are ye convinced?

TV ad one: winrox
"itaktak mo, i-winrox mo..."

TV ad two: zonrox
"ZONROX Bleach: Disinfectant, Stain remover Bleach is made by bubbling chlorine gas through a ..."


***

"There are two ways we make decisions and hence get persuaded"

peripheral route: winrox

this tv ad uses the peripheral route to persuation because it focuses more on catchy slogans, dancers, and other visual cues rather than persuasive arguments (which were not present by the way).

one of the remarkable characteristics of the peripheral route is that it can illicit a quick response to the receiver of the message. however, there's only a 'minor shift in attitude' and that the result will be pretty much like the 'last song syndrome' where their jingle will ring in the receiver's head.

central route: zonrox

this tv ad focuses more on the elaboration of the message giving the receiver a major shift in attitude.

furthermore, it can illicit logical and conscious thinking to decision making--which leads to permanent change in the attitude of the receiver.

the zonrox tv ad showed scientific explanations on how their product can work which can, in return, make the audience think.

**holds the remote control and switches the channel**

dear narrator...

let me get this straight.

i believe we're in the same plight so i believe advicing you will be a learning experience for me as well.

humans, yes, that includes you even if you think you are not one, never cease to communicate. blame non-verbal communication why your mum told you “You just hurt my feelings,”

yes, you probably never said anything (are you sure you're not lying? hehe), unfortunately--or fortunately, depends on how you think, according to Paul Watzlawick's Interactional View, "One cannot not communicate"

communication does not only revolve around spoken words y'know. but on non-verbal as well. this includes your "body language"

so now you know.

always remeber: Communication=Content+Relationship
"Content is "what" is actually said, while relationship is "how" it is said (Griffin 170)."
what and how classify each other. "information on how the talker wants to be understood and how he himself sees his relation to the receiver of information" is always involved in the communication process. let's not forget to think before we talk. it always works. ;-)

knowing that people can hardly appreciate the things we do good is most definitely tragic. but take note of this though: "Both the talker and the receiver of information structure the communication flow differently and therefore interpret their own behaviour during communicating as merely a reaction on the other's behaviour."

i believe it's all about putting things in the right context.

you're smart. i believe.
you'll get through this. my sisters's also annoying me.


take care,
jesse ramon

Communication theorists as relationship mechanics?

Communication theorists as relationship mechanics?

why not bestfriend Griffin?

here's my letter to Jim:

dear jim,

first of all, it annoys me to call you 'dear' because i don't really know you. but that's ok, it doesn't really matter anyway.

i understand that you are having issues with your girlfriend. i'd like to point out that there's this concept about couples. it goes something like this:

"...the closer individuals become to one another, the more conflict will arise to pull them apart."

what i'm trying to say is that what you're going into is normal. totally.

but that's beside the point.

i understand that knowing that someone's hiding something (i'm pertaining to the diary) from you is really unfair--especially when that 'someone' is your girlfriend.

i understand how extremely bothered you are--the more you want to know what's in the diary, the more your girlfriend draws it away from you...even farther!

i understand how much you want your girlfriend to open up some more to you--i mean, after all, she is your girlfriend.

i understand. really. i do.

that's what the relational dialectics, a concept within the communication theory, taught me.

and being the mr. nice guy that i am, i shall share to you what i've learned about this thingy.

ok, so i've never had a girlfriend before, but i totally know how it badly feels when someone i'm close to, in your case, shelley, hide something from me.

according to relational dialectics, for every relationship, there's always CONNECTEDNESS and SEPARATEDNESS.

this means that no relationship can endure unless each individual involved in that relationship spend time alone for themselves. even though it's normal for us to want a cohesive bond in relationships, too much connection with each other may result in the loss of your sense of identity. furthermore, this will make you dependent on her--as in, like, you will find the need to be with her 24/7--believe me on this...i experienced it!

next is that there must be CERTAINTY and UNCERTAINTY. the former gives you a sense of assurance in your relationship and the latter decreases the monotonousness in the same. a little mystery won't hurt--it actually makes your relationship exciting. and not boring.

