Ch 13 blog

             I like to people watch, but not as a researcher. It's more of an entertainment past time. For the sake of keeping my attention, I would have to do a "mixed method" of research.  I would probably start with the Ethnography, but when I got bored with that I would do the unobstructed method. I am critical but not very analytic when it comes to communication research.  

            Question of deception, "How do children shield themselves while telling a lie?" I would probably use multiple methods of study, but I would start with Ethnography.  This way I could go to a child care facility, or a public playground and watch the children in their natural surroundings without being disruptive. I would also do a little conversation analysis between the children to analyze personal interaction and reactions to each other, and then finish with a rhetorical criticism. I feel that any live research study should probably go back over the results and check for any missed aspect of the conversation that may have been missed.

Cultures within a society...Very Interesting

The interesting topic I found this semester is culture, and more specifically co-cultures.

       Cultures within a society that have different communication practices. In almost every community there are several smaller groups of people who communicate in different ways.   I belong to several co-cultures.  My day starts off with my family, in this culture; I am an authoritative figure and communicate as such. However, when I communicate with my parents I have to show a certain level of respect.  I then go to school where, as a student, I have to communicate my knowledge of a subject and still be open to learning more at the same time to my instructors.  I also communicate with the other peers and students, a co-culture of a school community where the latest slang and personal gestures are expected to be known and understood.   When I hang out with other military veterans, in the resource center, the expectation of general military slang and gestures are expected, and in turn I expect the same from them.

        I find it interesting that different behaviors, aneurisms, and slang terms are expected to be known depending on the co-culture you are engaging in.  There are so many different co-cultures that sometimes the terms and gestures get intermingled between cultures.  

More to discuss, but then again... maybe not :-) Have a great holiday break!

The topic I found very interesting, and wanted to discuss further was Computer Mediated Communication. It's not easy putting in eight straight hours of work every day, without small breaks. A little communication and personal interaction can make a stressful day not so bad. There has been survey after survey of how much time is spent by employees on social networking sites while they are supposed to be working. “More than half of U.S. workers waste an hour or more a day on interruptions: 60% come from electronic devices and e-mails, while the other 40% come from traditional sources, such as phone calls or chats with colleagues” (New Statistics).  I did a small survey of on my own, and asked a group of five people to track their use of social media for one-day. I found that even the most moderate use of Facebook and social media devices, still added up to a substantial amount of time. 

“Distractions cost businesses $10,790 a year per worker” (New Statistics).  Social networking can be addicting, and cause more problems for the user then they realize. The distractions of social media not only impact the employee, but the employer as well.  Between all five of my test subjects a total of an hour and 35 minutes in one day was wasted on Facebook, and hour and 20 minutes on personal e-mail and other networking sites such as Twitter or LinkedIn, two hours and 14 minutes on personal phone calls, and 115 personal text messages. By my calculations that it's five hours, 9 minutes, and 115 text messages, in one day, that these five people got paid for by the companies they work for.  A statistics company did a survey of Internet use at work, “the company looked at 13 billion URLs used by businesses in the first quarter of 2010 and found that 6.8% of all business Internet traffic goes to Facebook, which is double the amount of business traffic that goes to Google and nearly triple the amount that Yahoo gets” (Van Grove).

A few breaks here and there is not all bad, "Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days' work, and as a result, increased productivity" (Skinner). So the question is, is social networking helpful or harmful? There are people out there that feel that social networking sites such as Facebook, can help co-workers, colleagues, and others within their industry. Even before social networking, employees found ways to take the same short breaks, such as needing a cigarette, so they go out with coworkers smoke and chat for 5 minutes, or needing a drink, so they would gather around the Coke machine. Employees don't need social networking sites to goof off, but social networking sites give employers an excuse and something to blame for low productivity. I believe that merit-based promotions and focusing on rewarding employees who do their jobs well is a better use of time, rather than disciplining those who don't work. A better way to encourage employee productivity is by reward not punishment. According to socialmediatoday.com the majority of employees don't feel that Facebook or other media distractions are harmful to their work.

“This informal poll revealed that out of 785 responses, just over 49% of respondents do not believe social networks decrease productivity. However, 37% admit that they feel that their online activity leads them away from their primary focus. Notably 14% aren't sure which way to lean yet” (Twitter).

