The Very Last One (hopefully not though)

This will be the last required blog for our communications class..... But hopefully not my last blog entry. It has been 1 full semester and 1 long semester it has been.

Rather than just talk about this week's last class discussion I'd rather talk about how comm made things different for me. Comm class has given me another dimension of thinking and reacting. Normal conversation with friends, family, and others go differently when you know comm theories. Meeting strangers means so much more given the ideas of uncertainty reduction and social exchange. Cooperating and deciding in groups become more "interactive" being able to predict what they want. Dealing with irritated people and being irritated yourself becomes more understandable with cognitive dissonance theory at the back of your mind. Even while watching television seems so different with all the media theories swirling in my head. Organizations give off a different feel to me now because of the organizational theories like organizational culture and adaptive structure. Two-step is now something I observe being careful where to look for advice.


But probably one the best lessons I got from comm was the importance of technology to us. The last set of theories really emphasized on the changes brought about by technology to us. Media ecology showed technology not as a tool to us but rather an essential part already. Specially with the media deprivation project the wonders of technology truly shined. I saw my reliance on technology be it good or bad will forever be a part of me. Technology has evolved our means of communication by so much that we have the virtual realm to move in now. What's astonishing is that even with the new technology introduce the old theories will still hold up to the human reaction and interaction. After this semester's comm class I will never look at technology the same way again.

Communications class just made everyday life a bit more interesting!

Welcome To The (New Age) Public Sphere

I remember playing this game back from my elementary games. I picked up the game at a shop just because its box cover was quirky and colourful. This game was very unusual and very weird.  You played the tiny prince of the cosmos out to return all the destroyed heavenly bodies. How you say? The king of the cosmos has given you a ball, a super sticky ball. You will roll and roll the ball from the most insignificant of things until finally you can roll up the largest of ridiculous things. If you know this game you are awesome (like me) but if not it is titled “Katamari Damacy”.

You might think I chose to write about a favorite old game of mine and try to link it to the public sphere just because it involved a “sphere”. Of course I won’t be simplistic as that. It just so happened that the game did involve a sphere.

This game was only a low budget game and did not hold much hype prior to its release unlike other Bandai Namco game productions. You see….this game was inspired by two things. It was inspired mainly from a submitted school project sponsored by Namco. Next it tried to invoke an issue still being overlooked… the idea of littering. At first people were very reluctant to buy the game upon its release but over the weeks after its release sales increased exponentially until it became a top grossing game of its time.

The talk it generated amongst the public was more than enough for people to notice the problem of littering. Forums, talks, advertisements, it was everywhere. The Japanese people became more aware of the littering around public areas just because of a game representing a thought of some individuals. This for me was a prime example of the public sphere with a twist of new age media of course. From a few individuals who wanted to speak up but were left unnoticed to a whole mass of people looking and giving importance to what was once unseen. The once unnoticed issue of littering has now been put under the spotlight for all to see as the game slowly pulled in more and more people. First the ones who championed the idea, next are the people who share the similar idea, now once there are enough people came the masses seeing that it was of a pressing issue. Welcome to the world of the public sphere where no idea is overlooked.

Scandals FTW

"Scandals over everything else"

The sad truth.... The media always did have the power to choose what to show and this is where the agenda setting theory comes from. People will value what the news and mass media presents to them of value. The mass media is such a powerful influence and the agenda setting theory tries to further enforce this idea of the mass media's ability to control the public subliminally.

I agree that mass media is indeed a powerful tool BUT is a tool wielded by the people being controlled themselves. It may sound weird that the ones being controlled are also the controllers themselves but it is true. Mass media may mean mass but not forced. Meaning that people choose what media to consume. People may choose watch abs-cbn, gma, some obscure station, or choose to avoid any television. People may choose to read of what newspaper, what magazine,  what tabloid, or choose to not read at all. My point is that media may be able to set the agenda for the public but in reality the public really chooses what agenda they want to. Admittedly people will only consume what they want to consume. If you are interested in serious stories and news of course you won't watch news that are just full novelty or read a feature magazine thereby making the media lose its power.

