I think it makes sense for communication to be thought of as a pattern. When we first see someone we want to communicate with we usually start with some type of greeting like ‘hello,’ then maybe ask a few questions to start a conversation such as ‘how are you?’ or ‘what have you been up to?’ and then end with something to signify we are finished like ‘goodbye’ or ‘see you later’ etc. Generally, most conversations have a beginning, middle and end which is a very obvious pattern.
Communication is like a game because everything one person does affects the person he or she is communicating with. How we decide to communicate is like making moves in a game, each choice we make results in a different response from the other person. However, the analogy of communication being a game can fail because meanings can be interpreted differently. We all have our own meanings for words and actions that can be different from someone else’s.
Hello CV23 =),
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very good point about how the meanings of words and actions can be interpreted differently in communication. It made me think of how an individual’s culture has a very large part to do with how we communicate with one another.
For example, in some Middle Eastern cultures, it is the norm to be in very close proximity with the person you are trying to communicate with. However, in Western culture, we value our personal space and may feel uncomfortable if someone were to invade our personal space by not keeping an appropriate distance when talking to us. Since an individual’s culture can play a significant role in how we communicate, I don’t think it’s fair to call communication a game, because it is impossible to have everyone communicate the same way or follow the same standards of communication.
CrushedVelvet23,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point. Communications does have a beginning, middle, and end. Games also have a beginning, middle, and end. If you look at the analogy of playing a game, you may or may not be able to predict the next move of the player by the way they are interacting with you. This can also be true with communications. Most likely you can follow non verbal communication cues from the other person, but sometimes their non verbal cues can also be hard to read. So then you think to yourself, "Where do I move next?" Pragmatic perspective theorists think that it is only important to follow the interactions and not the personality. But is that really true?