            The addiction to social media starts young, and its effect on the workforce begins with the first post. It's not just adults who are affected by social media, teens entering the workforce or applying to colleges need to worry about some of the same effects. “In a 2011 survey of 359 admissions officers from top colleges, the education experts at Kaplan Test Prep learned that roughly 24% visit social networking sites such as Facebook to learn more about applicants. 20% Goggled applicants. The bottom line: an applicant's online image matters, and it hurt applicants' chances of admission in about 12% of cases” (Grove). The older a person gets, the more willpower they have to refrain from the distractions of life, in creating good habits as a young adult will make for better decisions throughout life. As young adults the amount of stimulation through social media is hard to ignore. Learning to focus on schoolwork, work, or daily priorities can be hindered by the distractions of Facebook (this is why teachers don't let friends sit together in class). The Internet has made access to distractions much easier and faster. A gives a student this sense that they are multitasking when in actuality they are being distracted and nonproductive. As an adult it might be easier to dismiss the need for idle chit chat or gossip, but humans are social, and the fear of gossip, and loss of control can compel anyone to distraction.

            “There are no sex differences in cyber-slacking, with the average male employee as likely to waste time online as the average female. On average, our respondents reported spending 1 hour and 44 minutes per day cyber-slacking” (Chamorro). I found in my small group of five, close to the same results, however my male subjects spent significantly less time than my female subjects. It may have been due to their occupation, and availability of Internet, but those who are in an office environment spent significantly more time social networking, than those who did not. There are some people who think that checking someone's Facebook update is more important than doing a job, or that the job is not very important. What they fail to understand, is that if they are slacking there is somebody who has to carry their weight. Procrastination, slacking, distractions, or anything else that you want to call it, it is all the same. Social networking good or bad, is going to be a topic of controversy until the next greatest fad comes in. People are going to do what they are going to do, and as much as we survey, analyze, and try to block social networking from the workplace, no matter what we do it will survive.

Bibliography

Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D., Tomas. "Cyber-distractions @ Work: How the Internet Makes Workers Happy." Cyber-distractions @ Work: How the Internet Makes Workers Happy. © Copyright 1991-2012 Sussex Publishers, LLC, 2 May 2011. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201105/cyber-distractions-work-how-the-internet-makes-workers-happy>.

Grove, Allen. "Facebook, Google and College Admissions." About.com College Admissions. About.com. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://collegeapps.about.com/od/theartofgettingaccepted/a/Facebook.htm>.

"New Statistics On Work Distractions | Facebook." New Statistics On Work Distractions | Facebook. STR8N UP Professional Organizing Services, 13 June 2011. Web. 10 May 2012. <http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150222993048329>.

Skinner, Carrie-Ann. "Twitter, Facebook Can Improve Work Productivity." Reviews and News on Tech Products, Software and Downloads. © 1998-2012, PCWorld Communications, Inc, 2 Apr. 2009. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/162478/twitter_facebook_can_improve_work_productivity.html>.

"Twitter and Facebook: Productivity or Distraction?" Social Media News, Strategy, Tools, and Techniques. Social Media Today LLC © 2012, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://socialmediatoday.com/index.php?q=SMC/184383>.

Van Grove, Jennifer. "Facebook Twice as Popular as Google in the Workplace [STATS]."Mashable Business. ©2005-2012 Mashable, Inc., 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 May 2012. <http://mashable.com/2010/04/16/facebook-at-work/>.

Whatever happened to modesty and personal respect of oneself?

Whatever happened to modesty and personal respect of oneself? "Sexting" really? I have heard of this before, so no it's not new to me, but the part that I find most disturbing is that "in 2009 one in twenty teens (5%)  have used their phones in this way"(Trenholm 304). That was three years ago, and according to internetsafty101.org in 2011 "20% of teens have sent or posted nude or semi-nude photographs or videos of themselves." I guess the term sex sells has taken on a whole new meaning. Despite the fact that it's illegal, it's disgusting. As a society are we so in the "now" moment, that there is no consideration for our future? Is the teenage population so insecure with themselves that they feel the need to send naked pictures of themselves out into the world? Again, according to internetsafty101.org "44% of teens say it is common for sexually suggestive text messages to get shared with people other than the intended recipient". That's almost half of the teenagers surveyed, who inadvertently said they know of or have shared a photo that they knew they should not have.  The statistics are there for everyone to find, but no one  wants to admit to their kid doing it. If we as parents think this is wrong, and morally mortifying, why do today's teens have a common acceptance of it? Is the ease of access to media single handedly changing societies ideas of what is morally ok? I have sooo many questions and fears on this topic. I know the idea of naked pictures seems erotic, but the repercussions 5, 10, 15 years from now will be detrimental to someone's life.    

in between hot and cool

I do agree with the statement 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" (Trenholm 291). If a message is only sent through the written word of newspapers, there is an entire demographic who will never know about the message. I guess it would depend on the intended recipient of the message. I agree with the book when it said that children expect things quick, to the point, and without the fluff. There is no patience in the up and coming voters of the next generation. They want just the "important" facts, and they want it at their fingertips yesterday.