Even the public influences what the media will present for public consumption. This is where the sad truth comes in. People will choose sex scandals over national achievements. People will choose something more frivolous that concerns a famous celebrity over something of national or global importance (unless it is about a global celebrity). People will choose a car crash or massacre above "the good news". People are interested over sex,violence, and gossip. That is the sad truth. Corruptions in the government, national security, economic downfall, etcetera will always be buried upon by the most frivolous of news and updates because people already chose!

Brand and Logo Power!!!!!

Signs, logos, brands, and insignias are some really powerful stuff people. This are examples of just one of the organizational symbols that form cultures within groups.

Organizational symbols as the logos and signs are what you associate with a particular entity. Although technically not a group, superheroes all bring with them an insignia and logo. Who does not know the the famous "S" symbol of superman or the bat insignia of Batman. See how powerful symbols are? If I were to show you some of the famous symbols of heroes you would already know that hero and immediately an image of that hero would pop into your mind. The power of symbols comes from the power of association. How many times have you seen that big yellow "M" sign up in the city horizon and quickly think of a famous fast food chain?

Even in simple products you see in the grocery. Brand messaging is most effective if the people are frequently exposed to that products logo or company logo. Familiarity urges people to choose a certain product over another. The company logo of Uniliver brings with it a sense trust from its buyers. Even though logos are just mere drawings they bring with them the whole image of the company. It is important to have a logo or brand image that sticks to minds of its consumers for better brand messaging.

The age old phrase of "A business without a sign is a sign of no business."
 and look away from the logos and brands!!!!! They have hypno powers!!! @_@

Not Enough Resources... (ARGGGHHHH)

"Not enough resources..."

A line so familiar to me. I would always keep hearing this lines in 2 of my favorite games namely Starcraft and Warcraft (yes I'm a Blizzard fanboy). This games are what you call Real Time Strategy games or RTS for short. in this 2 games you act something similar to a leader or general. You order units or your people around to make buildings and other military based units to fight the opposing team. One of the key strategies in this games are proper management of your resources. You should be able to have resources to build and make what you want but you also shouldn't let your resources be stagnant meaning just pooling up not being invested into a unit.

While I was listening awhile ago during class the part about resources being a major element in the adaptive structure theory got me interested. Being the game fanatic I am, the 2 games above quickly popped into my mind. I saw the the various resources even played a role in the RTS games I played. For example The allocative resources appeared in the games via the management of the various units and buildings in forming a robust structure of your army.  The various authoritative resources were also very apparent in the games. I think of these "authoritative" resources as the special units that grant various bonuses and rewards to the other units. Not only do some reward but some also debilitates or punishes other units. Other units even get stronger the more they spend time with other units and some become expert units one upgraded making them more specialized. The technological resource also play a role in this kinds of games via upgrades making your units stronger and more efficient in combat (stimpak for marine!).

Just like in reality. The various resources we use,not only the materials but also the people,determine the structure of the organization or group. It is not just enough to just have all "marines" as units you also need "medics" and "thors" (if you understood what I meant...kudos to you). We need a proper mix of all resources for the structure to function efficiently. Theories in comm class not only apply in the real world but also in the virtual world as we develop more advancements in technology. I hope one day they can fuse gaming and work together :D hahahaha.

Bring on the marines! (and the other units too)

Breaking Down, Building Up, Breaking Down, aaaaaaaaaand Building Up Again -.-

      Have you as a kid ever tried playing with Lego toys? I use to remember playing with Lego pieces and even up to this day whenever I walk by a toy store I would go in and check new Lego toy sets. I think my deep love for the toy came from the idea of building my own creations and then breaking them down to make new creations again. 

Lego Cycle! Wish I could make this.

      Listening to the structuration theory during class kept reminding me of the Lego sets I used to play with. Building the various Lego creations I envisioned and imagine ( I would usually make big robot Lego creations.... go figure! :D ) At first whenever I made any of my creations it would always be wobbly but I would eventually fix it given a bit of time and experimentation. As I got used to making similar creations to the previous ones I made it got easier and easier to create sturdier creations right of the bat. Like the structuration theory says the organizations create the structures that give order to the group. 

