Ahhh...Election
A time when nothing is new.
You always have those candidates sucking up and giving alms to the poor(mostly ordinary people that sells their votes).
You would again feel the excruciating pain seeing those advertisements, that are rather senseless or just plain boring.
I know i'm being mean and a bit boorish but....
I'm just so sick of it.
But its part of living really, might as well have to cope with it because i'll be voting soon, next year to be exact.
So, what I'm really going to talk about are the advertisements of those politicians.
According to Richard Petty and John Caciopo's “Elaboration Likelihood Model”, there are two paths to persuasion: the central path,which a rough patch of persuasion, and we also have the peripheral route,which a smoother ride of cognitive process.
Considering Miguel Zubiri's add campaign. He is aiming for a position in the senatorial line up right?
Well, his add leads you to the smooth path, which is the peripheral route.
According to the theory, peripheral route offers a shorthand way to accept or reject a message “without any active thinking about the attributes of the issue or the object of consideration.”(Griffin)
Zubiri actually used Willie's ever famous tune of “boom-tarat-tarat”, which appeals to many citizens. That's why Zubiri never escapes my mind, because the tune of boom-tarat-tarat in his name is kinda catchy. Actually that's all remember from his add. There's nothing really to it.
In the theory, central route on the other hand, involves message elaboration, and requires high levels of cognitive work.
Like Recto's add, he has many adds so it's really hard to distinguish which one involves a high level of cognitive work. But I think his add when he was talking about Charter Change. He made the people choose between “CHA-CHA” or “NO to CHA-CHA”. It does involves a lot of cognitive work.
I really can't remember all the contents in his add, probably because I was not drawn to his message or just that my mind doesn't like to do all that work.
Anyhow, whatever happens in the upcoming election, I know who I'm routing for, but not necessarily basing only on their adds. But I can't vote yet, so it's useless.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Message Sent
Father has always been working abroad, which made our relationship with him crumble.
When I was a child, I was very close to my father. He would call me his “baby” even though I'm not their youngest child. My younger sister on the other hand, was not that close to him, because they started in a rough patch. You see, when my sister was born my dad was in Saudi Arabia working. So when he came back two years later, my sister did not by any chance recognized her.
So, what has all this nostalgia got to do with Joseph Walther's Social Information Theory?
Well, recently my dad emailed my younger sister. The message contains information that may change their relation with each other, a major turning point of her life that even made tears fall from her eyes; and maybe it could also change for my older siblings and I.
The fact that the message the was emailed, it falls under the concerns of computer-mediated-communication which also falls under Joseph Walther's theory.
In his theory, physical context, facial expression, tone of voice, interpersonal distance, body position, appearance, gestures, touch and smell are all missing(Griffin), but he thinks the loss is not necessarily fatal or even injurious to a well-defined impression of the other or the relationship development that it triggers(Griffin)
I agree with Walther, because even if those those things were present, still it doesn't change our relationship with our father; it even made it worse. Because sometimes those factors could lead intimidation and anxiety, which made us fear him even more.
Although Walther's theory delve much more in chatting online in the internet with some random person, still I think it also fit even though the person you are sending emails to is the person you had known your whole life. That was the case with my sister and my dad.
The absence of verbal cues and nonverbal cues, wiped out the anxiety.
I'm glad that my dad encourage us to email him at time to time. Because even though he is not always physically present but at least we can see his words of love-through his emails.
When I was a child, I was very close to my father. He would call me his “baby” even though I'm not their youngest child. My younger sister on the other hand, was not that close to him, because they started in a rough patch. You see, when my sister was born my dad was in Saudi Arabia working. So when he came back two years later, my sister did not by any chance recognized her.
So, what has all this nostalgia got to do with Joseph Walther's Social Information Theory?
Well, recently my dad emailed my younger sister. The message contains information that may change their relation with each other, a major turning point of her life that even made tears fall from her eyes; and maybe it could also change for my older siblings and I.
The fact that the message the was emailed, it falls under the concerns of computer-mediated-communication which also falls under Joseph Walther's theory.
In his theory, physical context, facial expression, tone of voice, interpersonal distance, body position, appearance, gestures, touch and smell are all missing(Griffin), but he thinks the loss is not necessarily fatal or even injurious to a well-defined impression of the other or the relationship development that it triggers(Griffin)
I agree with Walther, because even if those those things were present, still it doesn't change our relationship with our father; it even made it worse. Because sometimes those factors could lead intimidation and anxiety, which made us fear him even more.
Although Walther's theory delve much more in chatting online in the internet with some random person, still I think it also fit even though the person you are sending emails to is the person you had known your whole life. That was the case with my sister and my dad.
