Saturday, October 18

COMMUNICATION MODELS 3 :: comm theory reading

download PDF, post reflection in comments.

15 comments:

Ian Tirone said...

the message decoding not only depends on the skill of the source and quality of the message, but the ability, intelligence, status, environment of the receiver. when we design things in class, anything we design is always designed with the end all receiver being teacher and peers. to design something with an intended audience and then as a group attempt to predict their reactions seems at times to be a fruitless endeavor. we are not, have not been, can not and will not ever people the people that are the intended audience, i guess we do research to uncover "enough" about them to make an "educated" guess.
We have to consider the method that will most effectively communicate to the most and right people. in most of what we have been doing the communication channel is given and immutable. how do we then know if that was an appropriate channel? we never field test these things in ways that will give us quantifiable results. maybe a get out the vote "poster" (that is hung after the registration is closed, and therefore inconsequential due to the fact that anyone that they would have persuaded to vote would be to late to do anything about it, and since it was against the rules to support a particular candidate, the only purpose they now serve is to make us feel better that we did our part and we tried to make a difference)wasn't the best communication channel. this is beside the point and off topic let me backtrack to my original stream of thought.
often our ideas take the form of text and image. varying combinations of the same things floating along in the luminiferous ether media and advertising. any images we have, mean different things to different people and this is by no means a new concept, i think we all realized this when we scribbled our first masterpiece and our moms thought it was great, but our older brothers thought it was stupid. my point being that right now i find it hard to divorce myself from knowledge, i don't by any means know everything but know enough do dissect everything i see until the whimsy of life is gone and, have been reduced to an inability to have an emotive response to anything. there are some many angles the vast majority of which are acute or obtuse.
the write word to accompany this image has to have approximately the same meaning for the sender as it does for the receiver. Ha! the very best and concise method of communicate we possess only works as an approximation of the *blank* -ness that we have in the cave of our minds, which isn't universal because we can't agree upon them.
i don't know about the rest of you but that exhausts me, and if you aren't then you haven't thought about it long enough, or don't care to. which is fine you may be better off that way.
the more rich our linguistic abilities the more richly we experience the world. if we are limited in our abilities of expression, and limited in our abilities of what we can express would it follow that we are limited in our abilities to experience? is something that requires volumes of knowledge to understand really a deeper an more worth while experience than flinging rocks at the window of an abandoned factory? the stone that is set upon the table sits upon the table. we can all agree upon this. (actually the stone levitates above the table at a 100 millionth of a centimeter, but that is beside the point) beyond that truism no to people can ever come to any of the same conclusions about where that stone is from what it was used for, what it could be used for, how it got to be on the table, and whether or not it is even necessary to decide these things.

Ryan Shawgo said...

woooooowwwwwww ian

tealesm said...

Berlo's view on communication is slightly different than others. he looks at it as a team effort of elements between the source and the receiver. its an interesting point of view because when you examine his thought on communication, you notice that his process is set up so it cant loose anything, like extra information from either the source or the receiver. meaning, you will be able to collect as much information through out the communication process as possible.
When he breaks down 5 the different communication skills, he notes that speaking/writing and listening/reading are both connected by the 5 skill, which is thought/reasoning. seems to me that with that system of skills linked together it allows the reader/receiver to have enough time to think and process and analyze the idea.
When he speaks on the way language effects the thoughts of people, and how/what/whether we are thinking. its very interesting to process the fact that maybe if we don't try and think the idea out, that it will just arrive at your feet. maybe certain language is getting in the way of our thought process...
To conclude it is easy to think about communication between two people, but its another thing to think about how the source is established and how its going reflect on the receiver. like whether or not its going to be positive/negative reflection.

Josh Lambert said...

