YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → COMM 100 Lecture 1 – Philosophy of Science

COMM 100 Lecture 1 – Philosophy of Science — Transcript

by Gabe Jones · 30,279 words · 4,419 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Hey, welcome to our first video lecture
0:03on communication science. So, we'll try
0:05to make sense of what exactly
0:06communication science is. But first, to
0:09make sense of communication science, we
0:10got to make sense of what's
0:11communications. Let's talk about that.
0:13Um, so the challenge here is when trying
0:16to make sense of uh how we define
0:18communication. So, the communication
0:20theorist Frank Dance about 50 years ago
0:23identified more than 120 definitions of
0:25communication.
0:27And another communication scholar,
0:28Jennifer Daryl Slack, said, "There is no
0:30single absolute essence of communication
0:32that adequately explains phenomena that
0:34we study. Such a definition does not
0:36exist. Neither is it merely awaiting the
0:38next brightest communication scholar to
0:39nail it down once and for all." So,
0:41we're not dealing with something like
0:42physics, which has a fairly focused um
0:44sense of what it's doing, what its set
0:47of phenomena it's trying to study, what
0:49its theories are. communication uh
0:52spreads an incredibly vast broad field
0:54often involving scholars who have no
0:57idea what each other is doing, don't
0:58even understand this um the the
1:00questions and problems they're working
1:02on, don't even have a shared language.
1:04So, communication is an interesting
1:06field um in that it's so expansive and
1:09so diverse
1:11uh we need to figure out what is
1:13consistent uh in uh what it's doing. So
1:16here's one working definition that
1:17communication is the relational process
1:20of creating and interpreting messages
1:22that elicit a response. And by
1:23relational, we're talking about sender
1:25and receiver. And by creating
1:27interpreting messages, we're meaning
1:28that a sender is intentionally choosing
1:31to send a particular message and that
1:34message goes across a channel that might
1:36impact how um the message is
1:38interpreted. So I'm sure you've you've
1:40all been in situations where there might
1:42be some tension or conflict in a
1:44relationship. um or there might be some
1:47surrounding drama that might impact how
1:50um when you're trying to talk to
1:52somebody, how they process it. So that
1:54can also interpret affect the way it's
1:56interpreted. Um and then the question
1:58becomes once the signal is received is
2:01interpreted, how does it produce a
2:03response? So you might say something to
2:05a friend in the hopes of calming them
2:06down and then you see do they in fact
2:09become calm or does it unintentionally
2:12lead to more conflict because they feel
2:14like that effort to calm them down is
2:16condescending or dismissive of their
2:18concerns.
2:19So again relational process we're
2:21talking about the relationship between
2:22sender and receiver. creation of
2:24messages. We're talking about the
2:25intentional construction of a message
2:27where I'm torn between different ways of
2:30trying to communicate something and I'm
2:32intentionally choosing this message
2:34versus that. So, if I'm in a situation
2:36of of conflict, I can choose either to
2:39escalate the conflict and assert my own
2:41uh perspective and dismiss theirs or I
2:44can choose to deescalate and try to be
2:46more empathetic and understanding to try
2:48to resolve the problem. Or there's
2:50plenty of other options I might have
2:52too. And then interpretation. Um, uh,
2:54the person I'm talking to might view my,
2:57uh, statement as condescending, as um,
3:01uh, dismissive. They might view it with
3:03suspicion, or they might view it with
3:05empathy and openness, understanding, and
3:07then it elicits a response, meaning
3:09what's the response my friend might uh,
3:12answer back. Um, so imagine that you got
3:15this text from a friend where, hey, Pat
3:17and I spent the night together. But
3:20obviously that statement doesn't mean
3:22much or doesn't mean much specifically
3:24uh except within a context. We also have
3:26to think about the environment or
3:27context unless uh is sent in. So right
3:30now we don't know who Pat is. We don't
3:32know is that a friend? Is that their is
3:34that their partner? Is it my partner?
3:36Um, and so we want to think about how
3:39also context influences the meaning um
3:42of the signal production and also the
3:45interpretation of the signal in a in a
3:47communication relationship as well.
3:50Um, however, if we're going to say that
3:52communication is the relational process
3:54of creating and interpreting messages
3:56that elicit a response is a yawn during
3:59uh a tense heated conversation, um, does
4:02it fall within that definition? So let's
4:05say that if we wanted to study the
4:06effects of yawns during intimate
4:08conversations clearly um this can have a
4:11dampening effect on the intimacy on the
4:13sense of connection between two partners
4:15especially if you're talking about im
4:16intimate details but the question is
4:18okay creating uh an and a message is the
4:23yawner so to speak in this situation
4:26creating a message meaning is there
4:28intentionality in the same way I talked
4:29about my last example where I'm choosing
4:32in a moment of conflict either to
4:34escalate and assert my perspective or
4:37deescalate and try to be more
4:38understanding, empathetic towards the
4:40other person's perspective. So again,
4:42I'm I'm choosing between different
4:44options intentionally versus a yawn.
4:46Now, certainly there are plenty of cases
4:48where someone intentionally chooses to
4:50yawn, but let's say for hypothetical
4:52sake um that he's tired, he's been
4:54working a lot and he's not um he's not
4:57intentionally yawning. Does that fall
4:59under the definition that we have here?
5:02meaning that he is intentionally
5:04creating uh a signal versus it's going
5:07to be interpreted a certain way. So my
5:08point here is that we want to think as
5:10we're trying to construct a scientific
5:12understanding of the construction and uh
5:15receipt and interpretation of signals to
5:18produce behavior um what falls under it
5:21and is are definitions adequate to fully
5:23account for um all these different kinds
5:26of situations. Um, so if you were to
5:28study this kind of um uh uh behavior,
5:32would your research in fact um fit
5:34according to this definition or would we
5:36need to change the definition? Or I have
5:39a friend um who got into a a I'll say
5:42argument um with their with his partner
5:44because um she he when they he first
5:47moved in with his partner, she asked him
5:49to to put the toilet seat down and
5:51because he had been living a number of
5:52years on his own, he was just used to
5:55leaving the toilet seat up. So what if
5:57you want to study the effects of men who
5:58leave who live with women leaving the
6:00toilet seat up? Meaning is this a
6:02communication signal? Now certainly we
6:04can imagine scenarios where there's a
6:06power struggle going on between the the
6:08partners in the relationship where he
6:12might think I'm no longer talking about
6:13my friend, but I could see like a
6:14hypothetical situation where he might
6:16think like I don't want her telling me
6:19how to control my space or use my space.
6:20I want to be able to assert my own
6:22independence and how how our object
6:24shared objects are used. and she might
6:26see it as like that's dismissive of my
6:28needs and dismissive of my emotions and
6:31feelings. Uh the fact that you are
6:33unwilling to change or compromise to
6:35accommodate the fact you're now living
6:37with a partner and we want to be
6:38respectful of each other's space. And he
6:40might say, well, how is that any
6:42different from like you're you're
6:43demanding that I change to your needs
6:45versus like you should change to my
6:47needs? Is there a confirmation in
6:48between? Okay, all that is interesting
6:50and great. However, let's say he's
6:52forgetting and just like is so used to
6:55um leaving it up because he's so used to
6:56living alone and being forgetful. Would
6:59your research entail that? And you might
7:01say, well, in a way, it's still an
7:03intentional signal in that he's choosing
7:05not to be attentive to her request or
7:08needs or feelings. Um but fundamentally,
7:10what we're trying to ask here is does
7:12the act of leaving the seat up, whether
7:14it's intentional or unintentional,
7:15constitute a message or a signal. Either
7:18way, it's certainly interesting and
7:19certainly a component of what
7:20communication can study in terms of the
7:23impact on relationship satisfaction. But
7:26again, we want to think like how
7:27rigorous and precise and specific is our
7:30definition of a message or a signal and
7:32is leaving the toilet seat up in fact a
7:35uh a signal and how do we know versus it
7:38was unintentional? And sure, he's being
7:40forgetful and that's that is its own
7:41signal, but to what degree does this
7:43fall within our definition? Um, or what
7:46about fubbing? Uh, this is a still from
7:48I Think You Should Lee, which if you're
7:49not familiar with it, great show. It's
7:51on Netflix. Highly recommended. Uh, but
7:53this is a scene where he is fubbing the
7:55person he's talking to. If you're not
7:56familiar with fubbing, it means to snub
7:58someone but while being on your phone.
8:00So, this is this you're probably
8:02familiar with this from um friendships
8:04or relationships. Um, maybe you do it
8:06yourself unintentionally where you're
8:09just drawn to your phone and you're
8:10scrolling through and looking at
8:12messages. Sometimes you might be doing
8:13work. Sometimes you might be responding
8:14to important messages, but if you're
8:16with a friend uh or with a partner or
8:19with your parents um uh they might
8:22perceive that you are snubbing them. So
8:25is fubbing an intentional signal that is
8:28uh well in this still in the scene he is
8:30intentionally ignoring the person um but
8:32he's acting like oh there's so many
8:34things on my phone or um could we see
8:37fubbing as an unintended signal that's
8:39going to be interpreted as an
8:41intentional signal? So what we've
8:43already seen here is the tension between
8:45how we interpret signals as intentional
8:48or unintentional and to what degree does
8:50the intention of the signal match the
8:52way it's interpreted. That is someone
8:55might have um an important work uh
8:57matter they have to respond to on the
8:58phone. But if they're out with friends,
9:00the friends could see it as like not
9:02caring about the shared space um and
9:05instead being distracted and clearly
9:07you're not as committed to the the
9:08community, the friendship. Or let's say
9:10you're on a date and uh your your
9:13partner uh is scrolling through their
9:15phone. That would clearly be be taken as
9:18a signal of disinter uninterest.
9:20However, what if it was an emergency? So
9:22the question becomes like how does
9:23communication
9:25um match the way we're defining these
9:27signals um or or are they signals? Uh
9:31what about this guy? Now clearly we we
9:33would think normally yeah when when a
9:35peacock raises uh his feathers he is
9:38clearly signaling intention to mate. He
9:41is clearly trying to attract a pee hen
9:44um and and show his prowess um uh and
9:49show that he is a an adequate partner
9:52because of the beautiful feathers that
9:54clearly indicate his health and good
9:56genes and therefore he is a viable u
9:59viral partner uh who will be able to
10:02pass on healthy genes to their children.
10:05However, and sorry, I know my uh video
10:08is blocking the the text here, but the
10:10gist of the uh the the note that I have
10:12here is that biologists differ from
10:14communication scientists or theorists in
10:17the way they think about signals. So,
10:18biology would see the the no meaningful
10:21distinction between an evolved automated
10:24instinctive response versus an
10:26intentional conscious response. So they
10:28would a biologist would certainly see
10:29this as a signal whereas a communication
10:31scholar would would say that's a little
10:34different because that's more a display
10:36and we'll talk about the distinction
10:37between displays and signals
10:38momentarily. But the gist here is um
10:42that uh a communication theorist would
10:44see no intentionality to what the
10:47peacock is doing because this is an
10:49instinctive evolve response as opposed
10:52to a conscious intentional response.
