To Sell Well, We Must Understand The Human Communication Process

Before looking outwards at our prospects and customers we need to look at ourselves, because each of us is a unique human being with our own desires, dreams, problems and thoughts. To understand how we can communicate and therefore sell more effectively, we need to understand the human communication process.

Every moment our unconscious mind absorbs over 2 million bits of information through our senses. We are bombarded moment by moment with sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches. Yet according to Professor George Miller from Harvard University, we can only process around seven chunks of information consciously at any given moment. That’s an awful lot of information that our conscious mind chooses to ignore or to be more accurate, delete! This means that every individual will process information based on what they a focusing on at that time.

The information that enters our unconscious mind goes through three filters to get to our conscious mind. We delete most of it because there is no way that our conscious mind could cope with what is held in the unconscious mind. We distort the information based on our current situation.

For example, a child may interpret the ordinary sounds of a central heating system very differently if they are left alone in the house. This is why, sometimes people can completely misinterpret what we are saying to them, they are distorting the information because they are focusing on a different meaning to the one we wanted to convey.

We also generalize information. For example; once we have learned what a chair looks like we can instantly identify other ‘chairs’ even though we haven’t seen every type of chair. We can generalize the way most doors are opened, how most cars are driven and even how to identify when a person is either male or female.

After the information has been filtered into our conscious mind, there are only four things we can do with it inside our heads…we make pictures, sounds, we talk to ourselves or we have feelings. The combination of these things creates an emotion that has an effect on our physiology. For example; if we feel embarrassed we might blush, if we feel angry we may tighten up our muscles. Every thought we have affects our body and the way we move our body affects our thinking. Our mind and body are totally interconnected.

If you look at a person suffering from depression, often they are round shouldered, they look down a lot and many of them will be using a lot of negative self talk, “Why does this always happen to me?” “I’m useless, what’s the point?”

Contrast this to a person who feels really confident, they stand upright, their shoulders are back and they use eye contact. Because every thought we have affects our body this means that our emotional state also affects our behavior, which consequently affects and influences the results we get.

Therefore, if we want to change aspects of our lives, including the way our prospects and customers react to us, first we have to change our own thinking.

Individual Responses Re: Bad Faith Negotiation Tactics

List any other ways in which a party acts in "bad faith" (i.e., unfairly) in a negotiation:



1 'stonewalling' or frustrating the process unnecessarily

2 If party is primarily motivated by punishing the other, or by vindicating herself.

3 The mediator doesn't help the parties overcome these obstacles

4 Party uses the process for 'discovery.' Party has no intention to explore opportunities for settlement.

5 Comes with no intent in even considering settlement except for some number decided by someone else who isn't present.
Then the negotiation usually is a total waste of everyone's time, money, and effort.

6 Takes advantage of a power imbalance which mediator does not address and ameliorate;
consciously takes advantage of mediator's bias or close link to such party; is simply unreasonable and intractable; is unwilling
to listen to the other side;

7 A party gets off topic so much they run the time out and both sides aren't given enough time (even if they are given
"equal" time but one party isn't permitted to address things important to their position b/c of having to address the side
issues ("distractions"))

8 A party uses hardball tactics meant to corner or trick the other party into submission.

9 If a party knows or should know the value of the case but refuses to acknowledge it.

10 Threats relating to future unfair behavior

11 Not willing to go through whole process

12 I don't equate "unfair" with "bad faith" Unfair could simply mean having a better lawyer, more experience, etc.

13 Asserting and maintaining an unreasonable position; being unprepared; not having decision-makers present

14 Fails to show up.

15 They don't listen.

16 By refusing to listen to the other side's position(s)/need(s)

17 Refuses to listen to the other party. Refuses to provide necessary documents.

18 Parties can lie/withhold information/refuse to compromise (with or without good reason). None of that is "unfair." I can't
think of anything a party can do that would be "unfair."

19 Unequal disparity of dispute resolution resources between (among) the parties.

20 Person doesn't have settlement authority.

21 A party shows up without the authority/will/information to settle.

22 Misrepresentation or characterization of the case to their own client.

23 Is unwilling to listen to the other party. Can't get off positions and into interests and needs

24 Trying to "bully the mediator or other party.

25 A party is not a decision maker but represents him/herself as one having authority

26 The more powerful party (like a big corporation) overwhelms the little guy with nomenclature, laws, etc.

27 Comes to mediation for other ulterior, reason, i.e., determine opponent's bottom line, conduct discovery... Etc

28 Because "good" is a relative term #6 is tough. A party who does not give the other party a chance at understanding the
reason for their actions or lack of action hinders a fair/helpful/just process.

29. Keeping information from a party that will directly effect a decision just because the other party didn't directly ask for it
when the ramification is known and obvious if the information were shared. Unknown ramifications for information withheld
probably would not constitute "bad faith." Unknown because communication is hindered by being stuck in a position, that is.

30. It is only form to get to court--let the judge decide, they say

31 Negative communication patterns continue; there is no self-analysis of what one contributes to the conflict

32 A party declares that he/she has authority to settle when such authority does not exist.

33 Aggressive behavior. More comprehensively - a party that does not do as it would be done by.

34 They take advantage of a power differential (i.e., the other party is emotionally weak, afraid, a victim of some kind of
discrimination, etc.)

