I like this part of the internet, where people openly discuss new technology and are able to weigh the pros and cons, due to experts chiming in and a social "hive mind" coming into play of "Oh, AI is bad" because people heard about it stealing art, rather than having a critical take on how AI performs these tasks and how it creates elements from pictures. In short, the people are bad, the technology may not be; we just might not be ready for it.

I think this was a particularly nostalgic time for myself and lots of people. Receiving a custom-coded game from a friend is much more personal and enjoyable than downloading one off the internet. I believe a lot of personal connection has been and will be lost the further technology progresses. However, there is an argument to be made for human spirit and needing to socialize as a social creature.

This is another reason why I dislike the current economical situation in America. Too much of it is controlled by a select few, and this somewhat proves that. I think diversity should be a paramount part of television, but only if its aimed at adults. There can be a dangerous push to move people, particularly children, into minority groups, and I believe that benefits those in power.

This is a very grim proposition. I remember watching a documentary on the emerging cyborgs; People with non-organic parts implanted into their bodies. It talked about how technology inherently favors those in power, and how reliance on technology to survive, such as a prosthetic arm, could be catastrophic. Knowing a mental form of this exists is scary.

I personally engage in this function of mass media the most, I believe. I play video games to relax, so that is a function of diversion mass media. There can also be other functions of mass media in video games, as acceptable norms and social themes can be explored, challenged, and broken in them.

Its strange to think of the books created by the printing press as being a form of mass media, but it makes sense. The repeated dissemination of knowledge is what make mass media a thing, and books are no different. The same information that is repeated by news outlets is the same kind of stuff that would be mass produced back then.

This is an interesting role I didn't really think existed before, or at least I haven't dealt with it before. there are obvious cases where this is negative, as explained with the "martyr" example, but if someone just doesn't contribute, doesn't challenge ideas, but still does their part, is that necessarily a bad thing?

A lot of the time, I am complimented on my leadership skills, so I believe I am a natural-born leader. I enjoy leading people in their pursuits, and to make them be their "best selves" in whatever way they want. I have been told that I am well-spoken and do well at moderating conflicts, and those are essential leadership skills.

Task cohesion (and cohesion in general) are something I'm struggling with in my group project for my math class. A lot of people are struggling to communicate and effectively determine what needs to get done. It's something we need to work on if we're going to get our project done.

This is strange to hear. I know there's these group think-tanks that come up with better results than many experts do because of the sheer amount of polled suggestions. sure, most of the suggestions could be rubbish, but if you have enough suggestions, one of them will make sense. Obviously people who detract from group discussions/don't do their part shouldn't be contributing anyway, just because of lack of interest, but sometimes bigger groups yield more fruit.

It's interesting to think about how small groups are formed and if they can form for reasons other than a goal or task. Is a college dorm considered a small group? I guess the task is "Shared housing," but it still is strange to consider them as coordinated. The other examples make sense, however, as most of the time groups form and work together.

It should also be considered how relationships may form from friends with benefits situations. Is this considered a potential, optional step before dating? Does a friends with benefits situation ever turn into dating and further? Or is it just included in the dating stage.

As a man, I can confirm this is the case some of the time. My buddy and I, one of my best friends, constantly give each other shit, but we do it because its funny or we care. that care is exemplified in that we take interest in the other person's life. We are willing to send each other cash in an emergency. We have each other's backs.

I feel like people need to be more aware of this. People think others will be in their life forever, and while that's a good concept to practice, its ok if it doesn't pan out. More often than not, the only forever friend you will (hopefully) have is your significant other, and even that is not guaranteed these days.

I'm confused by this. I feel like the bonding phase doesn't necessary HAVE to include a public ritual. Many engagements are private affairs between just the two people, like taking a hike in the woods. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what the bonding phase actually is, but I would disagree that it needs to be public.

I believe this is true. Communication builds healthy relationships. There are times we should not communicate, such as surprises, but more often than not, communication makes people stick with relationships. Things can also be said for not communicating; failing to do so can lead to tension or mistrust, which can boil up.

I feel as though I am an open book most of the time, sometime too much so with things I should keep guarded. But I think its fine, I like people to be honest and transparent, as opposed to the opposite. Balancing lies seems like a lot of work and its just easier to be honest.

I tend to not manage my emotions at all and just put them in a box, due a lot to some childhood trauma and how I was raised, or lack thereof. I remember at my grandmother's funeral, I didn't cry a lot until someone was giving a memoir on the stand. I remember being unable to look at my grandmothers face as those emotions boiled up out of that box. It was very difficult and was definitely unhealthy, so I need to work on that.