 I don't truly understand his hot/cool theory, and how it pertains to TV.   I do agree that the "hard-edge" people usually don't last on the TV very long, unless they are extremely good news anchors and their following is the same personality type. Those who have the flair for the dramatic do well with talk shows and day-time-TV programming. There is a news channel in the Sacramento area who attempts to tell the news with a light and dramatic flair; however, personally I can't watch it very often for the fact that there is too much drama to get through to get the "real" news. I guess I fall in the between section of the hot and cool.

Cyber is a TOOL to maintain relationships, not to be used exclusivly

I have not created any cyber space relationships. I do not see the need for them. I don’t do online chat boards, or random chat rooms. Well, I guess I do have a cyber space relationship with the students in this class, but with the whole anonymous feature of this blog spot, at the end of the semester I am sure these relationships will end.  I do have a few relationships that are mostly through Facebook, but they all started on a face to face basis, and over many years we have moved to different parts of the world and we use Facebook to keep in touch and share pictures of our families.  These relationships are not exclusive to the cyber world, we also use the phone, and if by chance we are in the local area of each other, we stop to say hi.

I have a niece who thinks cyber relationships are the best. She has “friends” all over the world, but last summer she went on a road trip and tried to see her “friends” and she found out she did not have the relationship she thought they had. Face to face they did not get along as well as they did online.

Just another reason to not waste my time.

To lead or to follow

I found the term “opinion leaders” to be very interesting. The author of our book writes “If opinion leaders can be persuaded that a proposed change is good, they can influence others in their networks.” To me this would be group think and in my opinion a bad way to get change to happen. Yes, I understand it’s a fact of life that there are leaders and followers, but I don’t have to like the fact that companies and organizations use this to their advantage, and not always for the best wellbeing of the employees or members. I would consider myself an opinion leader, and I always have been. My mom calls me “the rescuer” because I tend to be the person my friends go to for help, and I am usually willing to give my opinion lol. I am a leader, and although I can be flexible, I am going to make sure my opinion is offered before I concede.  I feel that is part of what makes me a good leader.

If you would not play/say it to your grandmother then it should not be publicized.

Cell phones are so common today that most 10 year olds have them. I run a business on my cell phone, and try to answer it in a manner that portrays such an environment. But, there are times I leave my phone in the house (not always on purpose) and my kids will answer it. Most of the time people understand, but sometimes it confuses potential clients and I have to explain that I am a mobile business and run the business off my personal cell phone. I do hate when people call me and then ask to put me on hold, I usually hang up.

Answering machines are almost as ancient at typewriters. I guess if you are referring to the now common system of “voicemail”, I don’t know about everyone else’s system, but I check mine regularly and I have never had any complaints about the machine cutting off messages.  I prefer messages that are direct and to the point, in a message I don’t need the commentary. “Leave your name, number (repeat at least once), and why you are calling”

I don’t do many conference calls, and when I do they are usually with my kids ;-). So I don’t have much to say about them. My biggest pet peeve is when people don’t speak loud enough for the microphone to pick up their voice and it sounds like a broken or scratched CD.

I have a fax machine, and I hate random faxes that waste my paper and ink to tell me about a random cruise line that I will never go on. I totally agree with the etiquette page when it says to call ahead and ask if it is ok to send the fax!

Timing is everything. Because my personal cell phone is also my business line, it is listed in the phonebook, on Google, and many other websites. I don’t mind calls that are legitimately urgent, but sales calls and telemarketing calls need to stay between 10:00am and 5:00pm, any later and they are twice as annoying. If you are calling for my business services I would say etiquette would be to only call between 8:00am and 6:30pm unless it is urgently important. I usually take the calls that come in later in the evening, but I end up not being able to give the caller my full attention, as I am getting dinner on the table and helping with homework, and my other evening family activities.

Screen names and ring tones are always entertaining on my end. Because I am an ordained Reverend and perform wedding ceremonies my normal screen name is Rev Katey or some variation of this. I have a twitter account, facebook account, and utilize them almost daily. I tell my brides and grooms to find my accounts to see pictures of my weddings and stuff, but sometimes I wonder when I get “friend requests” from “Johns Bit__” how serious these girls are about themselves or their potential mates. The latest fad is the ring back tones; these are sometimes offensive with bad words and crude language. I know they are popular, but I don’t want to hear it. This goes for ringtones too, I understand its fun to personalize your phone and set a ringtone to your favorite song, but be aware of who is around you. It goes along with the music in your car… If I wanted to hear your music, I would get in your car with you. I hate being stuck next to someone in a line, or at a stoplight, and having to listen to foul or crude language in the popular music of today.