35 Makes selfish, hurtful or threatening comments.

36 A Party acts unfairly when it refuses to settle because it wants to outspend its opponent in litigation or its attorneys
want to keep billing their client, therefore they steer the case away from a fair settlement.

37 Manipulation of information, power, or communication process (verbal and non-verbal)

Nerve Communication

Let's see how the nerve communication process works.

1. The prescription cell (sending cell) makes serotonin (5-hydrodynamical, 5HT) from the amino acid cryptography and packages it in vesicles in its end terminals.
2. An electrochemical nerve signal passes down the prescriptive cell into its end terminals.
3. The nerve signal stimulates the vesicles containing serotonin to fuse with the cell membrane and dump serotonin into the synaptic cleft.
4. Serotonin passes across the synaptic cleft, binds with special proteins called receptors on the membrane of the synaptic cell (receiving cell) and sets up a new electrochemical signal in that cell (the signal can stimulate or inhibit the post-synaptic cell). Serotonin fits with its receptor like a and key.
5. The remaining serotonin molecules in the cleft and those released by the receptors after use get destroyed by enzymes in the cleft (monogamist oxidant (MAO) and catechist-o-methyl transferal (COM)). Some get taken up by specific transporters on the prescription cell (re-uptake). In the prescriptive cell, the absorbed serotonin molecules get destroyed by MAO and COM. This enables the nerve signal to be turned "off."

A similar process occurs for nor-epinephrine, which is also implicated in mood, emotions and MED. Serotonin, epinephrine and dopamine are chemically similar and belong to a class of neurotransmitters called mono-amine neurotransmitters. Because these chemicals are structurally similar, they are all recognized by the enzymes MAO and COMET.

Now let's look at how antidepressants work.This is the communication one of the variety of communication.It is more help full to all communication process.

Models of the Communication Process

Abstract

communication is important to give any pp (paper presentation) and talk to others directly or indirectly.communication is used in the most of cases.
We teach the same models of communication today that we taught forty years ago. This can and should be regarded as a mark of the enduring value of these models in highlighting key elements of that process for students who are taking the process apart for the first time. It remains, however, that the field of communication has evolved considerably since the 1960's, and it may be appropriate to update our models to account for that evolution. This paper presents the classic communication models that are taught in introducing students to interpersonal communication and mass communication, including Shanon's information theory model (the active model), a cybernetic model that includes feedback (the interactive model, an intermediary model (sometimes referred to as a gatekeeper model of the two-step flow), and the transactor model. It then introduces a new ecological model of communication that, it is hoped, more closely maps to the the range of materials we teach and research in the field of communication today. This model attempts to capture the fundamental interaction of language, medium, and message that enables communication, the socially constructed aspects of each element, and the relationship of creators and consumers of messages both to these elements and each other.

Introduction

While the field of communication has changed considerably over the last thirty years, the models used in the introductory chapters of communication textbooks (see Adler, 1991; Adler, Rosenberg, and Town, 1996; Barker and Barker, 1993; Becker and Roberts, 1992; Brittne, 1996; Burgeon, Hunspell, and Dawson, 1994; De Fleur, Kearney, and Flax, 1993; De Vito, 1994; Gibson and Hanna, 1992; Wood, 2002) are the same models that were used forty years ago. This is, in some sense, a testament to their enduring value. Shannen's (1948) model of the communication process (Figure 1) provides, in its breakdown of the flow of a message from source to destination, an excellent breakdown of the elements of the communication process that can be very helpful to students who are thinking about how they communicate with others. It remains, however, that these texts generally treat these models as little more than a baseline. They rapidly segue into other subjects that seem more directly relevant to our everyday experience of communication. In interpersonal communication texts these subjects typically include the social construction of the self, perception of self and other, language, nonverbal communication, listening, conflict management, intercultural communication, relational communication, and various communication contexts, including work and family. In mass communication texts these subjects typically include media literacy, media and culture, new media, media industries, media audiences, advertising, public relations, media effects, regulation, and media ethics.

There was a time when our communication models provided a useful graphical outline of a semesters material. This is no longer the case. This paper presents the classic models that we use in teaching communication, including Shannen's information theory model (the active model), a cybernetic model that includes feedback (the interactive model, an intermediary model (sometimes referred to as a gatekeeper model of the two-step flow), and the trans active model. Few textbooks cover all of these models together. Mass Communication texts typically segue from Shanon's model to a two-step flow or gatekeeper model. Interpersonal texts typically present Shanon's model as the "active" model of the communication process and then elaborate it with interactive (cybernetic) and trans active models. Here we will argue the value of update these models to better account for the way we teach these diverse subject matters, and present a unifying model of the communication process that will be described as an . This model seeks to better represent the structure and key constituents of the communication process as we teach it today.

Shannen's Model of the Communication Process

Shanon's (1948) model of the communication process is, in important ways, the beginning of the modern field. It provided, for the first time, a general model of the communication process that could be treated as the common ground of such diverse disciplines as journalism, rhetoric, linguistics, and speech and hearing sciences. Part of its success is due to its structuralist reduction of communication to a set of basic constituents that not only explain how communication happens, but why communication sometimes fails. Good timing played a role as well. The world was barely thirty years into the age of mass radio, had arguably fought a world war in its wake, and an even more powerful, television, was about to assert itself. It was time to create the field of communication as a unified discipline, and Shannen's model was as good an excuse as any. The model's enduring value is readily evident in introductory textbooks. It remains one of the first things most students learn about communication when they take an introductory communication class. Indeed, it is one of only a handful of theoretical statements about the communication process that can be found in introductory textbooks in both mass communication and interpersonal communication.

