online interactions have been through electronic emails, synchronous chats, and with the enrollment of online classes, asynchronous discussion formats. Even though most of the people I speak to online are people whom I have f2f relationships with, the interaction is still a little bit different. I am a little bit of a girly girl, and when I have f2f interactions with others I usually like to look presentable, unlike when I'm talking to someone online on my laptop in my PJ's. My online discussions are also usually shorter and more to the point than my face to face interactions. My online relationships usually complement or support my face to face interactions, but I could assume some of the differences exclusive online relationship could have compared to f2f. I know when I talk to my friends online, their reactions are not always instant. When you are in a f2f conversation, you can see the emotion, hear the tone of voice, and understand the context of a real life situation. Online I could see how miscommunication may be inevitable due to the unavailability of non-verbal cues, and the allowance for a communicator to delay a response.

The closest cyber-relationship I have is with my colleagues and professors of my online classes. Because we use an asynchronous discussion format, I have got to learn a little bit about a lot of people over the course of my summer session. I can say that we have formed cyber-relationships , but I don't think I have ever formed a personal cyber-relationship. I guess I have been taught that the Internet can be full of predators which may or may not be the case. With strict rules, and fear, instilled by my father about Internet chatting and posting of personal photos made me a little reluctant to form relationships with people online unless I also knew them in person as well. Someday this might change as it is becoming more and more acceptable to form relationships online with websites such as E-harmony and the like.

Groupthink

I know that several of us have written about groupthink in our blogs, but I do think it is one of the most dangerous and intriguing concepts in chapter 7. When I first read this section of the chapter I couldn't help but think about the case of Charles Manson. I'm sure most of you know who this serial killer was, but the unique part about these murders was that they were committed by a group. The leader of the group was Charles Manson, but in my opinion, the members of the group were in the state of groupthink when they decided to carry out some gruesome crimes.

This small group, some would call a cult, experienced several of the symptoms described on page 190. They were so immersed in the group, and its ideology, that they didn't have a sense of reality. They believed that their group goal was more important than anything, and they also held shared stereotypes. I was not a member of the group, so I can't say anything definitively, but it is highly probable that the group experienced a high level of self-censorship and illusion of unanimity. This case may be different because group members may have feared death if they spoke up, yet they also may have feared being outcasted from the group or other sanctions. Although this may be an extreme case of groupthink, I think it illustrates an example of the dangerous effects groupthink can have, and also how powerful it can be over all group members involved.

filtering theory

When choosing a romantic partner, I can relate to all of the filters as playing a role in the process. When judging the attractiveness of others, the first step has to be contact. Therefore, the sociological or incidental cues must be there for a relationship to grow. I have had several friends meet a potential partner who moved away for college. More often than not, these relationships suffered because "physical proximity" (pg.158) was not close enough. Usually these relationships ended after a month or two because "maintaining contact with someone thousands of miles away is extremely difficult" (pg.158).

The characteristics that lead me to judge someone as unattractive begin with the preinteraction cues. Once I am in existence in the same space with someone else, the first thing I pick up on is the physical appearance. Although this may be a shallow approach, attractiveness originates in the likeness of a potential partner's "body type or physical beauty"(pg. 161). If there is no physical attraction, I think it would be very difficult to move into the cognitive realm. I think the preinteraction cues can be a stronger filter for some, and weaker for others. Someone may completely reject another in this stage, while others may feel it is important to not judge someone by their looks whatsoever.

Although Duck's theory is brief in the text, the filters seem to fit and make sense when I consider everyday reality and my own experience with relationship partners. All of these cues have been present in my judgment or evaluation of someone I may want to form a romantic relationship with. It's interesting to think about because my last relationship was with someone who I would usually not be physically attracted to. Because I worked with this person, I saw him everyday and got to know him using interaction cues and cognitive cues, I totally changed my view on wanting a relationship with that person. Our comfortability with each other made me reconsider what I wanted out of our friendship, even though I almost filtered that possibility based on preinteraction cues.