10:54that is that um he becomes close to a pe
10:57he sees a pee hen and boom instinctively
11:00it just raises up to try to attract her
11:02as opposed to hm is that the right one
11:05or should I be more selective um now
11:08this becomes complicated too because
11:10there's a lot of interesting debate uh
11:12about to what degree even um do humans
11:15have free will there's some really
11:17interesting recent uh research on this
11:19uh a couple of books I highly recommend
11:20that are both um smart and readable are
11:24uh the uh two books by a a researcher
11:28named Robert Seapolski from Stanford.
11:30One's called behave and another one one
11:32is called determined and he is looking
11:34into the the evolution and adaption of
11:38behavior. And in particular in his more
11:40recent book determined he's arguing that
11:42um all behavior fundamentally is
11:44determined. Um it becomes a complicated
11:46argument. I don't want to get too hung
11:48up on on it here because we have a
11:49different set of issues. But my point
11:51here is it's an interesting question to
11:53say is there really a meaningful
11:55distinction between um the relative
11:59simplicity of the instinctive reaction
12:00of a peacock raising its feathers to try
12:03to attract a mate and um one's decision
12:07to deescalate in an argument. And you
12:09might think, well, that person is making
12:11a conscious choice, but then someone
12:13else might say, well actually that
12:15choice is the product of upbringing,
12:17genetics, context. So again, interesting
12:20questions that we could explore in a
12:22different class, but I just want to sort
12:23note the distinction between how how a
12:26natural science, physical scientists
12:27might understand signals versus the way
12:30that communication scholars try to
12:31distinguish out different aspects of
12:33signals.
12:35Um, so let's talk about the distinction
12:37between communication displays and uh
12:39certainly that peacock would be an
12:40example. So, a communication display as
12:43distinguished from a Q, which we'll talk
12:46about uh momentarily, or a signal uh
12:49would be physical characteristics that
12:50in some way affect the behaviors of
12:52others. So, for example, a gorilla that
12:55um that pounds its chest, a puppy that
12:57wags its tail, a bird that pushes out
13:00its chest to try to show its prowess and
13:02verility to attract a mate. uh the very
13:05sturdy horns of a ram are clearly
13:08signals of strength, of prowess, of of
13:11joy, of playfulness. Um but these are
13:15not signals because they're not
13:16conscious. They are instinctive. Um so
13:19sorry the formatting is a little off.
13:20I'll fix it later in the slides, but
13:22they are reflexive behaviors. Um
13:24instinctive reactions that are
13:25invariably invoked by particular stimuli
13:27or emotional states and over which the
13:29individual has no voluntary control. uh
13:32as as distinguished from cues. Um and I
13:34realize that I'm I'm blocking the image
13:36here, but that is a um the one in the
13:38lower right is an image of someone
13:40walking through um the woods and
13:42stepping on leaves or twigs that will
13:44make a sound. So stepping on a uh leaf
13:47or twig is clearly not an intentional
13:50signal to others, hey, I'm walking here.
13:52Uh but it would certainly be interpreted
13:54as information that would enable animals
13:57or other people uh to make a decision
14:00about how they might react. So I just
14:01want to make clear on the distinction
14:03between um signals and cues. Uh we also
14:06have the image in the upper right of a
14:08dilated pupil. And there's some
14:10interesting research on
14:12how pupils dilate automatically and
14:14instinctively. Uh but they can be
14:17interpreted as indications of interest,
14:20of desire, of um uh of emotional
14:24connection. Um and certainly there's
14:26there's plenty of evidence that
14:27indicates um for example when mothers
14:30see their children their pupils dilate.
14:32Uh when when you see someone you're
14:34attracted to your pupil dilates because
14:36instinctive reaction is uh it's trying
14:37to take in more light to be able to see
14:39more clearly because there's clearly an
14:41instinctive reaction. Um but let's say
14:43you're on a date and you see your your
14:45the person you're on date uh pupil
14:47dilate. You're like okay um uh that
14:50shows clear interest. And what's
14:52important about this, and we'll talk
14:53about this later on in the class, is
14:56um so much of communication is about
15:00trying to interpret
15:03uh whether signals are honest or not. Um
15:08because, you know, think about again a
15:10dating situation where you're trying to
15:12figure out if the person you're on date
15:14with is a player or sincere about a
15:16long-term relationship. and you're
15:18trying to make sense of to what degree
15:20are the signals they're sending out um
15:23genuine or just trying to um set up a
15:26hookup. So anyway, the interesting thing
15:29about cues is that they're unintentional
15:32signals that um that clearly are honest
15:35because they're natural instinctive. So
15:37um anyway um so the definition here
15:39would be they're unintentional
15:40indicators that can influence others
15:42behavior even though they were not
15:44produced to communicate. that is they're
15:45not conscious intentional signals to try
15:47to say hey I'm I'm walking here or hey
15:50I'm interested in you. Um so there
15:52features or behaviors like you know
15:54making a sound or um cues can also be
15:56like body odor because um when you're
15:59stressed when you're fearful when you're
16:01anxious you emit different smells and
16:03particularly um in antisal conditions
16:06where we were much more adapted to be
16:08able to smell it. Now, we have all sorts
16:09of like, you know, deodorant and other
16:12things to cover up our smells, but so
16:14much of of what uh our behavior is
16:17responsive to is adaptive from tens and
16:20tens of thousands of years ago. Um, and
16:22so we're largely working with the
16:24operating system that evolved a very
16:26long time ago, actually hundreds of
16:27thousands of years ago, uh, and has not
16:29changed that much. So, even though we
16:31are in a very modern, very technical
16:33environment, and again, we'll come back
16:35to this in a few weeks when we get to
16:36the cyber psychology unit. Um the gist
16:39here is that we're we're working with a
16:41sort of operating system that is quite
16:43dated uh and has not really adapted uh
16:46to the environment because the
16:47environment has um has shifted much more
16:50quickly than our evolution has uh
16:53adapted to respond to it. So anyway um
16:56like body odor uh becomes a signal of
16:59fear. So, think about that if you are in
17:01a fight with someone uh or if you're um
17:04you're you're going to battle with
17:05someone else and you can smell like,
17:07okay, there's an a body or uh emission
17:11that signals anxiety or fear that gives
17:13you some information to figure out how
17:15to navigate this conflict, this fight.
17:17Um so, again, they're not intentionally
17:18emitted to communicate, but they can be
17:20used or interpreted by others to guide
17:22behavior. Um and they can be detected
17:24and acted upon by receivers. Certainly,
17:26you know, if this guy's out in the woods
17:27with no one around, um, and an animal,
17:30um, you know, a prey animal hears, uh,
17:32this, that could signal like, okay,
17:34there's food coming or, um, I'm sorry, I
17:37meant to say a predator animal, but a
17:39prey animal would would would perceive
17:41that as like a threat and then run away.
17:43Um, even though stepping on a twig is
17:45not meant to be punitive, but it would
17:46be certainly interpreted. So again,
17:48we're trying to distinguish between
17:50signals, intentional uh information
17:52broadcast to try to affect behavior
17:54versus cues, unintentional um uh
17:57information that's broadcast that can
17:59still affect behavior. Um so yeah, like
18:01mentioned before, it can be body odor
18:03indicating stress or anxiety, can be
18:05dated pupils, can be accidental sounds.
18:07Um so we're distinguishing between those
18:08and communication signals. Okay, so
18:10these are chosen and produced by
18:12individual organisms flexibly and
18:14strategically for particular social
18:15goals. So you see in the upper right uh
18:17we have uh Congressperson Marjorie
18:19Taylor Green uh who has very strong
18:21opinions um and in this image was um
18:26vocalizing her displeasure with uh
18:28former President Biden during a state of
18:30the union speech and this was a choice
18:32in that uh typical decorum rules say
18:38that Congress per members of Congress
18:40are respectful even if they disagree
18:43with a president's policies uh or
18:45position. itions and don't boo, don't do
18:48thumbs down, but because we now live in
18:50a very different media environment that
18:52is much more focused on discord, on
18:55partisanship because that gets
18:56attention, it gets clicks, it gets
18:58likes. Um, Green has um risen to
19:03prominence because she has been much
19:06more willing to engage in partisan
19:09behavior, loud vocal behavior that gets
19:11attention. And so she chose to wear
19:13something very flash and flamboyant,
19:15this white suit uh with a with the uh
19:17the fur coat and to boo vocally and to
19:20put her thumbs down uh in what is
19:22normally a very formal, very somber,
19:24very respectful environment of the San
19:26Union speech. So this was a choice that
19:28she made that is a response to the
19:30environment. Um, you know, you can get
19:31into philosophical arguments about
19:33whether it was really a choice uh or
19:35instinctive, but still, let's just take
19:36for granted that it was a conscious
19:38choice that unlike her colleagues who
19:40were typically much more restrained, she
19:42chose to be much more extreme in her her
19:45communication signaling um for a range
19:48of reasons, both to try to rally her
19:51other Congress people around her to also
19:54voice their displeasure, but also signal
19:56to her constituents and to the broader
19:58public
20:00um her desire to live in a much more
20:02combative political environment where we
20:04do not want to compromise, we want to
20:07drown out or silence the opponent. In
20:09the lower right, again, I realize that
20:11it's not totally visible, but we have an
20:12uh an image of
20:15President Xi of China um greeting
20:18Anthony Blinken, former Secretary of
20:19State, the United States. And it's not
20:21as visible as I would like, but again,
20:22you can look at the slides separately.
20:24But um what you see here is that
20:26President Xi is standing and Blinken is
20:30walking toward him, which is a power
20:32move. Um and so she didn't move. Um and
20:36was just sort of like standing there
20:37waiting for Blinken to approach him. Um,
20:40so that was a choice of signaling the
20:43power dynamic between China and the
20:45United States because Blinken was very
20:47solicitous in trying to demonstrate we
20:50want to work with you. We want to like
20:52figure out things together. So Blinken
20:55willingly chose the submissive role and
20:57she intentionally chose the dominant
20:59role to signal their positions within.
21:02Now of course also Blink is subordinate
21:04because he's not the president of United
21:06States. So it' be interesting to compare
21:07like how does she behave around Biden or
21:10Trump um versus how does she uh behave
21:13around a subordinate of the president.
21:15So Blinkin is also keenly aware of his
21:18his status position in relation to um
21:21sorry there's my dogs in the background
21:23making some signals of their own. Um if
21:25you can hear it um but uh the the point
21:28here is like how is status and respect
21:31being signaled and embodied by these
21:34things uh by these actions. So
21:36communication signals are intentional in
21:37the sense that the individual controls
21:39uh their use flexibly toward the goal of
21:41influencing others and they can be
21:42adjusted in various ways for particular
21:44circumstances. So I would assume that uh
21:46even though Blinken might respond this
21:48way when he's around the president of
21:49China, he's probably going to walk very
21:51differently when he's talking to a
21:53subordinate um because again he's the
21:55secretary of state of the United States
21:57which is a very important position, very
21:59high status position. So let's say he's
22:01greeting you know someone several steps
22:04down in the hierarchy. he's probably not
22:06going to be as solicitous or
22:07differential to them as he is to here.
