Ugly

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sKpDNI4lMFY

If you found this video funny, wait till you see the real deal:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jlDqDFWW5rs&feature=related

Despite our country being renowned for its cleanliness, efficiency and sleek cosmopolitan image, Singaporeans are making a very bad name for themselves on online communities like Youtube, by posting shocking videos like the one above displaying very ugly behaviour from our everyday lives caught on film. The heated debates under some of the comments sections only make things worse by aggravating and polarising differences in opinions, clearly showing how strongly people feel about these videos.

 What exactly were these people thinking when they posted these videos online? Did they want the entire world with internet access to see how rude, uncouth and uncivilised Singaporeans can be? What were they trying to communicate to the people clicking on these links, beyond the sensational value of such videos?

 I have to point out that a simple search at the Youtube website on the keyword ‘Singapore’ produced quite a few links to these ugly videos. Imagine the scenario of a foreigner who has little or no knowledge of Singapore doing a search on Youtube for Singapore-related videos, and reacting to disgust to these videos. Also, imagine Singaporeans working or studying overseas seeing these videos, or having to answer thorny questions that their foreign friends ask after viewing these videos.

Of course, viewers of Youtube are usually smart, discerning audience. We all know that there are rude and uncivilised people in all parts of the world, whether or not we actually have an experience with such people, or we have seen or heard of them. Based on the limited effects media theory, these viewers have the ability to critically analyse and evaluate what they consume. However, we cannot deny the existence of factors like lasting first impressions and the Mean World Hypothesis resulting from long-term cultivation. After all, one key idea about communication is that it is irreversible. I.e. Audience (Especially heavy viewers) are very likely to remember what they see, and have difficulty erasing what they have consumed.

Excessive or repeated exposure to videos showing off the very ugly side of Singaporeans may result in a misconception of the cultural norms of our culture. Certain prototypes and constructs are formed, which subsequently lead to misled attributions. For example, a foreigner unfamiliar with Singapore but interested in coming here for a vacation who views the videos may think twice about coming, because he has, as a result, formed a bad prejudiced stereotype of how Singaporeans behave. He may attribute it to the cultural norm of our society, because he sees many videos depicting such uncouth behaviour on a single website. Fundamental attribution bias is present here. 

We all know that these videos (presented on Youtube in exagerrating numbers) have gravely misrepresented our culture and society. Nevertheless, cultural miscommunication happens in such instances, and happens very easily and especially frequently through our increasing use of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Young children are becoming more and more IT-savvy, and this means that they are learning more about the world through the Internet. However, a good percentage of information of the Internet is highly unreliable and misinformative.

– Action – Process – People – Idea –

We ended off the topic on Group Communication with a self-assessment exercise on our individual Communication Styles. We were given 40 pairs of statements, out of which we had to choose one out of each pair that best represents ourselves. The results divided us into four groups – Action people, Process people, People people, and Idea people.

 Being a psychology major naturally meant that I found this activity very exciting and interesting. The concept of grouping people into several broad categories is something very appealing to me. Besides finding out our individual styles of communication in a group setting, what was even more interesting (Which I found intriguing) was the distribution of people in each category.

Out of our lecture group, an overwhelming majority of students were identified as People people. The second largest group was process people, followed by Idea people, and finally, Action people.

Our lecturer expressed no surprise at the large majority of People people in our lecture group. According to her, she had also yielded the same result in previous lecture groups.

I came to the conclusion that most people are too nice to not want to be People people. After all, everyone wants to be nice, and being nice to others gives us lots of advantages in this social world, where having the ability to get along with everyone else brings us lots of benefits and few problems. Also, I assume that most students of Communication would probably be/want to be People people and already have better interpersonal communication and relational skills.

This method of dividing people into four different categories reminds me somewhat of the Classical Temperaments of Choleric, Melancholic, Sanguine, and Phlegmatic people. (I’m not too sure how they match with the four Communication Styles, but there is probably some degree of similarity in the four different groups.) (I remember there being the same overwhelming majority of people in the Sanguine group in my secondary school class, and my Sanguine classmates do seem like they would fit a lot into the People people cateogry in this assessment.)

Another method of dividing that I can better match this assessment with is the four elements of the astrological signs. Fire is to Action people, Earth is to Process people, Water is to People people, and Air is to Idea People.

My results for this assessment showed that I am an Idea person, and I scored the lowest for the People style of communication. There weren’t many people in the lecture hall who scored as Idea people, but there was an even lower number of students categorised as Action people.

And I remember thinking.. Why aren’t people grouped more or less evenly across the four categories of communication styles? Why can’t there be more Action people around? Does that mean that people from the three lower-scoring groups are any less relevant or valuable in any group that needs to communicate? Do people with the same communication style flock together to form Groups? (Attraction based on attitudinal similarity) Does that imply that in any given group, we are bound to have more People people than say, Action people?