      Passing through some paragraphs of the reading for structuration theory it kept talking about the use of structure in an organization. Like the Lego pieces I used, people use structures in organization to make it sturdy. With the passage of time in an organization the "rules" or rather the agency (the behaviors and actions we perform) further fortify the structure in the organization much like how got used to making the various Lego creations back then. Another quality I found in this theory that I also found in my Lego childhood toys was that I was able to recycle the creations by taking apart and using the pieces again for a new creation. Structure can also be broken down and be reformed into something new just like transitioning from the high school environment to the college environment. Structures may be sturdy enough but not indestructible but cab also be rebuilt.

Finally Out of Hiatus :D

Finally! My blog is out of hiatus! That was a sure long week of no communication class discussions so no blogs at that time :/ But now comm class is up again meaning blogs are starting up again :D


     This week's single meeting (although a short one with the announcements of midterm grades and the photo contest which btw was won by Gabriel Dionglay! Grats!) held an interesting theory. We are done with some of the more personal theories and are finally moving on to group theories. Stepping up to the plate to bat first for the group theories is "GroupThink".
     GroupThink has a nice ring to its name don't you think so? Not only does it have a nice ring to it but it also has a pretty intriguing idea. GroupThink in a nutshell refers to how one actually thinks like the group in other words you the individual who belongs in a group will think in the same way as the group. Still a bit too complicated? Well have you ever been in a group that you just give in to one decision despite knowing you have a better idea yourself? GroupThink is like that making you decide for the sake of the group and just going with the flow.
     Here I think is a prefect example of GroupThink at work that should be more common to everyone.

Friend 1: Saan tayo kakain?
Friend 2: Kahit saan na lang basta okay yung pagkain.
Friend 3: Sa _______ na lang! Masarap doon!
Friend 4: Ayaw ko doon, sabi nila hindi daw masarap.
Friend 2: Eh... Saan mo gusto ngayon?
Friend 4: Ummmmm.....Kahit saan....
Friend 1: Wala na tayong ibang maisip eh....
Friend 4: Sige na nga doon na lang.
Friend 3: YESSSSSSSSSSSSS!

     A common "barkada" dilemma that even we experience. Despite #4 having different thoughts about ______ in the end he just gave in to the decision of one in order for the group to even continue with their plans eating out. The idea suggest that you would just "rather go with the flow" to preserve the group rather than throw it into disarray.
    Here are some of my personal thoughts as to why this happens different from the creator of the theory. My first idea was to avoid alienation by the group. Rather than actually trying to preserve the group itself my opinion is people do this because they want to preserve their membership in the group and not the group itself. People are naturally social beings and they need companions so being alienated from a group is not a desired possibility. Honestly if I were in the shoes of #4 I'd rather eat a place I hate with my friend than eat a place I like all alone. You can relate this to cognitive dissonance that you see companionship as the minimal justification in your choice. The above example situation is what you call "peer pressure" that you view it better to just give in rather than lose the companionship of the group you are in. See GroupThink doesn't only have a nice ring to it but also a hell darn good of an idea as well :D
    

The Gameshow, The Prize, The Greed

"Congratulations you have won a 200,000 Pesos! Would you like to take this prize or go for the mystery prize at one of our mystery doors! What could be behind door number 1 or door number 2?!?!"

Which one would it be?

One of the oldest scenarios in older game shows. Choose between a sure prize or choose from a mystery prize, a dilemma of sorts but still more often than not people would choose the mystery door and not the prize. This is a gamble right? It seems counter intuitive to even choose the mystery door over a sure prize, for all we know the 2 doors could just be empty. This scenario was the first thing that popped into my mind when I learned about Social Exchange and Uncertainty Reduction. Although both are different I see them as an interconnected theory ( although now that I think about it all theories are interconnected and may affect each other ). I will try to explain why you would like to choose the mystery door rather than the prize. I admit even I am tempted to open the mystery door.