22:09So, he's making an intentional choice of
22:11how to indicate uh relative status and
22:14respect in these situations. Um now,
22:18it's worth noting that these kind of
22:20conscious, flexibly made choices are
22:22rare in the non primary world, but there
22:24are exceptions. Um and you um and um the
22:28link uh leads to you, I believe, to an
22:29interesting article about how
22:32um dolphin mothers uh
22:37engage in baby talk with their baby
22:40dolphins. Um and you know so there's uh
22:43in the same way that like oh little
22:45little baby um you know cutesy little
22:47language that we engage into human
22:49babies um the sort of truncated higher
22:52pitched um modification of signals
22:55happens in dolphins too which is I think
22:57an interesting area of research to look
22:59into of like what's happening is that it
23:01actually intentional conscious choice to
23:03modify the signals to a more vulnerable
23:07smaller um member of the species. Um so
23:11uh a key element of communication
23:13signals
23:15um is that in this way of looking at
23:17things the key role of research
23:18historically has been that of
23:19communicator that is the conscious
23:21intention of what choice did they make
23:23to sign send a signal. You know here we
23:26have um uh primates grooming each other.
23:28So grooming is certainly an act of
23:30communication in that and also
23:32willingness to be groomed is an act of
23:34communication in that I am I'm showing
23:37intimacy. I'm showing um connection,
23:40loyalty, vulnerability, openness. Um uh
23:44but typically we think about the role of
23:46the communicator choosing to send a
23:47signal and historically the way research
23:49in the lower right shows like intimacy
23:52intimacy between two part human partners
23:54showing like you know enthusiastic
23:56response but think about this. Let's oh
23:59so here we have a very rapturous
24:02greeting between two romantic partners
24:03of like an enthusiastic hug. But think
24:06about like you know this couple or a
24:08similar couple hypothetically where you
24:10know when they meet each other it's so
24:12happy and that's that s that sends a
24:14signal of like love joy passion intimacy
24:18but then let's say one time um it's not
24:21reciprocated or mirrored as much and
24:24will that result in a feedback loop a a
24:26sort of like negative feedback loop
24:28where one person thinks like oh maybe
24:31their feelings are changed but then so
24:33that might then lead to a dampening of
24:35their own sending of the signal that
24:37might uh ricochet and then that leads
24:40the other person to like dampen it and
24:42then they each dampen it a slight notch
24:45and then over a series of multiple
24:47exchanges you see a slow diminishment of
24:50that passion. Um so the point here is
24:53that we want to think about how um
24:55historically uh research has focused on
24:58the choices of the sender uh and have
25:01not been as as attentive to the
25:03receiver. But I think some really
25:04interesting questions can be explored
25:06from the way the receiver interprets
25:08something even if you know the
25:10intentional uh the intentionality of the
25:12original dampening uh signal um was not
25:16meant you know maybe there's they're
25:17again tired of something but it was
25:19interpreted as like less interest that
25:21could spiral out. So the point here is
25:23that in historical way of looking at
25:25communication research receivers were
25:27simply people individuals going about
25:28their business attempting to make sense
25:30of information assess a situation figure
25:32what to do. Um, so communication
25:35displays of another individual were just
25:36another source of information. So my
25:38point here is like how do scientists or
25:40researchers think about the meaning or
25:42or significance of the data, the signals
25:44they're they're sending and receiving.
25:45And so historically we weren't seeing as
25:48much attention to the receiver side of
25:49things. I'll talk about this more in
25:50this upcoming slide. Um so in contrast
25:54when communicators you know people
25:56sending signals attempt to influence the
25:58behavior or psychological states of
25:59recipients intentionally with a starting
26:01point for communication from a
26:03psychological point of view. Boil down
26:04what that means is this now helps us
26:07understand um uh the fact that that a
26:11sender chose to send that signal
26:14reflects the psych psychological state
26:17um of their of of their perspective.
26:19that is they're anxious, they're
26:21stressed, they're angry, they're
26:23passionate, they're joyful, they're
26:25bored, they're confused and so uh
26:28signals help us then make sense of the
26:31internal state. Now we often don't have
26:33access to internal states. So this
26:35becomes interesting way of also trying
26:37to make sense of when we people see
26:39people reacting this way uh to a
26:41political ad to a movie to a a pop song
26:45you know um recently we have the um the
26:49case of Sabrina Carpenter's new album
26:51which caused all sorts of outrage about
26:53the um the symbolism of of the album
26:55cover that some people are seeing as
26:58retrograde uh anti-feminist some people
27:00see it as just playfully um uh playing
27:03around with um gender and sexuality.
27:06Anyway, um we we can use those signals
27:09as a way to try to um interpret the
27:12psychological states of the senders as
27:14well.
27:15Um so just to be clear on the
27:17distinction between signals and
27:18displays. So again, displays are
27:20reflexive automated responses like a a
27:22dog wagging its tail. Um they're
27:24communicative in effect, but they're not
27:26intended as a conscious choice. That is
27:28presumably my dog is not choosing to wag
27:30its tail. is just a instinctive reaction
27:32to stimuli around it versus signals like
27:35here we have a chimpanzeee reaching out
27:36to ask for food. Give me food. Um so
27:38that that is he's choosing to say give
27:41me food. Thank you. Because he's learned
27:42that signal as a way to indicate to to
27:45its caretakers. Um uh this becomes the
27:48way to get food. So um they are
27:51intentional, they're strategic, they're
27:52adaptable. that is they get um primates
27:56typically are especially good at
27:57adapting their signals to figure out
27:59what's going to be the right signal to
28:00get what they want. And that becomes
28:02another important component of what
28:03we're talking about here, which is how
28:06senders um choose to adapt the signals
28:09they're sending to achieve a certain
28:11outcome. Whether we're talking about um
28:14someone on a date who's trying to get
28:16their their um uh the person they're
28:18with interested in them or a chimpanzeee
28:21trying to get food or a political
28:22candidate trying to uh get people to
28:24vote for them or to get angry at the
28:26opponent, we're dealing with the same
28:27basic problem which is uh we are
28:30producing signals to try to affect
28:33behavior. And that becomes a key element
28:35of communication science assessing uh to
28:39what degree um a sender is choosing a
28:42particular signal to affect the outcome
28:44or behavior and to what degree does the
28:47context uh affect the way the receiver
28:50interprets the signal to uh to produce
28:52the outcome. So yeah, distinction
28:54between displays and signals basically
28:56helps us um uh identify how systems
28:59evolve um and how signals take on new
29:01meaning based upon the the evolution of
29:03the system. It also helps us make sense
29:05of how animals social animals like
29:08primates like and humans are primates uh
29:11and they're social um animals
29:12fundamentally uh which we'll talk a lot
29:14more about in the coming weeks about
29:15what what that means in terms of how we
29:18try to make sense of how signals are
29:19produced and consumed. Um, so we're
29:21trying to make sense of how the social
29:23animals try to make meaning um through
29:25deliberate means, through intentional
29:26means.
29:28Okay. So then we talked about cues as
29:30well. So Q's again, we talked about body
29:32odor. So just to make sure we're clear
29:33on the distinction, we got um cues which
29:35are incidental features or behaviors
29:36that happen to provide information to
29:38others but weren't evolved or produced
29:40send messages. And by evolved I mean
29:42like they didn't adapt um as a more
29:44selective way of trying to navigate an
29:46environment to be successful in survival
29:48reproduction. So, um, you know, body
29:51odor, um, is not necessarily, um, it's
29:54not an evolved adaptive response to
29:55environment to allow this person to
29:57better navigate their environment. Um,
29:59it just simply simply has to be happens
30:01to be an outcome, um, uh, of of stress
30:04uh, in this situation that might be
30:06received as like, oh, they're stressed,
30:08like therefore I can I can pounce upon
30:09their stress. So, think about like in a
30:11in a tense negotiation um or in a poker
30:15game where um if one side sees the other
30:18side as like you know pupils dilating or
30:21breathing more heavily or um exhibiting
30:24signs of stress or anxiety that becomes
30:27information they can use to figure out
30:29how to manipulate the situation to serve
30:31their advantage. Um and it's not
30:33adaptive in the sense it's not helpful
30:35for the person to emit those stress
30:37signals. um but it's certainly going to
30:39be used by the receiver to make sense of
30:40them and use them. Um so again they
30:43don't involve intent or evolutionary
30:44selection for the function that they're
30:46being used for. Um so the idea here is
30:48that the distinction between these three
30:50different categories helps us um avoid
30:53overattributing intentionality that is
30:55like I'm constantly choosing this signal
30:57versus that one in the sending and
30:59processing information and also better
31:01understand how organisms people
31:03chimpanzees dogs whatever um use
31:06whatever information is around to figure
31:07out how to determine their behavior how
31:09to when to attack when to run um when to
31:13um try to woo when to accept the wooing.
31:17Um so let's talk quickly about models.
31:20So some of you may have seen like in
31:22content or other communication courses
31:24uh various models and we'll talk more
31:27about this over the coming weeks but I
31:28want to be clear you know part of the
31:30the first week of readings that are
31:32focusing on philosophy of science and
31:34the scientific method. We're trying to
31:36get at truth but the but science
31:38understands we never actually arrive
31:40there. We're always trying to get closer
31:41and closer, but we never quite get there
31:43because the um the tools that we have,
31:46our perceptions, our observational
31:48methods are inherently limited. We don't
31:50see the world as we as it is. We see the
31:52world as a reflection of the particular
31:54structure of our eyes and our other
31:57sensory um perceptions. Uh that in large
32:00part are shaping the information that we
32:02get around the particular structure and
32:04dynamic of those senses as opposed to
32:07perceiving the world as it is quote
32:08unquote. So I want to I want to say that
32:11uh communication models that various
32:12theorists have come up with are similar
32:14in that they're not describing reality
32:16they're representing reality. Uh and I
32:18want to draw a distinction between like
32:20reality and the representation of it.
32:22It's like the distinction between a
32:24territory and the map and a map of the
32:26territory. A map is hopefully a good
32:28representation of the territory but it's
32:30not the same thing. It's an effort to
32:32try to represent it to help us better
32:34navigate things. Um so this is one
32:36famous one um uh the Shannon Weaver
32:38model of communication that actually um
32:40arose originally through um uh telephone
32:44signaling and engineering. Um and
32:46Shannon was trying to make sense of from
32:48a very technical uh mathematical
32:50perspective how to encode uh voices when
32:54they would go into a telephone into
32:56numeric signals that would be um sent
32:59across zeros and ones across a a channel
33:01and then be decoded on the other side.