We cannot predict the success of the source from ones skill level alone, we need to consider the level of the receiver as well. Interesting approach Berlo has given.
When he mentioned that "there is evidence that our ability to use language actually affects the thoughts themselves. The words we can command, and the way that we put them together affect what we think about/how we think/ and whether we are thinking at all" is something to think about. Choosing words to say what we are feeling/thinking is important. Our communication skills are extremely important and again, when Berlo mentioned "...we need to remember that finding the ‘right word’ is not simply a matter of finding one which expresses what we want to say to our own satisfaction. It also has to have approximately the same meaning for the receiver as it does for us." is not something I think about. It is hard enough for me to write and speak how I am feeling/what I am thinking, but I need to remember the 'right word' needs to be the right meaning to the receiver as it is for me.
hmm

GENIA NARINSKAYA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GENIA NARINSKAYA said...

" The way we put them [words] together affects
-what we think about
-how we think
-whether we are thinking at all"

I agree with the second part, don't agree with the first one. The information that is given below gives an example of someone speaking a different language and learning a new one can be applied to the affect of sentence and word formation. When you are speaking a language other than your native language,you form words before you express them, both in writing and verbally. The way we think (switching to the other language) is influenced by how you structure your sentence. What we think is not affected by words. I can think of a chicken falling off a fence, but the words influence how I describe it or talk about it, it does not affect what i think about.
Applying grammar, conventions and adapting the use of code in your audience is not enough to communicate. You can have perfect grammar, but you won't be able to communicate what you want to say. That's why you can sometimes tell if the person is not native from his perfect "book" speech. To communicate effectively you have to know your audience, which brings me to the next part of the reading The Socio-cultural level. You have to know the meaning of words, slang, for example, who they are directed to successfully communicate something. You can't go into a poor uneducated neighborhood speaking the language of a literature professor in Harvard. People won't feel connected, even if what you say is completely relevant to the discussion. Attitudes also play a big part in the sender's message and they cannot be avoided. Most people don't talk to their parents the same way they talk to their wives or husbands, so why embarrass you target audience with a design that clearly has nothing to do with it? Unfortunately that happens a lot and in the sender-message-receiver system, the message goes nowhere.

Ryan Shawgo said...

I thought that Berlo's decoding of communication was pretty cool, but kinda confusing at parts. I agreed with the part about sources and the way he describes how your attitude has a big impact on the reciever's p.o.v on the content that is being talked about. Attitude towards self-- I think that this is something that is very true, maybe because I catch myself doing it, but it truly does affect the way you communicate information percieved by someone that might not know you personally. Attitude towards subject matter-- This is also very true and happens to me as well, if I'm not interested than it goes in one ear and out the other just like that. Attitude towards reciever--I'm not a person that judges people on intelligence because someone might not know something about one subject matter, but be completely full of knowledge about another, but I deffinately understand his point here. For instance, if a bum walks up to you and you try to have an intellectual conversation with him/her than you are going to word that conversation differently than you would with one of your friends, or boss etc.

alicia rosas said...

This reading sort of delves deeper into the idea that "communication takes two". I thought the example that a parent doesn't speak to a child the same way he does to his boss was clever-- under the context of graphic design, this is an interesting thing to keep in mind when targeting a specific audience. Berlo seems to emphasize a level of understanding needed by both parties to make sure that the sender's message is understood successfully by the receiver. Just as person wouldn't baby-talk their boss, a designer probably wouldn't use pastel pinks to advertise tool sets for men. The reading brought up a lot of what we've been starting to think about in our last two projects: knowing what we know about our viewers, what devices can we use to make sure they respond the way we want them to? Is it a matter of researching our audience like we've done in our voting posters, or perhaps by means of convention and knowing what is widely understood? I think decisions like that all depend on the range of people you want to send your message to.

V whicky said...

Berlo's five verbal communications skills really stood out for me. Not because its true which it is, but unlike some people us graphic designers must use all five to think things through in creating a understandable product for the audience we have. The Source makes me question it in some aspects of why didn't Berlo include the setting a person is in. When coming home and turning on a t.v. the images we see in commercials are more inviting than a bill bored out in the street. I really think that the setting of a persons environment is key to how some people visualize and treat a product.

Kyle Huber said...

I found this reading to be extremely challenging. It was not enjoyable, nor do I feel like I really understand it.