As much as I often like to be what I consider right, I also understand the value in coming to an agreeable point for both parties. Some people say I sit on the fence with this, but I think I mediate interventions and other dicey conversations well, as I hold both parties accountable and provide advice on how to speak in a more neutral tone.

I feel as though honesty is the most important thing in relationships, and not just personal ones. I went on a date with a girl and she wasn't honest about why she didn't want to see me. Low and behold, there was some fallout when I found out. Honesty is important because it is the basis of trust and can save a lot of time.

This is something I figured out a bit ago. Humans are always selfish in their communication, but they can communicate for altruistic reasons. People want love because THEY feel empty without it. This isn't to say you can't love someone, but the best instances of love are mutual agreements of respect and enjoyment of each other.

I think I do fine with formal feedback. I'm sure there's room to improve, but for the most part, I do fine giving advice without needing to take something away from it. Advice is to help the other person, not to make yourself feel better. I love to help others with their works, so this comes naturally to me.

Empathic listening is something I struggle with. I often am too logically inclined or I try to take the spotlight, and I need to learn to just be there for people. The problem I face is that I often get uncomfortable just listening to people without saying anything, so any advice on how to think about this would be welcomed.

Being raised in a difficult household, My sense of physiological noise is often skewed. I often am tense without reason, due to rampant, chronic stress, along with muscle spasms. However, I have learned to live with it and listen even when I'm distracted by this noise.

I remember when I was being raised, my parents would argue almost every night and keep me up. The walls were very thin, and I could often hear the TV being played or them yelling at each other. Needless to say, It was hard to talk at home without any background noise, whether it was in person with friends or online.

I feel as though I listen well, but sometimes I express my opinions too often, sometimes interrupting people. I need to work on this and figure out the right cadence and rhythm to conversations, as I can often miss that mark.

As someone who has grown up introverted and isolated, charisma does not come naturally to me, but I have learned to practice it and grow it within me. I wonder if people can notice someone who is naturally outspoken and charismatic, versus someone who has had to develop their sense of self-esteem and socialization.

I am also learning this in the statistics section of my math-123 class. Inductive reasoning starts as a general assumption, then gradually becomes more precise. I, personally, fall more into applying deductive reasoning, as I like to know the reason for a process more than understanding the process itself, also known as top-down reasoning.

I never really considered there's more than two points to an argument. The warrant is something I'd like to dive into, as I supposed someone could, in an argument, attack either the other sides argument or the warrant of their argument with the same steps.

I feel as though I have good research skills, as I remain unfettered by bias in my research in a large capacity. Of course, I'm not truly unbiased; everyone has their own implicit bias. I try to stay neutral and play devil's advocate, so avoiding explicit bias comes naturally to me.

The differences from back before the 1800s is interesting to consider. How would I have fared if argumentative topics was still the main way to educate? how would the internet have affected this? maybe people would put more weight on internet arguments.

I used to struggle with depression, and I exhibited a lot of nonverbal communication that would tell others I was depressed. Things like slumped posture, low eyes, and twiddling thumbs would often key others to my lowered sense of self. I got over my depression but some of those nonverbal cues still linger with me.

I find that, for some people, it is easy to tell their motives and character based off of these first impressions. For example, there's the obvious messaging of if you offer to shake someone's hand and they refuse, but what if they play under the guise of not noticing it? Then things get harder to tell, but I find that sometimes the outcome of a relationship is often predicted very early on.

I am terrible at eye contact. I often am unable to look at a person in the eyes for a whole conversation, but I believe its because I don't have a ton of social experience with it or because I'm distracted, not because of any discomfort. I have, however, heard that most people don't maintain eye contact in general, so its nice to know that I'm not the only one.

I feel as though maybe this may be inaccurate in some ways. A lot of people with autism struggle to pick up on nonverbal communication, and while the majority of the population might not struggle with these nonverbal cues, a growing part of the population will struggle with nonverbal cues and how to communicate nonverbally.

I often struggle to convey anything other than a resting neutral face, and I've been told that I'd be an excellent poker player because I give no cues and am very monotone in my emotional expressions. I hope to work on this with my public speaking, and to learn how to shape my face so that I give off more emotions.

I'd like to do some more studying into this. I know in the military, good speeches, whether for morale or briefings, let the units know that they are confident in what they are saying and speakers accompany this with their body language. Doing so leads a higher mission success rate and boosts morale. However, overusing it can make you look like a clown.