Rigid Role Relations

Although I could argue that all rigid role relations are difficult to work out and change, I believe that competitive symmetry would be the hardest to change. When there is a struggle for the one-up position, it is usually a pattern that is persistent and never-ending. Also, if the core values of the male and female stress that the male should have dominance, and the female wants dominance as well, it could be hard to alter the cultural perspectives that have shaped the two individuals. The book stresses that patterns should be looked at, and not personality or character, but sometimes being a dominant controlling individual can lie in the core of who you are as a person. Power and control are important to some, so if you get two people are in constant strain for the dominant position, it would be a pretty difficult aspect to alter.

I believe that the rigid complementarity pattern would be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because one partner is feeling as if their opinion doesn't matter. The text talks about how interpersonal communication builds self esteem, and sense of identity, and if the conversation and decisions are always being made by the dominant person, the submissive partner could feel a loss of importance or self-worth. Always being told what to do, or how to act, can make one feel as though they are incompetent, resulting in a lower self-esteem.

A Rigid complementarity pattern would also be the most damaging to a relationship because of the loss of self-esteem or need to be heard. If there is a member of a relationship who is feeling like they are being dominated, and has taken steps to gain a one-up position and has failed, it wouldn't take long for the relationship to go into a "regressive spiral".

Week 4 Q#3

Assumed similarity was an interesting concept to read about in chapter 12. The assumption that there are universal behaviors that mean the same thing in different cultures can lead to misunderstandings among different cultural groups. Even though a smile is universal, that does not mean that the smile means the same thing in every culture one may be exposed to. The text uses the example of how a smile could be an invitation for sex in Japan, whereas in the U.S. a smile is a friendly greeting that usually does not imply sexual favors.

There are several ways in which ethnocentrism could play a role in assumed similarity. Because one may believe their culture is better than any other, then they may be offended by someone else because they aren't similar. An outsider in a different culture may feel offended when they reach their hand to shake in a greeting, or go for a hug, because their invitation for physical contact may not be warranted in the other culture.

I thought this concept was interesting because sometimes we spend so much time in our own culture, that we never get the chance to see that assumed similarity even exists. In order to see that we actually do assume that there are universal behaviors that mean the same things, we have to be placed somewhere where our assumptions are challenged, like the case of the girl in Japan.

Week 4 Q#2

The question asks if we believe in the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises, and I actually am having a hard time saying I believe in all three. The premise I have the hardest time accepting is the idea that "humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control" (pg. 353). Growing up I have been taught that humans are born as pure and good, and the world later takes hold of them and shapes who they are. I can't agree with a premise that says a baby is born in sin, because I think human nature considers babies to be the most fragile and innocent beings in existence.

I have accepted the rationality premise, because I hold my own belief that humans can find the truth through evidence and logistical analysis. The problem sometimes is that evidence can be interpreted through human mediums which can then alter the meaning of the scientific. I think that humans can get closer to truth with logics, but science is never absolute, it only rules things out. The law is definitely an institution based on the rationality premise.

The Mutability premise stands as the strongest premise of the the three in my opinion. In human nature, we are shaped by our natural environment, and we are always trying to "improve humans....physical and psychological circumstances". I would assume the institution of medicine relies on this premise especially with the new pathological definitions for psychological problems.

Week 4 Q#1

After reading this chapter it becomes evident to me that we are all a product of our cultures. Cultures are present in all groupings of people around the world, and there are a set of values, beliefs, and attitudes based on what behaviors are normal and what behaviors are not normal. Normality and abnormality are culturally relative, so this must mean that culture does produce how we interact and how we behave. Culture essentially produces us because it has been learned from birth. If born in the United States, your culture defines your individualism at high value, where if you were born in Japan, collectivism would be valued. Upon birth, culture is already operating to shape your future normal behaviors, whereas if you were born somewhere across the world, your “normal behaviors” may be rather odd. This goes to show just how much culture influences our “habits, beliefs, and impossibilities”.

I think the most important out of the several ways we can break through the limits of our culture is the “extent to which newcomers are open, resilient, and self-confident” (pg. 365). In order to understand other cultures better, the person experiencing a new culture must respect the fact that other people may not be the same as them. We can break through the limits of our cultures by not being ethnocentric, and by not always equating difference with bad. Prejudices and stereotypes must be challenged if anyone hopes to open their mind to new practices, new ways of living, or to assimilate into a new culture.