Berlo's model of communication, aka Berlo's S-M-C-R model is unique because he places emphasis on the idea of dyadic communication, which says that the role of the relationship between the source and the receiver is an important variable in the communication process. This means that this role is not constant and it can affect the outcome of a message, based on certain elements such as communication skills, knowledge, social system, culture, and attitudes.

Out of these, I found the text about the "Socio-cultural level" the most interesting. More specifically, how there are different meanings that we attach to certain words that say, for example, my Grandma would not understand. "There are clear differences in the meaning of words between teenagers and older people - ‘wicked’, ‘bad’ etc." The word "wicked" to me right away makes me think of something "cool" where as my Grandma would assume it meant something "bad."

This is just one of the many examples Berlo gives to explain how the transmission of messages are affected.

Meredith Adams said...

When I made my postcard I wanted to send a specific message, but at the end I still felt like I couldn't find the right...something. So, I had a real aha! moment when I read "we need to remember that finding the ‘right word’ is not simply a matter of finding one which expresses what we want to say to our own satisfaction. It also has to have approximately the same meaning for the receiver as it does for us." My personal association with the warm light in my photo does not register the same with Genia so my message was lost. My learned "codes" didn't translate.

I also had an aha moment with the Source section about social systems and culture. With the voting posters I really struggled because of these things. I didn't feel as comfortable sending a message as a person outside of my receiver's culture and social system because I know my social system and culture still play a role. As a designer these are the barriers we're trying to-not necessarily break, but hop over or bend. We know how important culture and social systems are, but finding that ground between stopping at barriers and demolishing them is the challenge we face.

gerg.kaufman said...

communication is a bitch. how do i know the meaning of a word is the same for the receiver? based on past experiences, a certain word may carry baggage and or connotation, or nothing. the word 'love' could be distasteful to some but the 'right' word for others. the idea of language is really interesting because we are using pitches and tones that vibrate out our mouths into ears to communicate ideas. so interesting, that a series of clicks and humms are a way of communication. it's hard enough to express my words into a coherent idea, let alone trying to convey that idea to someone else. especially if the person i am talking to has less knowledge than me. or even someone has more knowledge than i do, it could be hard to decipher my shuddering nonsense. these things could come very easy to people like teachers, public speakers, and promoters, but very difficult for those of lets say a high school level drop out. he is right when he states that information sort of flows through our ear and out the other if we aren't not particularly interested.

Greg Gentry said...

Ok so the theory of communication is much more in-depth than i really ever thought about. I feel that this is the reason why designers get paid the "big bucks" because we are studying these methods of communication and we know how to go about targeting a certain audience in a certain way and getting across a certain, direct and simple message that is affective and legible to the viewer. I feel that a lot can be lost in translation if the proper steps are not considered when designing something for a certain demographic. As designers i feel we are presented with a problem and asked to solve it with in a time frame so we have to adapt and research out he knowledge to understand how to go about using familiar terminology that the viewers know and will relate to on a level that feels as if this was designed for them and is speaking towards them. So i conclusion i wold say that good design takes good research and the ability to change your view point to how others see things and how they want to see things designed and then taking that knowledge and producing a print, logo, or experience that the viewer relate to and get the message intended by the designer.

AdamcBride said...

One thing I found particularly interesting was the socio-cultural functions of the message communication. It was a concept I (of course) participated in, but I was unaware of its power and function in the realm of communication and design. I think it is extremely valid and neccessary to consider the intelligence of your audience, the meanings and choices of words, and the purposes of communication in general.

MATT URLAUB said...

One thing that I think that may be over looked is the source of communication and how a message begins to form. When it talks about having trouble finding the right word is not finding one which expresses what we want to say to our own satisfaction. Thus I believe you really have to make your message clear to exactly what is equivalent to the receiver. How will we end up knowing if this is going to be the equivalent.In subtle ways as well.. understanding the dialect or a gesture to more obvious things as displaying an image for those who are deaf. Is there a set way for cultures or age groups or are theses just stereo types? In some ways an assumption will be applied. RIGHT?