This is something I will STRUGGLE with. I have talked monotone and dry my entire life, due to a few factors, mainly how I was raised. I've never really been good with pitch or tone, so I'd love to hear if anyone has any suggestions for how I could work on this.

These are things I typically struggle with. I need to think more clearly about what I will say and plan out my speech while also keeping it dynamic enough to respond to people on the fly. I could also tell them to wait until the end for questions, but I'd also like to learn the former method.

I actually already do this when I meditate, which is a habit I need to get back into. Breathing is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to relieve stress. I also like to make hand signs whenever I meditate, and I can recreate these hand signs when I am stressed to bring myself back to a state of calm. It's like remembering a happy memory to cheer yourself up.

When I am just sitting around, often, I will be stressed. I am basically stressed all the time due to a variety of factors, which I will not go into here. But because of this increased stress, I don't get adrenaline responses that much, and if I do, they're very reduced or result in a panic attack. At least now I know why they happen.

This is interesting to consider in an international sense. How does a culture change based on what language they speak? What isn't affected by language? Additionally, something to consider is that, in certain languages, some words have additional meaning to a single action. For example, in Greek, there's eight different words for our word "love." So I can understand why some languages are looked at more favorably.

I often get the empathy this piece is trying to explain. I went on a date last December and we had a good talk, followed by her almost crying (not in a negative way). I almost cried as well, due to that communication, whether intentional or not. Its very different from talking with friends or associates who I only have partial or non-romantic interest in, where I wouldn't have the same level of empathy.

This is probably why I don't have a ton of comfort with communication. I often take the evaluative route to talking with others, and I know this can often cause some ruffled feathers, so to speak, which isn't intentional usually. I would love to learn more about how to speak descriptively.

I think this demonstrates how experiences shape us and our decisions, and therefore our communication. Being a product of our environment has both truth and falsity to it. Like the saying "Aristocrats developed weak chins," a person raised in wealth might not have a ton of working experience, but can learn this experience based on a different, more productive environment.

I love learning about this stuff. Its interesting to see how history shapes the world, and to see the consequences of how certain decisions turn actions into reality. Its also intriguing to see the natural correlation people can make with abstract concepts, like a rock being equal to a chicken. Clearly, that's not literally the case, but the human mind makes the connection.

This is a good thing to think about while making my own speech. I will only have one flashcard to work with; how do I use the space on it appropriately? I think it will take a bit of practice and thought to know what the important points to talk about are, and how to respond to questions in a concise, thought-out manner.

This is good advice to follow, and reminds me of something in psychology; Everyone does what they do for themselves. This doesn't mean people are always, 100% of the time, selfish, and can quite honestly point to the opposite. They do things required of them because it helps them maintain relationships, etc. As this relates to a speech, it's important to keep this in mind as people will always try to serve themselves first; so make your speech revolve around them as much as you can. Painting your idea, even if its totally irrelevant to them, as something that benefits people somehow, is how to keep a crowd engaged.

I like this quote, mainly because it emphasizes how much we are shaped by our environment. We often learn of how bullying isn't an ok thing and should be frowned upon. For the child who has known only violence his whole life, this might be the only thing they know how to do and to tell them they are wrong and disturbed for it does little to dissuade them from this lifestyle. It takes understanding, empathy, and a new way of life to move them in a different direction.

This is an important subject to consider. Rather than just preparing a speech ahead of time as a script or just rambling on about whatever comes to mind, it may be best to combine both approaches and remain flexible yet still have some form to your speech. Flashcards are a good example of this as they can cover what topics to hit on, but are sparse enough to prevent over-explaining or being too rigid with your topic.

I do particularly well at identifying people's beliefs and behaviors. It is why I am quick to read people's motives and intentions, and why I am an excellent judge of character. I also enjoy a good debate, as it challenges people to think more open mindedly and to consider more possibilities than they initially considered. I enjoy the mental challenge of playing devil's advocate and seeing other's perspectives.

I see this a lot with people's political beliefs. People of both political parties will look at an issue, like government control or hating a certain group of people and condemn, argue, and treat people as lesser humans for it. Then they'll turn around and do the exact same thing, like letting a law they agree with slide because it reinforces their views. Does anyone else let their beliefs impact others if they agree with it? I'd hope we are at least aware of this part of human nature and try to not indulge in it.

I'd like to further see how Visual Stimuli can enhance learning both consciously and unconsciously. For example, I personally can listen to rock music while typing essays and not be distracted. It would be interesting to have some kind of standardization of this "Noise Requirement" that each person has to work at their best.