Thursday, June 25, 2009
Week 4, Blog 4, Web Lecture
When thinking about the “virtual or real communication” section of the web lecture, I feel that either one works. Although you might not see the person physically, you’re still communicating with them through telephone, email, ect. If anything, I think that communication technologies actually strengthens group and team relationships. If you instant message and keep updated with that person throughout the day with different types of communication, I think it builds communication between the individuals and is efficient
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While i completely agree with your perspective on todays technological advances that help us communicate each day. I still try to always communicate face to face as much as possible. You can never truly see how people are talking and you can never ensure the point they are trying to get across without good old fashioned face to face communication. In my experience as a communications student i have learned that communication styles and techniques are ever changing. I try myself to not let virtual communicaiton be the only type of communication i practice. Its very important to incorporate both.
ReplyDeleteI agree both are important for the very same reason that you may not know if someone truly understands you by virtual communication alone. Whereas, face-to-face communication, there is body language and other visual tips that let you know if your point is well taken. Furthermore, I have had experiences with instant messaging that has gone awry because the tone of voice is excluded. This can sometimes backlash on you when you are trying to invoke things like humor into the conversation and the person seems to take it as an insult or something along that line. I’m not sure if you ever had this happen to you.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea that if one categorizes face-to-face and CMC with real and virtual communication, respectfully, then both are very important. They both function in our daily lives in multiple levels and various situations. But, I think the lecture is also trying to question our very notion as to what is "real" communication. Rather than strictly categorizing it we could put various communication techniques on spectrums of noise, clarity, perceived meanings, or even speed. Isn't communication real as long as someone receives it? So many communication theories tries to explain what is complete communication, but in the end speaking to someone in a loud restaurant or IMing them later both have their advantages and disadvantages...
ReplyDelete