Why join, why bother

Organizations are tied to the environment in more ways than one. Not only are there organizations dedicated to replacing and/or improving the environment, but there are many environmental impacts that some organizations make.

I go to Sierra College and our school has many environmental clubs who dedicate many hours to not only improving our school landscaping but also to making the school process a positive environment to learn in. The smaller clubs within the school are like children to their parents. The school wants to make sure their students feel like they belong there, and are successful. People feel successful when they have a sense of belonging. Sierra College has many partnerships within the community to help students get jobs close to school, and a career center on campus to make access to those job postings easily accessible to students. The sports program relies on community support to purchase tickets, and concessions to help funding the sports clubs.  Although I have some reservations with the issue of schools teaching morals to students, the school has the unwritten obligation to produce “pillars of the community”. I personally think morals should be taught to kids by their parents many years prior to children attending school, but I know unfortunately some children are not fortunate enough to have the opportunity to learn morals in their home.

There are some organizations that advocate teaching morals to young people such as the Cub Scouts and Girl Scouts with their motto of “Do your best” and “Be prepared”. A lot of church organizations and clubs make a point of teaching positive morals to young people.

People join clubs and organizations for many personals reasons. Some join for religious reasons, others for personal enjoyment, but as adults we tend to join clubs at are personal discretion.  

With this ring

The concept I found interesting is Intimacy Trophies. My husband and I have wedding bands, but rarely wear them. It’s not about the material things, it’s about the love and respect we share. I sometimes wear his jacket, but not as a symbol of anything, but because it was probably easier to get to, and I was too lazy to go get my jacket. It’s all about the trust. We have one rule “don’t cheat”. It’s not a hard rule to live by, but knowing we trust each other makes it easier. We don’t have a song, or restaurant, but we do have our memories. I watch my parent’s generation who cling onto material things, you would never catch my parents without their wedding bands, and then I’ve noticed the latest trend if getting tattoo rings vs. the traditional gold wedding bands. The ideas of intimacy trophies changes over the years, but in the end it’s all about the trust that you and your partner have.

Treat those around you as you would want to be treated

I think a complementary pattern would be the hardest to change. There is a circle to life and I know my grandmother HATES the idea of having to move out of her house and in with my parents or one of us grandchildren. The idea that she would have to let one of us take care of her like a child mortifies her. When people take on a role and live it for an extended period of time, changing roles is difficult. Humans are creatures of habit, and although habits can be changed, we have to work very hard to change them.

I think the complementary would be the worst for a romantic relationship, or any friendship relationship. Relationships are about compromise and sharing. If one person was in the one-up position in a friendship it would not be a true friendship. If the person in the one-up position did not belittle the other person I don’t think there is a self esteem problem; however, if the person in the one-up position took advantage of the situation, and treated the person in the one-down position as less then they deserved, then yes, it could be potentially damaging to ones self-esteem.

once upon a time

When I was single (Yes I can remember that far back lol) I was looking for stability. The good looking cocky guys were fun to party with, but when it came down to it, it was all about the stability and respect. I will tell the story of the night I fell in love with my husband. I had gone on a road trip with my best friend to visit her boyfriend in Utah. One night we went dancing with some of his buddies, and to be honest I was WAY TOO intoxicated for my own good.  A friend and one of his buddies drove me back to my hotel and walked me to my room. Knowing that my best friend was staying with her boyfriend, and I would be alone, the buddy politely asked if he could sleep on the couch and make sure I was ok. The entire night he laid next to me and held my hand while we talked, he never once made an inappropriate move. He knew I was drunk and showed complete respect and restraint. The next day all I could think about was the respect he had for me. We spent the rest of the weekend hanging out and talking, and he opened every door for me, while the only move he made all weekend was holding my hand. When it was time to go, I was hooked, but had to return to work and the real world. Six weeks later we eloped, and have been happily married ever since.

To me the unattractive people are the ones who think they are better than everyone else. If you can’t be nice to everyone, that is ugly. I try to be nice to everyone, and treat everyone with respect until they prove to me that they don’t deserve my respect. Once the respect is lost, I’m not sure I ever truly give it back. Yes, Duck’s theory makes since to me. Even in my friendship choices I try to give everyone the benefit of a positive outlook, but it usually only takes a few minutes for me to decide if the person is honest or full of poopoo. Once I make a decision, it is rare for me to change my mind.

