Influence of CMC

The book talks about how CMC messages are beneficial because the participants have more time to think about what they want to say in their message. This is the exact reason why I prefer texting to talking on the phone. It seems like a lot of older people interpret texting as an anti-social behavior among people my age because we don’t talk as much in real time (meaning face-to-face or verbally over the phone). Maybe this is true for some people, but for me, I don’t have any problems with being social are talking to people, but I really like texting as a form of communication because it gives me more time to carefully choose my words so that I can convey the exact message that I want. I also like the fact that the conversation stays linear in CMC, so no one can interrupt you or change the topic while you’re talking, so everyone involved gets a chance to say what they want to say.

Effects of CMC on Groups

Anonymity, group size, and proximity all have an impact on group processes. In my experience, anonymity in computer-mediated communication allows a lot of people (myself included) to be more open and comfortable with sharing their opinions. When you read message boards online, people don’t seem to hesitate to confront others and be very blunt with their opinions of various topics and other message board contributors. In terms of size, the book says large CMC groups tend to have success with CMC because they are able to create more ideas than individuals in smaller groups. CMC is also more efficient in terms of proximity because members don’t have to commit the time to go out and meet up. Instead, each member can stay at home and contribute, which can help cut down complications with schedule a meeting that works for everyone in the group. The book also says that people that participate in CMC is beneficial for groups because everyone is so cognizant of their online presence and image that they are more willing to live up to the expectations that others have for them.

Computer/Face to Face/ Communication

CMC (computer-mediated communication) can take place in a group via video, audio, and text messages. The book accurately describes CMC as being more "content oriented and less social-emotional" compared to face-to-face communication. I think most if not all of us in this day and age of texting, social media, and email have had experiences where something we said through text was misinterpreted. In face-to-face communication, we have the ability to use haptics, kinesics, and vocalics to help convey our message. Through text, it is difficult to effectively convey certain tones such as sarcasm, though it can be done a little more easily thanks to emojis and emoticons. When I talk to someone face-to-face, the other person can hear my tone and see my facial expression, which removes all doubt about the message I'm trying to relay. But texts are more ambiguous because everyone has different writing styles and interpretations of meanings. For example, exclamation marks can be used to create either a friendly tone, an excited tone, or an angry tone. Or some people use periods at the end of short messages to indicate that they don't really want to talk. I'm kind of a basic grammar Nazi, so I never end a sentence without some kind of punctuation haha.

Motivation

The concept of motivation pertains to the extent to which I listen. To book essentially says that the motivation to listen makes people better listeners, and that people are more likely to listen when they have some sort of investment in what they are listening to. There are a couple scenarios from my everyday life where this applies. For example, when I am with a group of friends, I always listen carefully to what they say because they're my friends and I care about them. But when I'm in a conversation with someone I don't know very well, I still listen, but I don't make much of an effort to retain the information unless I think there's a chance that I will see that person again. If it seems like it's going to be my only encounter with the person, I don't feel very motivated to retain what they say. I would do the same thing in high school when the teacher went on a tangent. In one class in particular, the clever smart asses in class always found a way to get distract the teacher and get her to tell stories about herself so that we wouldn't have to do any work. So when the teacher was actually teaching, I paid careful attention; when she started go veer and talk about stuff that didn't matter, I would zone out until she got back on track. Obviously I was more motivated to listen to the actual material so that I could do well on the test.

Selective Attention

I hate to admit it, but I think many students can relate to me when I say that I've had selective attention during class. For the most part I make sure I pay very close attention when the professor is lecturing, but the one class/subject that I have trouble doing that in is biology/science. I think the reason this happens to me in science classes is because all of the scientific terminology makes it feel like learning a different language. So when the every other word has something to do with ions and neurotransmitters and hemoglobin, it's hard to pay attention to what the teacher is saying. Last week I had an easier time paying attention because the professor was talking about what happens to the body during exercise and the effect of various foods on the body. Since I workout a lot, I had a better understanding of what she was teaching us, and the information was more practical for my everyday life. This could possibly be overcome by reading a few of the basic definitions of key terms before class, but even when I do that, there's only so much time to try to absorb all these new and complex terms.