"So you have chosen door number 1! Let us see what is behind door number 1! Door number 1 holds....... "Uncertainty Reduction"!!!!" 
Uncertainty Reduction just really points out one thing in a relationship and it is that humans hate and fear uncertainty. The need to know someone or something seems to be hot wired into our brains. For example when you meet someone new your first reaction would be ask them their name and other demographic data about that person, it is because you hate "not knowing" anything about the person. Uncertainty is the natural enemy of predictability. Not knowing how to act in front of someone gives us the feeling of vulnerability ( imo only). I for one hate not knowing how to act in front of someone ( more over if I like that person ). This idea might be a possible reason why you chose door number 1 instead of the sure 200,000 pesos, you have the natural need to know what is exactly behind door number 1.

"What is behind number 2 then? Behind door number 2 is....... "Social Exchange", not a bad prize either!"

Now why did not choose the money or door number 2? Social Exchange may have something to do here. Social Exchange speaks of how people view relationships in an economical view. The use of a cost and reward ratio in whether to continue a relationship. Basically this means that if rewards > cost you are likely to continue but if cost > rewards it likely mean you will terminate. So maybe in this case you just saw to gamble 200,000 thinking that it is just a small amount.


"Thank you for playing!!!"
"Would you like another bonus round?"

When  I actually had the time to ponder about these two theories.... I was a bit dismayed. Knowing that we have the natural want or rather a need to know everything just to feel secure or to see if we even benefit was a bit disappointing. I know it to be true cause even now I was able to notice that even I am governed by this theory. Does that mean deep down people are naturally "greedy"? I don't know the answer to this. Maybe there are some rare cases that someone still tries to continue a relationship even if cost outweigh the rewards or they don't feel the need to know a lot about someone. Can you prove me to me that you are not "greedy" or guilty of this 2 theories being applicable to you?


 

Get The F**k Away From Me!!! MRT MADNESS!

For the purpose of this blog post I will use a maximum rating of 1000 for how pissed and stressed I was during my experience.

(30/1000) My friend graciously dropped me off in Shang after we left another friend's house. This was about 5:00 pm in the afternoon. I was less pissed because I got to sleep before going to Shang. There weren't a lot of people in Shang and the air conditioners blasted the whole mall with cool air. It was still early I decided to grab a bite to eat for dinner at around 6:00 pm. Left Shang at around 6:45 pm and waited in line at the MRT station to buy a ticket to go to Quezon Avenue station.

(200/1000) By the time I was in line for my ticket the line stretched up to the stairs. This is where i began to get a bit irritated, specially since my line was the slowest moving amongst the other lines. During this time I had lots and lots of time to think about what to write in my blog. Since I was being pissed I tried measuring and thinking about cognitive dissonance, it seemed apt for the occasion (250/1000 I remembered I had to write it). 

(300/1000) I was finally able to get my ticket and enter the station. But once I walked down the stairs, only to see LOTS AND LOTS of people waiting for the train (350/1000). Once the train (IT WAS REALLY FULL that if you can't even cram a 5 year old in there) went into the station and stopped, people really SHOVED AND PUSHED just to get into the train. I was actually being moved by all the pushing and shoving (700/1000). I wasn't able to get aboard the first train so I waited. Soon the people started piling up behind and some men (who really want to get inside the next train) literally would shove people around and put his arm right in front of you so you can't move forward. This same scenario happened to me 5 freaking times! (800/1000) I really don't like shoving and pushing people around, I consider it really really really RUDE. But this time it was different! I really had to PUSH, SHOVE, and PUSH just to get a measly spot inside that cramped train.