The absence of verbal cues and nonverbal cues, wiped out the anxiety.
I'm glad that my dad encourage us to email him at time to time. Because even though he is not always physically present but at least we can see his words of love-through his emails.
Monday, March 19, 2007
JUSTIFICATION
Persuasion is indeed a troublesome task, with all the people getting wiser each day. Persuasion is best displayed in speeches, especially those that involve a highly significant subject.
I even have trouble writing a persuasive speech last semester that's why I just settled for an informative speech.
But actually it's not just about how you present your ideas but how well your audience can manage it.
According to griffin, the question really is...
How do you move an audience without changing your message or losing your integrity?
Aristotle has longed been faced with such a question, and he justified it in his theory.
His theory, Rhetoric, has threefold classification of speech situations according to the nature of the audience shows that he had affairs of state of mind. He calls this the Rhetorical Proof: logos, ethos, pathos(Griffin).
Aristotle's theory was exemplified in Bonifacio's speech, “Fight for Freedom and Honor”.
In Bonifacio's speech it follows the two forms of logical proof: the enthymeme and the example.
The first lines talks about the irony between the Filipino army and Spanish army. The
enthymeme was embedded within the texts but was not really mentioned in a particular part in the speech. But there was a major premise in the first part which is the irony of bravery between Spanish and Filipino armies.
Then it was followed by examples of a more specific event that justifies the major premise; which was the accounts of the Spaniards' cruelty and torture. It was express in a very reasonable manner.
In the last part it showed a realization of what values Filipino men should carry during battle. And they should be able to identify what they are fighting for.
Aside from logical proofs the speech also showed ethical proofs.
But the more conspicuous proof used in the speech was the emotional proof.
It was evident in Bonifacio's narration of the Spaniards' cruelty against Filipinos. Bonifacio described the Spaniards wayward use of power against defenseless citizens of the Philippines. Bonifacio was emphasizing that the Spaniards has done enough cruelty for them to endure. And enough for them to be motivated to fight for our country.
I particularly chose this speech because it has shown a unique sense of patriotism.
If I were to choose what theory is the best, it would be Aristotle's.
I even have trouble writing a persuasive speech last semester that's why I just settled for an informative speech.
But actually it's not just about how you present your ideas but how well your audience can manage it.
According to griffin, the question really is...
How do you move an audience without changing your message or losing your integrity?
Aristotle has longed been faced with such a question, and he justified it in his theory.
His theory, Rhetoric, has threefold classification of speech situations according to the nature of the audience shows that he had affairs of state of mind. He calls this the Rhetorical Proof: logos, ethos, pathos(Griffin).
Aristotle's theory was exemplified in Bonifacio's speech, “Fight for Freedom and Honor”.
In Bonifacio's speech it follows the two forms of logical proof: the enthymeme and the example.
The first lines talks about the irony between the Filipino army and Spanish army. The
enthymeme was embedded within the texts but was not really mentioned in a particular part in the speech. But there was a major premise in the first part which is the irony of bravery between Spanish and Filipino armies.
Then it was followed by examples of a more specific event that justifies the major premise; which was the accounts of the Spaniards' cruelty and torture. It was express in a very reasonable manner.
In the last part it showed a realization of what values Filipino men should carry during battle. And they should be able to identify what they are fighting for.
Aside from logical proofs the speech also showed ethical proofs.
But the more conspicuous proof used in the speech was the emotional proof.
It was evident in Bonifacio's narration of the Spaniards' cruelty against Filipinos. Bonifacio described the Spaniards wayward use of power against defenseless citizens of the Philippines. Bonifacio was emphasizing that the Spaniards has done enough cruelty for them to endure. And enough for them to be motivated to fight for our country.
I particularly chose this speech because it has shown a unique sense of patriotism.
If I were to choose what theory is the best, it would be Aristotle's.
THE SPEECH
Fight for Freedom and Honor
This address is also referred to as Bonifacio's proclamation in January 1897.
The valor that you have manifested in the fight against the Spanish enemy since the commencement of the revolution eminently proves that you are not disheartened by the signs of military preparations and imminent attacks by Polavieja's army which, in so short a time, has already shown sheer cowardice and slaves meanness of character in torturing and killing so many Filipino noncombatants. The burning of the children, the rape of the women whose honor and weakness were not even respected, the snuffing out of lives of the aged who could not move and of sucking infants-acts which would never have been done by honorable and brave men-call for immediate vengeance and punishment to the fullest extent.
In the fury of your struggle, some of you might die in the midst of battle, but this is an honor that will be a legacy to our race and to our progeny. Your death will infuse life into our country and will serve as a sweet remembrance to your sisters and brothers who will be left behind.
