Amerika, ist wunderbar! (Week 7)

I just love it when my musical influences can actually be put to practical use. Last semester, during Sociology 101 finals, I gaffed at the question asking how many Americans are in prison. I couldn't remember the answer from my text, so I started singing The Prison Song by System Of A Down in my head to get the answer. Then comes this line from the song: "Nearly two million Americans are incarcerated in the prison system of the US". I wrote that down, and after the paper I confirmed that answer in my text. SOAD gave me an A!

Anyway, while the topic of cultural imperialism came up in class, this song came up in my head: Amerika by Rammstein. It sings of the effects and influence of Americanization. Such an awesome song!



The song is in German, yeah. So here are the English lyrics:

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

When I'm dancing, I want to lead,
even if you all are spinning alone,
let's exercise a little control.
I'll show you how it's done right.
We form a nice round (circle),
freedom is playing on all the fiddles,
music is coming out of the White House,
and near Paris stands Mickey Mouse.

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

I know steps that are very useful,
and I'll protect you from missteps,
and anyone who doesn't want to dance in the end,
just doesn't know that he has to dance!
We form a nice round (circle),
I'll show you the right direction,
to Africa goes Santa Claus,
and near Paris stands Mickey Mouse.

We're all living in America,
America is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.
We're all living in America,
Coca-Cola, Wonderbra,
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

This is not a love song,
this is not a love song.
I don't sing my mother tongue,
No, this is not a love song.

We're all living in America,
Amerika is wunderbar.
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.
We're all living in America,
Coca-Cola, sometimes WAR,
We're all living in America,
Amerika, Amerika.

---

In any case, the music video says it all. So damn cool!

Anyway, it's things like this that make us wonder if the Americanization of the world is a good thing. On one hand, America has given us McDonald's, Coca Cola, Hollywood, Nike, Levi's, all of which I'm sure most people are grateful for. America is a major investor in other countries including our own, and their expansive industries, coupled with the effects of globalisation, have brought a plethora of goods and services to almost every country in the world.

However, has their influence spread too far, such that local industries have suffered due to them? It seems possible; these days, majority of the youth would much rather go to a McDonald's or some other American fast food joint for lunch than a local coffee shop. Need I add the fact that Elvis and America popularised fast food in popular culture such that it grew from a fad to an essential part of life.

Their hold on the world is only growing steadily. Some countries are willing to submit to American imperialism in exchange for relief, money and such, but most countries would refuse to submit so openly, mainly due to the backlash from the population, who might see this as a deterioration of their culture. However, through the influence of American movies, music and popular culture, the masses have been unwittingly Americanized, and the subsequent growth of pro-American sentiments amongst the population is reflected in the governments' increased readiness to adopt certain aspects of American culture. Slowly, but surely.

America's growing influence has granted them a great deal of socioeconomic status perks, due to them benefiting from their companies' successes. Such money and power has made then the sole superpower in the world, with the ability to make decisions that even contradict the interests of the UN, as can be seen in the Iraq War. Such decisions have made many cuntries unhappy with America during the Bush Administration, and yet they cannot deny the importance of America's economic influence. It would seem in the end that we cannot live without the "wonders" America has given us, and have no choice but to munch on our Big Macs while enjoying the view of our diverse range of cultures falling one by one to American culture.

So: What are your views on Americanization? Is it a godsend, a scourge to the global community, or a necessary evil?

We say, you listen, end of story (Week 6)

We're all at Aakansha's house for Diwali watching Cartoon Network, and we're watching these Godawful cartoons (SUSHI superheroes?!) preaching about how lying is bad and stuff, and I get to thinking that this would be a good example of mass media to blog about. Turns out that at least two of us had the same idea after seeing that show, so now, I'm going to focus on something else.

The main thing about the mass media that I wanted to address is the powerful effects theories and the magic bullet model. The magic bullet model of mass media states that the media is all powerful and the audience is completely passive. That is to say that the public is merely a mindless, opinionless body that takes in anything that is fed to them, or that would be what this theory seems to imply. However, man's opinion is based on his socializing agents and the information available to him. One can be highly mature and postconventional in his way of thinking, but if the only information made available to him is a skewed view on society provided by biased sources, then he would adopt that viewpoint, being the only viewpoint available to him. Such a scenario is highly unlikely and rather rarely observed today, but in certain situations where there is only one channel of information, it is still possible.

