The one with the blackout

The popular 90s television show “Friends” has a ton of great examples of dyadic communication, but one episode in particular was unusual and very comical due to the forced nature of it. After a blackout, Chandler is trapped in an atm vestibule with a supermodel, and they are forced to communicate. Their interaction follows the filtering theory proposed by Steve Duck, in which communication goes through five stages; sociological and incidental cues, physical proximity, preinteraction cues, interaction cues, and cognitive cues. The two of them are stuck in an atm vestibule due to a blackout, which forces them to interact with each other when they normally wouldn’t. Their physical proximity is also affected because they are stuck in an atm vestibule by themselves. The super model, Jill Goodacre, may have chosen this atm because she considered it a safe location, which may be the main reason why she was there. Chandler’s preinteraction cues did not initially suggest he was a person she would want to interact with. He smiled too long when they exchanged glances, but she may have thought by his clothes and general appearance, that he was safe to talk to and maybe even attractive. Their first interaction was awkward to say the least. When he tried to blow a bubble he accidently spit the gum out, and when he tried to put the gum back in his mouth, he didn’t put the gum back in his mouth and began to choke. This may have saved him, because she then performed the Heimlich and saved his life. She then broke the ice by making a joke about something awkward he had said earlier, which opened up the conversation. The final stage, cognitive cues, was much smoother. They seemed to both enjoy a pen-swinging game they created out of boredom, and may have shared other interests but this wasn’t shown. These small interactions that we all experience everyday carry a lot more weight than we realize, and better attention to them may improve our interpersonal relationships. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvJIbvm596w

How language shapes our thought

This article was interesting to me and raised some valid points about language and how it shapes our thoughts. This article showed how words are used in different languages to signify gender and tense, and how much they can differ across these languages. Languages all have different rules for these signifiers, such as referring to a bridge in the feminine sense in German, and in the masculine in French. This causes us to shape our thought around our language. Languages also require different things of speakers, such as in low-context cultures versus high-context cultures. For example, the Japanese culture is a low context culture, meaning they pay attention more to what is said rather than how something is said. This difference causes questions to be asked differently and conversations to have a different flow than that of high-context culture, like America, who is the opposite paying more attention to how something is said rather than what is said. These differences in culture and language force speakers to shape their thought around their language. These ideas, though not completely original, are important and can have practical implications if the differences in language were to be studied more in-depth. If it is possible to isolate the differences between the languages of the world, it would not only be easier to communicate with someone from a different language (but a language the speaker is familiar with), it would be easier to learn new languages. For example, a businessman who is traveling to Russia may be familiar with the language, but the not the cultural differences in the way the language is used, and how words are used in different situations. When these elements of communication are isolated and recognized by the speaker, the language and cultural barriers are much easier to navigate over.