Click, click, click... what is your cultural background

For me the concept of intercultural communication was very interesting. I grew up in the beyond small town of Westhaven Ca., where most of the kids I grew up with were all the same as me… white, middle class, and appeared overall happy. To me we were all from the same culture and our parents seemed to be about the same. It wasn't until I moved to Auburn that I was introduced to the cultural world of clicks. I was the new kid and from the “back woods”. When I moved here in 1986 Auburn was probably half the size it is now, and I thought it was a huge city. On the first day of school I went up to a little girl and tried to say hello, she stuck her nose up at me and said I dressed weird. I will never forget the feeling of being the outcast.  We moved again 8 months later to Applegate, and my parents gave me the choice of staying at my current school or changing to the school in the new area and it took me less than 2 seconds to decide I wanted a new school, that I was tired of being the “weird” kid. The interesting thing was that at the new school, I wasn't the weird kid. Again, I was just like everyone else. I made friends with people that to this day we still talk, and hang out. Funny how a little thing like clothing can make or break the idea of clicks for a child. It wasn't race or religion, it was the fact that I liked to wear boy’s pants and climbed trees, and played outside. The way we define culture is personal, and unless we teach our kids acceptance it will never end.

revenge of the clones

I do agree with Ruth Benedict's that we are" creatures of culture". In America we are brought up to be independent, and self-reliant, but in many other cultures children are brought up knowing that the family will rely on them one day in the family unit is interdependent. Our beliefs are completely cultural. In the United States the majority of people are brought up with "Christian beliefs". Our morals and values are based on our religion, history, and upbringing. In other countries their beliefs are based on their history, beliefs, and upbringing; however, they are different from ours. Here's a simple example: Americans think sex and the body are private matters to only be discussed in particular settings, however in Europe sex and the body are celebrated, and discussed openly in public without hesitation. This is a cultural example based on location.

I think that being open-minded, and exploring other cultures, will help us to intermingle multiple ideas, and understand the differences within cultures. The United States is a multicultural country, with multi-religions, multi-ethnicities, and multiple beliefs trying to get along and live together. Although we are much more liberal when it comes to accepting other cultures, there are still the close minded and discontent who think we should all be clones, and those who don't want to join the clone culture should leave.

The good, the bad, and the incorrigible

Trenholm (2011) defines the premises as: “the rationality premise – the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis. The perfectibility premise is based on the old Puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. Finally, the mutability premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and that the way to improve humans is to improve their physical and psychological circumstances” (p. 334).

 I do not believe in the total concept of the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises, but I do think that parts of them are important in American culture.

The rationality premise is based on the idea that most people can use logic to find the truth; however, I think that there are some people in America who just don't have the thinking power to be that logical. I have seen lots of people out there who do not make good decisions. Also, there is no one truth to most situations. People have different perspectives of the same situation and make different decisions based on those perspectives. However, I do think that the American culture is built on the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to provide for themselves; after all, that is the American dream...right?
The perfectibility premise is based on the idea that people are born in sin, but can overcome it through hard work and self-control. I do not believe that people are born in sin or that proclaiming control over basic human nature is necessary to achieve good. I do believe that acceptable cultural and moral behavior needs to be learned. Also, hard work and individual achievement are big parts of American culture (otherwise we would all be rich and famous, and there would be no one to brag that point to). Individuals are expected to work hard and take advantage of the opportunity and freedom provided in America, the outcomes will vary based on the path people choose.

The mutability premise is that humans can be improved through their environment. I think this is generally true; but, I also believe it has to be willed by the person. I live in Auburn, I like to believe that it is a generally  good town. There are people that are brought here for their own personal reasons, who are not as "good" as society thinks they should be, but when put into a good situation, they do not always change their outlook on life, or their moral beliefs. Just because "bad" people are intermingled with "good" people does not mean the "bad" will turn good. 

Too hot, Too cold, Just right

I never really thought about it before, but I guess Temperature does have an effect on communication.  If I am hot and don’t want to be somewhere I tend to listen and/or pay attention less. For instance when we are at the fair and all the venders are trying to get our attention and sell stuff the last thing I want to do is stop in the heat and listen to someone talk about something I am not going to buy in the first place. In the same aspect if it’s cold and all I can think about is getting home to my fireplace and cozy blanket, I am not giving my full attention the teacher giving the lecture, or the friend at school who wants to stop and chat for a moment.  I wouldn't think about temperature as a tension to contend with, but I think the book is right, and it is a distraction and can cause irritability. We all have our vices and comforts, and even if we don’t realize it, temperature is one of them. 