(1000/1000) This is it I was inside the freaking train! There was no more space! I think the saying "You can't even drop a needle" can be used here! I was standing near the door and the full 360 degrees around me were people who kept bumping and sticking to me. (1200/1000 yes.... this is how pissed I was now) People I don't know are beside me and worst of all was they were invading my personal space! Then the lesson of proxemics came to my mind. My personal space was being invaded by strangers and worst of all is it was my "intimate space" a distance only reserved for close people and family. (1400/1000 yes it did get worse) I couldn't even move if I wanted to. As the train started to move and stop at each station more people actually got into the train. The people really forced themselves to get inside, thereby making the already cramped train making it more cramped than a can of sardines.  At this point if anyone tried talking to me I would just instantly say "F*CK OFF!". I personally really hate people sticking to me or vice versa, for friends and family I am just fine with but people I don't know I hate.

(1000/1000) Once the train reached  Cubao station a ton of the passengers inside the train left. It was still full but now you can at least move around. But there were still a lot of people! At this point I wasn't even thinking of writing a blog or meeting up online with my Japanese FLC group. (500/1000) Finally the train arrived at Quezon Station, I shoved people around just to exit that hellish train. (300/1000) I got on a tricycle. It was only a short ride and I was finally home. Turned on my laptop, took a shower, and here I am typing (50/1000).

So what is my point in this long story of mine? It is just to show that I may get pissed and stressed about little things but only a little. But once I do something that is against what I believe in the PISSED rating really goes up. That is the cognitive dissonance at work. An interesting thought that I had was that if it wasn't for this week's discussion I wouldn't know this term and I won't be able to pinpoint why I really got pissed! During those moments cognitive dissonance was really pushing me to a point where I won't be able to communicate or converse properly with people. Proxemics also played a major role in my being pissed. My personal space was invaded and it made me really uncomfortable. Proxemics is something important to people that they may be able to convey there messages properly. With people invading personal space your decision and communication skills get impaired. With the combination of this both I got really really pissed and unable to think. Heck I wasn't even gonna do this blog I thought to myself a while back whilst inside the cramped train. But here I am writing my blog. The cognitive dissonance is now gone, my personal space returned to normal,  and I can properly think again.

( EFFFFFFFFFF that guy who tried to pull me out when I finally got on >:/ )

Waving Your Hand Without Actually Waving Your Hand

It’s already 7pm and as I’m writing my blog here in Ateneo. I’m just sitting here typing on this blog as I look at out the 2^nd floor area of Matteo only to see it raining. As the rain pours and the clock ticks I kept stopping to stare outside and then face my laptop’s screen again. It’s depressing to be alone….. with no one to communicate to.

As I ponder what to write about in this blog I kept staring at the empty seats beside me. “Walang makausap dito!”  kept ringing and ringing inside my head. Communication has evolved through technology as I’ve learned. Such is the beauty of technology that I’ll just log in my Facebook or Yahoo accounts and talk to someone. Then an idea or rather a theory of my own hit me as I was talking to my friend online. What if technology has evolved to the extent that you won’t need to be physically there and yet still communicate? I don’t think that my theory is so far off. We can communicate now without the need of actually seeing who you are talking to in person; you can just use your phone now. Sooner or later we won’t even need physical communication to actually communicate.

Just In communication class we kept talking about the theory of non-verbal coding. Gestures and actions are a big part of communication. From the way we stand, to the movements of our hands, and the emotions of our face; we use all of this convey a message. One thing that the theory of non-verbal coding also assumes that hasn’t been stated (IN MY OPINION) is that you actually need a physical body or concrete entity to do gestures. But that isn’t the case now. You really don’t need to wave your hand now to wave your hand (no mistake there, yes you read “wave your hand” twice). Curious yet, how are you going to wave your hand without actually waving it?