Of course, carrying out this same assessment with a different group of people would probably yield slightly different results. For example, I would imagine there to be more Process and Idea people in a group of researchers, and there would probably be more Action people in a group of athletes, and the most People people in a group of politicans or for example, media people. But I would not know if my hypothesis is correct until I actually test it out.

Another of my assumptions is that the society and environment would make a big difference in the distribution of each group. Cultural contexts would yield significantly different results. For example, low context cultures like western countries, especially Germany and America, would encourage a predominance of Action and Idea people. High context cultures like Japan and China would, on the other hand, be predominantly Process and People people. (Again, I will not know if my assumptions are correct until I carry out research.)

In other words, I think that the environment that one is in and the social factors around us make us more likely to adopt certain beliefs and attitudes, and hence settle on a communication style that is more appropriate and encouraged in our own contexts. However, it is important to acknowledge the importance of each communication style as they each play an important part that cannot be missing or replaced in any situation.

The Johari Window and Self-Disclosure

	Known to Self	Not Known to Self
Known to Others	Open	Blind
Not Known to Others	Hidden	Unknown

http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/johari/johari_window.html

I first came across The Johari Window many years ago, when a friend prompted me to try it out on my other blog. I remember being quite fascinated by what the Window showed me about myself, especially in the area of my blind spots. I had forgotten it until recently, when it was mentioned in my lecture, while we were discussing Self-Disclosure in the topic of Interpersonal Attraction.

 Information in the ‘Hidden’ quadrant is known only to ourselves. Through self-disclosure, this information can then move up into the ‘Open’ quadrant.

We all know that Self-Disclosure is an important step in intensifying any relationship. By giving the other party information that was previously hidden from them and known only my ourselves, we invite them to step into the next stage of building a closer relationship.

We also unconsciously disclose information about ourselves from the ‘Blind’ quadrant. We are not aware of the cues we are giving off from this quadrant, but the other party can readily and easily observe things about us that we display unconsciously. It is only when the other party acknowledges these information, can we move them into the ‘Open’ quadrant.

Having a large part of ourselves in the ‘Open’ quadrant of the Johari Window makes us more open and comprehensible people. Miscommunication happens not as frequently than if we have more information in the other quadrants. However, not everyone enjoys being an Open Book. In fact, many prefer to keep things in the ‘Hidden’ quadrant, not to have their blind spots pointed out, and to have plenty of information remain Unknown.

Too much Self-Disclosure may be detrimental to any relationship, as secrets become facts that can be manipulated by the other party, or distorted into threats on one extreme. I believe in always keeping a healthy amount of undisclosed facts about myself in the ‘Hidden’ quadrant of my own Johari Window. Better still, some facts should remain in the ‘Unknown’ quadrant forever to keep things uncomplicated.

It may be important for one to reveal hidden information to people through Self-Disclosure. However, the choice of people whom we reveal ourselves to is even more important. One should only have a large ‘Open’ quadrant with close friends or family whom we can trust. By opening ourselves up to these people who matter, we allow the relationship to become stronger.

Steve Duck’s Filter Theory

Steve Duck’s theory on Interpersonal Attraction states that we filter people through different stages, hence deciding on who we want to become close to. Some people are eliminated at the early fliters, whereas others pass through all the fliters to ultimately become intimate partners.

 The first filter is based on sociological or incidental cues. Physical proximity plays a very big role in determining if we form realtionships with people. Here, environmental factors are crucial.

 I personally think that this first filter should be more of a pre-requisite to forming relationships, rather than a filter per se. In the first place, communication only begins when both parties are in physical proximity, and it is mostly through communication (Verbal or nonverbal), where filtering actually takes place. However, the theory states that we have a choice of where we want to be, in order to increase or decrease communication between strangers. Hence, this is regarded as part of the filtering process.

An example would be whether or not I choose to start a conversation with someone who is always sitting at the other end of the lecture hall. By choosing to sit next to the person, I make interaction possible. On the other hand, by choosing to let the physical distance remain, I have ‘filtered’ this person out of my list of potential friends, and he or she remains a stranger.

 This brings us to Preinteraction Cues. Nonverbal cues are important at this stage, with the focus on physical appearance, artifacts, and dress etc. People who still believe that physical beauty does not matter in this day and age are sadly disillusioned. We are, after all, human, and are naturally drawn towards people who are physically attractive. People who do not attract us enough to make it pass this filtering stage are very likely to stay as acquaintances. Beauty and style are very important cues to determine if we build closer relationships with the people around us. It’s sad but true. Also, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Research has been done on this issue, and people across cultures have a common, fixed set of ideas and perceptions on ‘beauty’.