Figure 1: Shannen's (1948) Model of the communication process.

Shannen's model, as shown in Figure 1, breaks the process of communication down into eight discrete components:

1. An information source. Presumably a person who creates a message.
2. The message, which is both sent by the information source and received by the destination.
3. A transmitter. For Shanon's immediate purpose a telephone instrument that captures an audio signal, converts it into an electronic signal, and amplifies it for transmission through the telephone network. Transmission is readily generalized within Shannen's information theory to encompass a wide range of transmitters. The simplest transmission system, that associated with face-to-face communication, has at least two layers of transmission. The first, the mouth (sound) and body (gesture), create and modulate a signal. The second layer, which might also be described as a channel, is built of the air (sound) and light (gesture) that enable the transmission of those signals from one person to another. A television broadcast would obviously include many more layers, with the addition of cameras and microphones, editing and filtering systems, a national signal distribution network (often satellite), and a local radio wave broadcast antenna.
4. The signal, which flows through a channel. There may be multiple parallel signals, as is the case in face-to-face interaction where sound and gesture involve different signal systems that depend on different channels and modes of transmission. There may be multiple serial signals, with sound and/or gesture turned into electronic signals, radio waves, or words and pictures in a book.
5. A carrier or channel, which is represented by the small unlabeled box in the middle of the model. The most commonly used channels include air, light, electricity, radio waves, paper, and postal systems. Note that there may be multiple channels associated with the multiple layers of transmission, as described above.
6. Noise, in the form of secondary signals that obscure or confuse the signal carried. Given Shannen's focus on telephone transmission, carriers, and reception, it should not be surprising that noise is restricted to noise that obscures or obliterates some portion of the signal within the channel. This is a fairly restrictive notion of noise, by current standards, and a somewhat misleading one. Today we have at least some media which are so noise free that compressed signals are constructed with an absolutely minimal amount information and little likelihood of signal loss. In the process, Shannen's solution to noise, redundancy, has been largely replaced by a minimally redundant solution: error detection and correction. Today we use noise more as a metaphor for problems associated with effective listening.
7. A receiver. In Shanon's conception, the receiving telephone instrument. In face to face communication a set of ears (sound) and eyes (gesture). In television, several layers of receiver, including an antenna and a television set.
8. A destination. Presumably a person who consumes and processes the message.

Like all models, this is a minimalist abstraction of the reality it attempts to reproduce. The reality of most communication systems is more complex. Most information sources (and destinations) act as both sources and destinations. Transmitters, receivers, channels, signals, and even messages are often layered both serially and in parallel such that there are multiple signals transmitted and received, even when they are converged into a common signal stream and a common channel. Many other elaborations can be readily described.. It remains, however, that Shannon's model is a useful abstraction that identifies the most important components of communication and their general relationship to one another. That value is evident in its similarity to real world pictures of the designs of new communication systems, including Bell's original sketches of the telephone, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Bell's drawing of the workings of a telephone, from his original sketches (source: Bell Family Papers; Library of Congress; http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mcc/004/0001.jpg)

Bell's sketch visibly contains an information source and destination, transmitters and receivers, a channel, a signal, and an implied message (the information source is talking). What is new, in Shanon's model (aside from the concept of noise, which is only partially reproduced by Bell's batteries), is a formal vocabulary that is now generally used in describing such designs, a vocabulary that sets up both Shannen's mathematical theory of information and a large amount of subsequent communication theory. This correspondence between Bell's sketch and Shanon's model is rarely remarked (see Hopper, 1992 for one instance).

Shannen's model isn't really a model of communication, however. It is, instead, a model of the flow of information through a medium, and an incomplete and biased model that is far more applicable to the system it maps, a telephone or telegraph, than it is to most other media. It suggests, for instance, a "push" model in which sources of information can inflict it on destinations. In the real world of media, destinations are more typically self-selecting "consumers" of information who have the ability to select the messages they are most interested in, turn off messages that don't interest them, focus on one message in preference to other in message rich environments, and can choose to simply not pay attention. Shanon's model depicts transmission from a transmitter to a receiver as the primary activity of a medium. In the real world of media, messages are frequently stored for elongated periods of time and/or modified in some way before they are accessed by the "destination". The model suggests that communication within a medium is frequently direct and unidirectional, but in the real world of media, communication is almost never unidirectional and is often indirect.

Derivative Models of the Communication Process

One of these shortcomings is addressed in Figure 2's intermediary model of communication (sometimes referred to as the gatekeeper model or two-step flow (Kate, 1957)). This model, which is frequently depicted in introductory texts in mass communication, focuses on the important role that intermediaries often play in the communication process. Mass communication texts frequently specifically associate editors, who decide what stories will fit in a newspaper or news broadcast, with this intermediary or gatekeeper role. There are, however, many intermediary roles (Fouler, 2002a) associated with communication. Many of these intermediaries have the ability to decide what messages others see, the context in which they are seen, and when they see them. They often have the ability, moreover, to change messages or to prevent them from reaching an audience (destination). In extreme variations we refer to such gatekeepers as censors. Under the more normal conditions of mass media, in which publications choose some content in preference to other potential content based on an editorial policy, we refer to them as editors (most mass media), moderators (Internet discussion groups), reviewers (peer-reviewed publications), or aggregators (clipping services), among other titles . Delivery workers (a postal delivery worker, for instance) also act as intermediaries, and have the ability to act as gatekeepers, but are generally restricted from doing so as a matter of ethics and/or law.

