Fee Fi Fo Sony.

Sony, like no other. It's a electronics household name we all know. With media globalisation hitting an all time high, is it any wonder that a company such as Sony has grown to such great heights? This is not without careful planning on their part however. There are three parts to media globalisation, complementary, horizontal and vertical expansion. Companies can however engage in more than one mode of globalisation.

Firstly, complementary expansion. Sony produces cameras, not just point and shoot cameras but those for people who want to play around more with apertures and ISOs. Therefore they produced semi-pro DSLRs as well. 

These cameras store pictures and videos on a memory stick, which is exclusively produced by Sony. This means that you cannot buy any other types of memory cards by any other brands as it will not fit and work with Sony products. This exclusivity will definitely give them more revenue as people will be in a sense "forced" to buy this memory stick if they want to use Sony products.

This goes without saying that when you want to transfer your photos to a computer without a cable, you can only insert the memory card into a Sony produced laptop. Try it with any other laptop from Acer to HP and the memory card will definitely get stuck, and won't be able to be removed without some trouble. Trust me, I speak from experience. My memory stick has been forced into my friends' computers before, because they stubbornly did not want to listen to me that it wouldn't work. Took me a lot of effort to try and pry it out. Of course I got pissed.

Sony has also made use of Vertical expansion. Since they are already leading in the electronic goods market, why not explore in other ares of electronic goods as well?

With computers comes printers. 

And with mp3s come headphones.

Sony even has come up with a whole home entertainment system. Gone are the days of having to go to the cinema to get the experience of watching a movie in the theatre. With huge flat screen televisions and surround sound, both of which are top of the line, cutting-edge high quality equipment, you can have your very own movie experience in the comfort of your own home.

Last but not least comes the highly raved Sony playstation, a whole new gaming experience. With technology Sony has come up with games so life like it feels like you are watching it and part of the game instead of being just someone watching from the outside. Here complementary expansion comes in again, because games produced to be played on the playstation can only be played on that and nothing else. 

What I like about Sony is it's exclusivity. It appeals to customer's in the sense that if you are buying into the "Sony family" you aren't just paying for the goods, you're paying for the sense of exclusivity. And yes, in a way it's definitely a good marketing gimmick that Sony employs, but yes I definitely it's worth the price. Yes, I'm a Sony fan as well. (:

I'LL GIVE YOU MEDIA POWAH!

Okay so we know how media is so pervasive and twines its way through our lives changing the ways we live, think and act. Have we ever thought about why and how they do it though? What makes the media such a powerful tool? 

These theories make it slightly somewhat more enlightening to these 'sneaky' tactics that the media use.

The powerful effects theory also known as the magic bullet or hypodermic needle states that the mass media has a direct, immediate and powerful influence on its audience. One might ask why the given name, well basically the information given to the audience is directly received and wholly accepted by the media. Although many people have said that this theory is obsolete today; I think on the other hand, that some times the media does still employ this particular theory and use it in propaganda. 

To give you an example, we all know that Myanmar used to be called Burma. However, only a couple of countries have decided to endorse the name change; namely The United Nations, South East Asia, Germany, Japan, China and Russia. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, France and Canada still refer to the country as Burma. 

Why so?

Well, Myanmar is one of the few countries that are still led by a military dictatorship. By not endorsing the name change, these opposing countries are showing their disapproval and are ultimately saying that they do not recognise the legitimacy of the ruling military government nor its authority to rename the country.

This is evident in media coverage as you will later discern in the video below. The video also provides an explanation on whether it should be Burma or Myanmar.

So here we see a classic example of how us as an audience are undoubtedly influenced by what the media portrays. One of the illustrations he talks about is Castro, an islet in Cuba which the news media refers to as an utopia. Of course they never want to show the world anything abominable about it, however they actually quarantine aids victims away from the general population. Why should that be the case? I mean, aids victims have a right to live their life just like any other human being on this planet don't they? But I digress, another illustration given in this video is Joesph Stalin. One of the most murderous dictators in history, he who murdered 30 billion of his own people was affectionately referred to by the news media as, Uncle Joe.

See people only tend to believe what the media shows them, and it's not hard to see why. Especially when the only information you know about that subject is only what the media portrays, if you as an audience stay passive and never take the effort to find out for yourself what really is the truth, will the human race ever be progressive?

I hope this entry gives you something to think about the next time you listen or watch to news being broadcast of when you pick up a newspaper.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Culture is something that all of us are a part of. As much as we would not like to admit it, culture defines us and basically helps us to live our life. 

Anyhow, I watched My Big Fat Greek Wedding a while back and I feel that this movie perfectly exhibits a lot of factors in culture. For those of you who haven't watched the movie here's a short synopsis of what it's about.