"Shaka bra"

I can’t think of any nonverbal gesture that is one way here in California, but different on the East coast. I know there are plenty of verbal sayings that are different, but I think within the U.S. most gestures are the same. I know culturally there are differences within the U.S. but only because people from other countries bring their cultures and mannerisms with them. I was reading that a simple thumb up signifying a positive gesture here in the U.S. is offensive in the Middle East, and the simple head nod could mean “up yours” if you were in some Asian countries.  When we lived in Hawaii the locals use the Shaka sign, the unmistakable pinky and thumb salute, as the ultimate symbol of aloha and local culture in Hawaii. Interpreted to mean “hang loose” or “right on,” the Shaka is a constant reminder that in Hawaii, it is not the norm to worry or rush. The Shaka sign represents the embodiment of “island style.” It signals that everything is alright. Although there are a lot of people here in the lower U.S. that uses the Shaka sign, there is a cultural difference within the U.S.  Sometimes simple gestures that have been around a long time, tend to be forgotten as originating from a certain area or culture, and now are the norm so no one thinks any differences from them. 

I think I said... But what I meant was...

I am not sure I have necessarily misinterpreted a nonverbal communication, but there are sarcastic and condescending non-verbal communications that are easily misinterpreted. My husband is famous around our house for being a smart butt, and I am famous for being too literal and not getting his sarcasms. The problem is that in order to tell if he is being sarcastic most of the time I need to see his facial expressions. I find it humorous that most of the time I don’t think his humor is funny. I guess if people were more intuitive and better listeners they could increase the accuracy with which they interrupt nonverbal messages. I, however, think that if the sender was a little clearer, and the receiver paid a little better attention and they met in the middle the world may be a little better place. Sometimes, it’s just a matter of patience and taking a moment to appreciate the people around us. 

In the classroom

I have been on both sides of the classroom. I have been a substitute teacher, and of course a student. The classroom interaction is a very interesting. It does change from grade to grade though. Usually the younger kids have the instilled manors and still use the polite terms of “yes mam, and no sir”.  As kids get older the respect tends to disappear and the want to learn goes with it. By the time a person gets to the end of high school they can usually see a light at the end of the tunnel, and they either try hard or work hard, or they don’t care anymore. The college scene is so different. Many of the people in college have a goal and want to be there. I have noticed that a lot of the students treat the staff with the same teacher respect; however, there are some who think they are pears with the teachers and some of the things that are said to them, in my opinion, are completely inappropriate. 

Judgie McJudgerton, from Judgesterville

Yes, it is possible to perceive others without judging them, but it is a very rare quality to have.  Most people make judgments within seconds of meeting a person, or even talking on the phone with them.  I have lived in many different states and all over the world, and when I live in a place long enough, I tend to pick up the mannerisms of the local people.  For instance when I lived in Georgia, I picked up a southern accent, but when I came back to California on vacation and was introduced to new people, I was perceived as uneducated solely on my accent.  Or here’s another one… I am a ranch girl, grew up on a ranch, drive a large truck, have horses, pigs, sheep, goats, etc., and because of this I get the stereo type of “stupid hick”. It doesn't matter that it takes a lot of work to run a ranch, or that they may not know me, but people like to judge, it’s our culture.

I think it’s a matter of teaching our children not to be judgmental.  For a lot of us it’s too late, we already have the bad habit, but we can teach the young.  I am sure I am not the best example, as I have been judged a lot, and even now I tend to judge people and places regularly, but I hope I can instill the patience in my children not to be as judgmental as I am, and maybe as the generations go on, it can get better.

We all translate differently...

2). Do you agree that men and women use language differently?  In what areas?  Discuss this in detail.

Yes, I do believe men and women use language differently.  Men say what they mean and mean what they say; while women tend to fluff things up, and think about what they say before they say it. There is also a tone in a woman’s voice that makes her voice comforting and sympathetic, while most men’s voices are gruff and stern.

When my husband and I are talking to people we can say close to the same thing to the same person, but if it’s a male person they tend to understand him better, and if it’s a woman they tend to understand me better.  It’s all in the delivery of what it said. My husband always says that I take too long to tell a story, yet when telling the same story to my friends the girls want all the details. There are so many differences in the way we communicate, that there are books upon books on the subject. 

The bottom line is most men like the short, sweet, and to the point version of whatever it is being discussed to make a logical decision; while, most women want details so they can make a logical/ emotional decision with that “I feel good about this decision” feeling in their gut. Our brains understand things differently, and one way is no more right than the other, just different. 