33:04But the cool thing is that uh this
33:05becomes actually a very powerful way of
33:07trying to describe human communication
33:09as well. So the gist here is you know
33:11you have a source which is in this case
33:13I'm I'm the source of information but
33:15the transmitter is um my voice uh is the
33:19visuals is the sounds you're hearing. Um
33:22so what what I have in my mind is
33:25different from the the message. So I'm
33:27encoding what I want to say through a
33:29message. I'm sending it through a
33:31transmitter which is this recording. uh
33:34across a channel. Now there can be noise
33:36in the channel um both literally in the
33:38sense of you know if my dogs are making
33:40noise behind me if uh if you have noise
33:42going around you that can distort or um
33:45somehow skew the message and then you
33:48know you are receiving it you are
33:50decoding and trying to make sense of it.
33:52uh but obviously there's going to be
33:53some difference between what I'm
33:56intending to say and how you interpret
33:58it which becomes a very interesting set
33:59of problems about uh misunderstanding
34:02miscommunication and even an educational
34:04context how um you know teachers are
34:07trying to help students understand
34:09something but there might be
34:10misunderstandings either because I
34:12didn't explain it very well or because
34:13your experience isn't the same as mine
34:15or because uh the examples weren't ideal
34:17or because like a particular concept is
34:19too difficult to totally make sense of
34:20or a range of other reasons. So there's
34:22other uh models and I again I want to
34:24make clear don't get too hung up on the
34:26models for our for the purposes of our
34:28class. I'm not you know expect I'm not
34:30going to test you or I'm not going to
34:31ask you to write projects on the models
34:33but I want you to see understand like
34:35different efforts to try to make sense
34:37of the relationship between senders and
34:38receivers and different theorists have
34:40come up with different ways of trying to
34:42model it out or represent it. Another
34:44famous one is from Lazwell um in the 40s
34:47um and think about the 40s where this
34:49was just after World War II uh where
34:51propaganda had been incredibly powerful
34:54at causing the war and shaping um the
34:58way that people um were mobilized uh
35:02either in their hate, their fear, their
35:04patriotism, their pride um to go to war.
35:08And um so they also became very
35:11interested in the role of mass media uh
35:14in uh organizing groups into um uh
35:18factions or partisan um opposition. And
35:21so Lazwell was interested in um
35:23fundamentally who says what in what
35:25channel to whom and with what effect. So
35:27we try to make sense of like okay um how
35:29how does the position of the
35:30communicator affect the signal um and
35:33then what's the distinction between what
35:34they mean to say and how they encode it
35:36in a message and then how does the
35:37environment the context uh affect the
35:39way that the signal is interpreted or
35:42might skew or distort the signal and
35:44then how does the position of the
35:45receiver um affect the way it's
35:47received. So um a politician might say
35:50something and one person interprets it
35:52totally different than the others. Um so
35:54for example um you know the the recent
35:57ICE raids in Los Angeles some people saw
35:59it as like great okay we're cleaning up
36:02immigration. Other people saw like this
36:03is a horrific um attack on democracy on
36:06human rights. Um and so you can think
36:08about a given given political signal
36:11about um whether ISIS raids are
36:13appropriate or not and different
36:15audiences responding differently and
36:16then think about with what effect. So
36:18you can think about like efforts to try
36:20to mobilize resistance or protests. Um
36:24what kinds of signals are effective at
36:27getting people to coalesce around
36:30resistance um to the ICE raids and
36:33gather together and protest. So that
36:35could be a really interesting question
36:36for communication science too is um
36:39trying to figure out what kinds of
36:41communication signals are effective at
36:43causing social change or mobilizing
36:45social movements and what kinds are not.
36:47under what conditions with what kinds of
36:49audiences.
36:51Um and so um you know these various
36:54models including Lwell's early early
36:56attempt to try to scheme this out and
36:57this is these are the really early days
36:59of communication studies because it's
37:00kind of interesting. Obviously people
37:01have been communicating as long as
37:02there's been people but there hasn't
37:04been necessarily the systematic study of
37:05it from a scientific perspective until
37:08much more recently. Um and obviously the
37:10Greeks were were focusing on rhetoric
37:12and persuasion um uh thousands of years
37:15ago, but uh and certainly other
37:17civilizations as well were were focusing
37:19on like the particular ways that
37:21communication can influence individuals
37:24and groups. But again, there wasn't
37:25necessarily the scientific uh approach
37:27of trying to make sense of how signals
37:30uh can can affect change. So he was
37:32trying to organize the scientific study
37:33of communication. Um so again um he's
37:37trying to make sense of the who and here
37:39we're talking about who has control over
37:41the means of communication. So think
37:43about who has a newspaper who has um you
37:46know Elon Musk has X. So um he has the
37:50control of what kind of signals gets get
37:51sent out which can deeply influence the
37:53kind of signals that we get. Uh Jeff
37:55Bezos owns the Washington Post. Um and
37:57obviously that's going to play a role in
37:58the kind of information we get. Um the
38:00Murdoch family um owns uh Fox News, the
38:04New York Post, a number of other media
38:05properties and can uh heavily skew uh
38:09the kind of signals that we get uh in
38:11particular ways that serve their
38:12interests. Um so the analysis is there
38:15on who has control over the kinds of
38:16signals that are produced. Um then says
38:19what okay well this is focusing on the
38:21content. What's the nature of the
38:22content? Is it inflammatory? Is it
38:24consiliatory? Is it pro-democracy? Is it
38:26pro uh authoritarianism? So it's trying
38:28to analyze the content. So the who is is
38:31analyzing um who has control over the
38:34signal uh mechanisms. The says what is
38:37analyzing what's the nature of the
38:38content um and what what insights can we
38:41draw from analyzing the content of the
38:43message in what channel. The third
38:45category is analyzing the nature of the
38:47medium. So the idea here is that we
38:49should be attentive to um how does a
38:52given medium change the meaning of a
38:55message. So, how does, you know, think
38:58about this class, how does a video
38:59lecture um change the way that you make
39:02sense of the content versus reading an
39:04article um or seeing a a a discussion
39:07post. So, same thing, you know, we can
39:09think about in a political context, for
39:11example, how um a a video speech is
39:15going to have a very different effect uh
39:17from a billboard or um a something sent
39:21to your home like a flyer sent to your
39:23home. So think about how emotions can be
39:25activated or deactivated. Think about
39:28how anger can be inflamed or how pride
39:31or patriotism can be stirred. So, uh,
39:34are there certain aspects of the medium,
39:36whether it be television, radio, social
39:38media, um, a print, um, uh, flyer, uh,
39:43in-person speeches or some other medium,
39:46how that can, uh, the particular
39:48dynamics or structures of that medium
39:50can influence the way the signal is, uh,
39:53received. um to whom like you know we
39:56also want to think about what's the
39:57nature of the audience and how they uh
39:59their particular beliefs um uh context
40:04relationships um situation can influence
40:07the way a signal is received with what
40:09effects we we can then analyze um the
40:11results of that signal. So the point
40:13here is that laz was trying to map out a
40:15basic structure of what questions do we
40:17want to ask. So he was identifying five
40:19basic questions of what we can focus on
40:21or any combination thereof that help to
40:23start the process of asking questions
40:25about what's happening in the production
40:29and interpretation
40:31um of signals and then the resulting
40:33actions.
40:36Um so we identified basically three
40:37functions for communication.
40:39Surveillance of the environment which
40:40basically means like look at the context
40:42trying to make sense of how the context
40:44um that a given signal is produced and
40:45received in influences the um the
40:47behavior. Trying to make sense of the
40:49relationship between the different
40:50components of society like you know u
40:52political actors and audiences or um
40:55media uh actors like entertainers you
40:57know movie stars, movie directors, uh
41:00pop stars and audiences. So think about
41:02like Taylor hit Taylor Swift and how um
41:05certain kinds of signals she's sending
41:07out tend to promote um uh much stronger
41:10fan connection in her fan base. Um and
41:13then the cultural transmission also
41:14between generations. So he was Lazwell
41:17was also interested in subsequent
41:18scholars certainly were interested in
41:20how how is information transmitted and
41:23changed and adapted from generation to
41:25generation. you know, we're constantly
41:26seeing how each new generation is uh
41:29either
41:31adapting or sometimes rejecting the
41:33information, the culture information of
41:34previous generation, but sometimes they
41:36take on the same sort of things. So, he
41:37thought like this is an interesting um
41:40focus. So what we're seeing here is the
41:42early evolution of a science of
41:44communication where Lazwell and his
41:46colleagues and um and subsequent
41:48researchers were identifying what's the
41:50purview, what's the domain, you know, if
41:52physics is trying to make sense of
41:53things like motion um um uh
41:57communication is trying to make sense of
41:59um how context and environment changes
42:02meaning. um how the relationship between
42:05audiences and um and senders uh produce
42:09uh produces and changes meaning and how
42:12um generations um can evolve meaning or
42:15choose to pass it on. We can think about
42:18how a given um society is either much
42:20more traditional in consistently
42:23maintaining uh cultural information or
42:26much more individualistic uh and modern
42:28in the way they continually uh reject
42:30and evolve uh cultural information.
43:15Okay. So, one of the um the key
43:17components of the philosophy of science
43:18section uh for the readings in week one
43:21focused on um limitations and awareness
43:25of potential problems for the models
43:27that we produce to try to make sense of
43:29reality. And I want to make clear that
43:31while these models of communication are
43:32very helpful for schematizing or mapping
43:35out the relationships and dynamics and
43:37the focus of communication uh behavior,
43:40they're limited. Uh and that's that's a
43:41that's a fundamental aspect of any
43:43model. Any any map is going to be
43:45inherently simplistic compared to the
43:47territory because if it were the
43:48territory, it would be useless because
43:51um it's too the territory is too complex
43:53to be able to make sense of um a
43:56particular thing. So we have maps that
43:58simplify uh the content or information
44:01and that that uh filter out the
44:03unnecessary information for our
44:04particular purposes. Um and so you can
44:07think again about models as similar to
44:09maps in that they intentionally simplify
44:11and filter out information that isn't
44:13essential for our particular purposes of
44:15what we're using this model for this map
44:17for. So um but there are some important
44:20critiques that we just need to be be
44:21aware of that whenever we see a
44:23representation in any scientific context
44:25we need to be aware that it it is a
44:26simplification. So in one aspect of it
44:29um the critique of this model is that
44:31it's too linear. Uh meaning that it's
44:33assuming that there is a a a um
44:36unidirectional line from sender to
44:38receiver. Um but as you know if you're
44:41paying attention to communication
44:43communication is not linear. meaning
44:45it's not like I just send out a signal
44:46and you receive it because you know
44:49student comments and feedback and
44:50questions will certainly influence um
44:52how I I might adapt for the course or
44:55how I might adapt a given lecture
44:57explanation. Uh same thing for um music
45:00artists where it's not like they send to
45:02send out a song and don't pay attention
45:03to the audience at all. Especially now
45:05in the age of social media, um artists
45:08are heavily attentive to what the audits
45:11are saying back. And so social media
45:13becomes a profound way that audiences
45:15can can communicate with artists whether
45:17directly or indirectly that can
45:19influence the way a television show
45:21might choose to um uh respond to crit
45:25critiques or feedback for a new season
45:27or how an artist might sh decide to uh
45:31change the direction of their their
45:33image um or the way they engage with
45:35fans based upon what they're seeing in
45:37social media. So the gratitus model and
45:39this was the case even back then
45:41obviously we have a much more
45:42sophisticated uh interconnection between
45:44send and receiver now but even back then
45:46like it's not like just a politician or
45:50um a a news figure would just send out a
45:52signal and have uh there would be no
45:55influence of the audience back upon
45:56them. So this model is too focused on
45:58the sender uh and the the content role
46:01of the sender at the expense of making
46:02sense of how audiences and also context
46:06can influence the sender as well. So we
46:07need to be aware of feedback loops going
46:09multiple ways. Um and that brings us to
46:11lack of feedback that is we need to be
46:13aware of how feedback between audiences
46:15and feedback from the context or the um
46:18the environment of channel can also
46:19influence signals. Um clearly
46:21oversimplifies the process of
46:23communication because there's lots of
46:24different things coming from all
46:25perspectives. So you know if if I'm
46:28saying something is that is that result
46:29of like my education and training or is
46:32a result of like my mood how tired I am
46:34how stressed I am. So if we really
46:36wanted a fully sophisticated model of
46:39communication we might think about like
46:41physiological characteristics. We might
46:43think about evolutionary
46:44characteristics. We might might think
46:45about genetic about um uh early
46:48childhood development characteristics
46:50that influence the way I communicate.
