Talking Without Words

Every Communication textbook I have read (one for every comm class I have taken, so a lot) has a section about Non Verbal communication. Oddly enough, none of my text books can agree on how much of our communication is sent Non Verbally; some say, 55%, some say, 85%, and some say as much as 93% of our communication is sent through non verbal channels. Of course each book cites a different study taken at a different time and or place in the U.S.. I suppose it has a lot to do with whether Tone also known as Paralanguage or Vocalics, is considered separate or a part of Non Verbal communication. I include Vocalics in the realm of Non Verbal because, even though it is the use of audible sound, it does not rely on words, thus is not a language.  One thing is clear, the overwhelming majority of what we communicate is done with non verbals.

This confuses some people, because they are seldom conscious of what their body is doing while they are communicating, aside from the general hand gestures, and facial expressions; which by themselves doesn’t seem like a big percentage of our overall communication. In addition, when people think about how and what they communicate they are mostly thinking about what they intentionally communicate.

The Fact is, most of our non verbal communication is sub conscious and is a lot more involved than simple hand gestures and facial expressions. There are Five types of Non Verbal Communication, Kinesics, Haptics, Proxemics, Chronemics and Vocalics. (Vocalics is sometimes called Paralanguage, or Tone.) and it takes a very aware and mindful person to be aware of most of them. That being said, we all pick up on non verbals from others, and react and respond accordingly, but mostly this is done on a secondary level, almost subconscious and instinctual. The more consciously aware of someones non verbal communication, as well as your own, the more effective at communicating you will be. This is because you will not only pickup on what a person is saying with their words, but be consciously aware of what they are telling you with their non verbals, such as an emotion that alters the intent of the verbals, or be able to see when the non verbals and the verbals are conflicting. This might happen when someone is scared or nervous and pretending not to be, or if someone is lying, or if they are bored and not listening. All these things can be observed via non verbal communication, and if one is aware, they can alter and adjust their communication according.

So what are these five mysterious ways of communicating? Well the first is Kinesics. This is the one we are most familiar with; It is the way in which we move our body. Kinesics involves, facial expressions, and body movements. That might sound super simple, and well, it is a very simplified way of looking at it. In reality, the study of Kinesics is vast and having even a basic understanding can greatly improve ones awareness of non verbals. The study of Kinesics categorizes gestures and expressions, breaking them down by their meaning and what they communicate. For example: a nervous shaking of the legs or fidgeting of the hands is called an Adapter. Often times we thing this means that the person is not paying attention, when instead, it is the body’s way of channeling internal noise in an attempt to focus. There are five types of Gestures. You can read more about them by clicking the link below.

Kinesics: The Categories of Gesture

The second type of non verbal communication is Haptics. Haptics is a really fancy word for touch. Believe it or not, touch is a big part of how we communicate. Even the act of not touching communicates things. There are several different types of touch, each with its own meaning and context. For example: A doctor is associate with Professional touch, as such, is allowed to touch areas that would be inappropriate for others. We create social context and norms for all different types of touch, like when a coach smacks the butt of a football player it is to show encouragement and build camaraderie, yet, one can not simply go around smacking everyone’s butt. There are several different models of the touch categories, most of which say there are 5-8 types of touch.  below are two links that help break down the differences, one of which breaks it down into five while the other has eight categories.

Haptic Communication: article 1

Haptic Communication: article 2

The next non verbal type is Proxemics, or the use of space. At first glance this might not seem to have a lot to do with how we communicate, but that is that subconscious part of non verbal. Space is very important in how we communicate, and how we utilize it says a lot about how we are feeling and what we want. Edward T. Hall came up with a system of how we use space in a social context, (this system can be applied to any culture, but may have different distances for different intervals.) basically showing what a cultures comfort level of space is for different types of communication. For example: invading ones personal space is seen as aggressive, either intimately or violently, and presents a whole different dynamic to the communication. Hall’s work talks about how we change our verbal and non verbal techniques based on proxemics. We use space to communicate far more than invading someones bubble. Think of how you Identify particular spaces as yours, or as someone else’; how your office or car is yours, decorated in your style, resembling your personal characteristics. What space you claim, and how you alter it is constantly communicating to others. Ones personal space is around four feet, but they then also have territories as well. Territorial space is another aspect of proxemics. Home is usually a primary space, while work or your car might be secondary or tertiary spaces.

Notice how the boss of a big corporation is always on the top floor? That is proxemics. Notice how the bosses office is larger, has a better view, how their office chair is bigger and sits slightly higher than the one on the other side of the desk…this is all the workings of proxemics.

Edward T. Hall: Proxemic Theory, 1966
By Nina Brown

Proxemics: Territories within Proxemics

Chronemics is the use of time while communicating. This particular non verbal type is a little more abstract yet can send very powerful messages to the receiver. You might ask yourself, How can time be used to communicate? But the answer is very simple. Have you ever needed to be somewhere and someone was waiting for you, but you became preoccupied with something else? Have you ever just said “oh, they can wait.” By controlling the time before, or during communication, you are using the concept of time to send a message, where it is, that you have something more important to do, or you just don’t want to discuss a particular thing and need to speed things up. Imagine you are going to a job interview, who set up the interview time? and what does it say of you (the interviewee) is late? what does it say if the interviewer is late? If you are late, it might suggest that the job is not as important to you as it should be, or that the time of the interview is outside of your normal operating schedule. When the interviewer is late, they are making you wait, and showing that they are in charge, as the interview can’t happen without them. We are a culture that values the concept that time is money. This makes Chronemics a very large part of non verbal business communication. Though it does not have as an intricate breakdown in its study, don’t let the simplicity fool you, time is a strong and powerful tool.

What is Chronemics?

Does the Way We Perceive Time Affect Technology Design?

Darrell Horton: Chronemics

Up until just a few years ago, the term Paralanguage was used for this last type of non verbal communication, but it has since been changed to Vocalics. In the past communication experts were conflicted about classify vocalics as a non verbal; as it refers to the pitch, tone, and speed, of speech. However, it also includes any sound that is not a word. This is where we get technical. A Phoneme is a sound of a particular and designated bit of language. We learn the ABCs and what sound each letter makes as children, these are the Phonemes of the English language. Then we use these sounds by putting them together to make more complex sounds called Morphemes. By putting a string of letters together and sounding out the phonemes associated with them we create a word, or Morpheme. These are the building blocks of language. These “phonemes” and “morphemes” are what constitute language. Paralanguage or Vocalics, is every other sound or noise that is not a word. For example, just by a person yelling or crying out, one can tell if it is a yell of pain, or joy, not by the words, or morphemes, but by other aspects of the vocal channel. These aspects of the vocal channel are not language in its strictest sense and are classified as non verbal, because in the realm of communication verbal refers to spoken language. (this is debatable from a anthropological view point of language.)

In this regard, vocalics can be broken down into two groups; that which is the delivery process of language, like pitch, tone, rate of speech, and other audible noises that do not fit the parameters of language, yet send clear messages of communication. This is an important part of our Media communication problem. As you can see in the pie chart in the beginning of the post, vocalics is responsible for a huge portion of interpreting the senders message. The importance of how something is said can mean a huge difference in its meaning.

NONVERBALS: Vocalics

Combine this with other non verbals and see how by just changing our non verbals we alter the entire message. How the word “hello” might seem friendly enough, but by just using proxemics to invade personal space, and vocalics in a tone that is suggestive, we have gone from a simple greeting to sexual harassment.