The third stage of flitering involves Interaction Cues. Here is where conversation matters. More accurately, the content. Verbal cues become instrumental in deciding whether a person moves on to the last stage. I have personally encountered people who breezed through the first two filter stages, but failed miserably here. Communication is either chaotic, painful, or simply non-existent. Conversation matters a lot to me; in this aspect, I may probably be what many would consider a harsh judge of character. However, knowing that everyone judges everyone else through the Filter Theory makes it somewhat less guilt-inducing.

Finally, we filter one another according to Cognitive Cues. We look for people with similar attitudes and beliefs, and who share the same values as us. On a psychological level, the strongest bonds are forged here, and people who make it pass this final level may become romantic partners. Very few people have made it pass this last filter of mine. Perhaps that is why I have yet to engage in a proper relationship with anyone. The few who have nevertheless passed this filter are extremely close friends of mine – The ones whom I can share and disclose a lot with.

 It is important to note that we should not let initial filters interfere with our getting to know people. I personally feel that I have missed out on many relationships that could have been great, because I was too stringent in my filtering process. Also, it does not mean that people who have been eliminated remain strangers or acquaintances forever. There are many people whom I eliminated in the early stages, but made it pass the second or third round of filtering, when I discovered my errors in the previous attempts. Human beings are not mechanical in processes like filtering – There is always room for flexibility.

Psycho – A 1960 trailer

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=EzAnE4zuYuA&feature=related

An old-fashioned trailer for the movie Psycho! For the uninitiated, Psycho is Alfred Hitchcock’s amazing classic thriller from 1960. Notorious for its sensational murder scene in the shower, this black-and-white film became an instant classic back when audiences were traumatised by the psychological horror of the movie. Some audiences were reported to have walked out of the theatres during the shower scene!

This reminds me of the Magic Bullet media theory, where audiences are seen as passive victims and unable to  defend themselves from media messages and reject what they see and consume. In this instance, the terrified audience could not withdraw themselves from the horror delivered to them through the Magic Bullet, and as a result could not subsequently differentiate between reality and make-believe. (Many reported not being able to shower after seeing this movie, lest they get murdered by psychos.) Audience of that era tend to be more susceptible to the powerful effects models of the media, being less equipped with skills to limit, reduce and /or reject its heavy influence, the way modern audience can.

Also, the film starts off with a sexy (By 1960’s standards) scene of the female lead having a post-lunch-time-quickie chat with her lover in a hotel room. (Both were scantily clad.) This was the first time a scene of its scandalous nature appeared on the then-conservative American cinema screen, hence creating waves of controversy.

The trailer that I posted above is something rather alien to audiences of today. I have no idea if that was the norm back then to have the director of the film guide the audience of the trailer through elements of the movie. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see an example of a trailer that doesn’t involve the typical format that we are so used to seeing in the cinema these days.

 Another point of interest is how the music in the background of the trailer is deceiving sweet and harmless. For a thriller, we would perhaps expect music to show off the sinister and suspenseful themes like its official main theme:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j3QcS2iovss

However, the music in the trailer betrays the unknowing audience with its almost comical feel. This is a technique that is used in modern days – A trailer for a horror movie, for example, may start off with deceptive soothing piano music, only for this piano music to become sinister and warped at the point when the audience realises that it is actually a trailer for a horror movie.

 I’m not sure if that was the point in Psycho‘s trailer. It was probably unintentional, in my opinion. But another interesting point to note is how Hitchcock himself pretends to not want to reveal the most horrible and exciting parts of the movie, through a mixture of effective verbal and nonverbal cues. While showing the audience the scenes of the crime, he speaks in a sinister tone (Use of paralinguistics), and deliberately pauses at climatic points of his narration (Again, silence – Paralinguistics), and refuses to describe in detail the horror of the movie. His nonverbal facial expressions and oculesics reveal a lot about the horror that audience can expect from the film. Simple, suspenseful, and very effective. (Back in the days where there wasn’t Youtube or Google to provide you with sneak previews or to satisy your curiosity.)

The High-tech Classroom in the Age of Computer Mediated Communication

Hi all, I hope you guys are all having a great CNY holiday. It’s back to work and school this week – And what a hectic week it’s going to be for us students, with five tests in a week!

 My laptop very nearly crashed a few days ago. I was completely freaked out, scared and worried. It’s amazing how so much of our lives is stored in this tiny precious piece of equipment made up of chips and cables known as the Computer.

My number one concern when my laptop hanged five times in a row that night was that I wouldn’t be able to finish my academic work on time. Can you imagine my anxiety when the error messages started popping up on the screen and when I could’t even restart the system?