Bear in mind that the cause of our sacrifices is the realization of the dreamed-of liberty of our native land that will give us freedom and will vindicate the honor that, through slavery, was interred in the grave of incomparable oppression. Will you, perchance, be disheartened and your feeling visited by a sense of regret in dying for this cause?No! For there in your memory are painted the thousands upon thousands of lives snuffed out by the brutal hands of the Spaniards; the groans, the sighs and the sobs of those orphaned by cruelty; the picture of our brothers who were thrown into the horrible jails and suffering untold miseries; the interminable flow of the tears of those who were snatched form the sides of their children, wives, and aged parents by being exiled to far-off places; and the unjust murder of our beloved countrymen, Jose Rizal, have already opened a wound in our hearts that will never be healed. All this sufficient to set even the coldest blood afire and to launch us into a struggle against ignoble Spaniards who have caused us all these miseries and death.
And so, my brethren, prepare yourselves for the fight and rest assured that victory will be ours, for righteousness and the sanctity of duty are on our side. The enemy, that execrable foreigner who happened to come to these shores, is fighting only to victimize and dominate us in this our land.
In all this, and in order that the sacredness and honor of our country be made complete, in order that the whole world might witness the nobility of our character, let us not emulate our enemy in this detestable conduct of the war; let us not go to battle merely in the interest of killing, but rather in defense of the liberty of our country, and thus fighting cry out at the top of our voices: Mabuhay! LONG LIVE THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES!
(40 ELOCUTION PIECES FOR SPEECH TRAINING)
This address is also referred to as Bonifacio's proclamation in January 1897.
The valor that you have manifested in the fight against the Spanish enemy since the commencement of the revolution eminently proves that you are not disheartened by the signs of military preparations and imminent attacks by Polavieja's army which, in so short a time, has already shown sheer cowardice and slaves meanness of character in torturing and killing so many Filipino noncombatants. The burning of the children, the rape of the women whose honor and weakness were not even respected, the snuffing out of lives of the aged who could not move and of sucking infants-acts which would never have been done by honorable and brave men-call for immediate vengeance and punishment to the fullest extent.
In the fury of your struggle, some of you might die in the midst of battle, but this is an honor that will be a legacy to our race and to our progeny. Your death will infuse life into our country and will serve as a sweet remembrance to your sisters and brothers who will be left behind.
Bear in mind that the cause of our sacrifices is the realization of the dreamed-of liberty of our native land that will give us freedom and will vindicate the honor that, through slavery, was interred in the grave of incomparable oppression. Will you, perchance, be disheartened and your feeling visited by a sense of regret in dying for this cause?No! For there in your memory are painted the thousands upon thousands of lives snuffed out by the brutal hands of the Spaniards; the groans, the sighs and the sobs of those orphaned by cruelty; the picture of our brothers who were thrown into the horrible jails and suffering untold miseries; the interminable flow of the tears of those who were snatched form the sides of their children, wives, and aged parents by being exiled to far-off places; and the unjust murder of our beloved countrymen, Jose Rizal, have already opened a wound in our hearts that will never be healed. All this sufficient to set even the coldest blood afire and to launch us into a struggle against ignoble Spaniards who have caused us all these miseries and death.
And so, my brethren, prepare yourselves for the fight and rest assured that victory will be ours, for righteousness and the sanctity of duty are on our side. The enemy, that execrable foreigner who happened to come to these shores, is fighting only to victimize and dominate us in this our land.
In all this, and in order that the sacredness and honor of our country be made complete, in order that the whole world might witness the nobility of our character, let us not emulate our enemy in this detestable conduct of the war; let us not go to battle merely in the interest of killing, but rather in defense of the liberty of our country, and thus fighting cry out at the top of our voices: Mabuhay! LONG LIVE THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES!
(40 ELOCUTION PIECES FOR SPEECH TRAINING)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Purely Business
(the employee quietly enters the room wearing a beaming smile)
Excuse me Sir, Can I talk to you about something?
It's about work, and it will not take long.
Sir, you know that I have been working for this company for six months now. Although I am only working part time, still I have shown hard work and loyalty. There was never a task that you made me do that I haven't given my best, and I guess you bare witness to that. This place has helped me a lot in ways I couldn't even imagine. And I am really determined to contribute to this company, that I am willing to work overtime.
(pause)
I know you have a policy about promoting part time employees, and I greatly respect that. All I am asking is your kind consideration. Since I am working for my studies, I am asking for a fifty peso per hour raise and full health benefits. It will greatly help me and as well as my family. I hope that you will think about my proposal Sir. And thank you for lending your time .
(the employee exits the room)
Excuse me Sir, Can I talk to you about something?
It's about work, and it will not take long.