Using all of these types of Non Verbal Communication in effective ways will allow you to build trust and good rapport with others, by identifying, acknowledging, and understanding communication via non verbal channels.

DO I Detect Deceptive Inference?

 

How do we know what we know? How do YOU know the earth is round? You probably haven’t traveled around the world by ship to see if you would fall off, and most of us haven’t been to space to see the earth from afar. You know the earth is round because those who were able to prove it, did so to some other people long ago, and it is now a part of our societies general knowledge. We were taught it in school, by some teacher that was taught it to them, non of whom actually proved it. My point is not to question the shape of our planet but to demonstrate one of the many ways we come to “know” things or gather information. the more sources that tell us something to be true, the more we believe it likely it is, or if a single yet very credible source says something to be true, then we assume it to be. If someone says something to be true then presents evidence to support that claim, we then believe.  We know that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie got married recently because the media told us, and Brad and Angelina are not denying it. Furthermore, we see pictures to support the fact. But we did not witness the event, nor has those that may have part-taken confirmed it. The pictures could be fake, the tabloids could be lying…but we “know’ they are married.

The point is, we have developed methods, and processes for how we accept and assimilate new information in particular with mass media sources. We develop patterns and habits that help us sift though tons of data thrown at us, analyzing all of it, and compartmentalizing it for later use. Our minds work very much like a computer program in that aspect. We plug the new data into a mental algorithm of relevance, who sourced it, who else confirmed it, how it correlates with already know data, and a bunch of other categories the data runs through before we make a determination as to it being truthful or not.

This thinking is not something that just happens, it is taught. It’s socially engineered. We are trained to analyze, evaluate, and process new information in a way that works for our society, and in a way that helps us make sense of new information as it relates to us, in our society. That being said, we have to look at all angles of how this affects us, including the ways we would not think, or ways it might not have been intended. Society is not always looking out for the best interest of the individual.

Lets again compare our thought process to a computer, and say that like a computer we have been programmed to process information a particular way. not to get all conspiracy theory on you, not all social engineering is bad, in fact most of it is good, because it give use the skills to adapt and thrive within the confines of our society. I am not even saying that the way we have been trained to think is bad, in fact, for the most part it is a very thorough approach to vetting credible data.

The problem arises when someone or someones, want to gain power or control. After all, it is human nature to seek power and control over others. Often times this is done by exploiting others. There are many ways to exploit people, the most common is by praying on their weaknesses. One major flaw with the way we have been taught to think and process info is that it is nothing if not consistent and predictable, making it a prime target for exploitation.

If you know exactly how a program is going to work, what algorithms it will use, what filters it will apply, what biases it might have, then it becomes quite easy to develop a virus to circumvent particular parts of that process, and present data in false context allowing for a miscategorization or misevaluation of that data.  That is exactly what is happening to us, on a scale unimaginable. Using the right language, the right communication techniques, can act as a virus that  creates flawed logic, misrepresented facts, and unwarranted beliefs. But to what end? Money is the main reason. If you become aware of some negative effects of one products, or better yet a whole category of products, then a competitor comes in and offers a solution, that competitor just cornered the market and is making lots of money. It just makes sense, and we know it’s happening, we just like to think it’s happening to everyone else but us. Exploiting our predictable fact checking process to artificially create opinions of products, people, companies, places, laws, and organizations is nothing new, and is as old as marketing itself.

It isn’t some Jedi mind trick either. We are actually making it easy because we are becoming lazy about it.  It’s pretty simple stuff. Remember the post a while back I wrote about Ethos, Pathos and Logos? By just pairing non related things together we can trick the mind into thinking they are related and boom, a boost of ethos, or a boost of logos, that sends that bit of data right on through the thought process with not questions. Or a strong play to the Pathos and the mind gets tricked into forgetting about ethos and logos and that little bit of data gets moved along without question.

I am going to show you some examples, starting from simplest inferring concepts and ideas to more complex in its technique of misdirection, like falsifying facts and misrepresenting data.

Here is a propaganda picture that has the purpose of comparing Hilary Clinton to Adolf Hitler. Now, putting aside political views we can dissect this piece of propaganda and identify the simple deception within. By simply putting the pictures side by side, we can see that it is an attempt to draw similarities between the two, and state that Hilary is similar to Hitler.

The text underneath supports the intent to identify them as the same. each picture has a quote from that person underneath, the similarity in the quotes is supposed to signify a similarity in ideals or character. This  concept draws on the principle that one of these people (Adolf Hitler) is notoriously bad, and that anyone finding any commonality with this “bad” person means they are inherently as evil as Hitler himself. However, when we see what is happening and are less distracted by the imagery, and more focused on the methods of persuasion, we can see that this concept is flawed. It is particularly flawed in two parts.

1) The concept that two people sharing an idea of one particular matter does in no way mean that they share any other attributes, skills, mind sets, or characteristics.

2) This is what really gives this away as (in my opinion) failure to convey consistency. The topic of the quotes that both Hilary and Hitler share, is about utilitarianism. That is the concept that the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. This is not an evil concept at all. In fact it is what most of our current law and policy is based on, and something that most Americans see as admirable or logical in our society. I is something we idolize characters in fiction for having. For example Spock sacrifices himself to save the crew of the Enterprise in the film Star Trek 3 wrath of Khan. Then thirty years later, the ideal is still regarded as heroic as Captain Kerk does the same thing in the reboot of the Star Trek movies.  So it is clear, that the concept that might link the two (Hitler and Hilary) is not even an evil one, but an admirable one.

We can now see that after further analyzing the picture we can see that the intended meaning is unwarranted and invalid, furthermore, is not supported by the evidence supplied (the quotes). Yet thousands of people see this and succumb to the deceptive inference it makes. If you are shocked that anyone could be foolish enough to fall for such blatant and poor deception, I congratulate you on your evolved critical thinking skills, but must tell you that not everyone thinks as critically as you and I. In fact marketing studies show that propaganda like this is extremely effective. It plays to the emotional hatred of Hitler, using Pathos to drive its message.

The next example is an article about Coffee consumption.

 

Drinking More Than 4 Cups Of Coffee A Day Linked With Higher Death Risk For People Under Age 55

 

“A new study is adding further proof to the idea that good health is really about taking things in moderation.

While the numerous health benefits of coffee have been well-documented, a new study suggests drinking too much of the caffeinated stuff is linked with a higher risk of early death.

Specifically, researchers found a 21 percent higher risk of death among people younger than age 55 who drank more than 28 cups of coffee each week (which averages out to more than four cups of coffee a day).”

The Title and opening statements give a clear inference that too much coffee can kill you. The article goes on to talk about the well know adverse effects of coffee, and lightly brushes over the actual findings of the study the article is basing its claim on. When you spend a bit more time reading the findings of the study, you find that there is a simple correlation between those who drink four cups of coffee a day and a higher risk of death. We assume that correlation equals causal effect, And that is exactly what the author of the article intends. The average person doesn’t know a lot about university studies, or scientific journals, or how to go about interpreting the jargon of a particular field of study. So articles like these, break down the findings so that the normal person can understand. Unfortunately this becomes a great opportunity to misrepresent the fact. The Key to this technique is that you don’t have to lie, because you are stating the facts of the study, but by accompanying them with your own spin, you pair the data with a bias message and it becomes hard for the mind to separate the two as they were presented as a single finding.

lets look at the facts, a bunch of people who drank a bunch of coffee died earlier than expected…there is in no way any evidence that suggests it was because of the coffee. The article makes a slight and small acknowledgment to this truth but slips it by as quick as possible.