Question #3

Non-verbal expression is not something that people think about or are conscious of on a daily basis. People communicate through non-verbal expression all the time, sometimes consciously and purposefully, and other times it just feels a little more natural. I find non-verbal communication to be the most interesting form of communication studied in my communications courses thus far because I feel like non-verbal expression is likely to tell the truth about one's disposition rather than what their words may not be saying.

The part I found most interesting in Chapter 5 we the Kinesic Code II. I always thought of facial expressions as being universal. I never really thought about a smile being used differently in different cultures. The text talks about how people follow "cultural display rules"(pg 119), which are not the same universally. In some cultures the smile is to be used at an event such as a funeral. This would not be acceptable here in the United States. The second element I found interesting about the Kinesic Code II, was "professional display rules". I am a waitress and bartender and a corporate restaurant where my profession requires me to be smiling the entire time I am in the building. My guests easily read my facial non-verbal ques when I am upset or irritated. Usually I am walking about with a smile the entire time, so when my face contains something other than a smile, people are quick to ask what is wrong, even if nothing is wrong. Even though I am sending and unintentional non-verbal message to other people in the restaurant, I am still communicating on certain levels with them.

Week 2 Q#2

There is no doubt in my opinion that men and women use language differently. This chapter focused a lot on how language affects the way we see the world, and I think that the world is seen differently between men and women. The text talks about how gender roles effect language, and that language effects thinking. Throughout history, gender has been a huge factor in oppression and domination for women. Gender values differ for men and women in order for them to be socially accepted. Women generally place more emphasis on inclusion with their use of disclaimers, tag questions, and qualifiers. They want to make sure that nobody is offended in the interaction. I think it is safe to say that women were being seen as submissive because of their style of language. On the other hand, gender roles have appropriated masculinity to involve competitiveness and autonomy. Therefore language use by men is often evasive and directly to the point. With men wanting to talk about basics, and women wanting to talk about details, a gap in communication between men and women can occur.

The areas in which men and women use language differently can vary. The text talks about how women use language differently in an interpersonal relationship such as a husband or a wife. A husband may sit and wonder why his wife is nagging him about his day, while the woman is trying to use language and conversation to build a stronger relationship or bond to her husband. Women's cultural backgrounds provide them with a different use of language than men, and throughout history men's use of language has been deemed dominate or "better." The text suggests that this is changing, and that women's use of language is becoming more acceptable, but only time will tell if there can be a middle ground found in the construction of gender roles and the subsequent language differences.

Week 2 Q#1

After reading Chapter 3, I have come to the conclusion that listening and interpreting are much more complex processes than I had imagined. Perception of others seems to always have a judgmental or categorizing element attached. Whether judgment is intended or not, schemata is working in the background to shape our perception of the interaction or experience. If our past experiences and interpretations are always used to understand current situations, then I don't think that it is possible to not judge or categorize others when you speak or see them. "Person prototypes" described on page 51 makes me think about how I would judge a person if they walked into a room wearing a football uniform compared to how I would judge someone walking into a room wearing all black. Because of my past experience and my "personal constructs" (pg 51) I would automatically expect certain behavior or personality.

I am not saying that that my judgment or categorization of the football player or the person in all black would be correct, all I am saying is that are certain assumptions I would have about them because of my own personal constructs. In order to make my judgments of these two people more fair, myself or others who judge like me, would have to become more mindful. Instead of relying automatically on "old routines and mental habits", I would need to create a new understanding of these people by maybe sitting and actually getting to know who they are while putting their "person prototype" aside. The chapter talks a lot about how we cannot just rely on scripts or our own schemata to interpret situations correctly and fairly. In order to not categorizeand judge, people need to be more conscious of their automated system of perception, and open up their minds to other possibilities or meanings of a given person, situation, or interaction.

Response to Q3

This chapter encompassed everything that I learned in my public speaking course last semester. As I mentioned in my first blog about myself, I am a senior and I saved my public speaking course for the very end of my college career due to the fear and anxieties I felt about speaking in front of an audience. I found that my text last semester and some of the tactics mentioned in Chapter 10 relating to speech anxieties gave me an outlet to let the fear of public speaking subside.

I learned in my public speaking course that people fear public speaking MORE than death itself. When I heard this fact from my professor Michelle Zajac I instantly compared my fear of death to that of my anxiety of public speaking. When I did this I realized that I have had more panic and symptoms of anxiety when knowing I had a speech to give in class that day than I had ever had about the possibility of death. Chapter 10 and my past experience with public speaking material taught me that confidence is a key element in overcoming the fear of public speaking.