Sir, you know that I have been working for this company for six months now. Although I am only working part time, still I have shown hard work and loyalty. There was never a task that you made me do that I haven't given my best, and I guess you bare witness to that. This place has helped me a lot in ways I couldn't even imagine. And I am really determined to contribute to this company, that I am willing to work overtime.
(pause)
I know you have a policy about promoting part time employees, and I greatly respect that. All I am asking is your kind consideration. Since I am working for my studies, I am asking for a fifty peso per hour raise and full health benefits. It will greatly help me and as well as my family. I hope that you will think about my proposal Sir. And thank you for lending your time .
(the employee exits the room)
Monday, January 29, 2007
Hi's and Hello's
It's really hard for me to approach someone just to make friends. I'm really shy when it comes to people, even talking infront of them would give me the jitters. I don't come to people, I let them come to me. That might sound odd, and a bit egotistic but that's just me. So I would describe myself as a static person; just waiting for someone to come over me and he/she would be the one who initiates the first move. Pathetic right?
That's why it's hard for me to write this mini study about "Uncertainty Reduction Theory". It was even difficult for me to pick that one person that can serve as my specimen, my little white mice that I can easily manipulate(joke).No I'm not being mean, I just like associating it with scientific stuff.(hehehehehehe)
So, lets start talking about the said study that I conducted......
This particular person studies BA Communication Arts, like me. She is probably conducting the same study as me but atleast she wont know I'm conducting a study about her. Of course this person and I aren't that close. Our relationshp limits to simple "HI'S" and "HELLO'S". We do talk but not that often; the conversations we had happened by chance. Our conversations range from the dance practices that we have had down to our silly talks about our crushes. I don't know much about her but I do know she's nice and accomodating.
Now, the goal is to increase our closeness so that we would get to know each other a little bit better. So, my strategy is just to act natural, and not too lucid; I wouldn't want her to find out that i'm trying so hard. JUST BE NORMAL......
The study began when we finished our practice, that was last week, particulary friday. We were really hungry after that exhausting practice. I was planning to eat at the canteen so I invited her and some other friend. We were walking through the dark path when she suddenly squeaked. She told us that something had moved in the grass, I just giggled a little bit and thought that she was really getting hungry. So we walked as fast as we could and hurried into the canteen. We were about to order a meal when my other friend told us that he will just go to the comfort room but he said that he will be right back(he did not). So he left us there.......
At that time, we were so hungry that we ordered a bunch of food to fill us up until morning. We sat, placed our meals over our tables and began eating. Silence was evident in that table, it was probably the hunger that left us speechless. So our conversation began after our meal, which was not surprising at all. Our conversation have gone from our crushes(again) to my siblings;a topic which I don't share much about. She also shared lots of things about her highschool life, stuff that I could totally relate to. She also told me about her past relationships in highschool. I had found out so many things about her and she also did about me.....
I guess my strategy had worked right??????
So the next time we bumped into each other it's not probably just saying our "HI'S" and "HELLO'S".....It would be even better.....
That's why it's hard for me to write this mini study about "Uncertainty Reduction Theory". It was even difficult for me to pick that one person that can serve as my specimen, my little white mice that I can easily manipulate(joke).No I'm not being mean, I just like associating it with scientific stuff.(hehehehehehe)
So, lets start talking about the said study that I conducted......
This particular person studies BA Communication Arts, like me. She is probably conducting the same study as me but atleast she wont know I'm conducting a study about her. Of course this person and I aren't that close. Our relationshp limits to simple "HI'S" and "HELLO'S". We do talk but not that often; the conversations we had happened by chance. Our conversations range from the dance practices that we have had down to our silly talks about our crushes. I don't know much about her but I do know she's nice and accomodating.
Now, the goal is to increase our closeness so that we would get to know each other a little bit better. So, my strategy is just to act natural, and not too lucid; I wouldn't want her to find out that i'm trying so hard. JUST BE NORMAL......
The study began when we finished our practice, that was last week, particulary friday. We were really hungry after that exhausting practice. I was planning to eat at the canteen so I invited her and some other friend. We were walking through the dark path when she suddenly squeaked. She told us that something had moved in the grass, I just giggled a little bit and thought that she was really getting hungry. So we walked as fast as we could and hurried into the canteen. We were about to order a meal when my other friend told us that he will just go to the comfort room but he said that he will be right back(he did not). So he left us there.......
At that time, we were so hungry that we ordered a bunch of food to fill us up until morning. We sat, placed our meals over our tables and began eating. Silence was evident in that table, it was probably the hunger that left us speechless. So our conversation began after our meal, which was not surprising at all. Our conversation have gone from our crushes(again) to my siblings;a topic which I don't share much about. She also shared lots of things about her highschool life, stuff that I could totally relate to. She also told me about her past relationships in highschool. I had found out so many things about her and she also did about me.....