“However, it’s important to note that people younger than 55 who tended to drink more than four cups of coffee a day were also more likely to smoke and less likely to have good cardiorespiratory fitness.”

The approach of saying that it was the coffee that killed them is like saying that since 80% of bank robbers wear masks, if you buy a mask you are likely to rob a bank. Which we know is not true. The truth is that there are an endless number of reasons why consumption of this much coffee has a correlation with early death. There is no data as to why these people were drinking so much coffee to begin with, were they adrenaline junkies that put their lives at risk on a regular basis that needed the extra caffeine to make sure they could skydive at 3am, where they all drug addicts with a predisposition to addictive substances in which they were subject to a plethora of life style choices that would lead to their death, least of which would be coffee.

the bottom line is, that the facts are true, yet the clever way they are being presented makes our intake of these facts skewed. In a time of media and data overload, content creators know that only a fraction of what one reads is actually retained to memory, and it is an art to skillfully word articles so that what is remembered is the message intended.  This article is a good example of showing how this is done, because it does give the facts of the study, but many articles don’t bother to be as candid about the study and its findings. Many news articles don’t even mention who conducted the study, or the exact stats, but instead refer to generalizations, and rounded figures.

One thing I learned from my Mass Media Comm class is that there is no such thing as an unbiased article. Everything has some kind of spin to it, and the only places you will find purely facts of a study are the study summaries published in academic journals. The means that if you are not reading the dry, voiceless, jargon ridden summary of a study from an academic journal, you are reading someone else’s interpretation of that study, with their bias and their spin.

finally I want to show one of the most dangerous examples of intentional fact deception.

U.S. Government Hiding Deadly Ebola Pandemic

 

click for article

This article claims that the U.S. government is hiding over 1oo cases of Ebola in the U.S.

“The United States government is being accused of purposely misleading the public about the lightning fast spread of the Ebola virus on American soil. Watchdog group UNUSA, revealed the results of a nationwide investigation, which showed as many as 100 Americans have already been diagnosed with the deadly disease. The report states nearly 75% of those cases were fatal.”

The title and the opening paragraph make a clear blunt statement. Then support it with a source,  Watchdog group UNUSA, attempting to gain ethos. The article goes on to claim that these 100 cases are being hidden by diagnosing them as common illnesses and not as Ebola. That is to say, that there are 100 cases of Ebola that are being “Officially” diagnosed as the flu or some other illness.

“UNUSA founder, James Richter, spoke with News-Two saying, “There have been nearly 100 cases of the ebola virus in America, with most of those cases purposely being mislabeled as another disease.”

This raise red flags to me as I was reading. I thought, If these cases are being reported as other diseases, then the only way for this “source” to know the truth is to do an independent examination on each of these patients.  What is the likelihood of that? The last straw was the next line…

“This is surely becoming a pandemic and Americans are once again being left in the dark by the leaders they elected to protect them. We are calling for the impeachment of President Obama for this blatant disregard for the lives of the citizens. We simply cannot afford to be duped by our government any longer.”

I don’t know about you, but I have never read a credible news article that will talk about a medical crisis in one breath, then call for a radical political action in the next. This was clear evidence that this article was weighted to create panic and political unrest. The rest of the article continues in a Fear Mongering way, basically saying that the Ebola is spreading so fast that we will all be dead soon, yet the thing we need to worry about is not the health of ourselves or our loved ones, but pointing fingers at the government.

After about an hour of Google searching I discovered Two things.

1) The supposed watch dog group UNUSA does not exist.

2) The founder and spokesmen for this UNUSA, James Richter, doesn’t exist either…Unless they were talking about the actor from the 1995 film Free Willy.

This article was pure fabrication, with fake sources, and false facts. Yet, it continues to circulate the internet convincing more and more people that they “know” the government is hiding Ebola.  As well as hundreds of people “know” that four cups of coffee a day will kill you, and hundreds more “know” Hilary is a Nazi because she agrees with Hitler.

We can’t know everything, and we can’t know every time someone is going to try to pull the wool over our eyes, but we CAN get out of this lazy rut of a thought process we have, and stop taking the media’s word for granted because with just a little more critical thinking and a little less distraction, we could be a lot more sure of what we “Know.”

I Sure As Hell Can Comment On Your Parenting!

I don’t have kids, can I comment on how people parent? yes/no?

The question arose when I was telling my brother about an article I had read on Facebook about a man in line at a Burger King who had purchased all the pies they had to spite the inappropriately acting child in line behind him who was screaming “I want fucking pie.” I was taking the side of the man and explaining how terrible the mother of the child was for allowing such behavior. My brothers girl friend was quite upset at my stance and proclaimed that I had no right or warrant to remark on a persons parenting until I had kids of my own. I know this is a very popular viewpoint of many people, and have read several articles about how annoying it is to have people who don’t have kids to advise parents on the best way to raise their own. I get that her argument has some validity. But I also felt that I did too. The more I attempted to explain the more she simply shut me down saying to come back to her when I had my own kids, exclaiming that raising kids is hard, and it is impossible to know until you have done it. Again she has a point, but why do I still feel right about this, I know I am not wrong in judging this horrible mother in article.

click to read article

The next day I told to my boss about the article and my conversation with my brother and his girlfriend. My boss has kids and yet thinks very similar to me in the matter of whom to blame when kids act out in public. She helped me to form my reasoning and be able to articulate me point in a way that is equality if not more just than my brothers girlfriend’s.

The fact of the matter is, we are all members of society, and as such we are subject to the standards and norms of that society, I have talked about this many times. Again the consequences of disobeying some norms can be as extreme as judicial punishment, and as tame as being shunned or arouse spite by others in the same society. If someone breaks the law they get a judicial punishment, but if someone farts in public, they might get a different kind of social punishment, like dirty looks, snickering , stares, and what not. The point is, we are all expected to act “decent” in public. It is part of our Social Contract to be “Decent People.”

In a large society it is theorized that simply being an active member you have agreed to the terms of the social contract and will abide by its social norms. We see small examples of this everyday. Some teachers create them in their classrooms to hold children accountable for their actions. Here are some examples:

 

A parent is responsible for not only the behavior of their own actions, but of the actions and consequences of their children. It is a universal social truth that the parent is responsible for teaching the child the social norms and standards of public decency. That is to say, an adult standing in line at a fast food restaurant would be violating the social decency norm by shouting repeatedly “I WANT FUCKING PIE.” We might forgive a child for such actions because they wouldn’t know better (depending on their age) but the parent most certainly does, and by not correcting the behavior the parent is inherently condoning it. Thus, I may not have the right to tell you “how” to instill the proper understanding of social norms and “how” to act like a decent person, but I sure as hell can point out, and judge someone for making no effort to attempt it. By the mother not acting and allowing the child to continue his actions, the mother is being an indecent person, allowing the child to be an indecent person, perpetuating indecency, and should be subject to the same social punishment as if she was the one perpetrating the act.

Being a parent is hard, unimaginably so. I don’t need kids to know that. But I also don’t need kids to know that it can be done while being a decent person, and teaching your children to be decent people. It can be done without letting your child scream obscenities in public leaving a wake of disruption everywhere you go.  I have seen it done. If your only excuse for being an indecent person, or by extension and indecent parent is that it is hard to be decent, or to keep your kids decent, then you are not ready to be a parent. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean you get to do half the job, and by not taking action to teach and/or correct decent public behavior is not excused by the difficulty of parenting. Nor is arguing that my observation has no warrant simply because I chose not to undergo that responsibility. I may not have the right to tell you what techniques to use, but both the child and the parent are a part of the society I live in and as such they are not exempt from the rules.