Toula Portokalos is 30, Greek, and works in her family's restaurant, Dancing Zorba's, in Chicago. All her father Gus wants is for her to get married to a nice Greek boy. But Toula is looking for more in life. Her mother convinces Gus to let her take some computer classes at college (making him think it's his idea). With those classes under her belt, she then takes over her aunt's travel agency (again making her father think it's his idea). She meets Ian Miller, a high school English teacher, WASP, and dreamboat she had made a fool of herself over at the restaurant; they date secretly for a while before her family finds out. Her father is livid over her dating a non-Greek. He has to learn to accept Ian; Ian has to learn to accept Toula's huge family, and Toula has to learn to accept herself.

Coming from a close knit Greek family with strong heritage, Toula has always felt out of place and she wishes that she could be prettier, cooler and more confident. So anyway it has never really been a huge issue until she starts dating a non-Greek man, Ian Miller. See the problem is that her parents have always expected her to marry a Greek man and make Greek babies, as is their culture and tradition. So you can imagine their horror when they find out from someone who so happened to see the happy couple and then subsequently let the cat out of the bag. To them, Toula just broke a very important cultural norm and to make things worse, her father expected Ian to ask his permission to date Toula which probably isn't a cultural norm in the more liberal American society.

So when Toula's father decides to try to bring in alternative suitors to interest Toula, she starts getting very desperate and frustrated and she tells Ian that they should run away and get married. Okay so after he has calmed her down they do eventually get married sans running away and Ian goes through the entire process of trying to assimilate into the Greek society, from learning Greek words and at times get tricked into saying the wrong thing like telling Toula's mother she has nice boobs or announcing to the entire family (which is a few generations of Greeks by the way) that he has 3 testicles. Although he is vegetarian he has to accept that eating meat is very vital for the Greeks and has to also adopt their religion before he is allowed to marry Toula. Ian had to give up his own culture which has been established since he was a kid only then can he program his mind a different way. 

Another huge difference between the two cultures, American and Greek is that the Greeks are very loud, every time they meet for family gathering it's probably extended and extended-extended family and you can be sure that it'll be an uproarious one. In the movie Ian's parents are shown as the stereotypical parents, and they have a hard time trying to understand why the Greeks are so outgoing and extroverted. You can say that they had a culture shock, especially when they went for the 'quiet dinner' at Toula's house. Firstly they were shocked at the warm welcome they got from Toula's dad and the friendly bear hugs he gave both of them. Then Ian's mother got quite ticked off when Toula's mother couldn't get the pronunciation of the bundt cake she brought for the dinner right. Toula's mother also whispered to one of the family that there was something wrong in the cake because there was a hole in the middle, she then added a small potted plant in the middle before serving it to the rest of the guests afterward. 

However eventually, by the time Toula and Ian get married...Both Ian and his parents are definitely part of the, if not are honorary members of the Greek society.

In my opinion, understanding somebody else's culture is no easy feat. Something that might be acceptable to us might not be to them, and we should never try to presume. Especially in a multi-racial society such as Singapore, tolerance for diversity should always be present. 

"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until u climb into his skin and walk around in it" - To Kill a Mockingbird.

Shape up, or ship out.

Okay so I'm sure you guys have all heard time and time again about the whole Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie showdown. I'm also sure you guys all have views on who's the angel or devil depending on your like for Jen or Jolie, but that's not really what I'm here to discuss today. 

Brad and Jen were unquestionably Hollywood's favourite couple. In this picture especially they look so good and happy together. Especially if you pick up on the non-verbal cues like how their hands are entwined, the closeness and the shared laugh.

Why then, did they eventually sign the divorce papers in 2005?

Relationships, we've all been in them. No matter how well matched and suitable a couple might be, there will always be conflict. With conflict, the relationship can either improve (functional) or get a whole lot worse (dysfunctional), honestly speaking I believe it is really up to both the people in the relationship to choose which of these roads they'd like to go down. 

There are many reasons for conflict, like motivations, communication tactics or focusing on other issues. However I believe that the main reason for conflict is due to differences in perception. It doesn't even have to be a big thing to spark conflict, everyday habits like who should be doing the cooking or housework and especially if the guy is a chauvinist, he'll probably believe that minding the house should be left to the fairer sex. 

Conflict can also arise when some of the most important needs in a relationship conflict with one another. I'll give you an example - Autonomy vs. Connection. Autonomy here stands for an individual still being free to make decisions unhindered by any other person and connection of course is the opposite, you will have to think of your other half's feelings before you make a decision. Well, we all know that an increasing number of people nowadays are going for the whole 'no-strings-attached' and 'friends with benefits' mindset. 