I guess my strategy had worked right??????
So the next time we bumped into each other it's not probably just saying our "HI'S" and "HELLO'S".....It would be even better.....
Friday, January 26, 2007
Would you Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth????
We like to be deceived.
-Blaise Pascal
-1623-1662, French Scientist,
ReligiousPhilosopher
Isn’t deception really essential in life? Can people handle the truth?
I mean if you think about it people unconsciously like to be deceived. For example, let’s visualize the scenes in the hit television show American Idol. Let’s focus on one of its judges, Simon Cowel. He’s rude right? I mean he really makes boorish comments. Like last night, I was watching the episode where there in Seattle; lots of people auditioned for the show. Of course there were great singers but there were people who just tried out for the sake of trying out. So back to Simon, what if he lied to all those people who were really bad singers, what if he tells them that they have a future in singing. Well, probably there will be no more quality singers in American Idol anymore. People just can’t handle the truth, especially when the truth is on them. That’s why some of us end up deceiving other people. Yeah, bummer isn’t it. But how do people deceive? And what are some factors that led them to deceive?
In David Buller and Judee Burgoon’s theory called Interpersonal Deception theory, it says that people always find themselves in situations where they make statements that are less than completely honest in order to “avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship (Griffin).”
Yes, I am sometimes trapped in a situation like that but I avoid exaggerating my words or making false comments, I sometimes do that to my friends. Because I really value our relationship I end up lying to them. Those were just white lies, that won’t hurt right?
I also lie to my parents; you know those instances where you try to get off easily, you don't want to be nagged so you create false stories and make it as believable as possible. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN……you create strategies, and the theory is here to justify it.
They classify these three strategies into three: concealment, concealment, equivocation(Griffin).
I sometimes try these strategies to avoid being caught. But seriously I really can't detect a person if he/she is lying or not. I'm gullible and easily deceived. But there were also instances where I can tell if the person was lying or not. Sometimes people are just so conspicuous with their non-verbal cues, thus I suspect their truthfulness. If I caught them red handed, well, it will probably affect our relationship; but not too much.
Interpersonal Deception theory also includes 18 propositions which is the skeletal link of the theory.
I agree with most of them especially proposition number 8 which is: “As relational familiarity increase, deceivers become more afraid of detection, make more strategic moves, and display more leakage”(GRIFFIN). Because when I get into a situation where I am force to lie to one of my closest relationships, I tend to be careful with my words because I'm afraid to get caught; our relationship is so important to me that I protect my image.
I also agree with one of the ideas in the theory where it says that ,as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, I am an active participant (for receivers, you were not just a passive listener even if you did not harbor any suspicions) in the deception. I agree because the deception would not happen if the deceiver wont interact with the receiver, because their interaction is the basis of the deceiver's strategy; by the help of the receiver's non verbal cues the deceiver could easily spot suspicion. Truth bias is also one of the factors that makes the deception successful; by trusting a person not to deceive you, will just lead them to deceive you more and more.
I will definitely subscribe to Buller and Burgoon's theory, although their theory is quite complicated, I still liked how they explained and elaborated some of their ideas. I quite agree with Bella DePaulo’s critique of their theory, because it does lack an explanatory glue in some parts. There were ideas that confused me, but Buller and Burgoon did justified their ideas by saying that their theory offer multiple mechanism to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I was also curios why the communication scholars were silent about the moral implications in the theory, but I realized that the communication aspect of deception is important in studying the nature of communication itself.
I probably would require of others to subscribe to Kant's Categorical Imperative, because we as humans have the responsibility to tell the truth. As for me, I prefer Augustine's Divine Will, I truly value my spiritual convictions.
-Blaise Pascal
-1623-1662, French Scientist,
ReligiousPhilosopher
Isn’t deception really essential in life? Can people handle the truth?
I mean if you think about it people unconsciously like to be deceived. For example, let’s visualize the scenes in the hit television show American Idol. Let’s focus on one of its judges, Simon Cowel. He’s rude right? I mean he really makes boorish comments. Like last night, I was watching the episode where there in Seattle; lots of people auditioned for the show. Of course there were great singers but there were people who just tried out for the sake of trying out. So back to Simon, what if he lied to all those people who were really bad singers, what if he tells them that they have a future in singing. Well, probably there will be no more quality singers in American Idol anymore. People just can’t handle the truth, especially when the truth is on them. That’s why some of us end up deceiving other people. Yeah, bummer isn’t it. But how do people deceive? And what are some factors that led them to deceive?