Figure 3: An Intermediary Model.

Variations of Figure 3's gatekeeper model are also used in teaching organizational communication, where gatekeepers, in the form of bridges and liaisons, have some ability to shape the organization through their selective sharing of information. These variations are generally more complex in depiction and often take the form of social network diagrams that depict the interaction relationships of dozens of people. They network diagrams often presume, or at least allow, bi-directional arrows such that they are more consistent with the notion that communication is most often bidirectional.

The bidirectional of communication is commonly addressed in interpersonal communication text with two elaborations of Shannen's model (which is often labeled as the action model of communication): the interactive model and the transaction model. The interactive model, a variant of which is shown in Figure 4, elaborates Shannen's model with the cybernetic concept of feedback (Werner, 1948, 1986), often (as is the case in Figure 4) without changing any other element of Shannen's model. The key concept associated with this elaboration is that destinations provide feedback on the messages they receive such that the information sources can adapt their messages, in real time. This is an important elaboration, and as generally depicted, a radically oversimplified one. Feedback is a message (or a set of messages). The source of feedback is an information source. The consumer of feedback is a destination. Feedback is transmitted, received, and potentially disruptive via noise sources. None of this is visible in the typical depiction of the interactive model. This doesn't diminish the importance of feedback or the usefulness of elaborating Shannan's model to include it. People really do adapt their messages based on the feedback they receive. It is useful, however, to notice that the interactive model depicts feedback at a much higher level of abstraction than it does messages.

Figure 4: An Interactive Model:

This difference in the level of abstraction is addressed in the transactional model of communication, a variant of which is shown in Figure 5. This model acknowledges neither creators nor consumers of messages, preferring to label the people associated with the model as communicators who both create and consume messages. The model presumes additional symmetries as well, with each participant creating messages that are received by the other communicator. This is, in many ways, an excellent model of the face-to-face interactive process which extends readily to any interactive medium that provides users with symmetrical interfaces for creation and consumption of messages, including notes, letters, C.B. Radio, electronic mail, and the radio. It is, however, a distinctly interpersonal model that implies an equality between communicators that often doesn't exist, even in interpersonal contexts. The caller in most telephone conversations has the initial upper hand in setting the direction and tone of a a telephone caller than the receiver of the call (Hopper, 1992).In face-to-face head-complement interactions, the boss (head) has considerably more freedom (in terms of message choice, media choice, ability to frame meaning, ability to set the rules of interaction) and power to allocate message bandwidth than does the employee (complement). The model certainly does not apply in mass media contexts.

Figure 5: A Transactional Model:

The "personalized" (xx xxx, 199x) media of the Internet through this implied symmetry into even greater relief. Most Internet media grant everyone symmetrical creation and consumption interfaces. Anyone with Internet access can create a web site and participate as an equal partner in e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, computer conferences, collaborative composition sites, blogs, interactive games, Moods, MO Os, and other media. It remains, however, that users have very different preferences in their message consumption and creation. Some people are very comfortable creating messages for others online. Others prefer to "lurk"; to freely browse the messages of others without adding anything of their own. Adding comments to a computer conference is rarely more difficult than sending an e-mail, but most Internet discussion groups have many more lurkers (consumers of messages that never post) than they have contributors (people who both create and consume messages). Oddly, the lurkers sometimes feel more integrated with the community than the contributors do (Balm, 2000).

A New Model of the Communication Process

Existing models of the communication process don't provide a reasonable basis for understanding such effects. Indeed, there are many things that we routinely teach undergraduates in introductory communication courses that are missing from, or outright inconsistent with, these models. Consider that:

• we now routinely teach students that "receivers" of messages really "consume" messages. People usually have a rich menu of potential messages to choose from and they select the messages they want to hear in much the same way that diners select entrees from a restaurant menu. We teach students that most "noise" is generated within the listener, that we engage messages through "selective attention", that one of the most important things we can do to improve our communication is to learn how to listen, that mass media audiences have choices, and that we need to be "literate" in our media choices, even in (and perhaps especially in) our choice of television messages. Yet all of these models suggest an "injection model" in which message reception is automatic.
• we spend a large portion of our introductory courses teaching students about language, including written, verbal, and non-verbal languages, yet language is all but ignored in these models (the use of the term in Figure 5 is not the usual practice in depictions of the transaction model).
• we spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the importance of perception, attribution, and relationships to our interpretation of messages; of the importance of communication to the perceptions that others have of us, the perceptions we have of ourselves, and the creation and superintendence of the relationships we have with others. These models say nothing about the role of perception and relations hp to the way we interpret messages or our willingness to consume messages from different people.
• we spend large portions of our introductory courses teaching students about the socially constructed aspects of languages, messages, and media use. Intercultural communication presumes both social construction and the presumption that people schooled in one set of conventions will almost certainly violate the expectations of people schooled in a different set of expectations. Discussions of the effects of media on culture presume that communication within the same medium may be very different in different cultures, but that the effects of the medium on various cultures will be more uniform. Existing general models provide little in the way of a platform from which these effects can be discussed.
• when we use these models in teaching courses in both interpersonal and mass communication; in teaching students about very different kinds of media. With the exception of the Shannon model, we tend to use these models selectively in describing those media, and without any strong indication of where the medium begins or ends; without any indication of how media interrelate with languages, messages, or the people who create and consume messages.without addressing the ways in which they are . while these media describe, in a generalized way, media,