46:51But that is way too much to factor in.
46:53So we often have to simplify. And so,
46:56sure, it's over an oversimplification,
46:57but it's intentionally so in the same
46:59way that a map might be an
47:00oversimplification. So, for example,
47:02there's often multiple senders and
47:03receivers in any dynamic. Um, and we're
47:05constantly changing roles. So, I'm a
47:07sender right now, but then you might go,
47:08"My god, this lecture is so boring. When
47:10are you going to stop talking?" Okay,
47:11that's going to influence the way that I
47:12might think about how I might package it
47:14uh for the future. Um, there's multiple
47:16channels, so it's not like there's just
47:17one channel because I'm getting
47:18information on the side. You know,
47:19again, my dogs are making me noise right
47:20now, so that's gonna influence how I
47:22might be responding as well. So, we're
47:24constantly getting channels. If you're
47:25in social media, you know, you're
47:26getting emails, you're getting uh stuff
47:29from me, you're getting stuff from um
47:31friends or um or advertisers, you're
47:34you're on different platforms. So, we're
47:36constantly being influenced. So, if we
47:38say like, you know, oh, they got
47:39stressed by a given message. Well, uh
47:43again, this this is um a kind of example
47:45of how we might analyze the results of
47:47communication behavior. If I'm thinking,
47:49hey, does a political message cause fear
47:52or stress or anxiety in an audience?
47:55That's a that's a scientific question
47:56that we could then test. But then we
47:58also want to be modest in our claims
48:00because we also also we want to be
48:02mindful. Are there certain
48:03characteristics of different components
48:05of the audience that might result in
48:07different outcomes at different times?
48:09So maybe it causes stress in me right
48:11now because of something going on in my
48:13personal life, but it might not have at
48:14a different time when I didn't have as
48:16much going on. So maybe news going on in
48:19the world about terrible things
48:21happening in our government uh or our
48:22nation or our world might make me feel
48:25despair in a given moment because I'm
48:28also dealing with something personal
48:30whereas a week before I'd be go like oh
48:32that's I don't care. Um, so think about
48:35like in your own response to news, when
48:37do you not care and when do you care and
48:39what what were the factors that caused
48:42that difference and how certain can we
48:44be that it was those factors versus
48:46versus factors that you may not be as
48:47attentive to or aware of? And I don't
48:49say that to undermine a scientific
48:50project. I just say it to say how
48:53complex and multi-determined
48:55communication behavior can be. Um, and
48:59you know there's there's plenty of uh
49:01potential effects that can change over
49:02time. So maybe the speech worked this
49:04way this one time, but maybe it's going
49:06to work in a different way a different
49:07time. So if we talked about like how a
49:09given um autocrat speeches influence the
49:12audience, well, you know, or or if I say
49:15like, hey, analyze this YouTube video
49:17for how they impact the audience. Um
49:20yeah, maybe that's true um right now,
49:22but maybe if you come back in the year,
49:24it's going to be different because the
49:25context has changed, the audience has
49:26changed. We need to be attentive to the
49:28complex nature of how communication uh
49:31evolves. Um there's also an assumption
49:34of clarity. That is there's in this
49:36model there's no attention to like how
49:38noise in a channel might impact um the
49:41way that things are interpreted. So
49:42we're assuming that signal is
49:43interpreted exactly as it's sent. But I
49:45think we all know that there's always
49:47the chance for miscommunication in um in
49:50any kind of channel where I'm sending uh
49:52a signal over a channel to the receiver.
49:55So noise doesn't just mean like there's
49:57stuff behind me. Noise is a theoretical
50:00concept that refers to anything in the
50:02channel that might distort the signal,
50:05distort the accuracy of the signal such
50:07that it might impact to what degree does
50:09the receiver receive it accurately. Um
50:12that might cause confusion, frustration,
50:14misunderstanding, misinterpretation.
52:15Yeah. And these other models look, so if
52:16you um if you took com 10 with me, you
52:18probably learned about or you did learn
52:20about the SMCR models, the source
52:21message channel receiver model. I'm not
52:23going to go too much into this cuz I
52:24don't I'm not trying to focus on models
52:25so much uh specifically uh but rather
52:28just show there's different models for
52:30making sense of communication behavior
52:32that are much like maps and you can have
52:33like you know Google maps, apple maps
52:35and even with them they have satellite
52:37they have topography uh they have
52:39terrain they have different maps
52:41depending upon what I'm looking for. So
52:43Burllo's SMCR model is hugely
52:44influential still uh I think still very
52:46valuable. Uh so models are both limited
52:49but also valuable because they help us
52:50focus on things and they they help frame
52:52questions about what we should be
52:54attentive to. Um but again you know
52:57there's still some limitations to
52:58Burbo's model as well which you can see
52:59here. You'll see some similarities
53:01between the critique of um the other
53:03model too. Um there's ShraMM's model of
53:05communication between encoder
53:07interpreted decoder etc. Um there's some
53:10advantage of critiques. You can look at
53:11these on your own, but again, I'm not
53:12going to test you on on this so much as
53:14I just want you aware of how models have
53:16their advantages and they have their
53:18critiques or disadvantages. Um, here's a
53:20famous uh confusing but really
53:22interesting and profound in some ways
53:24model of the transactional model of
53:25communication, meaning the transaction
53:27that goes on between send and receiver
53:28and how they each influence each other.
53:30But you're probably looking at this
53:31going like, uh, no. And that's what a
53:33lot of communication scholars did too.
53:35It's super interesting and super
53:36theoretical and sophisticated, but also
53:38the limitations are it might be too
53:41complex to really be useful uh for
53:43everyday use for research. Um so again,
53:46I got some advantages and disadvantages
53:48mapped out here that you can look at. Um
53:50and certainly abstract and overly
53:52complex, but um yeah, so we've gone
53:54through various models and now so now
53:56we're getting a little closer to trying
53:57to make sense of communication science.
53:59But before we fully unpack it, we talked
54:01before about what's communication. Now,
54:03let's talk about what is science. Um, so
54:05I'm going to give you a a stupid cartoon
54:07from the New Yorker um a while back as a
54:11kind of dumb basic example of how to
54:13make sense of things scientifically. So,
54:15the cartoon um shows two dogs talking to
54:18each other and it says it's just a
54:20theory, but perhaps if they're opposable
54:21thumbs, it makes them crazy. Uh, another
54:23part you can't see is like it makes them
54:24crazy, but um a dog trying to make sense
54:27of like what um why are people so weird?
54:32um cute, silly, dumb, but okay theory.
54:36Let's talk about theory because in the
54:38reading about the scientific method,
54:40theory plays an important role. Um so
54:42let's ask is it really a theory? You
54:44know, a theory is an explanation. It's
54:46effort to try to account for some sort
54:48of phenomena or behavior to make sense
54:51of is there a causal relationship
54:52between in this case um uh uh the
54:57opposable thumbs human beings have and
54:59the fact that we're from a dog's
55:01perspective crazy. Um so is this in fact
55:03a theory? So I just want to go through a
55:06few key components of what what is a
55:09scientific theory? Um so first we need
55:12to we need to have a clear operational
55:15definition of key terms. So crazy is a
55:18bit too vague. So we would want to
55:19define the key terms in the theory to
55:21make sure that we are consistently
55:22clear. And the reason why this matters
55:24is because my I might have a different
55:25idea what crazy uh means versus you. So
55:27I want to make sure in my theory that we
55:29have a consistent definition uh where we
55:32both understand what it means. So we
55:34might define it the key term crazy as
55:36maybe what what does it mean to be
55:37crazy? Well they leave the house without
55:39us. Like every day when I leave to go to
55:41work, my dogs just sit there depressed
55:43and sad and you know like what what is
55:45wrong with you? We are awesome together.
55:47How dare you leave the house without us.
55:49Like why would you leave us? Um or they
55:51don't let us on the on the couch. Um or
55:54they don't like it when we like our
55:55whole purpose is defend your your house
55:57and you yell at us when we bark. What's
55:59wrong with you? Um or you know it's
56:01natural to to have to to poop so why do
56:04you get mad when we poop on the carpet?
56:06Um so that could be one way of defining
56:07it. I'm just giving an example of how
56:09crazy could be an overly vague term. So,
56:11you'd certainly want to define your term
56:12in a specific way. And you you can say
56:15from a scientific perspective, I am
56:16choosing to define it this way for the
56:18purposes of my study. Um, and people go
56:20might go like, that's not the way I
56:21define it. And you be like, that's fine.
56:22Um, I am choosing for the purpose of my
56:24study to define it this way. And
56:26therefore, that's that's the focus
56:27you're giving is I'm defining it this
56:29way for the purposes of how I'm looking
56:31into this information. Um then you want
56:33to talk about scope which is a range of
56:35phenomena that we're we're trying to
56:36explain. So the scope means like what
56:38are you looking at to try to account for
56:40like you know okay there's a there's a
56:42there's a supposed relationship between
56:44opposable thumbs and crazy behavior. Um
56:48so what are you looking at? What's
56:49what's how are we drawing a line around
56:51what we're looking at what we're not
56:52looking at? Um so um I'm only looking at
56:56behaviors that would be enabled by
56:57opposable thumbs. So, um there might be
57:00crazy behavior uh that that we engage
57:02in. Um but there's no clear link of that
57:06behavior and it being caused by
57:09opposable thumbs. So, I'm not looking at
57:10those other behaviors. I'm only looking
57:11at behavior that can be reasonably
57:13explained through um uh pososeable
57:16thumbs. I know this is silly. Um uh I'm
57:19also trying to make sense of like is
57:21there a distinction between some people
57:22and others in terms of how crazy they
57:24are and could that be the result of like
57:26what what happens for people who don't
57:27have hands? Um is there a distinction?