This is similar to the incident I talked about a few weeks back when my girlfriend and I where out at a restaurant and the child at the table next to us just started throwing a playground ball, inside, up in the air, until it came crashing down on our feet and lodging itself under our table. Again, children are not instinctively aware of social norms, they are not born with a grasp of concepts like public decency. They must be taught, the parents are the responsible parties. I understand that ignoring bad behavior and praising good behavior is a new and proven form of positive reinforcement that works, however, there are two things wrong,1) ignoring bad behavior is all well in good in the setting of your own home, but subjecting other people who did not ask for the company of your children to their bad behavior is again thrusting indecency upon them, and as an active member of society, once your kids are no longer in the privacy of the home, they as well as the parent are expected to act as decent human beings. 2) The positive reinforcement technique is not all-encompassing. A parent’s complete lack of care or inaction in guiding or setting an example is not part of the parenting technique, and hiding behind it is disgraceful and socially destructive, furthermore, you aren’t fooling anyone.

Again the political correctness fad has robbed our country of the ability to shame and punish people violating the social contract. We need these norms to have a peaceful and cohesive existence in a society with such diversity. As a result, we can see the effects such as, lower expectations in education, lack of self agency, unjustified self-entitlement, no personal accountability, and an uninformed public on every issue from government policy, to basic issues of logic. Being aware is the first step to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are We All Retarded?

What is going on? Are we all retarded? First I would like to shut down all you politically correct idiots out their by saying “retarded” is not a bad word. The concept of Political correctness is asinine and is destroying proper communication. But that is a rant for another day. I ask this question because I feel I have sufficient evidence it’s true.

Many of you reading are bloggers, and in fact have a blog right here on WordPress.com. So the proofreading features on the site are probably no stranger to you. If you are not a blogger, WordPress has a proofreading feature that goes beyond spelling, but can look for and suggest corrections for many things, such as Passive Voice, Bias Language, clichés, Redundant Phrases, and a bunch of other things. Some can be really useful, and as I have discovered, others are just sad.

One is called Complex Expressions. I thought this to mean that if I used a sentence structure that was more complicated than it needed to be it would tell me and suggest a simplified structure, but I was wrong. It literally dumbs down your language. Complex Expression actually means a word or phrase that might be hard for the reader to understand. As if our spoken and written vocabulary wasn’t shrinking enough, we have a dumbification process. Of course it’s not WordPress’ fault, they are just providing a needed service to a culture that no longer value intellect and therefore has to communicate with as simple of words as possible. Again it’s not the feature itself that I am outraged by, it is the simple fact that it needs to exist.

Let me just clarify what I mean; If you were to read an average book from twenty years ago, or better yet take ten books from twenty years ago, and examine the vocabulary range in the vernacular of its time, you will see that in just twenty years the number of words the average person utilizes to communicate has shrunk, and if you go back one hundred years you can see it is at a fraction of what it was. Because of this, the older generation uses words that might be a little too “complex” for the modern vernacular. That is to say, there has become a communication gap between those of a time of a larger speaking vocabulary and those of the modern era that abbreviate everything so it will fit into 140 character messages, limiting not only how something is said, but what can be said.  And just how stupid have we gotten?

The proofreading feature that helps to avoid so-called “Complex Expressions” suggests thing like:

What I used———What it suggested

Determine————-Decide

Individual————-Person

Observe—————-See

Utilize——————Use

Achieve—————-Do

Encounter————-Meet

WHAT THE FUCK!

If you are reading something and you get confused by the word “achieve” or the word “individual” is just too complicated for you, then you are an utter failure as a human being.

This is my evidence, the fact that WordPress implemented this tool, only shows that it is needed in the first place. There are really people out their that are not only incapable of understanding words like “determine” or “encounter” but society is not encouraging them to learn, or expand their minds, it is catering to this diminishing of the language.

re·tard·ed

riˈtärdid/

adjective

datedoffensive

adjective: retarded

1. less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one’s age.

   • informaloffensive

     very foolish or stupid.

     “in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea”

re·tard

verb

past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded

riˈtärd/

1. delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.

   “his progress was retarded by his limp”

   synonyms:

   delay, slow down, slow up, hold back, hold up, set back, postpone, put back, detain, decelerate; More

hinder, hamper, obstruct, inhibit, impede, check, restrain, restrict, trammel;

literarystay

“the process is retarded by bureaucratic red tape”

antonyms:

accelerate

Lets read that together, I want to focus on the root word, “Retard” as in to retard something or someone. 1. delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment. synonyms: slow down, hold back, hinder, obstruct…

link to article on vocabulary in education

This behavior, this trend, this action, whatever you want to call it, the shrinking of the vocabulary is literally RETARDING the English language and everyone who speaks it! For Gods sake if you don’t know a word, trying to use some contextual evidence and if that doesn’t work, Google it! Words have power, they are what separates us from any other animal, they allow us to articulate emotion, thought, and all the complexities of the human condition. Do not cater to the laziness of the stupid or ignorant, force them to be on par, demand pride in careful crafting of phenoms and morpheme.

I can recall another example of this perpetuation of retardation; A school teacher who taught ESL was fired for content in his personal blog. His blog was about language and was geared toward helping his students, so even though it was his personal blog, he encouraged his students to read it. The Principle of the school read a particular post that talked about Homophones.

ho·mo·phone

ˈhäməˌfōn,ˈhōmə-/

noun

noun: homophone; plural noun: homophones

1. each of two or more words having the same pronunciation but different meanings, origins, or spelling, e.g., new and knew.

   • each of a set of symbols denoting the same sound or group of sounds.

Education Blogger Fired for Writing About Homophones and Confusing Homophobes

click head line to see article.

The principle felt that the word would lead people to associate the school with Homosexuality and thus fired the teacher. It is unclear if the principle in fact knew the definition of the word, and was simple foreseeing someone else making the misunderstanding, or if he himself misunderstood. The bottom line is, he does not condone the teaching of homophones at his school, and does not want his children learning about them. This is a horrific example of the deliberate and intentional sabotage of language, communication, articulation and overall intellect. It is an attack on these values, and the termination of this teacher is equivalent to terrorism, terrorism to progress, to knowledge and to human potential.

Are we all retarded? I don’t know, but we are well on our way.

Have your Cake and eat it too…

The last few post have really weighed heavy on my mind. The importance and impact of the most recent topics can not be overstated. But, as I have said before, blogs are a funny thing; too little content and the reader gets bored and too much and the author runs the risk of overwhelming the reader. The fact is, though my last post was long, it was about 1500 words longer before I revised it. It is a never-ending argument that is constantly fed by new information. But I find my viewpoint challenged by so many that simply refuse to see my logic.

I contend that our culture and media within it, create material that act as tools in which we as members of a society use to quantify and understand actions and desires of human nature. This, I must clarify, is a byproduct and not the intent of the material, for the most part. The original intent, in most cases, is entertainment. The question then becomes is a popular book, movie, song, etc. a device that instills and perpetuates stereotypes, gender roles and other social conditioning by becoming an archetype for behavior, or is it simple material for entertainment? Is a song just a song, a book just a book?