In David Buller and Judee Burgoon’s theory called Interpersonal Deception theory, it says that people always find themselves in situations where they make statements that are less than completely honest in order to “avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship (Griffin).”
Yes, I am sometimes trapped in a situation like that but I avoid exaggerating my words or making false comments, I sometimes do that to my friends. Because I really value our relationship I end up lying to them. Those were just white lies, that won’t hurt right?
I also lie to my parents; you know those instances where you try to get off easily, you don't want to be nagged so you create false stories and make it as believable as possible. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN……you create strategies, and the theory is here to justify it.
They classify these three strategies into three: concealment, concealment, equivocation(Griffin).
I sometimes try these strategies to avoid being caught. But seriously I really can't detect a person if he/she is lying or not. I'm gullible and easily deceived. But there were also instances where I can tell if the person was lying or not. Sometimes people are just so conspicuous with their non-verbal cues, thus I suspect their truthfulness. If I caught them red handed, well, it will probably affect our relationship; but not too much.
Interpersonal Deception theory also includes 18 propositions which is the skeletal link of the theory.
I agree with most of them especially proposition number 8 which is: “As relational familiarity increase, deceivers become more afraid of detection, make more strategic moves, and display more leakage”(GRIFFIN). Because when I get into a situation where I am force to lie to one of my closest relationships, I tend to be careful with my words because I'm afraid to get caught; our relationship is so important to me that I protect my image.
I also agree with one of the ideas in the theory where it says that ,as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, I am an active participant (for receivers, you were not just a passive listener even if you did not harbor any suspicions) in the deception. I agree because the deception would not happen if the deceiver wont interact with the receiver, because their interaction is the basis of the deceiver's strategy; by the help of the receiver's non verbal cues the deceiver could easily spot suspicion. Truth bias is also one of the factors that makes the deception successful; by trusting a person not to deceive you, will just lead them to deceive you more and more.
I will definitely subscribe to Buller and Burgoon's theory, although their theory is quite complicated, I still liked how they explained and elaborated some of their ideas. I quite agree with Bella DePaulo’s critique of their theory, because it does lack an explanatory glue in some parts. There were ideas that confused me, but Buller and Burgoon did justified their ideas by saying that their theory offer multiple mechanism to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I was also curios why the communication scholars were silent about the moral implications in the theory, but I realized that the communication aspect of deception is important in studying the nature of communication itself.
I probably would require of others to subscribe to Kant's Categorical Imperative, because we as humans have the responsibility to tell the truth. As for me, I prefer Augustine's Divine Will, I truly value my spiritual convictions.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Would you Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth????
SIr namali ang akong last post sa deception magpost ko usab......idelete nalang to nako ang last...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Taxi!!!
I don't usually ride a taxi to go where ever I wanted to go. A taxi ride is so expensive, and the thought of a twenty pesos minimum fair really pisses me off; and besides we have the ever loyal “jeepneys” to do the job for just over seven pesos.
But yesterday was different; and yesterday was Monday and that's when I usually return to the dormitory. Of course, I had lots of baggages and it was really difficult for me to handle all of them. So I had no choice but to ride a taxi. So I got into one, and I asked the driver to take me to Roxas, specifically in front of Ateneo de Davao University. While the vehicle was moving, I was very silent but a bit agitated because of my baggages. Then surprisingly, the driver spoke to me. He asked me a question which I did not expected. These were his exact words: “Day, aha na nimu gipalit imong bag og tagpila pud na..?”. See what I mean when I say I did not expected it? But I answered him with decency and politeness. I really thought that he wouldn't ask questions anymore but his previous question led to more questions like: where did you get your bag?, what is your school?, How come you wanted to be taken to Ateneo?, What's your school like?, and Is it difficult to get boarding houses in your school?DO you want some mangoes?
What was he thinking????,
It was like a part of me was being slowly stripped out. At that time I don't know if it's really necessary to answer his questions;I began wondering his motives. But with all that skepticism happening in my mind, still I had answered all his questions before we arrived at Ateneo. Why? You may ask....well Judee Burgoon has the answer........
Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violation Theory, states that expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction patterns, on their impression of one another and of the outcomes of their reaction.
That's why at first, I was very hesitant to answer the taxi driver's questions. I did not expected that a stranger like him would ask me personal questions like that. I evaluated his motives because I felt that he was invading that personal barrier that was between us. But why did I end up answering his questions? Well, again Judie Burgoon has an answer for that...
In her theory there is what we call “violation valence”, which refers to the positive value we place on a specific “unexpected behavior”, regardless of who does it.
So, it is up to me if my response to a violation is negative or positive. In our case, I responded positively to the unexpected behavior of the taxi driver by answering all his questions truthfully. But why do so?