Take for example the Vietnam War. Communication between the troops in Vietnam and the White House were severely limited and primarily controlled by the media and intelligence wings of the army, and their will was enacted by the radio stations they ran. This gave them the ability to control the information coming in, going out and circulating Vietnam, which gave them a lot of power. They were able to withold information from the States so as to not incite panic amongst the American public, and they could filter out the pessimistic reports from the military strategists and the politicians in the States so as to not demoralize the troops. To some extent, they could also control the dissemination of local info, as can be seen in this clip from the 1987 movie Good Morning, Vietnam.

Brief storyline synopsis so far: Adrian Cronauer (played by Robin Williams) is a USAF airman sent to Vietnam as a DJ for the army's radio station. He is instantly a hit amongst listeners, due to his over the top humour, spontaneous personality and rock and roll playlist, although his superios are highly annoyed as they consider his humour and song selection inappropriate. They also hound him regarding censorship, and do not allow him to report any news they receive until it has been approved, much to his annoyance. In the second part of the video, he witnesses a local bar get blown up by VC insurgents, and when he returns to the station, makes a move to report it but is ordered not to do so by his superiors.



Once again, another self posted clip, so hope YouTube does not pull it down.

As can be seen in the clip, Cronauer is insistant on reporting the truth, as the media should. However, his superiors are more concerned about what efect the news will have on the public and the troops. At that point, the army is still operating under the euphemism of a "police action" in order to avoid admitting that they are actually going to war, as declaring such would cause panic and possibly drop troop morale. Thus, the media is actively controlling and witholding information for their own agenda.

This is where the magic bullet theory comes into play. By selectively choosing what to disclose to the public, amongside being the primary and perhaps only viable source of credible information, the media is effectively telling the public what to believe in the knowledge that they will just have to take in what they say as the truth. Media institutions that actively withold information from the public, as opposed to reporting everything from an unbiased point of view, obviously have their own agenda in moulding public opinion and perception to something analogous to their intentions and ideals.Additionally, when there is no transparency or opposing opinions, the media's biased view is the only view.

So today's question is: Is such control of information by the media justifiable? Should it disclose everything properly and potentially shake the public's view of the government, or should it disclose only what the public needs to hear while trusting themselves to maintain the illusion of peace?

Do it! (Week 5)

The concept of group communication, especially with regards to groupthink, kind of intrigues me. As defined by Irving Janis (1972), groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

An example of this phenomenon, which basically says that people will blindly comform to a group's principles in order to stay in it, regardless of personal beliefs, can be seen in this clip, taken from the 1987 movie Full Metal Jacket.

Brief summary of the story so far: The first part of the film centres around a bunch on fresh recruits undergoing Marine training, sometime before the Vietnam War. Main focus is on two recruits: Pvt. "Pyle", who is an overweight, blundering and slightly off trainee who has gotten his fellow trainees in trouble more than once due to his inability to take command, and Pvt. "Joker", his buddy. The platoon has decided that they have had enough of Pyle getting them into trouble, and, led by Pvt. "Cowboy", give him a blanket party, something Joker is hesitant about.



Joker can be clearly seen here to be exhibiting groupthink, as he is hesitant on beating Pyle, but does so eventually under pressure from Cowboy. His is the only obvious example here, but when it comes to such an extreme action that won't sit well with some people, and considering that there are so many other nonviolent alternatives, seeing everyone else in the platoon joining in probably means that at least some of the others exhibit groupthink as well, although not so outwardly.

Looking at the symptoms of groupthink:

Illusion of invulnerability: the platoon believes strongly that they are better than Pyle that they feel justified in their actions.

Belief in the group's own morality: Joker makes the decision that his beliefs are not as important to him as those of everyone else as a collective, and so in the interest of being with the group, he forgoes his own hesitations.

Shared stereotypes: the platoon believes that Pyle, in a sense opposing the groups by not obeying orders, stereotype him as a deviant deserving the beating and fail to recognize that Pyle might be slower than normal (which can be clearly seen throughout the first half of the movie).

Collective rationalization: continuing a certain action despite contrary information. In this case, Joker obviously can see that Pyle is in pain, but because of groupthink, continues with the beating anyway.

Self-censorship: Joker, for a moment, wants to voice his disapproval, but instead chooses to keep quiet upon pressure from Cowboy.

Illusion of unanimity: the entire platoon is unanimous in their participation in the blanket party, despite at leasy one of them not agreeing with it. However, because everyone thinks that everyone is agreeable to it, the rest hop on board anyway.

