Cultural Language

One of the topics in chapter four that I find to be very interesting is "Language and Cultural Difference".
Since I was born and lived in Israel for the first 26 years of my life, it is still difficult for me to understand how people communicate here, especialy in areas such as: "the directness with which thoughts can be expressed, the amount of emotional expressiveness that is appropriate, and the extent to which formality is expected." (p.91)

Even more, I was surprised to find out that the United States considered being  a low-context culture, because, I feel that people here are less "strait forward" than in Israel and much more formal.  In other words, I feel that It is more important to Americans to not hurt one's feeling so they, most of the times, hold back from speaking the truth. They don't say what they really think about each other or a situation to someone's face, but some still do it behind their back. Americans are likely to think that Israelis are very rude. In Israel the most important thing is that you speak the truth. If a person is trying to be polite and just give hints, they will strait forward tell him to just say it the way it is, just get to the point.

Gender Talk

Men and women experience life differently, and although they use the same words and phrases, they reference them differently, and therefore, they use language differently.

Trenholm says that "we are the victims of gender expectations from the moment we're born" (p.86), and from the moment we start learning the language, we also start learning how to use it. Even though we learn the same words, we (men and women) learn to use it in different ways.  A female grow up to become specialized in "relationally oriented talk" whereas men grow up to be specialized in" task-oriented talk" (p.87). In addition, women learn that to live life in fulfillment ,she need to be a part of a community, while men see themselves as an individuals, survivors; therefore, through her life, a female practices her social skills, and on the other hand, a male practices competitiveness.

Nevertheless, Trenholm informs that scholars may argue that "we do not use language the way we do because our gender, we create gender identity through language". We feel that we need to express ourselves in a way that considered being a norm for our gender; for example, a man needs to talk like men, be assertive and sound "strong".

Because men and women hold different needs and values, they use language differently. Yet, "One of the things that make language so interesting is the way it changes to meet the needs and express the values of its users". (p.73)

Logic Judgment

It is impossible to perceive others without some way of judging or categorizing.  Judging and categorizing are natural and even biological processes. They are a necessity to our survival.
From the day that we were born, we have been creating memories (personal "knowledge"). Our knowledge is being built in layers; as information from our senses arrives at the brain, it is both, consciously and unconsciously, being analyzed, compared with previous experience, sorted and stored. Since we constantly sense information from our surrounding, information is constantly arrived and compared with knowledge already store, and many times we are not even consciously aware of it.

 Yet, I think that to make our perception of others more fairly, we need to question our old personal "knowledge". We need to pay attention to the assumption that we make and check what we based them on. It is a hard work, but it is possible to stop sometimes, and try to understand why do I judge this person this way? What is the logic, reasoning or experience, if any, that led me to make this judgment?  

Rookies

I decided to compare between the most influential speaker and the least influential speakers in chemistry class. I must note that for most of the students in this class, it was the first experience in public speaking.  So, I will start with the least influential speaker, because it is easy; I simply don’t remember him or her. Actually, after calculating how many presentations I watched and how many I can't remember, I figured out that there must be three of four presentations that I can't even remember the subject. As for the most inflectional one, it is one student that was very enthusiastic about the chemical process taking place when one developing pictures in a dark room. Although the process was way too difficult to understand at this level of chemistry, he was still able to deliver the main idea. I think that the reason I remember it so well, is because he was so excited to share his knowledge.

Obama (!?)

It has been almost four years that I've been observing our president, Barak Obama, and I am still confused.

I must admit, one of his distinctive characteristics is his attractiveness, his ability to finds ways to relate to individuals on a personal and comfortable level. During his speeches, he often stops to respond to comments from the audience, usually in a jokingly manner that gets the audience to loosen up. In addition, he promotes himself as a great husband and father, and he frequently brings his wife and kids onto the stage for supports.  But attractiveness it's not his only strength, Obama has power. He is great at persuading his audience to believe that they must agree with him or else the world is likely to go to hell in a hand basket. He claims to be the only one that knows the right direction and gives the impression that he has the power to affect each and everyone's life individually. He also increases his power by claiming the rewards for the killing of Osama Bin-Laden, finishing the war in Iraq and many more.

However, Obama's credibility was all along his weakness. Although he successfully captures my attention and make me want to believe in his prediction, still, every time, after his speech is over, I just can't bring myself to trust him.

