Symbolic Convergence Theory

Have you ever had a running inside joke among friends? It could start off small such as when I told my roommates sarcastically that I was "super stoked for my English 480 midterm." Seeing how none of that sentence sounds remotely fun one of my roommates chimed in and said "maybe after all that fun you could top your day off by going to the dentist!" Soon the idea of just how much "fun" I was going to have that day exploded through out the house. Soon we were formatting the joke to our daily activities: my friend was going to see a movie that day, but insisted that she would love nothing more than to take the exam with me. This is the Symbolic Convergence Theory. Me telling my roommates about my "excitement" would be defined as a dramatizing message. Dramatizing messages can be a variety of things from puns and wordplay to stories and analogies which describe events occurring somewhere else and/or at some time other than the here-and-now. My exam was three days away so it was a reference to the future outside of the present. Sometimes, however, dramatizing messages don't go anywhere. We all know that awkward kid that tries to make a dramatizing message that lasts and it goes very bad, very quickly. Instead of building off of the dramatizing message, someone changes the subject and it falls flat. We call those people in life Kevins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YFcBgzRSR8. In this clip you can see as much as Kevin tries to get a successful dramatic message flowing he just can't do it. The flip side to this, however, is the fact that the sharing of a successful dramatic message creates group cohesiveness. These types are called fantasies and are immediately grasped by the group, and soon start fantasy chains: A symbolic explosion of lively agreement within a group in response to a member's dramatizing message. Dramatizing messages are interpretive and are used to make sense of ambiguous situations in the present. All of this comes back to the first basic principle that sharing group fantasies creates symbolic convergence. Symbolic Convergence is basically the idea of more than two individuals from different viewpoints finding common ground among any situation. They seem to happen more often when a group is frustrated; a great example that portrays an ambiguous situation that conjures up a fantasy chain is this clip from the show Community. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2W6O3QoKpo In this scene Shirley is refusing to empty out her purse to reveal if she was the one among the group that stole pens and as a response to this particularly disconcerting event everyone in the group calls her out, the funny thing is that they all try to make their remarks of people's names that rhyme, soon everyone catches on and it keeps going throughout the episode, and eventually into others! These fantasy chains can be set off again at another particular time. All it takes is some type of code made within the group to bring them back to when they originally made the chain. For example, now when anyone in our house says they had a good time we ask if it was as fun as an English 480 midterm; that is now the bar for fun in our house. This exemplifies why symbolic convergence is so important among groups. I live with 5 other people with all different backgrounds so the fact that we can all bond over a variety of fantasy chains makes us more closer. I have also found that the more we were able to joke the more comfortable we all were with talking to each other about anything else, especially more serious things. I think it's the process of letting your guard down in front of someone else that creates the bond and builds trust. Lastly is the process of some fantasy chains spawning from small groups, but than reaching the public or community as whole. This happens when a fantasy is conveyed to the public, picked up by media, and spread across society. This larger scale version of people sharing a fantasy is called Rhetorical Vision. This is when large groups of people are all sharing a common symbolic reality. What should you do right after you read this? Go out and make some fantasy chains!!! #GoodRead #HowManyTimesCanIsayMessage? Bibliography Griffin, Em. A first look at communication theory. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Cultivation Theory

Have you ever binged watched the Walking Dead? Maybe went crazy one weekend and wanted to watch Quentin Tarantino's best hits? After all that bloody goodness, George Gerbner, (the creator of the Cultivation Theory)would say that slowly but surely you the viewer have become more de-sensitized to human violence or gore. When you think about it, the theory makes perfect sense. You watch a movie where violence is permitted, and even in some cases is linked with being cool and soon you now have a different perception of violence than you once did, one where violence isn't as big of a deal as it might have been to you before. This is the idea of Resonance where people feel that their real life environment and also the TV world are very similar, making viewers more effected by what they see. In order to fully grasp the concept I want to show two different clips that are both violent in nature but are also very different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGCMfprPJoA. Here we have the O' so handsome Robert Downey Jr. He is in some type of fighting contest and is losing badly to the delight of the whole crowd who is cheering both men on in a feverish pitch. The tide is soon turned, however, once Downey see's the woman. He tries to call the fight, gets spit on and then he does two things. The first thing he does is completely destroy the guy he was fighting with. With the use of slow motion camera angles, special sound, and audio effects he beats up his opponent in a way that not only myself found awesome but also my 5 roommates I have shown as "bad A**." When you watch the clip it is cool; the way he beats up the guy by walking us through it step by step. I don't know about you but I sure liked Sherlock Holmes a little bit more after. Let's focus though on the second thing he did. He systematically beat up another human, demoted him to nothing more than the parts he is made up of, the man is no longer a man, he is instead four broken ribs, a dislocated/broken jaw, and is hemorrhaging on the floor. What happens after that though? He wins money, and is now "the tough guy" that no one messes with. According to Gerbner the effects of TV and movie violence cultivates paranoia, creates The mean world syndrome and makes people develop exaggerated perceptions of the world. Mean world syndrome is the cynical mindset of general mistrust of others subscribed to by heavy TV viewers (Griffin). For example, after someone watches a CSI episode where a kid who takes ADHD medicine kills someone, they might begin to think that people everywhere who take that medicine are more likely to kill, and even more likely to kill them specifically. This in turn creates mistrust and a skewed perception of the world.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu1MtT_S3bc Can you see anything in common between the two antagonists in the clips? TV and Movies seem to under-represent and over-violate certain racial, sexual, and age groups. Both of our hero's are white males, both of course in real life differ in age but on the screen even their age seems similar. In media the old and the young, the women and the minorities all appear to be victims more often than not. In this scene of Jack Reacher its the young woman that is victim of Tom Cruise's remarks, would it look different if he said his remarks to a man? As I talked about earlier if according to Gerbner media cultivates paranoia than how should one view minorities being overtly victimized? Does that now mean that not only should minorities be extra careful in the world but also that middle aged, white collared, males are more dangerous? It is these perceptions that than carry over to the viewers and create exaggerated world views. In conclusion the cultivation theory theory is based on the idea that prolonged exposure cultivates or creates an environment that can ultimately re shape the way people look at the world. Bibliography Griffin, Morgan. Give your body a boost with laughter. Web M.D., nd. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Path: http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/give-your-body-boost-with-laughter?page=2. Griffin, Em. A first look at communication theory. 8thth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Objective vs. Interpretive