The ecological model of communication, shown in Figure 6, attempts to provide a platform on which these issues can be explored. It asserts that communication occurs in the intersection of four fundamental constructs: communication between people (creators and consumers) is mediated by messages which are created using language within media; consumed from media and interpreted using language.This model is, in many ways, a more detailed elaboration of Roswell's (1948) classic outline of the study of communication: "Who ... says what ... in which channel ... to whom ... with what effect". In the ecological model , the "who" are the creators of messages, the "says what" are the messages, the "in which channel" is elaborated into languages (which are the content of channels) and media (which channels are a component of), the "to whom" are the consumers of messages, and the effects are found in various relationships between the primitives, including relationships, perspectives, attributions, interpretations, and the continuing evolution of languages and media.

Figure 6: A Ecological Model of the Communication Process

A number of relationships are described in this model:

1. Messages are created and consumed using language
2. Language occurs within the context of media
3. Messages are constructed and consumed within the context of media
4. The roles of consumer and creator are reflexive. People become creators when they reply or supply feedback to other people. Creators become consumers when they make use of feedback to adapt their messages to message consumers. People learn how to create messages through the act of consuming other peoples messages.
5. The roles of consumer and creator are introspective. Creators of messages create messages within the context of their perspectives of and relationships with anticipated consumers of messages. Creators optimize their messages to their target audiences. Consumers of messages interpret those messages within the context of their perspectives of, and relationships with, creators of messages. Consumers make attributions of meaning based on their opinion of the message creator. People form these perspectives and relationships as a function of their communication.
6. The messages creators of messages construct are necessarily imperfect representations of the meaning they imagine. Messages are created within the expressive limitations of the medium selected and the meaning representation space provided by the language used. The message created is almost always a partial and imperfect representation of what the creator would like to say.
7. A consumers interpretation of a messages necessarily attributes meaning imperfectly. Consumers Internet messages within the limits of the languages used and the media those languages are used in. A consumers interpretation of a message may be very different than what the creator of a message imagined.
8. People learn language by through the experience of encountering language being used within media. The languages they learn will almost always be the languages when communicating with people who already know and use those languages. That communication always occurs within a medium that enables those languages.
9. People learn media by using media. The media they learn will necessarily be the media used by the people they communicate with.
10. People invent and evolve languages. While some behavior expressions (a baby's cry) occur naturally and some aspects of language structure may mirror the ways in which the brain structures ideas, language does not occur naturally. People invent new language when there is no language that they can be socialized into. People evolve language when they need to communicate ideas that existing language is not sufficient to.
11. People invent and evolve media While some of the modalities and channels associated with communication are naturally occurring, the media we use to communicate are not.

A medium of communication is, in short, the product of a set of complex interactions between its primary constituency: messages, people (acting as creators of messages, consumers of messages, and in other roles), languages, and media. Three of these constituent are themselves complex systems and the subject of entire fields of study, including psychology, sociology, anthropology (all three of which study people), linguistics (language), media ecology (media), and communication (messages, language, and media). Even messages can be regarded as complex entities, but its complexities can be described entirely within the scope of languages, media, and the people who use them. This ecological model of communication is, in its most fundamental reading, a compact theory of messages and the systems that enable them. Messages are the central feature of the model and the most fundamental product of the interaction of people, language, and media. But there are other products of the model that build up from that base of messages, including (in a rough ordering to increased complexity) observation, learning, interpretation, socialization, attribution, perspectives, and relationships.

Discussion: Positioning the study of media in the field of communication

It is in this layering of interdependent social construction that this model picks up its name. Our communication is not produced within any single system, but in the intersection of several interrelated systems, each of which is self-standing necessarily described by dedicated theories, but each of which is both the product of the others and, in its own limited way, an instance of the other. The medium is, as McLuhan famously observed, a message that is inherent to every message that is created in or consumed from a medium. The medium is, to the extent that we can select among media, also a language such that the message of the medium is not only inherent to a message, but often an element of its composition. In what may be the most extreme view enabled by the processing of messages within media, the medium may also be a person and consumes messages, recreates them, and makes the modified messages available for further consumption. A medium is really none of these things. It is fundamentally a system that enables the construction of messages using a set of languages such that they can be consumed. But a medium is also both all of these things and the product of their interaction. People learn, create, and evolve media as a vehicle for enabling the creation and consumption of messages.

The same might be said of each of the constituents of this model. People can be, and often are, the medium (insofar as they act as messengers), the language (insofar as different people can be selected as messengers), or the message (one's choice of messenger can be profoundly meaningful). Fundamentally a person is none of these things, but they can be used as any of these things and are the product of their experience of all of these things. Our experience of messages, languages, media, and through them, other people, is fundamental in shaping who we become and how we think of ourselves and others. We invent ourselves, and others work diligently to shape that invention, through our consumption of messages, the languages we master, and the media we use.

Language can be, and often are, the message (that is inherent to every message constructed with it), the medium (but only trivially), the person (both at the level of the "language instinct" that is inherent to people (following Pinker, xxx xx) and a socialized semiotic overlay on personal experience), and even "the language" (insofar as we have a choice of what language we use in constructing a given message). Fundamentally a language is none of these things, but it can be used as any of these things and is the product of our use of media to construct messages. We use language, within media, to construct messages, such as definitions and dictionaries) that construct language. We invent and evolve language as a product of our communication.

