"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

               I particularly enjoyed Professor Stoner’s lecture for two reasons. One being that Professor Stoner has previously been a professor of mine in a class I thoroughly enjoyed, and also because the topic she spoke about was very interesting and relatable. Stoner lectured on her ongoing study of the correlation between studying abroad and the use of new media. Stoner explained how use of new media influences a student’s time spent when studying abroad. 10 years ago, when you would study abroad you would not be able to communicate very well with friends and family from home as you could now. Now, we have many social media websites, applications, and communicative influences such as Skype and face time that make communicating overseas or even closer, a very easy thing to do. Stoner showed us a graph of something called the U-curve of emotions. This curve showed over time the emotions one would feel while away and far from anything their normally used too. These stages were honeymoon, culture shock, adjustment and mastery. Although relatable, I don’t agree completely with the “time” on the U-curve chart. Personally, I recently visited New York City for just 8 days, and can say that I felt all of these emotions on the U-curve in only 9 days instead of the full 24 months. When visiting New York, the first day or so I was so excited that being in a new place didn’t affect me much. After 3 days, all I felt was shock, and a little frustration when trying to find my way around and manage alone.  During the end of my trip I felt like I had improved and adjusted to New York and felt almost unlike a tourist. Without my phone for directions, my mom for comfort, and my computer for communication from home to my family and boyfriend, I think my experience would have been completely different, just as Stoner explained. It is completely understandable that when students go to other countries without this new media, that they will more exposed to their environment and be forced to make friends and find new ways to make you a stronger person. When you do have the media, it is easy to be separated from your surroundings and lessen your experience because of distractions and comfort from home.  As stoner quoted “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” and I couldn’t agree more with that.

Professor Barnhurst's elements of storytelling

Professor Barnhurst’s lecture was based upon the elements of storytelling, and the way stories are analyzed. Before Barnhurst begins his lecture, he does an activity with the students. He asks them to pair up and individually tell each other stories about an important event or time in their own life.  After the students complete the activity, Barnhurst then discussed the stories with them and pin points the main details which were represented in almost every story. Each pair related their story to a specific time, event, place and people. Other than this, it was discussed that you could sometimes figure out what another person’s story was about just by the narrators body language and hand gestures and movements. This simple observation is what Barnhurst explains is something that has been being analyzed by theorists and trying to understand further.  This simple activity and its findings I found relatable to our discussion and lesson relating to non-verbal codes.

Barnhurst states that the most important part of storytelling is the interpretation of the story being told. Yet, there is always a clear pattern of storytelling. The pattern described is announcement, description, action, resolution and response.  It makes sense to me that if a story was told out of order or a part was left out that the story would not make sense or would be very hard to interpret. This pattern can be related to our lesson on Schramms model of Communication. The people sharing the story being the sender and receiver, the message being the story, and the receiver having to encode and decode the message for interpretation.

Unfortunately Barnhurst’s lecture ends while he is still discussing the difference between interpreting a story and judging it. If I had to finish the lecture and imagine what Barnhurst what would have been said, I would believe that interpreting a story would be the way you understand it, and internally accept what you are being told. Judging the story would be your outward opinion of the story or topic, and what information you choose to agree or disagree with and act upon.

Proffesor Meraz on the gendered workplace

Professor Meraz gave her lecture on the rapidly decreasing number of women entering the technology science & computer science field over time, and how we differentiate “women’s work” from “men’s work”. Meraz presents many informative charts and graphs showing statistically how much of a decrease there has being since the 80’s for women in the computer science field. It seems like women “go along” with gender conformities since it is the easier thing to do then to be ridiculed or questioned.
Meraz gave a great example within her lecture of how society views women in the workplace. Diner dash is a videogame most people have heard of or played either online, or on their smart phone. The games is based around multitasking, being able to cook, clean, communicate, seat guests, etc and of course the only “player” is a girl. If we don’t want to be looked at in only the domestic manner, then why do so many women play this game, and not see a problem with it? Analyzing games in general it seem that’s women are seen more in domestic type games and scenarios, where the men are portrayed as the hero, or combative action filled games. Why can’t a woman be the hero? And what would society say if these roles were switched?