57:31Um and what about other animals uh that
57:33have opposable thumbs? Is there
57:34something consistent that is like I can
57:37see the same behavior going on in
57:38primates who also have opposable thumbs
57:41that where I can see like indeed the
57:43behavior I'm looking at is potentially
57:46the result of this cause. Um, and then,
57:48uh, we want an explanation where, um, I
57:51know I don't think it's as visible, but
57:52the idea here is that a possible thumb,
57:54so I'm trying to look for an
57:55explanation. So, my theory is trying to
57:56account for a why to explain like what's
57:59happening here. In this case, it might
58:01be that opposable thumbs lead humans to
58:03eat with their hands. Uh, where
58:07uh, so they don't have as immediate
58:08connection. I know I'm make I'm making
58:10silly stuff up here, but they don't have
58:11as immediate connection like it's an
58:13intimate connection. So, there's always
58:14a distant remove for their food. So, you
58:17know, we we have nice fancy French terms
58:19for the foods we eat like beef and pork
58:22as opposed to um uh cow and pig. Uh and
58:25therefore that distances us from our our
58:28food and that could lead us to have a
58:30more detached relationship to nature.
58:32Again, I'm being silly here, but I'm
58:34trying to make sense. And also, um you
58:36know, it causes us to shake hands rather
58:37than wagging tails uh to show joy. So,
58:40shaking hands is much more like hello
58:42friend versus like joy. So maybe that
58:45that leads kind of said like I said
58:47before to um a less enthusiastic
58:49engagement that can undercut the sense
58:51of connection. Again, I'm just looking
58:52for anything that could explain stuff
58:53from the silly theory. Um but the point
58:56here is I'm trying to uh map out what a
58:58theory is. So a theory is a big
59:00explanation. Now let's talk about the
59:01distinction between theories and
59:03hypotheses because sometimes they're
59:05used interchangeably and they are not
59:06from a scientific perspective. So um a
59:10theory presents a general explan
59:12explanatory model for behavior that
59:13predicts outcomes based on specific
59:15conditions. Uh I think when um when I
59:19give a speech that says my opponent uh
59:22hates America, my followers, my
59:25supporters will then attack uh that
59:28opponent on social media. Um, so I think
59:31that if I stoke uh patriotic fervor,
59:34it's going to lead to uh more
59:36enthusiastic response from me and more
59:39um partisan negative behavior towards my
59:42opponent. So that's a it's a theory.
59:43That's a big a general explanation. Um
59:46now distinction is hypothesis is a
59:50specific prediction based on a theory
59:52that can be tested. So a theory would be
59:55again I think when I give a um a hat
59:59stirring speech it will cause my
1:00:02supporters to bond more powerfully to me
1:00:05and to exhibit more partisan behavior
1:00:07towards my opponent. A hypothesis would
1:00:10be okay now let's um let's study a
1:00:13speech and play it to uh specific
1:00:16audiences either supporters of of my
1:00:19candidacy or opponents and I expect that
1:00:22the outcome will be an increase of 20%
1:00:26uh more partisan attitude partisan
1:00:28difference in the outcomes than um the
1:00:31baseline comparison so what I'm talking
1:00:33about here is like a theory is a general
1:00:35explanation hypothesis is a specific
1:00:37expected prediction prediction
1:00:40based upon the theory that we can test
1:00:41to see does it hold up? Um so contin
1:00:51from observation to where I see some
1:00:52stuff going on to a question of like
1:00:54what what's happening there? Why is that
1:00:56happening? And I try to come up with a
1:00:58theory explanation for like oh I think
1:01:00what's happening is this. But that's
1:01:02just a theory. Like I don't know if I'm
1:01:03right or not. So I don't really know if
1:01:05if I'm if I'm on the right path until I
1:01:08uh make a prediction. I make a
1:01:09hypothesis interchangeable here and I
1:01:11say like I expect well if if my theory
1:01:14is true then um then this must must h so
1:01:17if if in those conditions if I think
1:01:20when these conditions are present this
1:01:21outcome will happen. So if that theory
1:01:23is true that if I think these when these
1:01:26conditions are present this outcome will
1:01:27happen. Okay, then that means that I'm
1:01:30making that prediction or hypothesis
1:01:31that um let's go out and find a
1:01:34situation where those conditions are
1:01:35present then X will happen. Um if X
1:01:38didn't happen and so then I do an
1:01:39experiment. Let's let's go see like okay
1:01:41I make the conditions present or I find
1:01:43a situation where the conditions are
1:01:44present and I see did X happen. Uh so I
1:01:46do an experiment or a test or I do an
1:01:49observational study to see like did X
1:01:50happen? Uh, and so the observation here
1:01:52is like I'm observing the outcome of the
1:01:54experiment or the test, the observation
1:01:56to see like did X happen? If it didn't,
1:01:59oopsie. I go why didn't it happen? What
1:02:01could explain why it didn't happen? Um,
1:02:04so I continue to refine it over time um
1:02:06through that perpetual cycle. So the
1:02:09idea here is I want to be able to focus
1:02:10on kinds of questions from a
1:02:12communication perspective that we can
1:02:13study like why do fan girls scream? Why
1:02:15why was it like when you saw like
1:02:17footage from the Beatles concerts from
1:02:18decades ago or even still when um when
1:02:21fan girls and sometimes fanboys too go
1:02:24to concerts they sc they get REALLY
1:02:26WRAPPED UP WHY what's going on there?
1:02:28Why why why are they making those
1:02:30vocalizations? Why what's happening
1:02:32psychologically, emotionally,
1:02:33biologically to cause that? Why does it
1:02:35happen in younger people but not older
1:02:37people? So my point here is like let's
1:02:38think about what kinds of questions
1:02:41could we generate um could we come up
1:02:43with from a scientific perspective that
1:02:44we could then test scientifically um or
1:02:47do we smile and what are the different
1:02:49effects of smiles? How did smiling
1:02:50evolve? What's what kind of information
1:02:52is being communicated and what are the
1:02:53effects of different kinds of smiles? So
1:02:55we all know about different kinds of
1:02:56smiles of like a really raptor smile is
1:02:58smile where like my mouth goes up my
1:03:00eyes don't. Um and then we could test
1:03:02like to see like I think when I smile
1:03:04this way at work it'll have this effect
1:03:05but when I smile that way it will have a
1:03:07different kind of effect. Um what's the
1:03:09purpose of effective fake laugh?
1:03:10Actually one a professor in our
1:03:11department studies this like sees like
1:03:14do people know when pe when when people
1:03:17laugh do they know when it's fake and
1:03:19the answer is largely yes but they
1:03:21appreciate it because they understand
1:03:22that fake laughter is a pro-social
1:03:25behavior that indicates like hey even
1:03:28though I did not instinctively naturally
1:03:30find it that uproariously funny to the
1:03:32point where it caused involuntary
1:03:34explosion of sound I'm still going to um
1:03:38you know make us make up a laughter
1:03:39sound as approach was a way to show
1:03:41acceptance and appreciation to try to
1:03:44maintain a positive dynamic with you. So
1:03:48we could then study like you know um
1:03:50what are the what's what are the effects
1:03:51of different kinds of fake laughter and
1:03:54how do people know instinctively the
1:03:56distinction between a pro-social
1:03:58vocalization of fake laughter it's just
1:04:00an intentional mockering uh where if
1:04:02someone makes a joke and I go huh where
1:04:04I'm intentionally making fun of them um
1:04:06u and how do we know the distinction and
1:04:08how do we draw it and how what's the
1:04:09result of it um so all these can be
1:04:13examined empirically and empirically
1:04:14simply means that we can observe we can
1:04:16look at we can test the phenomena. See,
1:04:18do our predictions [snorts] hold up? Um,
1:04:21you might be familiar with the uh
1:04:22conspiracy theory QAnon uh which is uh
1:04:25at least it was previously up until
1:04:27recently a w
1:04:29I won't say widely but but a larger
1:04:31percentage than we might feel
1:04:33comfortable with um of Americans and
1:04:35sometimes people internationally as well
1:04:37believed in this conspiracy theory that
1:04:39to some degree believe that for example
1:04:41certain uh political and um and
1:04:45Hollywood elites were draining the blood
1:04:48of children to maintain in their youth
1:04:50and some other conspiracy theories uh
1:04:52attached to QAnon. What conditions make
1:04:55it more likely for people to believe in
1:04:56QAnon? That is QAnon is sending out
1:04:58signals, sending out communications in
1:05:00social media and then some people are
1:05:02going that's crazy and some people are
1:05:03going like ooh there might be something
1:05:05to that or think about like antivaccine
1:05:07propaganda. Under what conditions might
1:05:10pe might people be more likely to
1:05:13believe it? Um so we want to think about
1:05:15you know the conditions of the audience
1:05:18uh or the context of the environment. Um
1:05:20so we can do a scientific study to say
1:05:22under what conditions is it more likely
1:05:24that people might accept conspiracy
1:05:26theories or reject them. Um
1:05:29uh or what effects do social networks um
1:05:32that we inhabit have on us? What effects
1:05:34do Facebook, Tik Tok, Reddit, uh
1:05:36Instagram, whatever? Um what what
1:05:39effects? So that would be like a a set
1:05:41of questions that we could look at. So
1:05:43the point here is we're trying to think
1:05:44of different kinds of questions. Uh
1:05:46these are just examples of different
1:05:47kinds of questions that communication
1:05:48science looks at and we all have
1:05:50theories about like oh social media is
1:05:52you know bringing us down making us
1:05:54dumb. How do you know? Um have you done
1:05:56tests to verify that? Um how consistent
1:05:58are those tests? How how certain are you
1:06:01about the whether the instrument you
1:06:03used is giving us accurate results? How
1:06:06sure can we be that in fact this is
1:06:07happening? Um, and there's a lot of
1:06:09interesting controversy around a recent
1:06:11book called The Anxious Generation by
1:06:13Jonathan Hate, Hi Dt, right height. Um,
1:06:16I recommend you look into it because it
1:06:18was a bestseller. He's a he's a um,
1:06:20social psychologist at Yale who wrote a
1:06:22a bestselling book, a popular book. You
1:06:23know, it's it's got research, but um,
1:06:27there's both a lot of support for it and
1:06:28a lot of critique of it. And, um,
1:06:31communication scholars tend to be a bit
1:06:32more critical about it. And they say
1:06:34like even though it gives the appearance
1:06:35of rigorous scientific methodology,
1:06:38that's more appearance than reality. So
1:06:40I recommend like check it out because
1:06:42it's if you're interested in these sort
1:06:43of issues, it's a really interesting
1:06:44part of the conversation that that
1:06:46builds upon that argument that social
1:06:48media is making us dumber, making us
1:06:50more anxious, making us more fearful,
1:06:52creating um increased rates of
1:06:54depression uh and despair and
1:06:56loneliness. And maybe for some people um
1:06:58is that true consistently persistently
1:07:00across multiple audiences? Uh that's a
1:07:02more complicated question. Um
1:07:06uh certainly uh of of importance to
1:07:08anyone who's interested in in going into
1:07:09advertising or marketing. Like how do we
1:07:11know what kind of advertising what
1:07:13different approaches um ironic, playful,
1:07:16sincere, direct, boring, uh dynamic,
1:07:19exciting? What kinds of advertising
1:07:21actually cause an increase in sales?