As with anything in life everything can be looked at a certain way. While one person's glass if half empty, another's glass is half full. How to view our academics is no different. English and Communication theory are full of differing perspectives about how to view certain things and in this regard I want to talk about looking at a theory objectively (scientist view) as opposed to a theory interpretively. Those who view theories objectively are called objective scholars. They believe that knowledge is gained through scientific inquiry and is quantifiable. Scientists love them some numbers! Interpretive scholars say knowledge is subjective and is qualified by examples. In order to grasp the two differing ways these perspectives work lets take a look at the amazing Mr. Wolfdog and analyze his commercial from both sides.www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcvhiJ8a4o. An objective scholar would first want to apply a theory that could possibly fit what works within this commercial. For Mr. Wolfdog lets pick identification; this is a perceived role relationship that affects self image and attitudes. People forms bonds over identification with celebrities and other likable figures that will make them embrace a sells pitch (Griffin 14). Can a wolf really run a company? No. But is the commercial funny and something that someone would remember when they are in the deodorant aisle at the store? In order to find this out the objective scholar would than try to test to see if the commercial worked. They would use an objective test to see if after this commercial the sales of Old Spice Wild collection spiked. The interpretive scholar would work to assign linguistic meaning or value to communicative texts (Griffin 15). They would view the commercial as a mini-comedy that goes through symbolic steps to reach its goal. The wolf is sitting at a desk with his name on a plaque, signifying he is important. He than order in guys to place trophies in his office before showing them the trap door. This shows his authority. At the end his puts up his information on a plaque that has him on a luxurious hot air balloon (while also stating that he is successful). This ultimately shows the reader that he is important, has authority in the project (he is a wolf so knows how to lead the Wild collection) and is successful. This is all shown through comedic undertones that are hard not to laugh at and hard to forget. The message says that he is a wolf and he is the person to lead the Old Spice Wild collection. Unlike studies interpretive scholars derive values through socially constructed context and perception. This goes to show that even in Communication theory there are a variety of perspectives and as you learned even when doing the same task (analyzing a video) there are multiple ways to do it. This I believe is what makes the field so unique. Hopefully you not only learned more about Objective vs. Interpretive approach but you also had a laugh. According to Web MD Increased stress is associated with decreased immune system response. Some studies have shown that the ability to use humor may raise the level of infection-fighting antibodies in the body and boost the levels of immune cells, as well. Children laugh more than 300 times a day while adults laugh less than 20 times day, see a connection? That little tidbit was brought to you by Snapple! Bibliography Griffin, Morgan. Give your body a boost with laughter. Web M.D., nd. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Path: http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/give-your-body-boost-with-laughter?page=2. Griffin, Em. A first look at communication theory. 8thth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

The Stitch costume

For extra credit in my Communication class I had to dress up. I had a Stitch costume I bought previously for Halloween. In order to get the points I had to show up to class dressed in my Stitch costume onsie. The mile long journey to class I embarked on is what we could call a violation of expectations (Something I have posted on earlier this month). A perfect example of this would be the girl living next to me. Her and I talk when we see each other and have always been friendly, this is due to the communication norms we created, we expect each other to say hi if we spot one another and are never mean to each other. The day I walked out in my costume that all changed. I went from the normal friendly neighbor who says "hi" to the person who dresses in costumes during the day (not the team you want to be on). Needless to say her expectations were violated and for the first time since I moved in she didn't know what to say. Her expectancy of what she predicted would happen (Me dressing normally and greeting her like I always do) was violated and she was left have to re-evaluate our relationship, how she see's me, and how to communicate in the future. It was extra credit though, what are you going to do??