Can we have it both ways? Well that depends on what you mean and what outcome you’re looking for. When we are exposed to cultural material we are being influenced, and only the individual can determine how much they are going to be influence by any given thing. The complication then becomes awareness. We have very little control over a situation we are largely unaware of. Thus, those with a higher understanding of cultural influence and a better grasp on the superficial aspects of pop culture have a stronger disposition to balancing and separating the entertainment value from the cultural impact.

That is to say, that an individual can observe that: Christian Gray is a chauvinist that seeks to own women, or that Bella Swan has an obsession with Edward that borders psychosis, or that rap music promotes promiscuous sex and gratuitous violence, with a degree of separation, as to not confuse Christian Gray with all men, or Bella Swan with all women. However, as much as we make these distinctions on the surface, with our conscious mind, we still subconsciously utilize them as tools to create patterns, archetypes, and constructs to better understand the world around us, in particular, communication.

Like I said before, we like to dichotomize, or break things into groups. It’s easier to simplify a person and their characteristics in to categorize than it is to try to view them as unique individual. So, we label and group people, ” he is an Edward, he is a Jacob.” “she is a Bella.” “he is a thug.” she is a grenade.” Though we may not used the names of the archetypes we are paring them with, we are indeed fitting them with a cultural and social archetype from somewhere.

The danger comes in two areas. 1) When we over simplify and do not allow for enough variation by limiting categorization down to one or two groups. “men are all pigs.” “women are all sluts.”

2) When the manifestation of the archetype in the real world is impossible, or improbable, creating false assumptions to mimic the archetype. for example: In many of the popular romance books in our current pop culture, the protagonist is a character whose characteristics are highly generic as to be relatable to the largest audience, where in he/she is a virgin or has little experience who has an extremely unrealistic satisfactory sexual experience in their first encounter. The archetype then becomes the association with this described encounter and sex in general, leading to false assumptions and distorted perceptions. This is also seen in many co-cultures perpetuating gender roles. Think of the thug image as the archetype for a “real man.” or young teens girls emulating beauty magazines that have been PhotoShopped. Though many studies have shown men are attracted to women with minimal makeup, the archetype is so strong women go through extraordinary things in an attempt to achieve the unattainable.

So can we have our smut novels, and crappy music, and violent movies for their entertainment value? Can we just take things at face value, and not read into them? Can we have out cake and eat it too? Well, not without getting fat. This is the price of entertainment, or at least this type of entertainment. It is an interesting notion to think that if the gender roles change, and social engineering changed, we might be entertained by other things, thinks that might be conducive to our society, instead of destructive.

 

I Will Be Your Vampire If You Be My Porn Star!

How did we get to this? We as a society are completely turned around, flipped upside down and clueless when it comes to talking about sex and what the opposite sex wants. This really stems from a lack of communication about sex, which is caused by the social norm of “sex talk” being taboo, that in turn perpetuates our ignorance. Right? Well in order for us to learn about a topic (and we desperately need to learn), we have to talk about it. So here we go. Lets talk about sex.

Two blog posts ago I talked about Social Engineering, also called Social Conditioning. This explains that much of our personality and belief structure is influenced by and manipulated by the culture and media that makes up our society. Then last week I talked about Gender Roles and how they are socially engineered to tell us how each biological sex is supposed to be in our society. These roles not only tell us, how to be a man or woman, but how to communicate as one. I hope you have checked out the hyperlinks in my blogs, because they go a long way in explaining these effects far better than I can.

We have all had “The Talk.” You know, the one your parents give you about the Birds and the Bees, but other than the “how its done” we aren’t really taught much about it. If you aren’t taught, then you learn by observation. What do we observe,? well, sex in culture and media. Women are told that sex is part of your identity, or that you lose something when you have it. We teach women that they should be ashamed of sex, of having it, of thinking about it, of talking about it, of how often or how many partners they have. Yet we do just about the opposite with men. All too often do we write off inappropriate behavior with things like “boys will be boys,” while at the same time, shaming girls doing the same thing. But I am not going to preach to you about double standards.

What I really want to focus on is how the lack of proper teaching, and communicating leads to learning from sources that are the farthest thing from educational tools. That then leads to behavior that is not only non conducive to successful communication, but harmful as well.  This not only dictates your communication during sex, but while dating, while flirting, while at work, with friends, and just about everywhere else, because our gender roles are so much a part of our identity.

How many women do you know that fantasized about their wedding day, or wedding dress as little girls, far before they thought about boys, or sex. Women are told to dream of perfection, and white knights, on horse back, with perfect features and mild lifeless and opinion-less personalities. Don’t you think it is kinda odd that we teach women to dream of a ceremony about the joining of two people in love before they even understand the concept of love. They dream of the wedding with a blank face for the groom, as if the wedding is more important and the groom will just appear when needed, and he will fit right in to this whole plan with no opposing ideas, or opinions, or any characteristics that might indicate independent thought.

As we develop into teens and young adults, we begin to seek out information about sex, and the opposite sex. We are full of hormones, and questions that society says we should be too embarrassed to ask our parents. So who do we turn to? The media, movies, TV shows, books, magazines, rumors from friends, social media sites, web ads, and every other possible source of stimuli being forced into our heads. The scariest thing is, sometimes what we are told is completely and profoundly ridiculous, yet with no one to tell us otherwise, we never know the difference.

Try and think back to your first kiss. Not the kiss itself, but the time when kissing was a new and scary concept to you. Most of us can remember talking to our friends about what we should do, and how its done, and (from a man’s perspective)how to drive a girl wild. Can you remember all the stupid shit you were told. I do: lick her teeth, mouth the alphabet with your tongue, dart your tongue in and out like a snake, just fucking ridiculous shit. I am willing to bet as you read this, there are some notions that you believe about the opposite sex or communicating about sex in general that are just as ridiculous, only they haven’t been challenged yet, so you just go about assuming they are right. We all do that.

We don’t realize how much we learn from the cultural environment around us, and how much our assumptions about the opposite sex are formed by things that have no merit teaching about it in the first place. We have all heard of Twilight, the teen vampire story. As adults with perspective and experience, its hard for us to understand how young boys and girls might use this as a learning tool to fill in the gaps about sex. But really think about what things you used to develop your understanding, and you might find that your tools were just as arbitrary, which is probably why even as adults we have such a hard time communicating about sex.

Teens went crazy, absolutely nuts, almost anarchy when Twilight was in its full swing. Then Fifty Shades of Gray, (if you didn’t know, started out as a Twilight fan fiction that was taken down from the fan site for being too graphic) comes out, and again Fifty percent of the population ( all the ladies) goes absolutely ape shit. Believe it or not, this phenomena has every mans attention. Whether they admit it or not, every man in the country is thinking “what about these men in these books are getting all these women aroused.” Now apply the filter that is the male gender role to their thinking process, and you get men making a list of attributes these fictional characters and their relationships have that are causing such a sexual up roar with women.

Do you know how many times Edward is described as “perfect” in the Twilight books? If you read, you will discover that the Author describes this character as vaguely detailed as possible, yet as the archetype of perfection, often avoiding how in any specific way he is perfect other than that he is “prefect.” So, as a man or boy, trying to identify what about the men or relationships in these books that is so special we look to their actions and how they act towards the main female character. Why? Because Male Gender Roles dictate that in order to be a man you must be desirable by women, and thus your search for what women desire is on going and aimless.

What do we see? A lack of openness of feelings and emotion (except under extreme circumstances), Strong, dark and cold demeanor, Rough and aggressive physically and sexually, even to the point of not having self control. objectified women, and an overbearing need for control over the woman in the relationship. This may not be what she sees, but from the outside looking in, this is the impression many guys get.