1:07:23With what kinds of audiences? So what
1:07:24kinds of ads will work with um wealthy
1:07:27aspir or aspirational audiences versus
1:07:30uh wealthy audiences? what what kinds of
1:07:32advertising will will work for people
1:07:34who are more likely to shop at at
1:07:35Walmart versus Costco. Um so we're
1:07:38trying to think like what kinds of
1:07:39scientific questions could we ask and
1:07:40what kinds of theories and hypotheses
1:07:42could we can we construct to assess um
1:07:45when advertising is effective when when
1:07:47isn't and why
1:07:50um or uh what environmental conditions
1:07:52increase the likelihood of anger or
1:07:53displays of anger. So, for example, um
1:07:55or let me move on to to one more. Um how
1:07:58does watching TV or other social media
1:08:00like Tik Tok affect our sense of the
1:08:01world? Does it make us uh more fearful,
1:08:04more hopeful, more connected, more
1:08:06isolated, more anxious, more worried,
1:08:09more depressed, more optimistic? You
1:08:11know, how does your particular ecosystem
1:08:14uh influence your behavior and
1:08:16perception? And how consistent is that
1:08:18to across other people? Um, so talking
1:08:22about that anger thing, um,
1:08:25uh, so one interesting study looked at,
1:08:29um, the way that people, uh, the rates
1:08:33of people engaging in road, I'm sorry,
1:08:36air rage incidents. What that means is
1:08:38like you've probably seen social media
1:08:40posts of people losing it on airplanes,
1:08:41just getting really angry. And the
1:08:43question is like are are different
1:08:44conditions responsible for higher or
1:08:46lower rates of air rage? What's
1:08:48interesting is the study that um that
1:08:49looked at this looked at uh conditions
1:08:53of two different kinds of airplanes
1:08:56where people board at different
1:08:58positions of the airplane. So, think
1:09:00about an airplane. Um, and there are
1:09:01typically two different places you can
1:09:03board. Either at the front of the
1:09:04airplane um and then you you know if you
1:09:07if you um have a normal seat, not first
1:09:09class, you walk past first class and
1:09:11fast business class and then you take
1:09:13your seat at the back of the plane
1:09:15versus uh some planes you you sort of
1:09:17like um board the middle um behind first
1:09:21class. And so if you're in first class,
1:09:23you take a left and you if you're in
1:09:25coach um you take a right and you never
1:09:27see a first class. Okay, that
1:09:29distinction is is interesting because um
1:09:32when you board at the front of the plane
1:09:33and pass by first class and typically
1:09:36first class is boarded first, which
1:09:37means you know, think um you're hot,
1:09:39you're tired, you're exhausted, you've
1:09:40been in the airport, you've been
1:09:41traveling all day and you board the
1:09:43plane, you got your luggage, you're in
1:09:45this squeeze place of all these people
1:09:46around and you're like going past all
1:09:48these like comfortable people sitting,
1:09:51you know, with their drinks, with their
1:09:52food, looking all like, you know, their
1:09:54nice big seat, um looking all
1:09:56comfortable and
1:09:58Um, and
1:10:00uh, that's going to have a different
1:10:01impact if you don't pass by them. And
1:10:03what's interesting is that in in
1:10:05situations where people who are in
1:10:08economy who pass by the first class and
1:10:11see them to get to their seats versus do
1:10:13not pass by, the likelihood of an air
1:10:15rage incident doubles. That's
1:10:17interesting. So again that shows like
1:10:19how we're seeing air rage you know
1:10:21expression of anger and violence um uh
1:10:23as a communications signal or behavior
1:10:26that is produced by environment. So we
1:10:28might ask like under what conditions
1:10:30could we reduce air rage incidents and
1:10:33we can also think of the same situation
1:10:34for road rage incidents or any kind of
1:10:36situation where people express anger. Is
1:10:38there something about the context or
1:10:40environment that makes it more likely
1:10:42that people will will erupt? That
1:10:43they're more responding to the
1:10:44environment than something just wrong
1:10:46with them? Um, and talking about anger
1:10:48and um um and fe fearfulness when
1:10:51watching TV, uh, plenty of studies who
1:10:54found have found that people who watch
1:10:56more hours of television on average have
1:10:58a higher perception of the world as a
1:11:00violent and frightening place uh versus
1:11:02people who don't see it as much. Um so
1:11:05for example um a more recent uh study
1:11:07set of studies looked at um women who
1:11:10listen to true crime podcasts and for
1:11:13whatever reason and this is an
1:11:14interesting communication science
1:11:15question itself. Why is it that true
1:11:18crime is much more of um a a women's
1:11:21thing than a men's thing? Why is it that
1:11:23the the audience overwhelmingly for true
1:11:25crime is women? And we'll get into this
1:11:27maybe a bit more when we get to the
1:11:28evolutionary part of the course. But the
1:11:30idea here is that um yeah the audiences
1:11:33for for true crime podcasts which are
1:11:34among the most popular of genres of
1:11:37podcasts are over overwhelmingly women
1:11:40and women who listen to true crime true
1:11:42crime podcast tend to have a much more
1:11:45fearful view of the world comparatively
1:11:48to other women who do not. So again
1:11:51these are communication signals media
1:11:52signals that are being consumed by a
1:11:54particular audience that are resulting
1:11:55in a particular outcome. Now we might
1:11:57say is there a reversal of cause and
1:11:59effect? That is maybe it's not that a
1:12:02consumption of media is causing
1:12:04fearfulness or anxiety. Maybe it's that
1:12:06people who are more fearful or anxious
1:12:08are more likely to seek out uh content
1:12:11that matches their view of the world. So
1:12:13that's an example of how um from a
1:12:15scientific perspective we want to try to
1:12:17distinguish between those two appro
1:12:18those two perspectives of is is A
1:12:21causing B or is B causing A or are both
1:12:24A and B caused by some other factor um
1:12:27that is like some other factor is making
1:12:29people anxious and it's also causing
1:12:31people to uh to watch uh fright
1:12:34listening to frightening media that is
1:12:35it's not that the media is causing the
1:12:37fear it's not that the fear is causing
1:12:39like I seek out like fearful media it's
1:12:41some other factor like environmental
1:12:43conditions is leading someone to both
1:12:45seek out scary podcasts and also be
1:12:47fearful. Um so um interesting important
1:12:51questions and this this might seem u
1:12:54trivial but it's always struck me as
1:12:55really interesting. Um what's the impact
1:12:57of local newspapers on on a community?
1:12:59Um you know we we've seen newspapers
1:13:02decline and um uh most people no longer
1:13:06especially younger people no longer read
1:13:07newspapers. And you might go like why
1:13:09would it? They're boring. biased,
1:13:11they're whatever. Um, local newspapers,
1:13:14and I say newspapers, when we think of
1:13:15newspapers, we typically think of New
1:13:17York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street
1:13:18Journal. Um, less and less do we think
1:13:21of local papers, but local papers have a
1:13:23profound impact on democracy and um, and
1:13:27close attention to local opponents.
1:13:30There's something interesting to be said
1:13:32about the role that the media that we
1:13:34consume plays in the construction of our
1:13:36sense of community. What communities do
1:13:38we belong to? The fact that so much
1:13:40attention is paid to Trump means that we
1:13:43we are sort of collectively constructing
1:13:46a national community um and much less
1:13:49information is being paid. You know,
1:13:50think do you do you know LA city council
1:13:52people? Do you know who the mayor is?
1:13:54Maybe you do because um she was in a lot
1:13:56of news stories running the fires. Uh
1:13:58you probably know the governor because
1:13:59he gets a lot of attention. Um do you
1:14:02know our senators? Do you know your
1:14:03congressperson? I'm not trying to call
1:14:04you out for like do you do you know I'm
1:14:06saying like what what perceived
1:14:09communities do we belong to? Um and
1:14:12obviously there's plenty of news about
1:14:13Trump obviously not as much about our
1:14:15local city council members but in many
1:14:18ways the local city council members play
1:14:20a bigger role on the direct impact of
1:14:21our community than perhaps Trump might.
1:14:24uh you know that's that's a debatable
1:14:26argument but my point here is that
1:14:28people who are being watchd dogs or
1:14:30attentive to local information for
1:14:33papers have um a direct impact on the um
1:14:37on our our local communities. So, for
1:14:39example, um Kentucky presented an
1:14:42interesting comparative study because as
1:14:46um as the 20th century advanced and as
1:14:49we saw more newspaper consolidation uh
1:14:52because you know think about like you
1:14:54know if you grow up in a small town
1:14:55there might be one or two papers and
1:14:56there might be a paper for your town, it
1:14:58might be a paper for the town just
1:15:00focuses on like you know maybe just the
1:15:01the 40,000 people that live in your
1:15:03small town. But as um as the 20th
1:15:07century advanced and we got more of a
1:15:09consolidated abroad approach to media
1:15:11like we no longer want to hear like what
1:15:13Jim Bob god the farmer down the road did
1:15:14but we want to hear about like what's
1:15:16happening in Washington. Um you know we
1:15:18would get more national newspapers and
1:15:21so again our sense of the community we
1:15:22belong to the news that we get the
1:15:24information that we get about community
1:15:26is much more focused on a national or
1:15:28even a global perspective than maybe a
1:15:30local perspective and that means less
1:15:31attention is being paid. But Kentucky
1:15:33became interesting uh as a as a case
1:15:35study because um local newspapers uh
1:15:38flourished longer in Kentucky because
1:15:41there were no good roads which um there
1:15:42weren't great roads in Kentucky which
1:15:44means that it wasn't easy for like the
1:15:46big paper like in Louisville or
1:15:48Lexington to get delivered. You know,
1:15:50you put them on a truck and you drive
1:15:51from Lexington to some small town like
1:15:53Buford, Kentucky. Um and so Buford was a
1:15:57because there weren't great roads
1:15:58connecting them. it was difficult to get
1:16:00the paper from maybe a half half a hit
1:16:03away and so that allowed the local
1:16:05papers to flourish much more and so that
1:16:07presented an unintentional barrier to
1:16:10entry of those outside papers those
1:16:12national papers and therefore a barrier
1:16:14to conformity and I want to stress that
1:16:15word conformity because the more that we
1:16:18shift to a national model the more we
1:16:20tend to conform to the national
1:16:22community standards versus when you're
1:16:24focused much more on on a local um set
1:16:27of issues that that that you're allowed
1:16:29to like evolve in your own local way.
