Thursday, February 1, 2007

Reading for Monday February 5th

Please read S1:U4 in your textbook for Monday, February 5th. You need to write two questions based on the reading and posted here by 11:59 PM on Sunday the 4th.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

In ways countering the Deficit Approach Studies, Joseph Walther explains on page 50 the Social Information Processing model of CMC. SIP is about taking generalizations and applying the concepts in the real world to see if they pan out. Walther believes through time and CMC communications -relational qualities in later periods of CMC will be equal to that of Face to Face communication. But if he is implying it takes longer for people to reach the level of sociability and reason through CMC and while children utilizing CMC are getting younger and younger…wouldn’t this argument run full circle back to the deficit approach? It seems to me there is a lowering of the bar in SIP if it is taking especially children longer to get to the mature thinking level that FtF implies more quickly. Analyze the two approaches; what approach to communication would you choose for your children?

Several clues throughout this chapter explain CMC being used to create and maintain good relationships online all the time. To counter--- several real life relationships have turned sour over information being leaked or words exchanged online. While scholar Joseph Walters explains his theory that CMC can enhance life in general on page 51…Nikolas Coupland suggests society (Page 50) is losing its flare from too much non-personal CMC use. If we were to test a hypothesis by taking away internet capabilities…would we see the divorce rate drop or the amount of people being single increase? What conclusions can you draw about substance in relationships and acquaintanceships now that the internet plays a huge role in creating or destroying them? Do emoticons or face to face emotions matter more?


--pamela

Jamie Rae said...

There is a quote on page 46 that says, "Greater use of the internet is associated with declines in participants' communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness." Do the declines of communication with family members and the size of social circles happen as a result of increased internet use, or does increased internet use cause these great disasters? Also, do lonely, depressed people spend more time on the internet, or do people who spend a lot of time on the internet become lonely and depressed?


Also on page 46, the book refers to the Allegation of Antisociality by saying that, "CMC is bad communication because it has a negative impact on online communication and offline relationships." Is there any way to be both good at communicating online and offline? Is there some balance, or CMC destined to destroy personal face to face conversation completely?

Anonymous said...

On page 46 in the book, it talks about how CMC is making FtF (face to face) interaction disappear between family members because they are glued to the computer screen, TV screen, vieo game etc... How can a parent solve this problem of non-communication? Can they solve it without getting rid of the technology completley?

On page 53 in the book, it talks about how CMC is good for people this is called Hyperpersonal Communication. People are more friendly, social and intimate than FtF communication. What factors make CMC better for you to commnicate than FtF communication? How much does it affect the way we communicate FtF with others?

Jill said...

On page 46, the book states two allegations against CMC including asociality and antisociality, cold and unfriendly conversation and conversation that diminishes face-to-face interaction, respectively. However, it also brings up that the same claims have been made against television and video games. Is it fair to generalize that most electronic devices could cause these problems? On the other hand, I find that studying for classes and completing my other duties and responsibilities as a college student also hinders my face-to-face communication, so is it just computers and other electronics, or can communication be affected by other things such as books and work?

From pages 48-50, the authors discuss the Deficit Approaches which really interested me since I talked about them in my message board post without knowing what they were yet. The one I would like to explore further is the Social Presence Model which says that CMC focuses more on tasks than relationships. Does this necessarily mean that our conversations and interactions are less meaningful or productive? What standards should we use to "measure" our communication?

Anonymous said...

on page 54 box bt:4:12 the book discusses that technology is neither a utopia (meaning liberating people cyber space paradise) nor is it deystopia ( creating a form disembodied lost people). but with so much out there in "cyber space" will more people's lives change in a way where they can not live with out the internet as a means socializing with others? will these people becomce completely depended on their web communities?

on page 46 the book says that CMC has made the allegation that the internet is an inadequate mode of communication becuase it cuts people off from the outside world. and while i understand these allegations couldnt these same allegations be made for other form of mass communication?

david greig

Chris Norris said...

1. In S1:U4 on page 46 it makes note of one the possible downfalls of communicating through the internet with the loss of face to face (or FTF) communication. Communicating via the internet eliminates the aspect of interacting with another person interpersonally and actually having to rely on verbal and nonverbal messages to send a message rather than just a keyboard. As a future parent, I ask the question of whether or not I want my child communicating with maybe 10 friends face to face or hundreds of friends through the internet? The World Wide Web would allow my kids to possibly meet other kids from all over the world and have the opportunity to make more friendships. They could also stay in contact with friends and family that live far away.