Two trolls and a tauren waving. /wave

Before the advent of information technology, humans only moved in the physical realm. The physical realm was where all communications used to happen, BACK THEN THAT IS! Now we have the virtual realm to communicate in. The virtual realm not only allows us to communicate verbally but also non-verbally. How you say? How are you going to communicate non-verbally through a computer screen? Some might say you can use cameras to communicate in a non-verbal manner but what I’m saying is COMPLETE non-verbal communication through the computer screen. You only need to life your fingers now and several gestures and actions are now literally under your fingertips.  I use to play World of Worldcraft (WoW). WoW is a prime example of what I’m saying. In the virtual realm of WoW people’s avatars (or characters for the non-gamers) can communicate non-verbally. Just by simply pressing “enter” and typing in “/wave” I have waved my hand without actually waving my hand. Best of all, someone actually waves back at you! Suddenly the theory of Kinesics is challenged.  Kinesics itself is presented in the virtual world just like in the real world. Inside WoW you can do several real world gestures even facial expressions. Other sites offer the same thing like Habbo where you control a virtual avatar and mingle with other real people. Meetings have been replaced with YM conference or Facebook groups. The virtual realm is slowly encroaching the physical realm.

Is it possible that in the future that our whole communication process only exist in the virtual realm? Communication evolves along with technology. Maybe 10 or 20 years from now new communication students can get to choose between 2 different comm classes; Physical Communication and Virtual Communication. Imagine just sitting in front of the computer and still be connected to everyone, you don't even have to leave your home to have a relationship or wave to your neighbor. Maybe it isn't so far off....

The end?

    Or the future?

コミュニケーション (Communication) SIMPLE yet COMPLEX (WHAT!?!?!?!)

     This week was a bit hellish for me.... Taking up a new language in a short time is really difficult. My foreign language class (which is Japanese if you haven't guessed by now :D ) is only scheduled on only on Tuesdays and Thursdays so discussions are a bit fast. My mind was constantly drawing Japanese characters this whole week. I never knew communication can be so difficult. But according to Aristotle communication is as easy as 1, 2, and 3. Literally communication for Aristotle had only 3 major components to it. ( Maybe he didn't know of Japanese back then and its 92 characters excluding kanji )

     Aristotle can be considered the GRAND DADDY of all communication theories. It was his Rhetorical Theory which laid the foundation for the basic grasp or idea of communication. Simple yet sensible is what I say to Aristotle's rhetorical theory. Aristotle broke down communication into 3 basic components; speaker or source, the message, and the receiver . The rhetorical theory is so simple yet so profound even by today's standard and Aristotle was able to think of this way way way way way way back. I learned that the thing about Aristotle's communication theory was, that it was "speaker" centered. Although it is more logical to blame the speaker than the receiver I deeply think that all 3 of the components of the rhetorical model can be or contribute to a failure in communication. Communication is said to be simple by others but to me I view it as a complex puzzle. One wrong piece can screw up the whole puzzle even if it is just a 3 piece puzzle. My opinion is that the speaker has the obligation to find the most effective way of communicating with someone. Why would you use Japanese on someone who can only understand English? The receiver should also share in the responsibility of actually "understanding" the message. If you are an American going to Japan then you should at least take the time to learn some phrases. I learned this the hard way when me and my Family went to Hong Kong, although I maybe Chinese I am the only one in my family who didn't study study Chinese. Communication to me in Hong Kong was so far off that I had to find someone who could actually talk English to communicate to me where the nearest bathroom was. Failure in communication doesn't always fall to the speaker in my opinion.

 

     You might be saying that "Who is this guy to judge the GRAND DADDY's  communication theory?!?!". Well the wonderful thing about theories is that it is open to interpretation and to improvement as well. If questioning Aristotle's theory wasn't allowed we wouldn't have other communication theories today. Aristotle's theory lent itself to improvement and just like a Pokemon (Rhetorical theory evolved into --------------, congratulations!) evolved into a higher state and even branched out. For example, Harold Laswell's Social Communication Theory improved upon Aristotle's 3 component theory into a 5 component theory with the addition of the chosen medium and to what effect did the message have on the audience. From the simple 3 component theory a 5 component theory was born.
     This is what makes communication simple and complex at the same time. Sure we can say that communication all boils down to Aristotle's 3 component theory but at the same time we can still keep on dissecting  each component down. There is no one real theory that can actually explain the whole entire enchilada that is communication. Only different theories that explain various situations or factors that actually affect the whole variable process of communication.