As for messages, they reiterate all of these constituents. Every message is a partial and incomplete precis of the language that it is constructed with, the medium it is created in and consumed from, and the person who created it. Every message we consume allows us to learn a little more about the language that we interpret with, the medium we create and consume messages in, and the person who created the message. Every message we create is an opportunity to change and extend the language we use, evolve the media we use, and influence the perspective that consumers of our messages have of us. Yet fundamentally, a message is simply a message, an attempt to communicate something we imagine such that another person can correctly interpret the message and thus imagine the same thing.

This welter of intersecting McLuhanesque/Burke metaphors and inter dependencies provides a second source of the models name. This model seeks, more than anything, to position language and media as the intermediate building blocks on which communication is built. The position of language as a building block of messages and and communication is well understood. Over a century of study in semantics, semiotics, and linguistics have produced systematic theories of message and language production which are well understood and generally accepted. The study of language is routinely incorporated into virtually all programs in the field of communication, including journalism, rhetoric and speech, film, theater, broadcast media, language arts, speech and hearing sciences telecommunications, and other variants, including departments of "language and social interaction". The positioning of the study of media within the field of communication is considerably more tenuous. Many departments, including most of those named in this paragraph, focus almost entirely on only one or two media, effectively assuming the medium such that the focus of study can be constrained to the art of message production and interpretation, with a heavy focus on the languages of the medium and little real introspection about what it means to use that medium in preference to another or the generalized ways in which all media are invented, learned, evolved, socialized, selected or used meaningfully.

Such is, however, the primary subject matter of the newly emerging discipline of media ecology, and this model can be seen as an attempt to position media ecology relative to language and messages as a building block of our communication. This model was created specifically to support theories of media and position them relative to the process of communication. It is hoped that the reader finds value in that positioning.

Conclusion: Theoretical and Petrological Value

Models are a fundamental building block of theory. They are also a fundamental tool of instruction. Shannen's information theory model, Werner's Cybernetic model, and Kate' two step flow each allowed allowed scholars decompose the process of communication into discrete structural elements. Each provides the basis for considerable bodies of communication theory and research. Each model also provides teachers with a powerful pedagogical tool for teaching students to understand that communication is a complex process in which many things can, and frequently do, go wrong; for teaching students the ways in which they can perfect different skills at different points in the communication process to become more effective communicators. But while Shannen's model has proved effective across the primary divides in the field of communication, the other models Kat' and Werner's models have not. Indeed, they in many ways exemplify that divide and the differences in what is taught in courses oriented to interpersonal communication and mass communication.

Werner's cybernetic model accentuates the interactive structure of communication. Kate' model accentuates its production structure. Students of interpersonal communication are taught, through the use of the interactive/cybernetic and trans active models that attending to the feedback of their audience is an important part of being an effective communicator. Students of mass communication are taught, through the intermediary/gatekeeper/two-step flow model, that controlled production processes are an important part of being an effective communicator. The difference is a small one and there is no denying that both attention to feedback and attention to detail are critical skills of effective communicators, but mass media programs focus heavily on the minutiae of production, interpersonal programs focus heavily on the minutiae of attention to feedback. Despite the fact that both teach both message production the languages used in message production, and the details of the small range of media that each typically covers, they discuss different media, to some extent different languages, and different approaches to message production. These differences, far more than more obvious differences like audience size or technology, are the divides that desperate the study of interpersonal communication from mass communication.

The ecological model of communication presented here cannot, by itself, remediation such differences, but it does reconstitution and extend these models in ways that make it useful, both demagogically and theoretically, across the normal disciplinary boundaries of the field of communication. The author has made good use of the model in teaching a variety of courses within several communication disciplines, including on interpersonal communication relationships and communities, and new communication technologies. In introductory Interpersonal Communication classes the model has shown considerable value in outlining and tying together such diverse topics as the social construction of the self, verbal and non-verbal languages, listening, relationship formation and development, telecommunications, perception, attribution, and the ways in which communication changes in different interpersonal media. In an Organizational Communication class the model has proved value in tying temporarily Organizational models, including network analysis models, satisfying, and Wick's model to key organizational skills like effective presentation, listening, and matching the medium to the goal and the stakeholder. In a communication ethics class it has proved valuable in elaborating the range of participants in media who have ethical responsibilities and the scope of their responsibilities. In a mass media criticism class it has proved useful in showing how different critical methods relate to the process of communication and to each other. In each course the model has proved valuable, not only in giving students tools with which they can decompose communication, but which they can organize the course materials into a cohesive whole.

While the model was originally composed for pedagogical purposes, the primary value for the author has been theoretical. The field of communication encompasses a wide range of very different and often integrated theories and methods. Context-based gaps in the field like the one between mass media and interpersonal communication have been equated to those of "two sovereign nations," with "different purposes, different boundaries", "different methods", and "different theoretical orientations" (Berger and Chaffinch, 1988), causing at least some to doubt that the field can ever be united by a common theory of communication (Craig, 1999). xx xxx The author repeatedly finds these gaps and boundaries problematic

It may be be that complex model of the communication process that bridges the theoretical orientations of interpersonal, organizational, and mass media perspectives can help to bridge this gap and provide something more than the kind of metamorphic that Craig calls for. Defining media directly into the process of communication may help to provide the kind of substrate that would satisfy Capella's (1991) suggestion we can "remake the field by altering the organizational format", replacing contexts with processes that operate within the scope of media. This perspective does exactly that. The result does not integrate all of communication theory, but it may provide a useful starting point on which a more integrated communication theory can be built. The construction of such theory is the author's primary objective in forwarding this model for your comment and, hopefully, your response.