"Cognitive Restructuring" mentioned on page 288 of our text was the main way I calmed my anxiety of getting up in front of an audience. When I first started my public speaking course all I could see was myself walking up in front of my class and stuttering, or forgetting where I was at in my speech. Basically, all I could see were the worst embarrassing outcomes coming to life in my imagination. My professor put great emphasis on the idea of cognitively restructuring to alter our way of thinking about how we would do up in front of the class. In order to cognitively restructure, I had to stop picturing the worst and start picturing and telling myself that I would do great, and that I had to recognize that what I was fearing wasn't very likely to happen. Organization and research were also a large element, but for me, confidence and cognitively restructuring the way I imagined my speech going had the most positive results relating to my speech anxiety.

Question #2

I have heard quite a few public speeches throughout my lifetime, but one that truely sticks out to me to this day was a speech given by one of my classmates last semester. Not only did she evoke strong emotion with her audience, she was having an honest conversation with them without anyone but her needing to say a word. My classmate was speaking about physical abuse from an ex-boyfriend, and her sense of urgency and passion about how painful domestic violence can be was projected by her building a community among her audience. At the end of her speech we were all ready to take action against domestic violence, and I went forward and actually did so. She also established her credibility well by not only appearing very professional, but by her research and facts about the topic. After stating a fact, she made sure that her audience knew where she got that information, and those sources were pretty prestigious and usually academic journals. The element that made her speech most memorable was her ability to persuade us as an audience to become active participants in domestic violence resistance. Her personal stories and data made her speech one that will stick out in my mind for a very long time.

The worst speaker I ever heard was actually an anti-abortion speech given in a small community church when I was in Junior High. This speech was terrible because it was one sided, not supported by any kind of evidence such as statistics or facts, the information seemed to only be based on an ideology and not reality. I just remember the message not being supported with data, which made me feel like the speech had no credibility or persuading elements.

Question #1

Response to Question #1

Communication occurs in all populations on earth, but what different cultures value or believe are not usually homogeneous. Worlds are built through not only communication, but through culture. The things we even choose to communicate about are determined by culture. Our ideologies, beliefs, and values all come into play when communication is involved. Our culture has attached meanings and values on something as little as what a basketball means, so when we are talking about a basketball we are talking about the object in terms of what culture has defined it as.
There is a link between culture and communication because communication reproduces culture, and culture creates meaning for communication. Different cultures may have assigned different meaning or value to an ideology, which alters the way communication works compared to the “American Culture”. The American Culture is one that is becoming more popular globally, but some fear that the consumerist and individualistic nature can be a slippery slope. Other cultures, such as poor nations or impoverished communities, may not even talk in terms of what designer Chanel bag should be purchased next or not, or may not give a crap about the Lakers and the Celtics.
If meaning is created and recreated by communication, then culture is usually one of the determiners in what people are actually communicating about. Our happiness and success depends on the way we communicate, and what we are communicating about. If society places quality of life on how much stuff you have, then I believe happiness and success become very difficult to achieve.

Introductory Post

Hello COMM 105!

I am currently a senior at San Jose State University. I have spent 5 years at San Jose State and am ready to graduate in the fall! I am actually a sociology major, but I started college thinking I would be a business major. After one class in sociology, my views about the world changed, and I decided to take a different academic path. This is probably why I have spend 5 years here!
Communication studies is new to me, and I hope to learn a lot from this class. The only communication class I have taken in the past was my public speaking course. I learned a lot from that course, but we didn't really study the importance of communication in society as a whole. This is also my first experience with online classes so I have tons to learn about how this is all works. Although I have not taken a COMM course outside of public speaking, sociology has taught me the value of communication and how it interconnects societies around the globe. Hopefully some of my other studies will provide me with a better understanding of this course.
I guess I could tell you guys a few random things I like to do outside of school stuff. I'm actually a little stressed because I have never taken a summer course, and I can't keep myself away from camping or the lake. The problem with camping and the lake is there is no internet connection! Even though I love the lake, and boating, sometimes responsibility has to reign supreme :) I hope to get to know a little bit about you guys as well, and nice to meet you.