Edward’s sexual appetite so violent he breaks the bed

Think of Twilight, True Blood, Fifty Shades of Gray, Vampire Dairies, Jersey Shore…so many more, they all instill the brute aggressive male role that promotes violence and sexual assault against women. And if you think that men should know better, that boys in high school should know better, I ask how? society isn’t correcting these misguided assumptions, school isn’t and neither are the parents, they are feeding it, perpetuating it. However, I would like to be clear and stop any misunderstandings before they happen. There is a line, As far as these gender roles tell us to go, society still tells us what is right and wrong. I am not saying the Rapist, or men who abuse women are not at fault or somehow not to blame for their own actions because they are. That being said, gender roles and these notions in our culture and media give a lot of well intended men and women some pretty misguided ideas.

Lets talk about the act itself. The act of having sex, is a mystery for youth, only to be unveiled through bad experiences, let downs and unmet expectations. The only thing guiding us is the tools society says is okay to use…the media. Women are taught that they shouldn’t experiment with their body, and learning what makes them feel good is naughty and makes them ugly and less desirable; while at the same time, told that they should be a porn star in the bedroom. We have all heard “A lady in the street, a Freak in the sheets.” They are taught that a man should automatically be good at sex,that he will know exactly what to do, and how to do it, so that the woman will be satisfied beyond comprehension. And if that doesn’t happen, someone he is less of a man.  Men are taught that size is the only thing that matters and if your big enough all you have to do is pull it out and stick it in. What a load of bullshit! Ladies and gentlemen, no one gets an instruction manual for having great sex, nor does the media have any good advice. It is absolutely insane to think that a person who does not even have the same anatomy as you, has any concept as to how to please you without some dialog.

I had a friend in high school that read somewhere that you can give a woman an orgasm just by talking in a low voice; that somehow the resonating of a low sexy voice would turn them on so much and so fast they would just orgasm right there on the spot. I laughed really hard in my head but didn’t challenge the idea. So for a good couple of months he would just walk up behind girls and whisper in their ear something sexy, thinking he was giving them orgasms. He would run up to me right after and say that he had just given so an so an orgasm…God I hope he doesn’t read this, I think I’m Facebook friends with him. My point is, neither sex is taught by a reliable means how to treat, engage in, or talk about sex, and until someone says “that is wrong” we continue believing no matter how absurd. . I will say that from a purely biological stand point guys are much more simple. But don’t trivialize that fact, because that has its own set of problems.

Imagine it this was, a woman’s body is like a remote control, with a bunch of buttons to press. Yet every woman’s body has its own configuration with the buttons in different places,  all different from the rest. Now imagine a man’s body as a remote control, but with far less and completely different buttons. How is it fair to expect a man to know what buttons to press to get your “movie” going if you don’t even know where your buttons are, let alone how to work them yourself? Followed by the misrepresentation of sex in the media, I.E. (If I just act like a jack hammer, she will get their eventually, or that every man on television can bring his partner to orgasm over that 2 minute commercial break to conveniently finish at the same time, or that its the mans responsibility at all, as opposed to a shared activity.)

I could go into a bunch of facts about sex, and how much both women and men don’t know about the body, but I will just give you a Hyperlinks for that. I will say that lying about interests or being satisfied is the worst thing you can do. This only perpetuates  the notions that there is nothing to talk about, and no need for change. People feel like they have to protect their partners ego, but that just leads to complications and dissatisfaction later. We are so self-conscious about being judged and shamed for what we like that we rather live a lie. This is the worst communication strategy ever.

I read this article the other day about a women jogging, and while she was out she saw a cyclist, and smiled at him and waved as they passed each other. After a few blocks of jogging she notice the man who was cycling had double backed and parked his bike and started jogging along side her. The article was about the fear in her mind, and the types of uncomfortable and dangerous situations women are put in while jogging. The jogger was so afraid that she called her husband, yet never told the man that he was making her uncomfortable, in fact did not verbalize to him anything that might give him the message his presence was not wanted.  If you are a woman you might already be taking sides and calling him a creep. But is that really fair?

I can think of about 10 movies and TV shows that I have seen a “Meet Cute” scene where a man and woman are jogging and the man does something similar to get the woman’s attention. In fact I have seen it Twice on Royal Pains (a TV show) and in a half a dozen Romantic comedies. The point is, both men and women are learning how to interact with the opposite sex from things in the media that may or may not be an accurate depiction of how to go about communicating. If you do not challenge these notions, then we are only perpetuating this behavior. I can guarantee the cyclist didn’t see anything wrong with his approach, and will probably try it again on another women, because the woman didn’t challenge his notion that that approach was okay.

Both women and men tend to dichotomize or simplify what we know. We do this to break our notions into what society is already telling us. Men and women are both looking for things in the media that already correlate with the designated gender roles. We determining what is good and what is bad material to utilize in understanding how to communicate about sex with no real flow of logic, but rather at random. men are told they aren’t suppose to ask, and women are told they aren’t suppose to tell. How does that make any sense? It is all too easy to say “all men are pigs.” or “I bet she is a lesbian.” It is much  harder to come to terms with the idea that no matter how old you are, you are probably not communicating about sex or to the opposite sex in the most productive way.

There is hope, and we are making progress. Think about that absolute frenzy I was talking about with Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray, ten or twenty years ago I don’t think women felt as comfortable about expressing their interest in sex as much. Twenty years ago, these things would have been purchased in secret and discussed only in select circles. It is great and wonderful that women are able to express their sexuality more without being shamed as much, but there is a long way to go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Ready For A Little Role Play?

So, it’s been almost a week since my last post. I knew what I wanted to write about, but didn’t know how to frame it. Blogs are a funny thing, too long and you lose the reader, but too short and you can’t really go into complex concepts. I know this one is going to be complex. To be honest, ranting verbally to my girlfriend after dinner in the backyard is far easier than trying to put it all in words on a page. That being said, I will try.

There is this male vs. female, man vs. woman agenda that our society has swept under the rug.

But that isn’t the real issue, biological sex, the real issue is gender. Most people don’t realize there is a difference, but the difference is profound. The term male or female refers to the biological sex, while the term man and woman refer to gender. Gender is an identity associated with or to a sex. This identity is dictated by social engineering or social conditioning, with particular archetypes of the ideal identity for that sex in the for of a social roles. These archetypes are called Gender Roles. This is very important because this is the root of many communication problems.

If you are a man, think of what it means to be a Man; if you are a woman think of what it means to be a Woman. What you come up with will be your interpretation of those gender roles. Everyone’s interpretation is strongly influenced by culture and society, in fact, gender roles are solely a product of society, and in each society the roles are different. The current roles in our society are the cause of so many conflicts.

I think it’s time to talk about the “F” word. I know, I know but it is important if we are to understand how gender roles are affecting our communication. I am of course talking about Feminism.

According to a Professor at my school, (who shall remain nameless) who teaches the woman studies classes at my school: Feminism is the belief that both sexes should be equal. In short, anyone who is for gender equality is a feminist. That isn’t so bad, so why do feminist have such a bad rep?

Well mainly for two reasons: the first being that most people don’t know the definition, secondly because so many people misrepresent feminism and portray it as something it’s not. The second probably leads to the first.