Thousands of Beliefs, Hundreds of Attitudes, and Only Few Values

"When audience members come to hear a speech, they bring prior beliefs, attitudes, values and the life experience with them." (p.243)

Public speaking is, little to say, a very complicated task. Nevertheless, the part that I find to be most challenging is the speaker's needs "to rake into account what audience members may already be thinking", especially in a diverse society, such as the one we know.

As Milton Rokeach suggests, beliefs, attitude, and values are the three structures that organize human perception, and they all connect with each other. Beliefs are the trigger of one's attitude towards a situation. In her book, Trenholm, like many others, suggests that, "an individual may have thousands of beliefs and hundreds of attitudes, but only ten or twenty values". In addition, values are common ideas that are largely shared by individuals in a society; therefore, a "reference to a cherished value can be a powerful way to touch an audience.

What Communication???

I found the "exercise" in table 2.1(p.19) to be entertaining. I choose the second definition, "communication is the discriminatory response of an organism to a stimulus." I choose it because when I think about communication it is not only between peoples; I also think about the communication between the neurons (cells) in our brain. They communicate with each other through the releasing and receiving of chemicals, and when a neuron become stimulated it responds in various ways.

The entertaining part was to realize that I excluded machine communication, but I included "behaviors of living organisms" (p.19) and also to realize that there are "two ways to think about the world" (p.18). The first way is like I always believed that, there is only single correct definition, and the second way, which I find to be very interesting, is that "the test of good definition is not its absolute truth but rather is practical use."(p.18)

Playing The Game

As long as we can recognize communicational patterns, it only make sense to look at them closely and find out how they contribute to the interaction between individuals. Communicational patterns are the products of interdependent behavior. Therefore, the pragmatic prospective suggest that we should pay our attention to patterns rather than to the particular behavior of each individual. Additionally, patterns may signal to a misunderstanding or a conflict between the communicators, and by introducing new and different "moves", partners can break off the pattern and ultimately communicate more effectively.

It takes at least two to communicate. When one acts the other reacts and the reaction also triggers another reaction and the cycle continues. The pragmatic prospective perceives it, just like the interactions between partners that are playing a game; players make their moves based on the actions of the other player. However, when we communicate, the game is about us, it's not about the two competitors in a game with limited options to move, a clear set of rules, and a target. There is much more to the game of communication; while playing it, we communicate our thoughts in every "move". Thoughts are very complex and reflect personal perception, needs, desires, beliefs, and cultures.

The pragmatic prospective can certainly help in cases when communication is broken down due to specific, ineffective pattern, but for a complete understanding of communication there is a need to also view the contribution of the individual's behavior to the interaction.

We Build Worlds

Considering the social constructionists perspective, we "build worlds" based on concepts that we share with others, such as language, culture, values and beliefs. In other words, we "build worlds" through the interaction with others, and the acceptance and adaptation of what become common ideas.

One idea, which has been intensely discussed in our culture, is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is a powerful tool that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas with others without government interference or punitive actions. The exchange of views gives people an equal opportunity to participate and influence decisions related to their life. 

Freedom of speech is known as the basic foundation of democracy; however, the use of it is not always positive. While practicing their freedom of speech, people sometimes say things that we don't like, disagree with, and even things that offend us. Unfortunately, freedom of speech also includes hate speech, which can cause the receiver depression, fear, and in extreme situations even to suicide.

Francis and The Idols

One of the many interesting topics in chapter 1 is The Four Idols presented by Francis Bacon. Francis believed that there are four idols that prevent people from thinking clearly and therefore causing them to bring assumptions and prejudices to scientific research:

The Idols of the Tribe
Bacon claims that our perceptions are not the truth and we can't trust it. He explains that our senses cannot measure things, since everyone senses things differently. Our senses work simultaneously and therefore trigger our imagination.

The Idols of the Cave
People thinks that their experiences make them wise, but Bacon thinks that our experience prevents us from thinking clearly. We collect information from school, books and events that happen in our life, which are constantly being reflected through our thinking.

The Idols of the Market-place
People things that language and words make them more knowledgeable and superior, but Bacon argues that people use words, and understand words based on their purpose and abilities, and sometimes the use of a word or the misunderstanding of a word can give an idea a whole different meaning.

The Idols of the Theatre
People tend to take scientific theories and philosophical assertions as facts and hardly challenge them. Bacon claims that coming into scientific research with these kinds of assumptions takes away a great part from the explorations.