Pressure on dissenters: nobody voices out their dissent here, but Joker comes close to doing so. Cowboy recognizes that Joker is hesitant and might refuse to take part, and pressues him into doing it.

Mind-guards: self-created protection from dissenting outside information. Here, in the isolated environment of Parris Island, where the Senior Drill Instructor is the law, his absence creates an atmosphere of lawlessness here, and thus they choose to carry out things as they see fit and ignore any rational argument.

However, is groupthink that powerful? By this argument, can it influence people to commit more henious acts, like murder, or is there a limit where a person draws the line?

The Internet: the modern matchmaker (Week 4)

Here's a screenshot of the SDU's website, which I thought to look up while thinking of something to write for interpersonal communication. It's mainly a networking/dating site with personal bios and notices for upcoming events. Not much to see or do if you're not a member, so I just took a few amusing minutes to read the Success Stories column, which had entries written by married couples who had met each other through the SDU.

Brief background info on the Social Development Unit: It was established in 1984 by the government as a means to promote marriage amongst single graduates, who, apparently at that time, were facing a low marriage rate due to certain factors such as their careers, certain cultural beliefs and such. Since then, it has merged with the Social Development Service, the SDU equivalent for non-graduates (one wonders why the government had to make that distinction in the first place) to form the SDU-SDS, in an effort to expand their database of singles.

The concept of matchmaking is not new, but it certainly has evolved. In the past, where arranged marriages and other cultural norms made marriage a formal and rigid institution, the opinions of the two parties hardly figured into the whole equation. Now, in today's significantly more individualistic society where emphasis is greatly placed on the self, it is the normal mindset that a relationship be all about the two people involved. Thus, the focus of matchmaking has changed to one based highly on interpersonal compatibility and communication.

Nowadays, matchmaking and online dating merely increases the opportunity for compatible single people to meet, but from there on, it is up to the individuals and how they interact. One of the SDU's primary activities is to hold regular social events, such as horseback riding classes and cruises and such, which gives strangers a reason to interact. The beauty of these events is that everyone there is single and is looking for a potential partner, so there is a reduced awkwardness when approaching a person. Chances are that people attending these events are at least mildly interested in the activity, and they are able to draw connections of similarity from there. The concept of similarity states that we tend to form relationships with those we perceive as similar to us, so these events would serve as a catalyst for potential relationships. Online matchmaking uses the concept of attitudinal similarity to put people together according to their attributes and beliefs, and occasionally people are paired by how they complement each other.

However, there are a great deal of people that disagree with the whole online matchmaking deal. They say that pairing people merely by their similarities is flawed, and that the supposed rationality of the matchmaking argument is disproven by the weak success rates. These people believe that a true connection can only be established by physical interpersonal communication; both parties have to communicate face to face in order for sparks to fly. They also disagree with the concept of speed dating, something highly endorsed by certain matchmaking groups, saying that it is impossible to ascertain if someone is compatible with oneself within the short amount of time given. People would then have to resort to nonverbal cues and attributes to figure out if that person is physically attractive, and base their judgement on that, and this practice can be very inaccurate or misleading.

So: is online matchmaking really ineffective, and the successes thus far mere coincidences? Or is there hard science behind it?

Poker Face (Week 3)

Was thinking about nonverbal cues and communication, and where they would best apply in a practical sense, and I thought of the poker game in Casino Royale (2007).




Ignore the blatant ads from Tell Poker. This was the best clip I could find on YouTube.

A good place to observe nonverbal communication is a place where verbal communication is limited, but an even better place to observe it is when nonverbal communication is more important. Professional players don't play their cards, they play their opponents, and not every hand won in poker is won with a high hand. Players regularly inspect their opponents for signs and tells as an indication of what kind of hands their opponents have, and adjust their playing styles accordingly. Also, professional players use tactics like fake tells and confidence playing to throw their opponents off, either by being unpredictable and hard to read, or by deceiving them by signalling that they have better or worse cards than they actually do.

By observing this match up, one can see the aspects of nonverbal communication in play, and how players either use these methods to send messages (sender approach) or read the signs exhibited from their opponents (receiver approach):

Kinesics: The study of body movements. Everyone's movements and mannerisms are extremely calm and collected, even when they have a high chance of winning. Commonly called the poker face, this strategy prevents one's opponents from reading them too easily, like if one were to act excited or nervous with good pocket cards. Earlier in the game, Le Chiffre also gives Bond a fake tell. A tell is a nonverbal cue that people inadvertedly give out when they are bluffing. He feeds Bond a fake tell and then uses it to convince Bond that he is bluffing, thereby drawing Bond in while he himself was holding a strong hand, causing Bond to bust.