We don’t realize the impact gender roles have on us, and how much they affect our character and personality. The fact is, they are what teach us to interact with each other. They teach how men are to interact with other men, and how to interact with women, and likewise for woman. Gender roles created gender inequality, and though they have changed a bit here and there, they still promote gender inequality. One of the biggest problems Feminists have with moving toward a more progressive society is because most people attempt to fix symptoms of gender inequality, and symptoms of gender miscommunication. The fact is the ugly things in society that Feminist seek to correct are all symptoms of a larger problem. Spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, victim shaming, wage inequality, chauvinism, are all symptoms of a larger problem. fighting the symptoms is like putting a band-aid on a broken arm.

This is because gender roles contribute to all of these problems, meaning they are symptoms of socially damaging gender roles. For a long time we have talked about gender roles for women and talked about the social pressure put on women to be pretty, to be sexy, and to focus on the things society thinks a woman should focus on. Since the beginning of the feminist movement we have seen this argument presented in different ways. In the 60s and 70s women rebelled against their gender role and burned bras or abstained from shaving. In the 70s and 80s women again rebelled against the gender role of the house wife and demanded into the corporate work place.

We have seen charts, and posters, we have seen demonstrations and activist informational presentations. We see the social commentary on the unfair, unhealthy, and unequal standards we hold women to.  The problem now is that women have been a little gendercentric. We have done very little in exploring or understanding the effect of gender roles on men, and the dynamic effect they have on women. Basically, men are told that to be a man, to identify as a man, we must treat women a certain way, we must value them a certain way, we must think of them in that way. No matter how much we bring to attention the problems with gender roles for women, we will not change or better the social situation until we consider both genders.

Currently feminists just look at men and say “hey whats wrong with you, you chauvinist.” There is this mass blaming of the male sex, or “particular members” of the male sex. Men are met with hate, resentment, aggression, passive-aggression, fear and a whole ton of negative behavior from progressive feminists. This hostility directed towards men is unjustified. The thought that men are not just as trapped, warped, objectified or subject to the social constraints  of their own gender roles as women is kinda sexist.

But it’s no surprise we have gone so long without looking at the other side. Men have had the advantage, men haven’t seen any disadvantages from their gender role and thus there has been no reason to really scrutinize. But if we want to move forward in gender equality, we have to consider that both gender roles need to be addressed. There is a very interesting and educational documentary about male gender roles. Though, it was filmed in the 90s (meaning some of the statistics are out of date) it is still very relevant. The documentary talks about how young men are raised with a particular idea of how to be a man, and how a man acts in public. My take is that the same social conditioning that tells a boy how to be a man, also tells a boy how a man communicates to a woman, and thus the men are for the most part programmed to be sexist just as women are programmed to be overly concerned about beauty. Instead of meeting the issue with hostility, an educational approach must be taken, as slowly but surly,like the public awareness of the problems with female gender roles, men will realize how affected they are and begin to make change. Please take the time to watch this documentary The Tough Guise.

 

 

Sex…Is It Safe To Talk About?

My main goal of this blog is to identify and talk about things in our society that affect the way we communicate. One of the biggest things effecting our communication is how we as a society view sex. Sex is everywhere in our society, as an action and/or concept, it affects us in almost every aspect of our lives. Sex is in our advertising, and not just condom and bra commercials, but sex is used to advertise anything and everything, from food to life insurance; it is in our work place, our schools, and our homes, it affects every relationship we have, from acquaintance to  life partner.

I have thought a lot about how to approach the topic and say what needs to be said. How do we tackle such a vast and controversial topic? (the fact that it is controversial is one of the problems.) Well I think we have to go in steps. We need to understand some of the basic constructs of our society to know how they affect our understanding and opinion of sex.

While thinking about what needs to be covered, I feel it is important to understand Feminism and how our social paradigm shift to gender equality affects our communication about sex, but then I thought about why we have such inequality of the genders in the first place. After all, these things are constantly in our daily lives. So, before I jump into the gauntlet of sexual miscommunication, This post will address Social Engineering, then we can work our way forward, because each of these social constructs have their own effect on how we communicate. Their are two types of Social Engineering, I am talking about the one from a sociological point of view, the other is a form of corporate sabotage through hacking.

 

So, What is Social Engineering? Well, you know how babies have such strong political beliefs, no? of course not. Why? Well, there is this whole Nature vs. Nurture thing, and anything that is part of your personality including ideals, beliefs, and morals, that is not a result of nature or genetics, is Nurture, or rather a product of your surroundings. Because, babies aren’t born with political stances, or morals, or a sense of right or wrong. Basically you aren’t born with ideals and beliefs and moral, you develop them. Peoples beliefs, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, and characteristics, are all subject to the influence of their surroundings.

Social Engineering is how society deliberately does things to influence your opinion and actions. We all would love to believe that we are our own individuals and are all unique snowflakes, but those that deny they are influenced by society and culture are usually the ones that are influenced by it the most. Nothing is better than blind ignorance.

Look at Fashion fads, clothing styles that have changed, hairstyles, work out trends, food trends, and almost everything else in the media. Branding is very much real, Marketing is very influential. Politicians spend millions of dollars on research just to know what tie will get them more votes when they appear on TV. But do you know what is more remarkable than that, the fact that there are several studies and tons of research showing that people are actually influenced by color, by select words, by patterns, by language and about a billion other things that our culture uses to influence the public. Proving that wearing a particular tie, or color can actually persuade you to vote a certain way.

McDonald’s Chose red and yellow for its trademark colors because studies show those colors make people feel hungry, in the 90’s, Used car dealers changed their verbiage from “USED” to “PREVIOUSLY OWNED” because research said it makes the product sound better…their sales increased. We as Americans value higher than anything our freedom and Free will, that is why we so futilely deny anyone or anything could sway our opinions and beliefs without our knowledge.  But regardless of what we think, it’s happening.

The other night while I was our for dinner with my girlfriend, (in fact the same night and restaurant I talked about in my last post), My girlfriend chose some chicken fajita meal. As she ordered the waiter (who was the manager) commented very cheerfully about how good the chicken was. After we were served our food My girlfriend said she really like her choice in dish. When we were finished the manager stopped by again to ask how everything was, and she commented on how good the chicken fajita was, they had a small back and forth about how he had the same dish for lunch that day. As they were talking she was trying to describe what she liked about it, The manager very kindly added to her description by saying that the food tasted very “fresh,” her description consisted of words more general like “very good, and tasty.” When the manager had left, my girlfriend continued to talk about the dish she had, only now the terms she used to describe it was “FRESH.”

My point here is that we do this all the time and never realized what is happening. What exactly did happen? Marketing research shows that certain words evoke more emotion and hearing them creates particular thoughts and desires and even actions. Hearing a word then causes you to associate that word with your connotative meaning and that triggers an emotional response. Word can make you mad, sad, hungry, happy, even make you aroused. In this case, studies show that the word Fresh has a very positive connotative response that not only is memorable but preferred over other descriptions of the same type. So when the manager said “Fresh” whether it was intentional or not, he evoked a reasons that will not only help my girlfriend describe her experience to others in an optimal way, Free word of mouth advertising, but also it will help her want to return as she recalls her visits she associates the emotion of the word used to describe it.

Do you remember about six years ago Subway restaurants implemented the slogan “Eat Fresh.” The bottom line is that we are constantly being influenced, and sometimes (like in my girlfriends case) it’s not always to persuade you to do something you don’t want to do, but to enforce things you like.

This is taken to a whole different level in our society when we aren’t talking about food. It’s social engineering that dictates gender roles, which is what my next post is about.