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive complexity is a certain aspect of the theory of Constructivism. Constructivism explains the individual skill level people have in communicating in social settings. This type of theory would look at someone who is shy and timid at a party as opposed to someone who seems to do extremely well in public situations. Cognitive Complexity is an aspect of this theory as it it revolves around the mental ability to distinguish subtle personality and behavior differences among people (Griffin 99). Have you ever met someone who doesn't seem to be able to pick up on certain cues in a social situation or aren't able to articulate what they should say to certain people? These people would have a lower level of cognitive complexity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtsTbX85lgo Not only is this clip hilarious but it also expands on our discussion of cognitive complexity. Lloyd and Harry don't seem to have the social perception that comes with a higher level of cognitive complexity that would allow them to pick up on the social cues implied in that social situation. Anyone watching know's that the women are implying that Harry and Lloyd could be the two "oil" guys they are looking for but they don't seem to see that. What these two characters lack or only have a limited amount of are called Interpersonal Constructs. These act as a kind of tool kit for social situations, the more interpersonal constructs an individual has the more tools they have to analyze any particular situation. Cognitive complexity is important to communication as it is essentially a measure of one's ability to know how to handle social situations. With cognitive complexity comes the ability to create or tailor messages to a certain person within a certain situation. Without any type of cognitive complexity nothing would make sense. We wouldn't be able to categorize certain topics or understand what to do with others in any given setting. Cognitive complexity offers an individual the tools to be an active participant in any setting, thus being a key pillar in communication. As I stated earlier a lack of cognitive complexity would lead to a small rift in communication. If an individual was not able to create a message that would be appropiate for the target audience than ideas would soon be wasted. We would live in a world where messages would come in a one size fits all forum and you would miss out on other people getting what you are trying to say. This is just one part of what it takes to be a competent speaker. Griffin, Em. A first look at communication theory. 8thth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Expectancy Violations Theory

Today I think is the perfect time to talk about Expectancy Violations Theory. There were two incidents's that happened around me this week that could really help illustrate this theory. First off, expectancy is defined as what people predict will happen in an interaction (rather than what they desire.) All of our expectations are based on relationship factors, context, and communication characteristics. All of us create communication norms which help us decide what we should and shouldn't expect. Our understanding of norms is based on expectations. When people violate expectations, we are forced to re-evaluate how to communicate. The last part of this theory is the violation variance. This is the positive or negative we assign to any unexpected behavior, for example a random kiss from your crush (good) or a random person yelling about how Area 51 is real and you will get abducted (bad in most circles). First Example: I was walking out of the library when a man holding a sign saying "You deserve to go to hell" yelled at me. I was somewhat taken back but also had my ear buds in so in reality it just looked like a random guy with a sign was dancing along to "Song of the South" by Alabama. Now normally this doesn't happen to me, I can't just chalk that up to a normal Tuesday so it violated my expectations. The communication norms I had constructed had to be re-evaluated because usually I don't get yelled at by crazy people (That is saved for Thanksgiving). Here is a perfect example of a violation of expectations i.e the working of the expectancy violations theory: Enjoy! www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPCjIGyrtYc Second Example: A girl with stilts was walking down the sidewalk I was on. I don't really know how I felt about it until she handed me three free Baja Fresh coupons. Obviously my mind was blown. I wasn't expecting to be given anything, let alone see her to begin with. There was no context for her to be there, I don't think it was 'Walk on Stilts Day' and it was definitely out of the norm. Needless to say I had a pretty good day after that. That just goes to show you that just because your expectations are violated it doesn't mean that it is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes that violation of the norm can be just the push you need to start doing something.

Introduction!

Hey everyone! My name is Alec Grevstad and am studying speech communication. I've always like this field because I have always liked the aspect of interacting with other people. I feel communicating with others is not only necessary but also a fun way to interact with people with different views than yourself. I want to become a motivational speaker after I graduate and think picking up a speech communication major and a writing minor will help me get closer to my goal. I had a radio show at KBVR for three years and also was on the speech and debate team. I was also on the news team; really anything that involved talking with others. I've never made a blog before but hopefully you will enjoy the things I post! I believe motivation is one of the biggest tools towards success. I like the idea of speech communication because it revolves around the ideology that talking with others can and will advance ourselves. Sometimes I think we forget this. On the other side of the spectrum I believe humor is crucial to daily life. Motivation isn't just nice landscapes; it can be anything, even if it involves laughing at yourself. My blog will have pictures and philosophies of motivation, funny anecdotes, and maybe the occasional enchilada recipe.

My Bio

Hey everyone my name is Alec Grevstad and I am majoring in speech communication with a minor in writing. I would like to use my degree towards becoming a motivational speaker and will hopefully be graduating this year. I am from Gresham, Oregon and recently turned 21! In my free time I like to workout, hang out with friends, and watch movies. I look forward to working with everyone throughout the term!