2. My favorite part of this chapter is the sections that promote the internet and claim it the capability to enhance our lives. I go along with Joseph Walters theory on page 51 that the internet is overall, a good thing for humans. My question to the critics such as Nicholas Coupland (who claim that we are losing important principles of our personal communication) is what if some people comunicate better online? Perhaps a person is shy and reserved in person but very willing to open up and be conversational online. For some people, maybe its easier to meet people online and make friends that way. I feel that CMC is beneficial to people especially those timid and shy who are not good with FTF interaction.

Anonymous said...

On page 47 the book refers to CMC as impoverished, impersonal, ineffectual, and emotionally cold. How can people change or modify the way they use CMC to make it more personal and emotional?

On page 50, the book says the more teens often break up with boyfriends or girlfriends using instant messanger or text messages. If young people are using CMC like this, how will this shape how future generations will communicate over the internet and what will they talk about?

Tom B.

Anonymous said...

Question #1: On page 47, the Box BT4:4 talks about how our society labels people who watch too much TV and don't interact with people as "couch potatoes", but that watching TV has also enabled us to be more social in other ways. One way is called the "water-cooler effect" where people get together to talk about their favorite TV shows, etc. By doing this, TV becomes a "source of shared cultural knowledge and an opportunity for social bonding." How do you evaluate the "water-cooling effect"? Do you really thinking gossiping about a TV show is a good opportunity for social bonding? It is something to talk about and a way to interact with other people, but how much farther will that go in terms of communicating?


Question #2: Something that still interests me about communicating online is the socio-emotional content. Page 52 describes some of this content in terms like creative keyboard use (lol, brb), new identity markers (RachLiz, and other "screennames"), bending language rules (a/s/l), and going multimodal (e-mail & ftf communication, etc.). The Internet continues to make things easier and easier for us to communicate. What do you think the Internet will be like, not just in the future, but in the near future? It keeps evolving so quickly. How will you identify yourself online? How will we communicate online, will there come a point where we talk only in abbreviations? There are just so many things that amaze me about the way we communicate online and that is one of them.






-Rachael

Anonymous said...

On page 46 the book explains how CMC seems to cause less communication among family members. It also makes claims that the internet tends to lessen social circles, cause depression and loneliness. These claims may be true for some individuals, but do you believe that the internet can be just as helpful in promoting social circles and communication as well? Do you believe the internet is more harmful than it is beneficial to human communication? If so, what do we need to do in order to enhance the good aspects of CMC?

On page 50 the book mentioned that today’s teens and young adults seem to be breaking up over the internet or through text messaging more and more. One of my friend’s fiancĂ© of two years just recently broke up with him through an e-mail. To me, this seems completely cold and heartless. If relationships are meaningful then a face-to-face discussion/break up seems to be the only option. However, is a breakup over the internet or text messaging becoming the norm? Do you believe this will be a common way of handling problems…or avoiding them? Will breaking up with someone through these means begin to not surprise us?
~Melissa

Anonymous said...

The book often times refers to electronic communication presenting itself in relationships between humans, whether it be a good or bad thing. At times, people use CMC in order to strengthen relationships. For example, with the help of cell phones and the internet, people are able to communicate more often, most times strengthening their relationships. However, on the other side, people can also use CMC against their relationships. CMC could easily be used by someone to find information about the other person in the relationship by use of instant messenger programs, blogs, Facebook, etc. If these elements of CMC were removed, do you think that people would have different kinds of relationships? If yes, how would they differ? In what other ways does CMC affect human relationships?


On page 50, the book refers to the way teens take advantage of CMC. Teens control their relationships with others through instant messenger without even showing any emotion, however most teen relationships are strengthened through CMC. Going along with the theme of CMC and relationships, why may people consider communicating through the internet as emotionless? How can people more effectively convey their feelings through CMC? Do you think that it is necessary for CMC to become more emotional, or is CMC meant to create emotionless relationships?


Brittany

Anonymous said...

On page 50 of the book, the authors discuss 'lean' media as a way of "avoiding the discomfort of breaking bad news to people." An example they give is breaking up with a significant other through instant-messaging or text-messaging. Although they paint this as a good thing, a way to avoid an uncomfortable situation, doesn't this just make the person using the lean media a coward for not wanting to face the person they are breaking up with? Also, won't things like this contribute to a lack of communication skills between a husband and wife later in life? Will divorce rates and the rise of CMC eventually tie in with one another?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I forgot both my name and second question in the last post. I'm on a roll tonight.

The book discusses emoticons on page 52, the graphical markers (or smileys) that "can make people feel more expressive and thus interpersonally connected in CMC." However, I had a teacher here who told us that we shouldn't use these because they are unprofessional and have no place in e-mails. Can emoticons really add a personal touch to CMC, or are they merely childish devices that we should abandon?

~Rachel Burkot

Shauna said...

