Observing Communication

Figure 2.4 on page 37 contains elements I would have never thought to look for in communication. Before this class I didn't give conversations, emails, and other type of communication forms any thought about how complex they can actually be. When I was looking over this figure I was intrigued by S.P.E.A.K.I.N.G
which is all of the elements contained in communication. The S and the P made sense to me, what the situation was and where the interaction was and who were the participants. the E which is for ENDS was a little more unusual. It states that the ends is for the goals and the outcomes of the interaction, well for me I never thought of a goal on what I wanted out of a conversation. Thinking about it now it makes more senses.

People talk about making plans, the ultimate goal is the when and where they plans are to be held. That was the total goal and the point of the conversation.

Coaches talking to their team before a game, the goal there is to pump them up and explain what needs to be done.

I never noticed how a lot of conversations have an ultimate goal. This was a good figure to really look at.

Games and communication

Thinking of the pragmatic perspective believing communication is a patterned interaction makes sense to me. When someone walks in a person already there says hello, then the response could be hey how are you, and so on. This way of communication happens daily which creates a communication pattern. Each time someone new walks up the first words spoken are almost always hey how are you, or words with the same feeling. Greetings are made of patterns.


Communication being compared to playing a game also makes sense. Some games require more than ones person, just like communication. One person makes a move then the next person gets to go. In a conversation or communication through email, one person always starts off and when the time is right the other person will jump in with a comment or reply to the email.


It is different from a games because the games which go person A then person B then person A then person B are not the only games available. Sports do not follow this particular pattern, in water polo it is not one person shoots then we all wait our turn. We fight the whole game for the ball, if that were to be communication it would be considered as yelling or interrupting everyone. Not all games follow the neat pattern which is how communication can differ from games.

Performance studies

I found the section on performance studies to be interesting. What text says is true, we perform everyday. I never realized how much we as people actually perform until I read this section. We perform when we tell a story of something funny that happened at the store.

For some, performing can help relate to the subject better. Those who perform in rituals are learning more about their ancestry. Performance can also help remember an important time in history, it can be difficult to remember facts from a book, but when a student becomes part of those words and reenact it, this can help them remember it much more clearly. Performance can help boring things comes alive which is how some people prefer to learn. Performing is also an activity, a great example is the Olympics going on right now in London. So many athletes are performing because that is what they love to do.

I did not realize that performing was more than acting on a stage, it is all around us and we take part of a performance everyday whether we realize it or not.

Research methods

Which of the research methods listed in Table 13.3 seem the most interesting?  Assume you want to study some aspect of deception.  Frame a research questions.  Which method would you choose to answer the question?  Why?

Out of all of the many research methods I find ethnography do be the most interesting. There is so many different ways to observe a group. I do not like the going undercover one, but that is not the only option. If i were to choose to do a research on a group of people I would like to fully emerge myself into that group and ask questions and feel what it is really like to be part of that specific group. 

What are the two main reasons other than sickness and old age which causes the death of dogs?

To answer this question I would choose to use the mixed method research method. I would be able to send out surveys asking what people think to see how accurate it is to the answer. I could volunteer at shelters where a lot of unhealthy dogs go in. I think when it comes to researching a question, it is best to use more than one method to get the best answer possible.

What is morally wrong?

What are some of the moral dilemmas that face ethnographers?  How would you resolve them?

Ethnographers could face moral dilemmas since they observe with a scientific mind rather than look at the personal side. Many different cultures and people could feel offended by this. Too be watched in their natural way of life like they are a science experiment could possibly offend them. Where do ethnographers draw the line? Do they insist on observing everything including sacred religious acts?

Other problems could be like the book mentions, lying to the people. This would happen if they choose to take a covert role on. Where they are going undercover as if they were really interested in the group. This for instance would be morally hard for a person to face. They are getting to know the people and are leading them and and lying to everyone involved. This could cause some problems amongst everyone.

If i were to be an ethnographer I would not choose this role because it is morally wrong by  being very dishonest.

I think the best role to and morally right would be to work with an informant. This will allow people are willing to be interviewed and share their experience. Those who wish to keep their privacy will not have to interact and this would be the best decision for everyone.

Workplace relationships

I found the entire section on promoting professionalism in workplace relationships to be interesting.
The text reads like it is meant for certain types of jobs and does not apply to all. For instance, the book states, "we certainly are not paid to have fun and hang out" (221). Has anybody heard the phrase if you love what you do then you will never work a day in your life? If we love our job then what we do is considered to be fun. If we love what we do and enjoy working, then the odds are people are going to build personal relationships within a company. Employees can surely act professional while having fun and working with friends. The jobs the book is describing sounds like it would be careers that are in cubicles all day with little interaction. What about coaching jobs? teaching jobs? fashion? Doctors, they work under stress everyday, I am sure they would like to know the people they are surrounded by all day have a semi personal relationship and they can trust one another.

 I found this section to be a good read, yet a  little outdated. I am not sure if anyone else thought this.

TV is cool

In a way I do agree with Marshall McLuhand that the format of a message is also  important as well as the content and will determine what type of content will be broadcasted.

For example, the save the poor animals that were once abused commercials. That commercial would not get so many people to shed a tear every time it is shown if it was not on the television. The company is using the idea that television is a visual and audible medium to show the viewers the sad abused animals to gain sympathy and prove a point. Along with showing the clips, the right music is played and the right spokesperson is hired. Through radio, you would not see the clips and proof of a poor animal. Through newspaper you would not get the same feeling of the sullen music and spokesperson begging for help.
This message was chosen just for television.