In my honest opinion, it's all great to get the kind of freedom that comes with that sort of relationship, but is it really healthy for our well being? Ultimately what kind of person does it mould you into? If you're looking into it for short term and maybe just looking for someone who fits your bill and fulfills whatever emotional and physical needs you might be looking for, I guess you can go ahead and do so. However, someone's obviously going to get hurt in the end, unless at the beginning of the relationship you affirm mutually that the both are you are in for the short term only. 
I guess for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, conflict came in the form of... Angelina Jolie. With her sexy bad girl image, what's not to like? It has been rumoured that Jennifer had a miscarriage and that was when the couple started drifting apart. When Brad met Jolie on the set of Mr and Mrs Smith, Jennifer was probably the last thought on his mind. 

Based on the Equity Theory which says individuals in a relationship seek to maintain a balance of costs and rewards that are relatively equal to those of their partners, Jen and Brad probably took awhile to realise that they had lost the balance that they'd had before and decided to part ways. My guess is that Brad probably wanted kids and after Jen's miscarriage, they never got around to communicating when they wanted to try for a kid again. After all, communication is key in all relationships. Then Jolie came along, and look how many kids they've had and adopted up to now...6! If Brad's not tired out, I'm sure Jolie is, and if they're not careful there's going to be another divorce on the cards. 

Don't quote me on this one. (:

Baby give me a sign.

Watch this video and realise, how much non verbal cues actually say. Non verbal communication is taken for granted a lot, and it's not hard to see why, I mean most of the time we barely notice that we do them subconsciously. Non verbal cues also play a huge part on making a first impression, everything from the tone of our voice to how we look and the aura we give out plays a part. After all haven't we heard how actions speak louder than words?



So here's a short summary of this video:

It's about Jason a guy who leads a boring mundane life and wishes that he'll be able to get to know a girl. However being painfully shy, he never dares to make the first move and most of the time his chances are wasted. One day however, he notices a girl sitting in her office in the next building and they start to communicate using signs. Before he summons the courage to ask her if she wants to meet up, she gets a promotion and moves out from that office. Devastated that he has lost his chance once again, he gives up until she uses a mirror to reflect sunlight and get his attention and he finally jumps at this opportunity to ask her if she wants to meet. When they do meet he is about to speak when she shushes him and holds up a sign saying Hi.

What have I gleaned from this video?

Well for one thing, I realised that while verbal communication is very important to us I feel that non verbal communication from multiple channels add emotion to communication. Non verbal cues, especially in the case of this video can be used to reinforce and accent communication.

Take for example, the part where Jason finally gets to ask Stacey if she wants to meet and when she agrees the look of relief and enthusiasm on his face is almost palpable. You see his breathing starts to quicken, his pupils dilate and a slow smile spread over his face. If he were to have no emotion and expression on his face, would you have felt the same way? His eyes alone tell you so much about how he is feeling and that is where oculesics come in, which is the study of nonverbal meaning associated with the eyes.

In this video, kinesics is very apparent. One very obvious example is at the beginning of the video, Jason has yet to meet the girl and he dreads waking up every morning, his movements are lethargic and slow like as if he does not have a reason to keep living. He also seems to be lonely and does not have any friends. He doesn't even get any voice mail on his machine, the only one he recieved was from his mom. On the other hand, after he met her, his actions were full of energy and he practically rushes to work just so that he can catch a glimpse of her and exchange messages.

His body language tells me that he seems to have found a meaning to come to work, life is not as mundane and routine.

Another example would be in the meeting scene, when he seems to be uneasy and clueless when everyone bursts out into laughter except himself and then he makes himself laugh just so he can fit in with the rest.

I like how the music complements the video, suitable to the kind of emotion you feel when you watch that particular scene. Like how at the end when Jason's rushing down to see Stacey the music starts to speed up as well.

I also think it's pretty amazing that you can have simultaneous use of non-verbal cues at the same time with verbal communication. Yet the human brain can process all of it and give us a picture of what we are really looking at.

I enjoyed watching this clip because I think it's spectacularly put together and really illustrates how non verbal communication is so useful and how you actually don't need a script or spoken language to bring across meaning. Non verbal communication can actually be a substitute for it.

Do you really think you are in the know?

Disclaimer: All information I used here is from this site. No offence was intended.

First impression when you look at this photo? Beautiful girl with sharp features, doe eyes and a perfect complexion? If you do not recognise her by now, I'll give you a little clue... Does the name Dawn Yang ring a bell? 

Here she is again, left most girl. Younger, less make up, after her first few jobs were done.

So anyway, before you guys think that this is another Dawn Yang bashing gossip session, I beg to differ. Yes, I'm really writing an entry based on the tendencies in perception. 

A little background information. Dawn Yang a "girl from mars" who shot to stardom through her blog, depicting her decadent lifestyle and hard partying days. Frankly speaking, I know many others who are rich and party hard as well, but what makes Dawn so special is that she apparently went for plastic surgery and then denied it. 

Then again who are we to judge?

