Pick one concept from the
assigned reading, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting
and discuss it.
The Merging of Arts and
Sciences
I
am always intrigued when the study of Arts and Sciences converge. I am most often noted as a definite right
brain individual, and find myself significantly more drawn to the Arts, not
only because I’m an expressive individual, but because I tend to more readily
assimilate the information in this field than in the field of the Sciences. Given such, I found the modern period of
rhetoric in the path of the psychological epistemological approach to be of eye
opening interest.
As
a student of communications, I have often heard of the equally, if not a more important role, of the listener/receiver in relationship to the speaker/sender. Active
listening versus passive, and the perception lens in which a listener receives and accepts the intended information being delivered, plays an important
role as to whether authentic communication is actually taking place. In fact, it’s noted active listening is a
greater percentage of the communication process than verbal speech.
Additionally,
to receive knowledge (the message), it seems imperative for the speaker to take
into consideration the psychological disposition of thought and the individual
or collective group lens of perception in which the receiver(s) view the
speaker, the intended message, and the relationship which exists amongst
them. For a speaker to forego this
consideration in advance of delivery, and not place great emphasis on the
receiver(s) as active participant(s) in the formulation of meaning and
interpretation of the message, seems futile.
It is this merging art and science through the psychological
epistemological approach that not only intrigues me, but places a new lens upon
my own inquisition and understanding in the field of communication.
I agree that the listener/receiver is very important when it comes to communication. The approach doesn't consider that the deliverer of the message may accomplish their goal by simply delivering the message. While the listener may have no interest in what's being said, or in the person delivering the message, it doesn't negate the possibility that communication took place. In fact, just the act of ignoring the speaker and/or their message, is way for the listener to communicate back to the speaker their opinion of the deliverer or the message being delivered. In the end I think it all comes back to how one defines what authentic communication is.
ReplyDelete