On page 46 of the book there are two very different views of using the internet for communication. One says that CMC is "associated with declines in participants' communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness." Another view says that the internet can "lead to new, and even better, social relationships, with people communicating across geographical and social boundaries and creating new friendships and communities based on their chared interests and concerns." What do you think? Do you lean closer to one opinion over the other or do you see aspects of both views in yourself, friends, family members, or others?

Also on page 46, the book talks about how the claims of CMC being "asocial" and "antisocial" was also put on television and video games and the negative impacts that they have on society. Do you think that the internet has had an even more negative affect than these other modern technologies? At least when one is using CMC they are communicating in some form with others, but while watching TV or playing video games, communication is not a key aspect. So what is worse?


Shauna Oles

DJ Yokley said...

On page 46 it compares CMC to FtF communication. It also states how technology deters a family's form of direct communication to digital distractions of the television, computer and video game industry. Is it possible that communication in the family is quickly being digitalized? Will we soon speak to our family and friends primarily through the internet, or will FtF communication prevail?

Page 47 calls CMC impersonal, and ineffectual. If this is the case, what does this say about our society if we spend so much time and communicate so much through CMC? Could our society survive today if there were actually a hit like there was supposed to be in the year 2000?

Leah's Blog said...

S:1 Unit 4 compares internet communication to face to face (FTF) communication. Many complaints of CMC communication are that it displays cuelessness and weak media richness. Are there situations in which CMC communication is more efficient and an enhanced way to communicate rather than FTF communication? If so, what are some examples? In your opinion, do you believe that CMC has enhanced our communication with society or weakened it?

Box BT 4:5 talks about social presence. It says, “Social presence refers to the level of interpersonal contact and feelings of intimacy experienced in communication.” In your opinion can social presence only be attained through FTF communication? Why or Why not? Have you experienced intimate relationships with the help of CMC communication? And lastly, how is FTF impression management different from CMC impression management?

Ashley C. said...

On pages 48-50, the authors discussed the Deficit Approaches which I thought was interesting. The three different models they discussed were the presence, cuelessness, and richness models. I though it was interesting when scholars initially ranked CMC very low because it lacked the visual cues of FtF communication. I think sometimes that I can get more out of certain relationships via CMC compared to using FtF communication. Sometimes I think that I benefit more from CMC vs. FtF communication. I can talk to more people faster and it is more convenient. I can email a professor about a question rather than waiting till their office hours and meeting with them face to face. In our text Joseph Walter states that the face of the matter is that people make and maintain good relationships online all the time (pg. 51). Also on page 51 in Box BT 4:9, it discusses the interpersonal advantages one gains while communicating online. What’s so wrong with using CMC over FtF communication? Is it really taking away from our social presence?


The internet like any other technology is advancing. I learn something new each time I access the internet. I find a different way to communicate, learn, or even a new form of entertainment. How will the internet begin to change in years to come? After reading Box BT 4:10 on page 52, I wondered if the jargon would get harder to understand as we get older. Will there be many more ways to communicate? Will we be able to keep up with all the changes? Will we know the lingo of the internet as we grow older?

Anonymous said...

On page 47 there is an argument about the quality of CMC. WE all know that problems can occur during CMC. Messages will be sent late, calls will cut out, emails are lost, or cannot be opened. In class we have also discussed the fact that some CMC can not be read as easily as face-to-face communication can be. Non verbal signals and tone of voice are two important aspects of communication that can be lost. However, communicating online can also help the communicators to be accurate in their messages. One can think thoroughly about what they mean to say, and one can read, re-read, and save messages.

How do you feel about CMC? Is it an efficient method of communication?

Another topic in the book that caught my attention was on page 50. The book discusses the way in which humans misinterpret one another, and arguments can start. It is obvious that these types of arguments, which stem form misunderstandings, occur with all types of communications. But, do they occur more or less often with CMC?

In class, some one commented that online or through text they have the confidence to state things they would not say face-to-face. Could this eliminate assumptions made during face-to-face communication, because the speaker is not as direct? Or do you think that CMC actually causes more misunderstandings?
cas
Cassidy Neal

Anonymous said...

On page 49 They talk about face to face communication and cuelessness. They feel that face-to- face communication comes out highon all the deminsions of socil presence. Some feel that face-to -face communication is optional. Cuelessness is the abscenceof nonverbal cues and identity markers. Does cuelessness affect the way we communicate face-to -face?

On page 55 in BOX BT 4:14 it states that people are busy doing social things online by building networks of contacts and participation. There are many ways this is being done some ways are support groups, making contributions, politics, and so on. Although we communicate with people by joining these networks do these things affect our social communication in a face-to -face communication? Is this something that will grow or come to an end?

Jenyce