Television is a very cool medium. It offers the ability to view from the privacy of ones own home in a very comfortable and relaxed state. It offers a variety of content. There is the news to keep people updated on whats going on, there are the many games shows, teen dramas, family shows, older comedy shows, even channels based just for kids. The television has something for everything which unlike the radio, and  newspaper.

cyberspace friends

I cannot say I have a friendship which is only on the web. For me, I feel it takes away from human companionship. I do not spend enough time online to have a friendship last. I would much rather go out with a buddy and play pool, grab a beer, and hang out. With a friend online there would be no activities. I would find it hard to maintain a friendship when all we do is sit by a computer and talk. Personally for me this type of friendship is not my ideal way have having friends.

I do however understand why some people like having online friends. It is a way to meet people from all over the world. They can teach each other new things about where they live. With friends online it can be easier for some to talk about personal problems. When you don’t actually speak it can be easier to get your thoughts out. There is no pressure to hang out all the time, when each person is free and has nothing to do, talking can be the perfect thing to fill the time up.

Relationhip filter cues

When looking for a romantic partner the things I find unattractive is when a girl has poor hygiene. I feel a woman should take good care of herself and be clean. Bad manners also are a no go as well as if they treat others with disrespect.

There has been a time when I almost allowed a sociological cue to stop a relationship from going any farther. It was with my current girlfriend of 2.5 years. I met her we became good friends and stayed that way for the first semester of school. When it started to turn into something more we were both hesitant because she is from here and I am from Puerto Rico where I go during summer and Christmas breaks. I also traveled a lot at the time and I did not want to hurt her by always having to leave. Luckily because of interaction and cognitive cues we decided to give it a shot and have been together ever since. To me, distance was  not going to be a thing to end a relationship, I see it as being the tip of the iceberg and could only add to reasons of not being together. There is so many more important things I look for in a relationship. Distance is not the ideal way to go but it is and always will be worth a shot of the woman is right.

I almost agree with duck theories 100%. If it were to be change where the preinteraction cue is before sociological cue then it would be work for me. I think physical beauty, nonverbal behavior, and quirks of a person is harder to get past than the distance or how often two people are able to be together. The rest of the order I do agree with.

This was a very interesting theory to read about.

Relationship Dynamics

Out of rigid complimentary, competitive symmetry, and submissive symmetry I would find competitive symmetry to be the one that is most damaging to a relationship and rigid complimentary to be both the most difficult to change and potentially most damaging to the self esteem of an individual.

In my opinion a relationship works when both partners are supportive and encourage each other at everything they do. If both partners are trying to out due one another and see who can be the more dominant person, it will lead to fight after fight after fight. How can a relationship work when neither person will be supportive of an accomplishment made by their partner or share in household duties or see each other as equal? The only way this type of relationship can work in my opinion is if both partners are athletes and they work with the competitive side to make each other a better athlete. A competitive side towards a personal life and relationship does not make sense. 

Unless the rigid complimentary relationship is between a child and an adult, I can see it being hard to change. This seems like it would be due to someone having a very strong personality and they walk all over a friend or partner with a very weak and subtle personality. It is hard to change a persons character, so how can this type of relationship dynamic be changed? The stronger one could try to step back and let the other person make decision, while the whole time it is eating at them to make a quick decision. Weak personalities do not always like the pressure to be put on them and go with the flow. It is a relationship which can be dealt with if each person it okay with the dynamic. If one person is not okay, then that person can have a very low self esteem. This could be because they are always being told what to do and never having a say, or having a say and it being turned down. Relationships can always be challenging but if each person understands and agrees with how their dynamic works, then it can be okay.

Group Roles

Being in school and having to work on projects or labs in groups was always one of my favorite and least favorite part of the classes. If you get in a group which functions well together, the work gets done which usually results in a good grade. If you end up in a group where everyone has no idea whats going on or does  not even care about the project, the whole group will get a lower grade.

The 7.4 table does a great job at covering the roles group members play. My role in a group usually changes depends on the class subject. In science classes when we are grouped together for labs, I am always the initiator-contributor of the group. I am always the one who gets the group moving and suggests ways to go about the lab assigned. Actually, this past semester I played multiple roles in the group. I was also the energizer, elaborator, and occasionally an encourager. Science has always been one of my stronger subjects so i felt confident when playing these roles in the group. However, unfortunately in other classes I was not always playing these roles in the group. I would usually take on roles which were less noticeable and just hung out in the background. Such as, a recorder and group observer. Even more, in groups which were not school related I would usually play the negative role as joker or clown.

I feel everyone can find a role to play in a group and there will always be the joker of the group, the dominator who never lets anyone else express their opinions and ideas. I feel this section really helped me learn the different roles in groups which i had never known about.

Rationality, perfectibility, mutability

Do I believe in the rationality premise?

I do not believe in this idea. It would be nice if everyone was able to make logical decisions in life. If we lived in a perfect world, I am sure this would be the case, but we do not.  It is not logical to rob a bank. It is not logical to drink and drive putting your own life and other lives in danger and it is not logical to drive while talking on a cell phone. This law has been in effect for some time, but still so many people still talk or text while driving. It is naïve to think that the average person can be trusted to make good decisions all the time.

Do I believe in the perfectibility premise?

I believe people can achieve goodness through effort and control. I am not sure I believe in humans are born in sin. I feel this is based on an individual’s religion and beliefs. With this said I am not the right person to make an opinion on that matter.

Do I believe in the mutability premise?

I do believe that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors. You grow up into what you see and know. If there are gangs all around an individual, older siblings were in gangs, friends are in gangs, it is highly likely the individual will grow into a gang. This can also be true about a positive environment.