The Great and Powerful OZ

Public Speaking is a gift and power in one, kind of like a superpower of a superhero. Even if all we do is write our opinion down on a blog, if we can be inspirational for a good cause, it’s all worth it! Everyone can post on YouTube, and become a public speaker, it only matters what you do with this power. The written word, is the power, and when spoken becomes the “great and powerful OZ”.

Some people think that it’s only the political people who have influence, but it’s not only them. How many of us remember a “lecture” given to us by our parents, grandparents, and when we got bigger our teachers, and close friends who knew when we were being self destructive.  Those “speeches” were just as influential as the big ones on TV, or radio but by not as famous people. Be the one to be supportive and help your friends make good decisions.

The Way we speak

So I Googled well-known and inspirational speakers just to be sure I haven't forgotten anybody and I found something interesting. I found that the top 100 inspirational speeches were all given by either presidents, vice presidents, or other highly influential political people. I find it completely entertaining that according to American Rhetoric the top 100 speeches are all political. I am not a very political person, and I would rather do just about anything instead of listening to a political speech. According to the Premiere Speakers Bureau, the top 10 famous speakers are all "famous" people who speak about either fitness, health related success, or making money. Why is it that when I went to look for and inspirational speaker or at least a speaker who does not put me to sleep, I find speakers who want to tell me how to "better myself", "make money", or "get healthy"? Are there no speakers who, want to tell the truth, and entertain at the same time? Honestly, the speakers that I like, are the ones who tell things like they are, and don't use a lot of  large words, I would require a dictionary to understand. I don't know if he would be considered a well-known speaker, but I really like to listen to poetry by Taylor Mali. He is an elementary school teacher, who does poetry. He tells his stories, and at the very least appears to be honest.  Yes, he is on the better side of the cuteness scale, but his tone of voice is what hooks me.  Most of his poetry is about teaching, so the fact that he is a teacher gives him that credibility. Mostly what I like is his way to grab the audience and make us all feel like we are parents of his students, or teachers in the break room chattin' it up, and he is telling it like it is! To me his Ethos is his honesty.

Pride, Knowledge and Honesty

There is a "story teller" on TED TV called ChiAmandaAdichie. She is from Nigeria, and she tells the story "The Danger of the Single Story".  It is taped in July 2009. She does not claim to be great, or over confident, she just tells her story, and that's what I like about her.  When I took an English class in the summer of 2011 my fabulous instructor gave us the link to this speech. I had never really thought about how I wrote, or what influenced me when I wrote, but the way this woman speaks with passion and dedication, I can only hope to speak this well the public setting. I also like Alix Olson: "America's On Sale" and Def Poetry - Taylor Mali - "What Teachers Make" or "Totally like whatever, you know" (you can find these on YouTube!).  The thing that these speakers all have in common is confidence. They can walk out on stage, and within 5 seconds analyze the crowd, and produce their speech in a way that radiates a welcoming, and confident tone in their voice. These speakers left an imprint with me deep enough they and their 5 to 10 min. video clips I have remembered them to this day. I don't really remember the worst speaker never heard, probably because they weren't worth remembering. The speaker has to be confident, without being arrogant and standoffish. They have to be knowledgeable, believable, and have a sense of pride to be truthful.

It's a small world after all

Even in a social constructionist environment words for objects are built through the finders/inventors selfishness and need for recognition, or complete non-understanding of the language to misinterpret a word. Words are then transferred from word dialect to word dialect and interpreted into language. Even within the United States there are several subcultures call the same item by different names. For instance in southern states such as Georgia and Louisiana what Californians would call a shopping cart they referred to as a buggy, or maybe a better description would be here in California a can of Mountain Dew is referred to as a "soda", but in most southern states it would be referred to as a "pop". That doesn't mean either one is right or wrong, it just means that different cultures referred to different items in different ways. We talked about videogames in everyday conversation and use words that in cultures without the influence of media and video games would not even exist. Even between slightly similar modern cultures things that we talked about here may be considered taboo in other cultures, and vice versa here. Just because we sometimes forget how big the world truly is, doesn't mean that's not a small world after all.

Do you expect a payoff?

Payoffs, we are all in for the payoffs. How is it that we as a society think that whatever we do needs to have a payoff at the end. Okay so maybe it's not necessarily a monetary form, but how many people do you know spend the time and energy on a situation without getting some form of pay off. It may be recognition, a promotion, an award, or flat-out fame. Humans as a species are selfish creatures. There are very few out there who will say something or do something without subconsciously thinking "what's in it for me". When the book refers to payoffs under patterned communication I was intrigued. It was almost like validation for a comment I already knew the answer to. The book is right, communication is like a game. If there wasn't a way to better the game, nobody would want to play. This is why there is an, employment field, and educational institutions completely dedicated to communications. Ironically both of those have natural payoffs.