     With the discussion after Communications class on Wednesday, I forgot some of my Japanese characters in my head and it got replaced with "Communication is a powerful tool, so powerful that even in its simplicity we still can't quite get the law but only theories. Complexity even in simplicity, that is communication.."

Week 1: Communication omnipotent, omniscient, vital???

"Communication is everywhere and communication cannot be stopped."

          Two ideas that I didn't believe at first. We were challenged to think of possible scenarios where there is absolutely no communication at all occurring. I nearly busted my brain trying to think of that scenario. Even when i thought of just solitary confinement you would still communicate with yourself or you might even be sending different interpretations to people just being that confinement. Only death would be the only solution to stop communication. Is communication omnipotent then? I don't think it is omnipotent, it can't resurrect people or conjure things out of thin air but it is indeed a powerful tool that man uses.

          Communication to us humans is so natural that we communicate and not even realize it. Communicating is already a human nature. Let us look at 2 people talking to each other. Is it communication? Yes it is indeed communication! Do they realize that they are communicating? Probably not because for them it is already too natural to communicate that it is something almost automatic. I have to admit that i don't even think of how to communicate anymore, it just comes out of me automatically. It is just like breathing, you don't even realize you're doing it!

          Communication maybe natural to us but there is is so much that we don't know about. Communication is more than just seeing two people talk to each other. Let us break down communication a bit. Communication is indeed a social process, a dynamic phenomenon in the sense that it doesn't stop. Communication employs the use of symbols, this are mainly the bulk of communication. We can treat symbols as a medium. We can use speech, writings, gestures, etc. But an important thing to remember is that symbols are ARBITRARY. What makes it arbitrary is the meaning behind each symbol we used. A basic hand finger point for us is an indication but for some cultures it may be offensive and rude. Another factor in communication is the environment. For me this makes communication complex and varied. We don't use the same speech or same gesture for every occasion or for every person. The environment we move in changes how we approach communicating with others.

          So do i think communication is omniscient? No I don't it is. Much like it maybe a powerful tool but not omnipotent, it is not omniscient but it is something we use to gather and transmit information, data, and culture in the hopes that maybe someday that communication will further evolve with the help of technology.

          Now for the most important thing is communication vital? YES of course it is! I realized this even more when the context of communication was introduced. First context was intrapersonal, which first I thought "CRAZY! How can I communicate alone!" But that idea slapped me in the face when intrapersonal was explained to us. You really do communicate with yourself! It may sound absurd but when you really think about you are actually conversing with yourself. Decision making is a prime example of this. You think of the possible outcomes, consequences, etc. but you are actually directing all the ideas to yourself and in the end you respond to those same ideas. Think of it as you bouncing a ball against the wall, you throw it and you are also the one who catches it. Intrapersonal communication is said to be the most basic context of communication, I believe that this is the most IMPORTANT context in communication. WHY? Intrapersonal communication serves as the building block for everything else like interpersonal, group, organizational, public, and even mass media. In order to communicate on higher levels you will first and always communicate with yourself before actually communicating with someone else. Before you talk to someone you talk to yourself first! Before you execute an idea you debate with yourself first! Even when you are scared of speaking in front of crowd you still communicate with yourself if you are gonna go up there or just run like hell! Intrapersonal communication may sound crazy or absurd but it is very important that you must first communicate with yourself before you can properly communicate with others.

Is communication omnipotent? No it is not but it is VERY powerful. Communication is one of the things that help move society forward. Communication does not only transfer a simple message but it can also transfer greater things like culture and ideas.

Is communication omniscient? No, communication doesn't hold every bit of knowledge or know every thought. But through communication we may attain a sense of higher understanding of everything by sharing our ideas with one another. Who knows maybe in the near future we may be able to communicate with only our minds and we may be closer to a state of omniscience.

Is communication vital? YES! Yes it is! As I have already said, communication is natural to us humans already that we may not even notice it anymore. But think, how do we live without communication? Is your mind blank? Mine is too. Communication will forever be an important key to human society.

Clear and understandable communication will give us a new tomorrow and a better today, Just watch this clip and you will understand how much we actually need proper communication.:)