Editor view
Members view
Public view
Domestic Adventures
»
Broken flows
3 Comments
- Add comment
|
Back to Domestic Adventures
Written on 28-Jul-2008 by
albertobMy friend Carmen told me something this weekend about the endemic broken flow in human communication.
We live in a world full of messages competing to get to the receptor, maybe as an evolutive reaction against this excess we have also learnt how to filter those messages. We had learn how not to see, how not to listen.
We are involved in a accelerating and never ending race between the media and the recipients, they talk louder as we become deafer.
And that is ultimately reflected in the way we communicate with each other.
Maybe it’s just some kind of misconception of what communication is what causes the problem.
Our classic view of the flow is unidirectional:
Sender → [medium] message [medium] → Recipient
But, taking the idea from the art, the technology and the common sense, we should consider the disposition of the recipient as an active element, which is key for the success of the transmission of a message. Listening or viewing play an active part in the communication flow and feeds back to the very core of the message.
Sender → [medium] message [medium] ← Recipient
Basically, my point is… don’t scream, don’t abuse the opportunities of sending your messages around, don’t overdue your shocking tactics, just create the right context for people to listen to you by listening to them, sit them down and offer them a nice drink.
Cristian, you are the expert, what do you think?
Post to Facebook
Send to a friendComments
-
(@64x64C).jpg)
written on 28-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
Agree!...
It's a question of dialogue... And dialogue, by definition, is a semantic event. And in a fluid world, organized as a network (not a hierarchical structure), this is becoming more important!
Probably, the issue is that you have not only to provide the right context, it should also be for the right people... The tribe, the ones who are sharing a value agenda and behaviour with you... The rest of people will filter the message (the current excess of messages have been a kind of catalizer which make us more proactive to filter whatever we don't want to hear... instead that the message was for us).
Finally... you have to walk the talk!... So, the drink "must" be nice!....
BTW, I'm far away of being an expert... Actually, I do believe that in this matter there are no experts... Everything is so new! -
written on 28-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
Another issue... Traditional media is segmented in a way that's far away from our behaviours
-
.JPG)
written on 29-Jul-2008
paulsari says:
That reminds me of Carl Roger's statement that we are better to "permit ourselves to understand the perspective of the other" 'up to the point of being willing to withdraw our own standpoint and accept the other person's. That is, above all, a rather specific type of dialougue in the form of resolving a discussion, of course ...
Studying applied linguistics and the various social issues they analyse from a linguistic perspective, I sometimes wonder if not there is not a danger that (critical) discourse analysis too often gets labeled as Marxist or this, that or the other. I think discourse analysis would be a better looking at comparing the discourses of the media, politicians, companies, think-tanks, pressure groups, charities etc. etc. more in pursuit of making suggestions for improving dialogue and the reception of information between all relevant participants in the specific discourse, rather than taking a "right-wrong" stance on some political issues they themselves are not really expertly versed in.
You must be registered and logged into Webjam to leave a comment on this blog.
- Active sessions: 0
- Total queries: 2
- Serialization time: 422ms
- Execution time: 609ms
- XSLT time: 16ms