Model of Communication? help with identification

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
Any help identifying this model from my lecture notes from London Bible College 28th December 1984? Lecture by Peter Cotterell
 

Attachments

  • communication.jpg
    communication.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 0

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
I looked back at the notes and was puzzled why both were speakers myself. I also lacked notes on the perception stage. I am not sure if I failed to keep up with the lecturer but I would plug the gap now with teaching stuff about integrating with prior knowledge
 

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
As you go through the five stages, control over your message is lessened.As distance increases the message is more his than ours.



CONCEPTION requires thorough thinking out. You do not think on your feet, from scratch.



ENCODING can take many forms and a rough poem can sometimes be more effective than straight speech. Classical poetry has fallen out of fashion but it was an accepted method and we need to recognise where it is used historically.



TRANSMISSION requires the regulation of both volume and quality, intonation, pauses and emphasis etc... are part of transmission.



RECEPTION does not always result in perception ( men can reply to wives automatically if watching football). A cat's brain can shut off/filter out a ticking clock. Perception must be prompted by a flux in transmission just as an orchestral pieces of Wagner etc... were performed with loud waking up sections. Ideally reception and conception should be a 100% match.

I don't have perception but I was reflecting on the lyrics of Peat & Diesels song; Pirates over the Hebrides.

The particular line was, We're looking for the winkles you stashed in the bay

How that is heard (reception) as opposed to written I would reckon 25% would hear wrinkles instead of winkles and the perception would be suitably altered. Perception would go downhill from there.

Don't suppose anyone has the notes for PERCEPTION? I would from a teaching perspective fill it in as integration with existing knowledge and vocabulary.
 

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
I would be interested on how sermons have impressed themselves on us. I recall Eric Alexander passionately expounding the wise and foolish builders. The passion which he displayed as he spoke of the man digging down dissatisfied with anything but the rock of Christ stays with me some thirty years later. It was not affected but intergral to his communication.


Key to P&D lyrics
winkle picking - the collection of Littorina littorea in buckets which are emptied into large orange string bags which are stored below high water are the key to understanding the lyrics. Shellfish merchants will not call for a single bag at the remote locations where they are collected so they are kept where they will be covered at high tide until the requisite bags have been collected. In the Mediterranean where there is virtually no tide this practice is virtually unknown.
 

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
RECEPTION does not always result in perception ( men can reply to wives automatically if watching football). A cat's brain can shut off/filter out a ticking clock. Perception must be prompted by a flux in transmission just as an orchestral pieces of Wagner etc... were performed with loud waking up sections. Reception is also influenced by what it sounds like if the diction is unclear then what is heard may be influenced by what is expected. In chemistry

Copper Sulfite and Copper Sulfide will sound very similar. If the student speaking is an A-student then you would be more likely to hear the “correct” answer which you expected to hear. I have sometimes misheard a work my wife has said but mull over the sound until it “clicks” from the context around it. This is rarely a conscious process and is more likely to be unconscious/


PERCEPTION prior experience will influence how what is heard is perceived as well as how the speaker is regarded. In a court for example the a witness may be labelled a "hostile witness" with the implication that there is an inherent bias. If your disposition towards the speaker is favourable/unfavourable it will influence how you perceive what is said.

I had an experience in which a minister said he did not believe in hell. That is what he said and I have the recording to prove it. He subsequently said he was voicing the thoughts of an unbeliever but this is not clear from the whole recording. Indeed I do not recall him ever preaching on hell, so there was several years of past experience leading me to perceive his statement as a Freudian slip ($ in the heresy jar).
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Sophomore
Looks like fairly standard communication theory. Its just breaking down the process of communicating into stages and examining each. Its actually really helpful and can explain why misunderstandings occur.
 
Top