Difficulty Listening: Memory

I've been meeting a lot of new people recently, and just like everyone else, I try to make a good first impression when I meet people. But during several of these interactions, I've had difficulty remembering the names of the people I meet, even just a minute or two after being introduced. This very thing happened a couple weeks ago. I was at work when a guy notice my Bemidji State T-shirt and flagged me down. He said he went to school in Bemidji, and it turns out that my uncle was his high school science teacher. I asked the guy for his name at the end of the conversation, but I was so focused on making eye contact and giving a firm handshake that I didn't even concentrate when he told me his name. This means that the memory phase is giving me difficulty because I was so concerned with my outward appearance and first impression that I didn't really concentrate enough to retain the guy's name. I've heard that repeating something right after you hear it will help you remember it better, so, in future situations like that, I might try repeating the person's name to help myself commit it to memory. It might also help to just be more confident in my "external performance" (as the book calls it) and feel self-assured that I'm making a good impression. If I do that, I'll be able to focus completely on the conversation.

Semantics and Meaning

I found the first principle of semantics to be interesting. The first principle of semantics says that "meanings are found in people, not in words" (Harris and Sherblom, 2005). Over time, this becomes more apparent to me, especially with slang. For example, at some point in time, our culture decided that the word "bro" doesn't just refer to a male sibling; the new meaning of the word came from people continuously using the word in different contexts, usually with friends or people that we are close to. To avoid offending anyone, the "n word" falls into the same category. It still carries a stigma/negative connotation, and rightfully so, but it has also become acceptable for friends to call each other that, much in the same way that friends call each other "bro." To paraphrase one of my favorite comedians, Dwayne Perkins, it's okay to say that word, but don't enjoy it when you say it haha. I think it's fascinating that language is so versatile and that the meaning of words can change over time because people agree on a new meaning and continue to put that new meaning into practice.

Proxemics and Chronemics

Proxemics is "the study of how we use space to communicate." The book says that sitting or standing near another person could be a strategy for gaining access to a group or for making friends; but this can also be interpreted by the group as an invasion of personal space. There are unwritten rule for this concept though. For example, there are seating arrangements for people that are working in close proximity. The book illustrates two people working at the same desk in four different scenarios and four different positions. In a competitive setting, the two people are sitting across from each other; in a co-active environment, the two people sit at opposite corners of the table; in a cooperative setting, they sit adjacent to each other around the same corner of the table; and the modified cooperative setting shows two people sitting side by side. These positions on the table are meant to signify  a level of power, dominance, and cooperation. The books says that the head of the table is considered powerful, which has been consistent with our culture, or at least is was for a while. I've never seen this happen as a display of power, but I have seen this kind of seating arrangement used in the MLK library. People that are working together usually sit next to each other or near each other, whereas people that are not working together will sit at opposite ends or opposite sides of the table.
Chronemics is the study of the use of time. According to the book, "western cultures are particularly oriented toward clock-based time as an organizing principle in the work world. Our culture, whether it be school or work, is big on deadlines and making sure that things are submitted on time. We also use time to organize events, and it can be considered disrespectful to show up late to certain events, such as a job interview or a certain kind of ceremony. Yet, in more casual settings with friends, it is often perfectly acceptable to show up late. I've mentioned before that when I hang out with my friends, everyone always shows up about ten minutes later than when we agreed to meet. Even though that is acceptable with my friends, it would be unacceptable to show up to a job interview or to class that late. When I took German in high school, my teacher said in Germany it is considered rude to show up too early when you have been invited over to someone's house, and  people that arrive early will wait in their car to kill time before they go up to the door.

Principles of Nonverbal Communication

One of the eight principles of nonverbal communication that I was intrigued by was number four: "nonverbal behaviors are guided by the context and power of relationships." This means that certain nonverbal communication may be appropriate in one setting, but not in another, and might be interpreted differently in organizational backgrounds, occupational groups, big groups, and small groups; the role of the person doing the nonverbal communication is also a factor. For instance, if I flip off one of my friends when he makes a mistake during our game of pickup basketball, we would accept that and consider it funny. But if I did that same thing to my biology lab partner when he or she messes up our experiment, it would be offensive and inappropriate. 

The first principle of nonverbal communication is probably the most personal one. It says that "our nonverbal communication affects the quality of our relationships." This means that we show others how we feel about them based on our actions. The book gives the example of sitting next to someone as an indication of attraction, or getting up and moving away from someone as an indication that we don't like someone. Another example would be if I went out with a group of people and bought a drink for one of them. That nonverbal cue would be an indication that I like the person that I bought a drink for.