Most girls who are jealous of her good looks probably would. If she did go for plastic surgery, what is it of our business? We will be hurt or affected by it? I doubt so. I really do not understand why so many people made such a big fuss over it. If you really are jealous of the attention she is getting, why give her even more publicity? 

However though, to err is human, and we definitely are guilty of judging others even before we know them. We all have a tendency to form closure, to have a herd instinct. Safety in numbers and its better to not be the one that is left sticking out like a sore thumb. 

For instance, we always tend to assume that the cause for behaviour is the person, not the situation. Let me give you an example...

I'm sure we all know Ashley Tisdale as "Sharpay" from High School Musical. Well she went for a nose job, and yes before you start to judge that it was for solely cosmetic purposes...You should read this article. 

Ashley has been suffering from a deviated septum ever since she was young and therefore got rhinoplasty procedure to correct breathing problems due to that. She further added that she does not advocate plastic surgery and is being so open about getting her nose job done because she does not want to hide anything from her fans. I definitely respect her for coming upfront about it.

Moving on, self-serving bias? That's just a fancy name for double standards. And yes we all know what that is and have been privy to that more times than we dare own up to. 

For example if your best friend and you were trying on the same dress in the dressing room at Topshop and she so happens to be slightly chubbier than you are and then she asks the feared question "Do I look fat in this?" Do you spare her feelings or do you tell her the cold hard truth? Surely while those things are running through your mind, you will be thinking, "Man I look like a hundred times better than her thank goodness I'm skinnier!" Bet you're feeling your guilty conscience now! Do not worry however, I'm sure you are not alone.

Lastly persistence of first impression. We all know how important first impression is, and that our first impression of someone is gained within the first 3 seconds of a new encounter. Say you meet this guy for the first time in a club and he is drunk, puking all over the place and making a total fool of himself. Would you then want to get to know him better? Say like a week later you see him in the club again, this time he seems to have better control of himself and is suave and gentlemanly. Will you stay away from him because of your first perception of him, or give him another chance to change that first impression of him?

First impressions are very hard to break and most of the time our instinct/gut feeling about someone is mostly correct. Which is why we should always aim to make a good first impression on someone. Also, in my opinion we should always try to avoid tendencies in perception and learn to give people a second chance. Yes, to err is human but to forgive is divine.

Will you marry me?

During the recent Miss USA 2009 pageant, first runner-up Miss California's answer to a question by celebrity blogger Perez Hilton caused diverse reactions and eyebrows to be raised. Before I discuss this topic further, here's a short video for those who have not been up to date.

To sum the video up, Perez Hilton asked her a question which is definitely one of the more controversial and a 'hot' topic in America right now.

His question?

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same sex marriage. Do you think that every state should follow suit why or why not. 

And her answer which further went on to alienate the gay community in America and which supposedly caused her the crown.

I think it's great that American's are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.

Frankly speaking, although I do agree with Perez Hilton's video blog in that she should've thought about her answer more before blurting out something that wouldn't do her any good, everyone especially in a democratic country such as America who practice freedom of speech should definitely be allowed to make a comment as such without receiving any malicious or mean retaliation. 

After all it is her opinion to a question she was asked and I don't think it was very fair for her to be judged just because of that one statement. Anyway it's not like she was outrightly against gay marriages, she was simply just stating her opinion that she believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I think that it was very brave of her to stand up to her convictions even though she knew that such a biased comment would probably cause her the crown. 

Well, that brings me to my point...perspective. What exactly is perspective? Perspective is a coherent set of assumptions about the way a process operates. In this case we will be referring to communication, more specifically the social constructionist perspective. 

According to the social constructionist persepective, we do not experience the world directly, our worlds are being constructed through communication by taking parts of it that our culture makes significant. My guess is that this is what Ms California did. She probably grew up in a family who believed that God created man to be matched with a woman and any other thing than that is considered unnatural. So therefore when she answered the question posted to her, problems were caused because of people who communicate differently, due to the fact that there is no collective representation of reality. When people see things differently or if they aren't on the same wave length, there is bound to be misunderstandings. 

In order to communicate successfully, we should develop the ability to interpret cultural constructions and avoid creating them, and also to decipher our personal biases. In my opinion, Ms California should have said something more 'politically correct' so to speak. She should have said something like the individual states should be allowed to discuss and figure out whether the legalization of gay marriage is appropriate and most suitable for that state, there really should not be a federal law governing whether it should be legal or not. Her answer should not have included her personal bias to whether gay marriage be legal in the rest of the states.

See, the bad thing about the social constructionist perspective is that it defines good communication as socially appropriate communication. Us humans will then be expected to act out a social role over which he or she has no control. We are expected to behave in a certain many that the social norms in society dictate. Aspects that make us unique and individual are then forgotten. However in a situation as such, especially with a crown at stake and on national television it is always safer to make sure that you do not blurt out such a biased statement. As the saying goes think before you speak.