and finally, probably your favorite, OPENNESS and CLOSEDNESS. ok, maybe the former's just your favorite. i understand why--just like newton's third law of motion, the want of opening one's self up results to another need of privacy. this you must always remember when it comes to relationships: there are struggles and that intimacy doesn't draw a perfect heart. or circle.

and that there are always pulls and tugs that surround it.

i sure do hope that i helped you.
it is now up to you to make changes relative to what i just blabbed about. believe me, it's for the better.

cheers!
jesse ramon

***
the relationship repair shop is now open.
email whateveryourproblemsare at:
thisrelationshiprepairshopdoesreallynotexist[at]welovebogus[dot]com

ok, jim, that would be one pair of 2008 havaianas please...
wahaha

onceagainidon'tknowwhattitleshalligivetothispost

six words:

this. is. an. informal. research. proposal.

the second semester is heating up as i am slowly being bombarded by tasks. but i'm still ok. as a matter of fact, i'm better--for i've seen my crushes a billion times this week. but that's beside the point.

i'm here to tell the world that i've finally made up my mind to do research on how a bag communicates an individual's social status.

i chose this topic because i've always wanted to do research on fashion and culture and that my interest is totally wrapped on it.

knowing how a bag communicates one's social status is relevant in the sense that it allows us to have a greater appreciation for material culture and of how it communicates to us and indicate cultural values of a certain society.

this research will also give us a deeper understanding of how status symbols communicate to us for it is something we tend to take for granted.

"status symbols are important as they communicate information about the owner such as their wealth, age, political importance, and marriage status."

furthermore, knowing how a bag communicates and indicates one's social status allows us to realize the privileges and responsibilities associated with such.

aside from the links at the upper right hand corner of this blog (which i have posted since the day this blog was born), here are links to some more related literature i've come across with while googling the keywords 'bag' and 'status symbols' all of them which i have not read yet--well, i did read some...haha

http://jesiramoun.multiply.com/journal/item/101/coma101

i'll get them all organized once i've skimmed through them so that i can have my "glorious 5 resources". ;p

finally, my research timeline:
i'll do it by week.

jan. 13-19, 2008: gather some more resources
jan. 20-26, 2008: gather some more resources and read all of them
jan. 27-feb. 2, 2008: read read read and understand possible theories to be used.
feb. 3-23, 2008: continue doing research, perform tasks in other subjects while trying to breathe and keep sanity amidst the killer exams and theater rehearsals.
feb. 24-onwards: live life, have fun, stare at crushes, do good in school, love communication arts.

clearly, i have issues with regards to time.

i end this post by saying, "may everyone have a peace of mind and find rest in themselves for knowing the essence of our existence is the essence of our existence."

world peace.

***
i'm so corny...

a conversation...

gina: shet, i can't go to the mall right now! look at me...i'm so..."yagit"
shiela: ok lang yan. louis vuitton naman bag mo. haha o, dba?
jane: *interrupting* louis vuitton naman bag mo...eh wala naman laman!

gina raises an eyebrow to jane

***

it works but i don't know why.
it's possible y'know.

going out to the mall with nothing on but tattered clothes--ok, maybe i'm exaggerating undressed with louis vuitton's palermo bag on your shoulder that is...

***

bags vs. shoes

unlike bags, shoes are hardly noticeable--unless of course everyone you bump into has a foot fetish. although shoes are always the "thing" to be bragged about, it ain't that noticeable unless you stick out your feet to someone else's face.

well, right now, i'm debating over whether to study shoes or bags relative to status symbols. *sigh

icantthinkofatitleforthispost

"what's in the bag?"

no. a better question would be

"what's with the bag?"

no. wait. try

"what about bags?"

***

through the ages, bags have always been indispensible. they range from big to small; they appear tall or wide; they come in freakishly bright colors to metallic hues; yet, they all work the same--to put/dump/stash/whatever stuff in.

bags are here, there, anywhere and everywhere!
bags exist!
they're immortal!

they will live with us 'til the end of the world.

***

so much for my corny introduction.

i'll get straight to my point.

how does this mere object communicate?

***

hi i'm jesse. and i'm interested to know how bags embody an individual's status in the society.

well, that's about it.

i'll go stare at blank space 'til an idea hits me hard on the head again.