Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Week 3 - Post 2
I think that communication as a patterned interaction does make sense, although there is much more to communication than just a simple pattern of “sender to receiver”. Communication, specifically the message being sent, has much deeper than just a pattern that can be used multiple times. A person might wonder why the sender sent a specific message, or what their intentions were. Communication is like a game in that you need two players. For example in checkers, one player will make a move that affects the second player. These moves then become patterns, because they are reoccurring. The two players represent the sender and the receiver in communication. The receiver is cannot get a message if the sender does not send it. The moves in the game are like the messages being sent. Communication is different from a game in that the sender or receiver communication can ask the intentions or “why’s?” of the message. In the game, there is no need to understand one’s intention for a move.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would argue that in some instances in a game, there is a need to understand one's intention for a move and that in Communication, you can't always ask what the intention was. For instance, because what I believe about myself and the world is based on my experiences and social context, a lot of what I say is subconscious and I might not even be able to say why I said or did something. By the same token, the person I'm speaking to might not even know to ask me why I said something because the matter at hand is so clear cut to each of us.
ReplyDelete