From small things like what food we choose, to our moral and political stances, social engineering influences our choices and opinions as well as dictates social standards, social norms, and how to react to those that do not fit the perimeters.

 

 

Quit Taking Pictures and Enjoy Whats In Front of You!

The other day while out eating dinner with my girlfriend  I witnessed what is sure to be the downfall of our existence. We were at what I would call a middle of the road type place, similar to AppleBee’s or OliveGarden. I make this distinction because I think context does play a part in public behavior, that being said; I don’t expect black tie apparel and behavior but, I didn’t expect this either.

The table to my right was a large family with mixed ethnicity, I want to make sure that (no matter what color you skin) people of all types are Guilty of what I am about to explain. They had two young kids, both girls, one about three the other about six or seven. I was talking to my girlfriend about my blog and how we as a society no longer value face to face communication, and how our children have become screen fixated zombies that are not being taught how to communicate and so on and so forth. This is when I really notice the table to my right, the two girls are at the end of the table, both with tablets in front of them with some game or movie going to entertain them and keep them quite while the adults ignored them.

Disgusting, Appalling, Asinine and Ludicrous, I look to my left to see yet another young couple with a two-year old in a high chair doing the same thing with a cell phone propped up as well.  Are you for real? I get that it is hard to keep a kid in order when going out, and even harder to keep them behaved when eating, but that is exactly why I am not a parent (reason 203 not to have kids) Its hard Fucking work, to teach them how to do simple essential tasks, being a good role-model and how to act appropriate in public, or God forbid teach them to engage in conversation or do anything that doesn’t make them co-dependent on a screen! What about engaging in family talk, dinner talk, or even looking at each other.

                             

Does anyone else see a problem here? If you can’t teach your kids the basics of developing social skills or even necessary feeding skills without the aid of Sony, Apple, and Dora the Explorer, give your kids to Angelina and Brad and DON’T BE A PARENT.   I don’t care how hard it is, it was your choice to become a parent (lets hope) and now your responsible for the generation of the future, so have some self-respect, take some responsibility, be accountable for your actions and the well-being of your kids and do the best job you can.

It doesn’t end with kids though. I read this article about people and their mobile devices at restaurants and how it is effecting service. The article  is:

Restaurant Watches Old Surveillance And Shares Shocking Results On Craigslist

It talks about the differences between customers ten years ago and customers today.  Please click the link and read. People are so obsessed with their phones that they can’t stop for one hour to socialize with the people right in front of them, let alone actually enjoying the meal. Instead it becomes a whole photo documentary of their eating experience with every meal, with more concern over how many people see that you are eating it then how it actually tastes. Quit taking pictures and enjoy whats in front of you!

As I sat there, my girlfriend across from me, idiocracy to my left and right, I remarked on this exact thing. Just as I was dusting off my soap box to stand and begin my rant, The table to the right had just about finished. The older of the two girls produced a playground ball from what appeared to be thin air, and started throwing it up in the air! Funny thing, cuss words are, as I said in my last post, we no longer need nor desire such an extensive speaking vocabulary as to find alternative words for such anger, frustration, and loathing that was culminating in my mind. With each toss she threw the ball higher and higher, (and my body trembling with anger, and mind seething with contempt for the parents,) until she could no longer catch it and the ball came bouncing over too us and lodging itself under our table between our feet. This hellish nightmare isn’t over, this uncivilized uneducated wild-ling of a child, without saying a word or even looking at my girlfriend or I, begins to crawl under our table to retrieve the ball. OH FOR GOD’s SAKE, at least teach your child how to apologize, or ask a stranger for her ball back.

Am I crazy? When did it become okay to pacify children instead of teach them manners, or how to be civilized? When did it become okay to treat a restaurant like a playground? When did it become okay to ignore your children and let some screen co-parent them? When did it become okay to neglect to teach people to be decent human beings?

I understand children will be children, but a complete lack of direction, education, and discipline leads to your child becoming an adult, acting like a child. Don’t give me that “you don’t have kids, you don’t understand.” What I understand is, that people these days have no accountability for themselves or their actions, and those that don’t see a problem with this are the downfall of the human race, so to them I say, “Shut your mouth, and stop breeding, you unintelligible back-birth.”

Jello Shots and Other Cool things

I learned a lesson today, one that I had rather not learned. Not that learning is bad, just I rather the facts be different. I Have been struggling with bringing readers to my blog, and well, I asked my boss how she got her success.  After all she is an internationally acclaimed blogger!

Turns out my content is a little too deep. I recognize my writing style can be a bit “text book” as in, Ben Stein boring you to sleep. So the first thing she said was to not talk about boring things…Well, I think what I talk about is really interesting. But in today’s world, if you are describing something as “interesting” its just code for boring. She also suggested that I have gripping titles that make you want to read more, and admitted that her titles are a bit vague and sometimes misleading. So sorry, but I have no intention of talking about Jello shots, with the exception  of this one thought: while at work discussing titles of posts that would grab readers we moved to the topic of Jello shots, and what is a good size for a shot. My boss complained of some she had had that were too big. In my opinion, they should be served in something that is as large as if not larger that the Jello cups you get at the store and served with a spoon. Just a thought.

It was also suggested that I use cuss words, since I do in day to day conversation it makes it more fun or engaging to read. I’m not sure how true that is but, Fuck it why not right. If you really think about it cuss words are becoming super mainstream and almost a necessity in modern literature.

Language has stages, and evolves through time, depending on societal changes, population and geography. The best examples are Shakespeare and the British. What the hell am I talking about right? First lets talk about the British, we are both modern countries with English as our main spoken language, yet if the average American were to be dropped in some pub in the middle of Manchester, they would probably have not fucking idea what the hell anyone was saying to them, becauase in that part of the UK, the English accent is so different than our own we could swear it was a different language all together.

As for Mr. Shakespeare, this example shows that the vernacular of English changes with time and society. There are actually three distinguishable stages of English: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Believe it or not, Shakespeare is Middle English, and Old English is almost unrecognizable to the common ear. The Point is, that we used to use a lot more words, the average person’s Speaking Vocabulary was much large consisting of many more words that could describe a plethora of negative emotions, or situations. That is why it has always been that educated people do not cuss while uneducated people do. Those that were educated could use terms that would adequately describe what needed to be described without resulting to cussing. However today, we are at a stage in our language where we are simplifying and downsizing in spoken vocabulary, making cussing no longer an uneducated persons vernacular, but rather common for all levels of education. This has cause a great deal of Linguists to develop a new appreciation for the versatility of the word Fuck

                                                                                                                       check out the hyperlink

So what did I learn? What was the big lesson here. Once there was a time when we sought out knowledge, we aspired to further our own intellect willingly. Now we are complacent and absorbed in a world of senselessness and worthless information, we’d rather read a BuzzFeed article ” list of 20 child celebrities and where are they now,” or “10 things you didn’t know about Hollywood,” or some other such mindless smut. So I have to trick people with false titles and bad words into thinking my content is fun and enjoyable to read.

                                                       

Well, maybe I am being too harsh. I can admit when I’m bitter about something. After all, I guess I concede that after a long day at work you might not want to read dry content packed material with little to no entertainment value. Then what was the real lesson? Maybe its that the degradation of our communication has something to do with it not being fun or entertaining to talking about how we talk to each other, and my attempts thus far to make it an enjoyable topic have failed. Maybe I should change tactics, and take a different approach.

damn it, I fucking hate failing.

Anyway, spoon down that enormous Jello shot and cheers to trying again.