Burgoon thinks that when someone violates our expectation and there's no social consensus as to the meaning of that act, the issue of reward potential moves from the background to the foreground of our minds(Griffin). She uses the term “communication valence” to label the results of our mental audit of likely gains and losses(Griffin).
So even though the taxi driver asked me so many questions and a couple of personal questions too, I did not think that his motives may go way beyond from what I could have imagined. He looks just like an ordinary taxi driver and he sure dress like one. He was probably just so friendly yet little bit nosy. Anyway the point is, that status, ability, and good looks are standard “goodies” that enhance the other person's reward potential(Griffin). However, most of us value words that communicate acceptance, liking,appreciation and trust(Griffin).
So I guess, the theory of Judee Burgoon had explained it all. So the next time I ride a taxi, I will not be so surprise if the driver asks me so much questions; they're just naturally friendly.
P.S: the name of the driver was not mentioned in this entry due to personal issues; I might invade his own personal bubble......what the???
But yesterday was different; and yesterday was Monday and that's when I usually return to the dormitory. Of course, I had lots of baggages and it was really difficult for me to handle all of them. So I had no choice but to ride a taxi. So I got into one, and I asked the driver to take me to Roxas, specifically in front of Ateneo de Davao University. While the vehicle was moving, I was very silent but a bit agitated because of my baggages. Then surprisingly, the driver spoke to me. He asked me a question which I did not expected. These were his exact words: “Day, aha na nimu gipalit imong bag og tagpila pud na..?”. See what I mean when I say I did not expected it? But I answered him with decency and politeness. I really thought that he wouldn't ask questions anymore but his previous question led to more questions like: where did you get your bag?, what is your school?, How come you wanted to be taken to Ateneo?, What's your school like?, and Is it difficult to get boarding houses in your school?DO you want some mangoes?
What was he thinking????,
It was like a part of me was being slowly stripped out. At that time I don't know if it's really necessary to answer his questions;I began wondering his motives. But with all that skepticism happening in my mind, still I had answered all his questions before we arrived at Ateneo. Why? You may ask....well Judee Burgoon has the answer........
Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violation Theory, states that expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction patterns, on their impression of one another and of the outcomes of their reaction.
That's why at first, I was very hesitant to answer the taxi driver's questions. I did not expected that a stranger like him would ask me personal questions like that. I evaluated his motives because I felt that he was invading that personal barrier that was between us. But why did I end up answering his questions? Well, again Judie Burgoon has an answer for that...
In her theory there is what we call “violation valence”, which refers to the positive value we place on a specific “unexpected behavior”, regardless of who does it.
So, it is up to me if my response to a violation is negative or positive. In our case, I responded positively to the unexpected behavior of the taxi driver by answering all his questions truthfully. But why do so?
Burgoon thinks that when someone violates our expectation and there's no social consensus as to the meaning of that act, the issue of reward potential moves from the background to the foreground of our minds(Griffin). She uses the term “communication valence” to label the results of our mental audit of likely gains and losses(Griffin).
So even though the taxi driver asked me so many questions and a couple of personal questions too, I did not think that his motives may go way beyond from what I could have imagined. He looks just like an ordinary taxi driver and he sure dress like one. He was probably just so friendly yet little bit nosy. Anyway the point is, that status, ability, and good looks are standard “goodies” that enhance the other person's reward potential(Griffin). However, most of us value words that communicate acceptance, liking,appreciation and trust(Griffin).
So I guess, the theory of Judee Burgoon had explained it all. So the next time I ride a taxi, I will not be so surprise if the driver asks me so much questions; they're just naturally friendly.
P.S: the name of the driver was not mentioned in this entry due to personal issues; I might invade his own personal bubble......what the???
Monday, January 1, 2007
Sibling Rivalry
I always argue with my siblings!!!!
You know, there is not a day where we live in peace without having an argument. We always exchange harsh words and it always end up, someone getting hurt. We sometimes get in to the action, like smacking each other. There was this instance where my younger sister and I fought because of something we both said, and the fight even reached its peak when “one of us” (because I can’t remember who), picked up a knife. Honestly, I forgot what we were fighting about and besides that happened ages ago; my younger sister didn’t even remember it. That’s history now!
Well, my younger sister and I were not the only ones who engage in a brutal fight; well, that’s the understatement of the year! Sometimes my younger sister and I were provoked to have an argument with our elder siblings too: that is our older sister and our older brother. I don’t know why we are stranded in this never ending loop of fights, but I think it has something to do with CMM. Don’t you think?
In Pearce and Cronen’s theory called Coordinated Management of Meaning, it says that person-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create.