How many types of communication system?

umm.. well ill try to answer this i think...

telephone

mobile phone

email

MI

radio

writing a letter

telegram (it may not still be in use today but you never know)

i think thats it. so i can think of 6.

What Are the Different Types of Communication Systems?

There are a great many different types of communication systems, due to the fact that each one has the potential to contain a vast array of components. There are, however, several categories that each type of system can usually be placed into. The types of communications systems are usually discernible by the primary medium through which the information is transmitted. Communication systems may also be classified as one-way, two-way, or multiple-way systems, depending on how many parties can exchange information through its various components.

One example is a radio communication system. The medium through which information is transmitted electromagnetic waves, and more specifically those with frequencies that are lower than the frequency of visible light. On one end of these radio systems is a transmitter that will take the information and electronically convert it into radio waves. These radio waves travel to the other end of the radio communication system, which is designed to detect and decode the waves and convert them to recognizable information. A simple two-way radio system may comprise of two hand held transceivers, for example, which are more commonly referred to as walking-talkies.

Power line communication systems are used to transmit electronically from a source or array of sources to their destinations. A type of electronic system that often is referred to is cable television, widely known for its transmission of a plethora of channels throughout homes in addition to their use for providing Internet access. Power line communication systems are often used because of their relatively low cost, even though there are other systems that surpass them in quality and efficiency.

Optical communication systems offer many improvements over other types, and have also been responsible for revolutionizing the telecommunications industry. The main reason for this is because the medium used in optical systems is light, which allows for them to be faster, clearer, and more reliable than electrical or radio signals. These reliable signals are usually carried through optical fiber, although an optical signal can be sent over relatively short distances through the air, usually only over a couple of miles.

As mentioned, communication systems are far from simple and can contain a wide range of components to uphold continuous operation. In addition to the above systems, communications networks may utilize Internet, cellular, wireless, satellite technologies and more. Those systems which take advantage of two or more media are referred to as hybrid communication networks. Much research is being devoted to finding better ways of developing communications systems through countless combinations of all of these communications technologies.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS ''GAMES''

COMMUNICATION SKILLS "GAMES"

    The following is a series of "games" which have been found
quite useful in helping "a bunch of interested people" learn to
communicate! with each other, taking them one further step
towards forming the "group mind" necessary to work together as a
coven in circle.

Monitor's Notes:

There are a few brief rules which must be observed in order to
make these games more productive for the participants.  These
are:

1.   NOTHING which is said during the games may be discussed
    outside the games without the consent of ALL parties
    involved in the subject.  This is enforced by personal
    honor only, but must be stressed at the onset of the
    series.

2.   Everyone's attention should be on the two people involved in
    the conversation.  No off-side comments or conversation will
    be tolerated.

3.   Each step of the series MUST be accomplished in the exact
    sequence necessary.  Example:

    Person 1 - "Tell me something you like about me."

    Person 2 - "I like the clothes you choose."

    Person 1 - "Thank you."

    It is the Monitor's main task to see that each step is
    performed before going on to the next.  The first step is
    Person 1's opening statement or question.  Step two is
    Person 2's response.  Step three, Person 1's acknowledgment.

    In the sequences with Person 1 asking (or stating) two
    communications, the steps are as follows:  Person 1 opens
    with "Is there" or "There is", Person 2 respond with "yes"
    or "no".  If "no", then Person 1 acknowledges, and moves to
    the next person.  If "yes", then Person 1 opens, Person 2
    responds with "yes", Person 2 continues with statement or
    question asked for, then Person 1 acknowledges (or answers,
    whereupon Person 2 acknowledges).

    Without going into gory detail, the steps are similar in the
    games where Person 1 opens with "There is something I would
    like to tell/ask you."  Person 2 responding with "Would you
    like to ask me now?", etc.

4.   The word WHY, either as question or as statement is NOT
    ALLOWED!  There are too many defense mechanisms built-in to
    this word for productive answers to be given or understood.

5.   For any answer requested in the first five games, the
    answer-er has three options...They may tell the truth, they
    may lie, or they may refuse to answer.  All must be
    accepted.  In HOT SEAT only, are there only two options...In
    answering the questions you may lie or you may tell the
    truth, but you may not refuse to answer.

6.   Last, and most important...JUSTIFICATION OF REASONING OR
    ACTIONS IS DISALLOWED!  This is the most judgmental ruling
    on the part of the Monitor.  It is up to the Monitor alone
    to determine whether and answer is a statement of fact, or a
    defensive maneuver.  This is the hardest part, so be alert.


Finally, when in the course of the circular nature of things the
Monitor comes due for a turn, Monitor-ship should be turned over
to any other member of the group, and may change from turn to
turn, depending on who is participating and who is Monitor.  This
can be accomplished with a simple "Stop", and something akin to
the following:

"Joe Schwartz, I designate you Monitor for the duration of my
turn."

With Joe S. returning Monitor-ship in a like manner when the turn
is ended.