Paralinguistics: The study of vocal nonverbal cues. Everyone keeps a very collected tone when they speak, and the black guy doesn't even speak at all. Facial cues may be easy to suppress, but vocal cues that indicate your mood might be harder to catch, which is why they make a conscious effort to sound cool and collected. Saying nothing and being the silent player for the whole game can be just as effective; you don't give away anything, but you also can't incite people verbally.

Chronemics: The study of the meaning behind time. Even when they are confident of their odds, the players still take their time before acting. Professional poker players know not to be too hasty or too eager when making bets and decisions. This is not only to ensure that a player has deliberated enough before making a move, but also because how long one takes to make a decision can reflect on what he feels his chances are. Inexperienced players get excited when they get a pocket pair and are quick to raise, which might alert other people. Taking your time (and being cool about it) throws people off.

Objectics: The study of meaning portrayed by artifacts. Le Chiffre, throughout the entire game, can be seen doing chip tricks very naturally. This is a conscious and legitimate strategy undertaken by professionals, especially in the World Series. The chip trick is an intimidation tactic; knowing a lot of them and being good at them sends a message to other players that you are experienced and you know what you are doing. Also, people who are overly concerned with their odds and are easily flustered might be more so when distracted by someone else at the table expertly flipping chips, and this might cause him to lose focus and commit errors.

Oculesics: The study of nonverbal meanings communicated through the eyes. Staring your opponent down, especially when betting or raising, like how Le Chiffre does, shows that you are confident in your bet, and that you might (or do) have a good hand. This can be used as a bluff, where a confident gaze and a bold bet can scare people off and cause them to abandon their bets and fold. Also, with inexperienced players, watching their gaze might indicate their area of focus. Concentrating on the cards might show that you either have a good hand or are waiting for one, while concentrating on your opponents means you are attempting to play them by bluffing. Of course, this strategy is moot for pros, who know how to avoid such tell tale signs.

Physical appearance: Self explanatory. Although the dress code is formal here, how you dress still makes you different from the rest. Dressing lavishly or expensively shows that you are rich, which adds to the intimidation factor. On the flipside, some people in the World Series, like Scotty Nguyen, dress casually and flamboyantly to add to a casual, cool aura, which exudes a different type of confidence. Scotty Nguyen also likes to wear a cap and shades, as do a lot of World Series players, in order to better hide their expressions.

Haptics (the study of touch) and proxemics (the study of space) do not really apply here.

The strategies undertaken here draw heavily from nonverbal cues, since hardly anything is communicated verbally. Although effective, it is not the only way to apply nonverbal strategies. Take a look at this video of Scotty Nguyen using nonverbal (and some verbal) intimidation to win a bluff, in a way that is drastically different from Bond or Le Chiffre, but nonetheless effective.




So: what are the nonverbal strategies he uses, and how do they differ from Bond, and yet achieve the same results?

Chic 'N' Stu (Week 2)

I put my iPod on shuffle and I got to this particular song. Chic 'N' Stu by System Of A Down. The song is about how advertising sucks people in and causes people to want stuff they did not know they needed prior to watching the ad. The lyrics aren't very profound, but I think it gets the point across fairly well.




Basically, "advertising causes need, therapy".

They got the idea for this song while watching an LA Lakers game and seeing the advertisments on display there, including one for pizzas that got them really hungry. That's the hallmark of effective advertising; not merely letting people know what you're selling, but getting people to want what you're selling.

I was looking around YouTube for examples of effective advertising when I recalled that moment in Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, when they get the munchies and see the White Castle ad on TV.




