Verbal vs Non verbal ROTFLOL!!

Chris Rock during his live specials


Since ancient times, people have been inclined to non verbal forms of communication rather than verbal ones. When we communicate, we express a great deal of ourselves to who ever we are talking to. Not just the words that come out of our mouth. Our clothes, our hair, our posture, and movements of our limbs and so on. verbal communication sends the immediate and the most direct message that one wants to send across. What our body language does, is adds flavor to the conversation making it more dynamic and interesting.

The narrowed field i want to draw attention on is comedy. Everybody loves comedy. Ok, maybe not those with a weak heart but everyone else does. And maybe excluding 'emo people'. Verbal and non verbal comedy are both used very widely. verbal comedy can be basically cracking a joke. Everyone cracks jokes. My teachers tells them, my therapist tells them and my friends won't shut up. But if we look closely at the people around us, it is physical humour that is more prominent.

If you walk down a street and some one is making his friend or someone that he knows laugh, he is not looking forward with a straight face, perfect posture, unless the joke calls for that. He is jumpy with alot of expressions to his face which actally is the more powerful tool to make people laugh. Stand up comedy does not actually mean what it says. If you go to a comedy club, you will see that although their primary role is to just tell jokes, they have physical movements to go along with the jokes so as to get it to sink more into the audience and ultimately recieve the greatest prize to a comedian, laughter.

So, to a comedian, which is more improtant? both. If he or she does not talk, where is the joke? and if he just stands at one corner and blabbers away, then why should i pay to come to a comedy club? a mixture of both should make the room go 'LOL'.








http://blog.themavenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/chris_rock.jpg

WHY YOU CAN'T HELP BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU READ

I found this article on the Internet and i found that it was very interesting because it showed how we may not be able to select the information that we have in front of us. This is contrary to the lessons this week that we had that showed that we are able to censor specific information.

In this piece, the author described two schools of thought in social psychology- that of Descartes and Spinoza. I find that it is hard to decide which of the two is right or may be right. This is because understanding a stimuli or believing it may be totally different things but they do overlap heavily so it’s hard for me to really put a finger on who’s right.

Anyway, another thing that i also found worthy of note was the experiment that was mentioned by the webpage. This study, conducted by Gilbert et. al. (1993) showed that our perceptions can change due to novel stimuli and the intensity. For example, those who gave statements that explaining their crimes and why they did it got a smaller sentence than other people. In the case of believing someone or something, our perceptions are based on intensity of the stimuli. I also found that the introduction of some stimuli changed the focus of people who were supposed to be concentrating on another stimuli, like the robbers’ statements, instead. Instead of concentrating on the statements and deciding by the facts alone, the subjects were interrupted by the colour of the words and the ‘excuses’ and stuff that was also given.

That way, i think that even though we are supposed to avoid and refine the stimuli we receive, we cannot because our minds will be forced to believe it first. Or am I wrong? I will appreciate any comments or opinions from anybody.

Citations:
picture of Descartes (left) and Spinoza edited by author from original article on www.spring.org.uk
Gilbert et. al. (1993)
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/09/why-you-cant-help-believing-everything-you-read.php

Media vs social networks

KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan: The Dalai Lama headed for typhoon hit areas of southern Taiwan Monday on the first full day of a tour that China has warned will hurt improving ties with the island.
(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1001817/1/.html)

This is an extract from a news report on the Dalai Lama's trip to Taiwan to help the victims of the typhoon cope with their loss or properties, family members etc. He is perceived to be the the spiritual leader for many. And his trip to Taiwan sounds like he is just going there to lend spiritual aid to the victims of the typhoon. He says that as a monk, he was there to say prayers for peace. This creates the perception for those who do not know him is that he is very dedicated to being a spiritual leader and providing guidance. However, moving on to the next line might change our perception of him. Firstly, it is presented that he is exiled from his native of Tibet. This makes some people look at him negatively. Once there, the Dalai Lama makes political remarks to the typhoon victims making it sound like originally he had political agenda. This caused uproar from the Chinese government as his words may hinder the talks between mainland and Taiwan. This shows how the the government fell about his visit and also Chinese people on the streets are arguing why he is staying in a posh place if he wants to give spiritual aid to the victims. Before reading this article i had little information about this Dalai Lama. I knew he was an icon and one of the most influential men in Earth, according to Time magazine(http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733757,00.html.

However, seeing how an influential man can be denied entry to do what he does best, providing spiritual help, made me rethink my perception of him. A reputable magazine names him one of the most influential people on earth and yet, the common man and even China's government is against his trip. Speaking to some friends also showed that there are people that think of him other ways than a spiritual leader. This shows the sometimes, Mass media has to bow down it's head to the social beliefs and preferences of the individual. Our perception although is largely dictated by the Mass media, It is actually our own set of beliefs and values that shape our perception to a larger extent.