The Games are illustrated here in more detailed "script-form" so
that you may understand the course of events in each.  All should
be seated in a circle so that while one person is talking all the
others will be able to see the speaker, as well as all being able
to see the Monitor.  Anyone wishing to get the Monitor's
attention may raise a hand, or say "Excuse me", but "Stop" is
reserved as the Monitor's code-word.

Note:     It is acceptable, on the Monitor's decision, to clarify
         an answer if the person receiving the answer does not
         understand, in any of the games.


GAME 1 - FLATTERY:

P1:  "Tell me something you like about me."

P2:  "I like your hairstyle"

P1:  "Thank you.  Tell me something you don't like about me."

P2:  "I don't like your use of the word "socie-cal"".

P1:  "O.K.  Tell me something you like about me."

P2:  "I like the way you have with animals."

P1:  "Thank you."


GAME 2:

Option 1:

P1:  "Is there something you would like to tell me that you have
    not previously told me?"

P2:  "Yes."

P1:  "Would you like to tell me now?"

P2:  "Yes,  I always feel left out when you do xxx thing."

P1:  "Thank you."


Option 2:

P1:  "Is there something you would like to tell me that you have
    not previously told me?"

P2:  "Yes."

P1:  "Would you like to tell me now?"

P2:  "No."

P1:  "Thank you."


Option 3:

P1:  "Is there something you would like to tell me that you have
    not previously told me?"

P2:  "No."

P1:  "O.K."


GAME 3:

P1:  "Is there something you would like to ask me which you have
    not previously asked me?"

P2:  "Yes."

P1:  "Would you like to ask me now?"

P2:  "Yes.  How is it that when someone rings the doorbell, the
    first word you say is "damn"?"

P1:  "I don't know.  Wait, yes I do know...the doorbell always
    disturbs my concentration on what I'm doing at the time."

P2:  "Thank you."

As with the previous game, Options 2 and 3 apply also.


GAME 4:

P1:  "There is something I would like to tell you that I have not
    previously told you."  (Note:  Make something up, if
    necessary)

P2:  "Would you like to tell me now?"

P1:  "Yes.  It concerns me that you don't seem to be getting
    enough sleep."

P2:  "All right."

Options 2 and 3...


GAME 5:

P1:  "There is something I would like to ask you that I have not
    previously asked you."

P2:  "Would you like to ask me now?"

P1:  "Yes.  Where do you go when you get angry and storm out of
    the apartment?"

P2:  "I go for a walk in the park."  (Monitor's note...watch out
    for "I go for a walk in order to/because/so I can...these
    are justifications)

P1:  "Thank you."

Options 2 and 3...


GAME 6 - HOT SEAT (ORACLE):

One chair in the room is designated the "Hot seat".  One at a
time, each participant sits in this chair and in rotation, each
of the other people ask them one question, to which there MUST BE
A REPLY.  Remember, you can tell the truth or you can lie.



These are the "Comm. Games" as they are at this point.  Names
could be assigned to the intermediate four, and some temporary
rules may be agreed upon at the start of each game, with the
consent of ALL PARTIES.

We suggest that these games be played through from the first to
the last with only short breaks between them, in order to
maximize the effect.  Playing them one at a time in consecutive
class sessions, or on separate days, seems to lessen their
effectiveness.  One class session or gathering should be
scheduled following the series to discuss the feelings of the
"Players".

ENJOY!!!!
         

Building Communication Skills Game

Effective communication in business is essential. Use this fun communication skills game to improve communication within your team.
Communication Skills Game Purpose - to illustrate the importance of clear communication, and allow the group to explore their communication style and make improvements as necessary.
Materials and Preparation - 2 matching sets of children's building blocks (e.g. Lego), with 10 blocks and 1 base board in each set. Using one set of blocks, build a random object using the 10 blocks, onto the base board. Optional - 2 bags to contain each set of building blocks.
Time - 45 min
Group Size - minimum 3 people, up to about 7.
(You can have duplicate exercise running in parallel if group is larger, but will need more sets of building blocks).

There are 4 roles in this communication skills game.

Person A - director
Person B - runner
Person C - builder
Person(s) D - observer(s)

Person A is given the built-up set of blocks, and is the only person who can see the object. It is the director's job to give clear instructions to person B, the runner, so that person C can build an exact replica of the model.

Person B listens to the director's instructions and runs to a different part of the room to where person C is sitting. The runner then passes on the building instructions, without seeing the building blocks, to Person C, the builder. The runner can make as many trips as required within the time allowed for the exercise.

Person C listens to the runner's instructions and builds the object from the set of building blocks. The builder is the only person who can see the object under construction, and building materials.

Person(s) D observe the communication game, and make notes about what works, what doesn't work, and how people behaved under pressure etc., to pass onto the group later.

Set a time limit for the exercise of 10 minutes.

When the time is up, allow the group to compare the model and the replica, and see how closely it matches. Generally, the replica will bear little resemblance to the original, which usually causes heated discussion!

Allow the group to reflect on how the exercise went, and agree 1 thing they did well, 1 thing that didn't work, and 1 thing they would do better next time.

Run the exercise again, either switching or keeping original roles, and see if any improvements have been made. Make sure you de-construct the "original" model and create a new design!

This simple communication skills game can be run many times without losing learning potential. Teams can add layers of sophistication to their communication by making use of aids such as diagrams, codes, standard procedures and using active listening techniques.