It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt

Saying that the pragmatic perspective makes sense is a totally opinionated viewpoint. History is been proven to repeat itself over and over again and therefore we tend to repeat ourselves and our behaviors over and over again. I believe that humans are creatures of habit, and with habits come patterned interactions. So to me, yes, it does make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction. If you think of communication like a game of soccer; the ball is the words, and the players are having communications. They communicate verbally as well as nonverbally with each other, but also with the environment around them. If the team communicates effectively they win, if not well we get picture. Communication is different from a game, because at the end of the day words have been said, gestures given, and posture received; but, none of it can be erased. There are no "do overs" once something has been said it cannot be retracted, or forgotten. 

Source Credibility

In this week’s reading it talks about “Communication Today: Contemporary Departments of Rhetoric and Communication Theory”.  This section was interesting to me as a whole.  There were not many key terms within this reading, but the one that stuck out the most to me was source credibility. Source credibility is the extent to which a communicator is considered believable and competent (Trenholm 11).  There are many things in life that catch our attention, a pretty girl walking down the street, a buff guy on a construction site, even a cute child playing in the park, but as soon as any of those people said a statement that the listener deemed to be untrue, or non-credible the listener would tune them out. The extent to which we pay attention to a speaker almost always depends on how believable they are and how much research we, as a listener, believe them to have done prior to the conversation or speech.  If an orator sited a doctor in a research study, the audience would probably count that as a credible source, but if the same orator sited the same doctor for a speech on how to build a playground, the source would no longer be credible.  It all depends on speech content as to what would be credible source. "We sit silently and watch the world around us. This has taken a lifetime to learn. It seems only the old are able to sit next to one another and not say anything and still feel content. The young, brash and impatient, must always break the silence. It is a waste, for silence is pure. Silence is holy. It draws people together because only those who are comfortable with each other can sit without speaking. This is the great paradox."
— Nicholas Sparks (The Notebook)

Favorite Speaker

I think my favorite speakers are comedians like, Jeff Foxworthy, Larry The Cable Guy, and Bill Engvall.  Yes, I know they do not always grasp the sophisticated ideals of an orator, but they speak and tell stories with a confidence and demeanor that radiates from them. The stories they tell, may not be true, but have some truth behind them.  It's all about the confidence. I feel that they feed off the atmosphere of the audience. They are not necessarily going for a Logos, or Ethos feeling, but more of Pathos. I feel that I am an "ok" speaker. I try to speak with confidence and portray truth in what I say.  In my mind I am a believable and honorable person, and I would hope that when I speak, people feel I am believable and trustworthy.  I can’t imagine going up and giving a speech or presentation and walking away with the feeling that the audience was disappointed or that they that the audience distrusted me. I am a very logical thinker, and therefore I tend to give presentations that are logically based.

Morality Vs. Speakers

Although I would like to think that if someone is speaking to the public in an open forum, that they are morally good, and ethically sound, but I know this is just not true in all forums.   I think there are people in the world (mostly politicians) who need to be condemned to caves, or other locations that seclude them from the general public. I understand the 1st Amendment right to free speech, but if the only thing that comes out of the speakers mouth is horse pucky and garbage than what's the point.  I think that there are plenty of orators out there in the world trying to make the world a better place that the ones that are out there to fill people's heads with rubbish need to be silenced. 

I also believe that for a person to be able to make a reasonable and rational decision they need to be educated on a subject in a truthful manor; not a one sided, half truth, emotionally heart wrenching, but probably believable as the whole story, education.  If a speaker is confident and quick on their feet with the "right" answer, it is not that hard to fool an uneducated person. 

So, morally good is in the eye of the audience.  I can hope for this to be a fact, but unfortunately I know it to be false. In today's society all that one needs to be an orator is a "believable" story and enough uneducated people backing them to convince others that the orators "story" is true.   

Introduction

Hello,
My name is Katey. I am an Army wife, mother, wedding officiant, notary public, carriage driver, student... the list goes on! I have been a continuing student at Sierra College since the Summer of 2010, and will be graduating in December with my Associates Degree in Communications. My plans are to transfer to Sacramento State in the Spring of 2013.  I am looking forward to my last semester at Sierra and meeting all the new people who will influence my life.