I see now, why my siblings and I always argue. Maybe the social realities that we create are different from each other and it gradually shapes who we are as a person, that’s why we have our own ideas about the world and we have our own individualities. Wait, does this mean that the more different our social realities are, the more chance of us arguing all the time?
Well, according to CMM, not exactly. It says that this intentional of meshing of stories lived does not require people to achieve coherence in the meaning of their joint action; they can decide to coordinate their behavior without sharing a common interpretation of the event.
So, does that prove that it doesn’t matter how different we are as a person and we can still coordinate without arguing? I think so….
It also says in CMM that, in a dialogic communication, we reaffirmed that dialogue requires remaining in the tension between holding our own perspective and being profoundly open to others who are unlike us, and enabling others to act similarly.
I think that my siblings and I may have a different perspective of the world, we may have our differences but it doesn’t stop us to have a decent conversation without the need to argue, we just have to stay open with each others perspective but we need not lose our own.
So it is possible for my siblings and me to live in one roof without actually killing each other in the end…Well, now that’s the overstatement of the century!
CMM really held on to its aim to function as peacemakers, “providing a way of intelligently joining into the activity of the world so as to enrich it.”
Maybe Pearce and Cronen, guessed it right that we can work together without chaos ever occurring. I think that’s what the world really needs right now; working together with peace, harmony, and communicate rather than making irrational decisions. Yes, that’s a bit of a cliché thing to say but that’s what we really need in order for us to live together in this world full of misunderstandings.
Our world may not be perfect right now but we can still try; we can try to make our world a better place. In the end the way we communicate with other people is the key to help create a higher quality of life.
Oh yeah, I give the credit to Pearce and Cronen for their wonderful work and for trying to make the world a place which we can actually live without misunderstandings. Personally, they made me more interested about studying communication; they made me realize that studying communication does not only involves being familiar with its process but it does involves concern for the social relationship of all people in the world. Actually, as a communication student we can make the world a better place…..seriously I’m not joking….
You know, there is not a day where we live in peace without having an argument. We always exchange harsh words and it always end up, someone getting hurt. We sometimes get in to the action, like smacking each other. There was this instance where my younger sister and I fought because of something we both said, and the fight even reached its peak when “one of us” (because I can’t remember who), picked up a knife. Honestly, I forgot what we were fighting about and besides that happened ages ago; my younger sister didn’t even remember it. That’s history now!
Well, my younger sister and I were not the only ones who engage in a brutal fight; well, that’s the understatement of the year! Sometimes my younger sister and I were provoked to have an argument with our elder siblings too: that is our older sister and our older brother. I don’t know why we are stranded in this never ending loop of fights, but I think it has something to do with CMM. Don’t you think?
In Pearce and Cronen’s theory called Coordinated Management of Meaning, it says that person-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create.
I see now, why my siblings and I always argue. Maybe the social realities that we create are different from each other and it gradually shapes who we are as a person, that’s why we have our own ideas about the world and we have our own individualities. Wait, does this mean that the more different our social realities are, the more chance of us arguing all the time?
Well, according to CMM, not exactly. It says that this intentional of meshing of stories lived does not require people to achieve coherence in the meaning of their joint action; they can decide to coordinate their behavior without sharing a common interpretation of the event.
So, does that prove that it doesn’t matter how different we are as a person and we can still coordinate without arguing? I think so….
It also says in CMM that, in a dialogic communication, we reaffirmed that dialogue requires remaining in the tension between holding our own perspective and being profoundly open to others who are unlike us, and enabling others to act similarly.
I think that my siblings and I may have a different perspective of the world, we may have our differences but it doesn’t stop us to have a decent conversation without the need to argue, we just have to stay open with each others perspective but we need not lose our own.
So it is possible for my siblings and me to live in one roof without actually killing each other in the end…Well, now that’s the overstatement of the century!
CMM really held on to its aim to function as peacemakers, “providing a way of intelligently joining into the activity of the world so as to enrich it.”
Maybe Pearce and Cronen, guessed it right that we can work together without chaos ever occurring. I think that’s what the world really needs right now; working together with peace, harmony, and communicate rather than making irrational decisions. Yes, that’s a bit of a cliché thing to say but that’s what we really need in order for us to live together in this world full of misunderstandings.
Our world may not be perfect right now but we can still try; we can try to make our world a better place. In the end the way we communicate with other people is the key to help create a higher quality of life.
Oh yeah, I give the credit to Pearce and Cronen for their wonderful work and for trying to make the world a place which we can actually live without misunderstandings. Personally, they made me more interested about studying communication; they made me realize that studying communication does not only involves being familiar with its process but it does involves concern for the social relationship of all people in the world. Actually, as a communication student we can make the world a better place…..seriously I’m not joking….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