Perfect example of an ineffective and an effective advertisment. (I uploaded this to YouTube myself, so hopefully they don't take it down for copyright infringements or anything like that)

Before this, a little background info on Aristotle's three modes of persuasion:

Logos - appeal via logic and wording of the message
Ethos - appeal via the credibility of the persuader
Pathos - appeal via the arousal of emotions in the viewer

Before the White Castle ad, they watch a public service announcement warning people of the dangers of marijuana. The acting in that ad is quite bad, no impacting or jarring message is sent out, and the ad makes no attempt to reach out to the viewer or make an impression. In communications terms, logos, ethos and pathos aren't being utilized at all. Maybe a little of logos (telling people that marijuana may cause you to stick a loaded gun into your mouth), but it doesn't capitalize on that fact at least, and in the end it does not make a conclusive point. Simply stating at the end that "Marijuana Kills" isn't effective enough, especially when the viewer's attention has been lost by that time. Both Harold and Kumar are quite baked from smoking marijuana when they see that ad, and yet, even in their supposedly more paranoid state of marijuana-induced high, they still think the ad is laughable and they do not take it seriously.

Then comes the White Castle ad. They state their cheap prices factually (logos) and the rest of the ad, from the torrent of fries to the use of words like "tasty" and "delicious", to the use of a female voice (which is audibly more appealing than a male voice), are all meant to appeal to the viewer's emotions (pathos). The depiction of the burgers and fries in the ad proves to the viewer that White Castle does indeed make good food (ethos), thereby inclining the viewer towards buying their food. Although Harold and Kumar had the munchies by then, and were generally hungry, the ad overwrote all the other food options they had, and compelled them to embark on their journey to White Castle.

It seems at this point that an effective advertisment has to include all three modes of persuasion and employ all of them effectively in order to be an effective ad, but there are plenty of examples of ads that do not utilize all, or any, of the modes of persuasion, like the famous Cadbury Eyebrows ad.




So: does an ad really need to effectively incorporate all three modes of persuasion to be effective? Or does its effectiveness have nothing to do with the modes of persuasion at all, and in fact depend on something else entirely?

The New News (Week 1)

The news has progressed quite extensively from its humble Pony Express beginnings. Today, the news is available in a wide variety of formats, and all have their different uses and advantages. Is any one form better than the others? Not entirely. While some types may be sufficient alone, the existence of the other types proves that not any one type of news can do everything.

The major types are:

Newspapers

The Straits Times

Newspapers, in terms of raw data, are the most concise and substantial form of news. A single edition has all the info one needs to know with regards to international news, home news, sports and such for the day. Unfortunately, because of this same reason, it is also probably the most unjustly forsaken type of news. Most people do not realise this, but reading the newspaper requires some technique involving picking out relevant information. It is quite pointless (and tiring) to read an entire edition cover to cover, and attempting such is the reason why most people do not even bother with newspapers. Newspapers, regardless, are still too crucial to do away with, due to its tremendous advertising potential.

Televised News

Fox News

Channel NewsAsia

Televised news programmes are able to capitalise on their ability to visually and audibly engage their audience to bring across the news in a more vivid and impacting way than the newspaper can. The format, along with the scrolling news captions and latest updates, enables people to take in more information at a time than with newspapers - useful for people on the move. Televised news is also better than the newspaper due to the by-the-minute updates. Newspapers only publish anything that makes it by press time; anything else has to wait until tomorrow.

The only problem is that viewers are subject to the programme's format and capacity: if you want to hear about tennis updates, you have to sit through all the more important stuff before they reach that part. Also, being visually appealing may lead some channels to invoke certain feelings in the viewer that are analogous to the station's agenda, like how Fox News was regularly accused of siding the Bush Administration.

Fake News

The Daily Show - Dick Cheney's hunting incident

Link to Today Now - Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg (YouTube)

Personally, my favourite type of news, where it is presented in a humourous way. Examples include The Daily Show, which reports on world events in an intentionally comedic way without distorting facts or publishing lies, and Today Now, which uses subtle humour and sarcasm to "report" fabricated stories based on real life events, more for the purpose to entertain than anything else. Such methods are useful in connecting with the younger generation and people who are thoroughly bored with the conventional news. Viewers will find it quite obvious as to what is fact and what is meant to be a joke, and through this method, awareness and some level of interest is drawn to these topics, as opposed to these people avoiding the regular news and sidestepping these issues altogether. The obvious drawback would be that some level of detail is sacrificed for the sake of humour, and that these programmes always run the risk of misinformation or defamation in the search for comedic material.

Personally, I feel that televised news is the most effective, in terms of currency, information transmission and convenience. However, all forms have their uses and drawbacks. So, which type of news media is the most effective?

Credits

I wish to thank my friend, Syahril Idris, BA Psychology undergraduate, for assisting me in the creation of this blog. Without him, my life would crumble as I know it.

Thank you friend.