Meraz’s lecture correlates directly with chapter 2 in our book, where we learned about stereotyping, and also the nature/nurture/function approaches. Stereotyping is present throughout the lecture relating to the shrinking pipeline theory, and when discussing the pressure women feel. Many students gave examples of themselves or friends actually switching out of the computer science majors in college because they were surrounded by male teachers and colleagues and were perceived to think that they would not make it. If these women or students followed the nurture approach while growing up, the same outcome would arise. It is very common for girls to be nurtured or taught to do girly things, like play with barbies or dolls, where boys have been taught from the start that they should play with videogames and trains. If this is how most of our society was raised, then of course the boys are going to outnumber the girls because of the approach they followed.

Justine Cassel is famed for her theory of the “game movement” which I cannot agree with more. Cassel claims that when our generation was growing up, commercials and advertising failed to represent the computer as a girl’s toy, and was mainly for a boys use. I can remember may commercials for small play computers with learning software games which all featured young boys. Growing up with two brothers, I also directly remember my brothers receiving computer games and toys and small electronics for Christmas and birthdays when I was receiving easy bake ovens and a toy kitchen set. This difference definitely didn’t come from my parents who never once would have denied me a “boys toy” if I wanted one. The logical and almost obvious conclusion for this phenomenon must be the advertisement for these games. When you are young you learn so much so quickly and almost mimic what you see on television. I can guarantee that if this type of advertising was different and not gender based, the outcome of women in computer science fields would be different.

Prof. McCloskey on Persuasion as Communication

Professor McCloskey focused her lecture on her theory of persuasion as communication and language. She explained her theory of persuasion through an economist’s standpoint as well as scientific and communicative. She explained how one would think scientific theories and economist theories would be quantitative, but how they both root back to persuasion. Throughout her lecture, she thoroughly explained her theory of persuasion in everyday life and educationally. Before her lecture I did not think of persuasion in these ways and was glad to have received a new outlook on this topic.

At the beginning of her lecture, McCloskey refers to rhetoric as we learned back in the beginning of the semester when learning about the processes of communication and language behaviors. Rhetoric, being the art of language, and the use of the way we use language directly compliments McCloskey’s views. When using persuasion, it is the way and effectiveness of your rhetoric that will either persuade or dismiss your theories or thoughts. McCloskey refers to persuasion in her own words as “sweet talk”. I really took thought to McCloskey’s theory of persuasion being a great deal of communication and will only continue to grow. For example, if a person wants to persuade someone else to choose to enroll at their own current university, the conversation could go two ways. The person could use force or obedience as McCloskey says, and use force on them to enroll. Or, the person could use persuasion, and express the mutually beneficial factors from enrolling, and better the chances of the intended outcome.  As McCloskey went on to explain her theories of persuasion regarding the way we learn and in regards to science communication and the economy, I found myself agreeing with her, and taking on a new thought process of how much persuasion really is used every day and in almost ass instances. I challenge myself to see how many conversations I have per day when I use persuasion over obedience, and the effect my actual rhetoric influences the outcome.

A point made by McCloskey that really sticks with me after her lecture is her theory of science and technology being based on persuasion.  McCloskey explained that scientifically, when thinking back to the frontiers of science, what we know to be true was once just a thought or theory in a person’s mind. It wasn’t until they used rhetoric to explain themselves and persuade others into their theory being logical. Managerially, McCloskey pointed out that you cannot force someone to work hard and be a good employee, but you must persuade them as to why they should be efficient, and explain why it will be mutually beneficial. This makes a lot of sense to me, and I believe should be routinely used as an element of society.

In my own life, I believe to use persuasion daily to receive the positive outcome I wish for. It one main instance, I can think back to persuasion being the main reason I was able to live on my own in the city. After I had finished my freshman year at UIC, I put together a power point as to why I should be allowed to move out of the dorms and into an apartment. I used knowledgeable information and data that I knew would impress my parents. Once I stated in an educational manner how much money they would save and how this apartment would affect them positively, they gave in and I have been living dorm free for almost three years now. Persuasion played a great deal for me in this situation, and until McCloskey explained and made me re-access persuasion in everyday life, I wouldn’t have understood this system and how mutually beneficial it could be.

Overall, I agree with McCloskey in everyone benefiting from being a skilled persuader, and enjoyed hearing her theories of persuasion being a great deal (and growing) of communication. 

Lauren Fischer