Speech Comm

[prof-cregg.livejournal.com]

[She's downright perky this morning, and smiles easily at all the students.]


301--Theory

All righty, gang, now we get into something we can really chew on. Theory behind speech comm is backed by science: psychology, sociology, medicine, and behavioralism. Because of your grade level, we're going to start simple. You should have read about Michel Foucault in your book over the weekend, so I have one question for discussion today...and you can bet your boots we're going to discuss the heck out of it.

In a sender/message/receiver paradigm...who benefits?

Comments

[notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com]

*Elizabeth grins back, as she hands across coffee*

I'm going to have to go with my favorite answer and say "it depends." Either the sender and/or receiver may benefit, depending on what the message is.

[prof-cregg.livejournal.com]

You're not getting out of it that easy...pick one and follow it to the end with me. Up to you. [She sips the coffee and she smiles...this is the one she's been looking forward to all weekend.]

[notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com]

Okay, the receiver benefits. They're getting told about something, and this something leads them to somewhere that they'd never have previously imagined.

[prof-cregg.livejournal.com]

Regardless of message?

[notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com]

Not really. If the message is something like, "Your grandmother's died," then there's the benefit if having that knowledge, but you won't see it like that.

[prof-cregg.livejournal.com]

And sender and receiver...how do they change the message? E, your favorite gerbil is dead. I got a call this morning. Who benefits from me being the sender here?

[notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com]

The person who called you, because they won't have to deal with my trauma over my dead gerbil. Depending on who found the gerbil, I might, because I might prefer you breaking the news to me than someone else.

[wannabelawyer.livejournal.com]

*Lindsey returns CJ's smile brightly*

Well, both parties ought to benefit ideally, right?

[prof-cregg.livejournal.com]

Uh-uh...not that easy. Ought isn't part of it. Who benefits, Lindsey? [She holds out her and and bends her fingers, beckoning the answer from him.]

[wannabelawyer.livejournal.com]

Well...I'll go with the sender then.

As the sender, you're conveying a message. So you're saying something that you think needs to be said or at least should be said. You benefit because you get your message out there.

[absolutesnark]

"I think both the sender and receiver benefit, but, for this discussion, I'll go with sender. For example, if something was bothering the sender and they needed to talk about it, they'd benefit by telling someone."

[ooc: This time said with the correct LJ account. And the correct spelling of receiver ;)]

[dbiers.livejournal.com]

"I think Elizabeth's right, it does depend on the message. Sometimes just the sender benefits, other times just the receiver and then there are times when both parties benefit." D'anna rests her chin on her hands, thinking for a moment. "I suppose the primary beneficiary though would be the sender. Once the message is sent, he or she no longer has to harbour the information. That becomes the responsibility of the receiver."

[auroryborealis.livejournal.com]

"I agree with Liz and D'anna - but I also think it depends entirely upon the intent behind the message, as well," Rory chimes in. "If something is said with love it has a very different effect than something conveyed maliciously."

[http://users.livejournal.com/sydney_bristow_/]

Sydney comes in and takes a seat.

[not-an-ex-demon.livejournal.com]

Anya comes in, and ponders the question.

"I guess it would be both parties," she answers.



ooc: Mun is ded! You finally got to use your favorite phrase ic!

[anextimeagent.livejournal.com]

Receiver, I'd think. They are, by definition, getting something. Info is valuable, so getting it is getting something of value.

[[Looks at post in mid-compose. Winces at the IRONY. And back from Vegas, but so not caught up.]]