 Not only do all assignments somehow involve the use of the computer and the Internet these days, important things like communication between lecturers/students and Tests are also conducted online now. Basic things like course requirements, lecture notes etc are posted on the E-learning website. Call me old-fashioned if you must, but I think I am not the only IT-idiot in this day and age who doesn’t miss the traditional pen-and-paper approach to learning, and secretly wishes that all these annoying technology would just crash one day so people learn not to rely too much on it.

 Technology has invaded the classroom. People are earning degrees online; lecturers are posting videos of their lectures online.. It is simply quite impossible for one to not own or have access to a computer and the Internet.

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has invaded almost every aspect of our lives, and education is one of the influenced aspects. Despite its many advantages like speed, ability to transcend physical boundaries, and effective and flexible communication to/from groups or individuals, there are nevertheless issues involved as well.

Ongoing debates on ‘wired schools’ warn that CMC threatens traditional educational norms. In the age of increasing influence of CMC, students lose much of the most important experience of learning- face-to-face learning. Instead, arm-chair learning encourages students to take a complacent attitude towards being creative and proactive. As a result, students are better able to get away with tardiness and procrastination, qualities that interfere with good learning habits.

 I am (contrary to popular belief), not someone who is anti-CMC. I do have a strong faith in how CMC can make the world much more effective and globalised. There are two sides to any coin/equation, therefore everything has its pros and cons. Too much of something may or may not be a good thing. In the case of how technology has taken over the pen-and-paper in the classroom setting, I believe that this was inevitable. However, I must still point out that an over-reliance on CMC may produce many problems, because we all know that technology is not only fast and effective, it can also be highly cranky and unreliable.

 (Oh, look, and in case you clever readers haven’t already realised, this blog is actually a large component of my course requirements for the COM101 module.) I’m not sure if such an idea would work well, but then seeing how blogging is second-nature to so many these days, perhaps it was a natural progression to make blogging an assignment. Besides, yours truly has been keeping a personal blog since 2002. Heh – Perhaps I’m not such an IT idiot after all..

Principal flashes (results) in front of students!!

So the new academic year started off with a little bit of a hoohah in one of the as-yet unnamed school here in Singapore. A principal advises her girls in a Sec 5 class  on the first day of school to go to ITE instead, since they are “unlikely to do well”!!

 The full story: http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_195402.html

 Now all of us here in this country know how snobbish our educational hierarchy is. The ITE, or the Institue of Technical Education, is known rather notoriously by its other name based on the acronym: “It’s The End”. Traditionally linked to students performing at the lowest end of the educational results, it has over the years developed for itself a rather bad (and greatly maligned) reputation. Students take the N Levels before moving on to Sec 5, where they will attempt the O Levels at the end of the year. The other alternative is to apply to the ITEs directly after their N Level results.

 The principal’s actions were probably a result of her own anxiety towards achieving a perfect passing rate – She had stressed that she wanted 100% passes. However, the way in which she brought her message across to the students was perhaps not the best or most effective method.

 Flashing the detailed N Level results on the board in front of the entire class without taking the students’ pride and self-esteem into account was not exactly the best move. She could have communicated individually to these students, or talked to them in a group, but not in front of the whole class in such a harsh manner.

 I suppose many Sec 5 students already feel inferior in the first place towards other students from the express stream. This was probably another huge bruise to their egos. (Or slap in their faces) The setting that the principal chose to vent her anxiety with her ‘wake up call’ (As she was quoted as saying in later interviews) was a bad choice. Not in front of the whole class, please, and for goodness’s sake, it’s only the first day of school! Also, the harsh threatening tone was very uncalled for.

 I think most students out there can emphatise with such situations – I mean, just put yourself in the shoes of those students. Or, just think back to the specific incidents back in school where some nasty Maths or PE teacher of yours humiliated you in front of the whole class ‘for your own good’. I remember quite a few specific incidents myself, most significantly a Maths tutor who spent half the lesson shouting at me in frustration in front of the class until I was in tears.

 Did the teachers in these cases really need to display their anger or frustration at such unopportunate moments and settings? Were there any other better alternatives for getting their messages across?

 Of course, there’s the other side of the argument about how teachers and principals really mean well, and how such ‘wake-up calls’ are the most effective methods to deal with under-performing students, but then again, where does that leave students with inferior complexes, or students who already have difficulties coping with schoolwork in the first place?

Also, teachers and principals are in very powerful authoritative positions in the school setting. Their methods of communication, therefore, are extremely crucial. (And we all know how delicate students can be in a school setting.) I find it a rather old-fashioned ‘Asian’ thing for students to display blind obedience to teachers, no matter how unreasonable the teacher may be. Question is – Is there a need for us to adhere to such traditions from the past in this day and age? Does behaviour like this principal’s reflect the general trend of our Singaporean kiasu mindset of putting grades before everything else?

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!