1:16:32And so the result of this um within
1:16:34three papers of a local paper closing as
1:16:36you know Kentucky got better roads and
1:16:38as they started to get the Lexington
1:16:40paper and the Louisville papers and the
1:16:41New York Times and whatever other big
1:16:44papers USA Today uh within 3 years of
1:16:46local paper closing within a community
1:16:49they saw local taxes rose uh by an
1:16:51average of 85 bucks per citizen uh and
1:16:53payroll costs climbed by 1.3% above the
1:16:56normal rate which is might seem small
1:16:58but it's an interesting indicator of
1:17:00that means there weren't people paying
1:17:02attention to um local uh uh politics to
1:17:07be responsible for spending um and they
1:17:10weren't paying attention to local
1:17:12corruption um and they weren't paying
1:17:14attention to um responsible business
1:17:18practices um so we saw the financial
1:17:21impact and again I'm not trying to
1:17:22overemphasize the findings so much as
1:17:24you can see like how as we shift from
1:17:27local to state or national senses of
1:17:30community we have less attention and
1:17:32therefore this this results in tangible
1:17:34effects um or I'm just coming up with
1:17:37just different approaches uh to like
1:17:39questions we could we could um bring up
1:17:41from a scientific perspective. How does
1:17:44response time in SMS you know text
1:17:46message exchanges influence
1:17:48relationships? So meaning like you send
1:17:49a text to a friend and they wait 5
1:17:51hours, 5 days, 5 weeks to respond. How
1:17:54does that influence uh uh relationship
1:17:57satisfaction um both friendships as well
1:18:00as intimate relationships? So you know
1:18:02how does do people adapt and go like oh
1:18:05they take a long time I'll take a long
1:18:06time too so just mirror reciprocate. So
1:18:08we might have different questions of
1:18:10like does it impact satisfaction? Does
1:18:11it impact like whether they they remain
1:18:13friends? Does it impact how people
1:18:15choose to mirror behavior? Um, so you
1:18:17might think about what kinds of
1:18:18questions could you ask from a
1:18:20scientific perspective to be able to
1:18:22study what kinds of effects are there in
1:18:27um in terms of how response time might
1:18:30might uh affect behavior in text such as
1:18:33exchanges. So um do people again do
1:18:36people adjust the response time to
1:18:37mirror others under what conditions?
1:18:39Because this also becomes like a power
1:18:40dynamic, right? So like if if we choose
1:18:42to mirror, we are willingly
1:18:45subordinating our preferences or
1:18:47behaviors to the other person's which
1:18:49becomes whether we're aware of it or not
1:18:51a power move and a willingness willing
1:18:53subjugation to their um rules versus
1:18:55ours. Um so like you know someone says I
1:18:58love you and you leave it unread for a
1:19:01long time. How does it impact
1:19:04satisfaction and intimacy and connection
1:19:07thereafter? That's a scientific question
1:19:09that we can study, but I worry that the
1:19:12findings would be sad,
1:19:15but also why uh because we could we
1:19:17could get the results um and see like
1:19:19indeed it leads to more dissatisfaction,
1:19:21it leads to breakups. But then we we
1:19:24also might want to come up with an
1:19:25explanation, a theory as to why that is,
1:19:27which brings us back to theories,
1:19:29construction of theories. So, we observe
1:19:31the findings and now we're trying to
1:19:32make sense of an explanation to account
1:19:34for why this is happening. Um, so my
1:19:36goodness, we have so many definitions.
1:19:38We have um
1:19:41um all these different ideas of
1:19:42communication. Why can't communication
1:19:44get it together? Why can't we agree on a
1:19:47single definition of communication uh in
1:19:49the same way that physics or chemistry
1:19:50or biology has a pretty clear
1:19:52understanding of what it's what it's
1:19:53studying and a pretty consistent uh
1:19:55focus of what we're studying. Um and the
1:19:57answer would be that this gets a little
1:19:59wordy, but bear with me. The manifold
1:20:01that is just many different definitions
1:20:03of communication reflect inherently
1:20:06vast, complex, diverse and perpetually
1:20:08evolving nature of communication
1:20:09phenomena. That is senders are
1:20:11constantly evolving and changing.
1:20:13Contexts are constantly evolving and
1:20:14changing. Audiences are constantly
1:20:15evolving and changing. That's the fun
1:20:17part is like there's so much complicated
1:20:20um aspects of like how everything is
1:20:22constantly shifting and changing that it
1:20:24never stops. So we have to like be
1:20:26attentive to how um how the sender is
1:20:28changing, the context is changing, the
1:20:30audience is changing, the the way that
1:20:32we interpret signals are changing, the
1:20:33media platforms we're engaging are
1:20:35changing. Um so um they also reflect the
1:20:38specific and necessarily necessarily
1:20:39limited focuses and interests that
1:20:41people take within this vast complex
1:20:43diverse and perpetually evolving field.
1:20:44And by specific and necessarily limited
1:20:46focuses and interest, what I mean is
1:20:48scholars have to say like I'm I'm
1:20:50looking at this. And another scholar
1:20:51says well I'm looking at this and
1:20:52someone else says I'm looking at this
1:20:53and cool. you know, gradually we have
1:20:55like a codopic view of the broad field
1:20:57of communication. Sorry, let's get my
1:20:59hands in the thing. But like, you know,
1:21:01I might look at this, you might look at
1:21:02that, they might look at this, and
1:21:03gradually we're trying to fill in all
1:21:04the dots to this grand schema of
1:21:07communication. But again, by the time
1:21:09we're done, things have changed, and
1:21:10someone else has got to come along and
1:21:12see like, oh, their findings found this,
1:21:14I found this. That shows things are
1:21:15shifting. That's cool. Um so for example
1:21:19as I said before or alluded to before in
1:21:21the field of communication historically
1:21:22there's been a tendency toward emphasis
1:21:24on the sender's role. Uh that is like
1:21:26let's look at the intentionality like
1:21:27how they're making a choice between like
1:21:29you know um a power move versus a
1:21:31subordinate move. I'm choosing to like
1:21:33you know be aggressive or be much more
1:21:36solicitous or responsive. Uh so I'm
1:21:38being flexible in choices of how I might
1:21:39engage in communication. Um so more
1:21:43recently within the past couple of
1:21:44decades there's much there's been much
1:21:45more focus on receivers's role.
1:21:47Historically there was not as much
1:21:48attention to the receiver. Um uh that is
1:21:51how a signal is process encoded uh
1:21:53whether intentionally or not and more
1:21:55importantly how different receivers
1:21:58interpret things differently. So
1:22:00historically we often thought like you
1:22:02know this movie did this and it caused
1:22:04this. This advertising said this and it
1:22:07caused this. This politician said this
1:22:09and it caused this. Well, that's
1:22:12assuming that there's a linear
1:22:13relationship between sender and
1:22:14receiver. And sure, okay, that's in a
1:22:16very simplistic model. That's useful.
1:22:18But it's true for some people. Sure, it
1:22:20caused, you know, they said this and it
1:22:22caused this for some people. But for
1:22:24some people, it didn't. Why? What was it
1:22:27about the conditions, the context, the
1:22:29upbringing, the perspective, the the um
1:22:32where they live, what they what their
1:22:34education level is, what their age is.
1:22:35Why were some people influenced but not
1:22:38others? So more recently, communication
1:22:40science is much more focused on the
1:22:42receivers's role. Um uh where it becomes
1:22:47kind of cool to think like well some
1:22:48people um are influenced by
1:22:50misinformation and some people aren't.
1:22:52Some people um are depressed by social
1:22:54media and some people aren't. Why? What
1:22:56is it about the differences between
1:22:57those two groups that might account for
1:22:59the differences uh in in behavioral
1:23:02outcomes? Um so yeah, we have all these
1:23:04models. So like what we're talking about
1:23:06here is like you know whether we're
1:23:07talking about the Standing Weaver model,
1:23:08the Berto model or the SMCR model,
1:23:10whatever. Uh we have explanations to
1:23:12account for behavior that are inherent
1:23:14simplifications to help us make more
1:23:16direct sense in the same way that a map
1:23:17might. Uh and we talked before about
1:23:19various critiques of various models
1:23:21where they're too linear, doesn't affect
1:23:23feedback process, but the gist here is
1:23:25like models still can be useful because
1:23:27they allow us to isolate and focus on
1:23:28certain aspects. So models are useful as
1:23:31representations of communication
1:23:33exchanges and relationships. Um but
1:23:35again the map is not the territory. In
1:23:37other words as one famous social
1:23:39scientist said um or one social
1:23:41scientist famously said all models are
1:23:43wrong but some models are useful. Um and
1:23:48indeed some maps and models help us
1:23:50navigate that territory. But if you're
1:23:52familiar with um with this map you
1:23:53probably know that uh isn't it weird
1:23:55that Greenland is much bigger than
1:23:57Africa? Isn't it weird how huge
1:23:59Antarctica is? And what you know is that
1:24:01an effort to try to um represent a 3D
1:24:05globe in a two-dimensional um uh image
1:24:09format is going to distort um the the
1:24:11the borders um and distort our
1:24:14perception of things. So I want you to
1:24:15use that as a metaphor for thinking
1:24:17about how models can also sometimes
1:24:20distort things just because the nature
1:24:21of representation. sometimes they can
1:24:23get some useful things right because
1:24:24it's still useful because it helps us
1:24:25roughly understand the the distance
1:24:28between different places but it can also
1:24:30distort things in the same way that
1:24:31models are or the same way the theories
1:24:33can. So I want you thinking about you
1:24:36know maps models theories as efforts to
1:24:38try to represent reality that are
1:24:40inherently wrong but can be useful and
1:24:44sometimes they're a little closer in
1:24:46verilitude
1:24:48um than others. We'll talk more about
1:24:49versitude uh in a bit. Um, and so when
1:24:52we're talking about theory, um, you
1:24:55know, it comes from an ancient Greek
1:24:56word, uh, theoro, which means to see. So
1:24:59we we we can think about a theory as
1:25:01like a lens, um, a filter, uh, that
1:25:03enables to see something. And I give you
1:25:04an example of, um, this is my hiking
1:25:07trail, uh, near my house. Um, and so,
1:25:10you know, this is sort of a force
1:25:11metaphor, but you can see, um, on the
1:25:13left side,
1:25:15um, I had a flashlight, and so this was
1:25:17taken at the exact same time. Um, right
1:25:18right after these pictures were taken
1:25:19right after each other. And I know
1:25:20they're not the best depiction of what
1:25:21I'm saying, but what's interesting about
1:25:23this is the flashlight allows me to
1:25:25focus on like a specific area. Uh, but
1:25:28it I can't see the surrounding
1:25:30surrounding areas as much. Whereas if I
1:25:32don't have the flashlight on, I can't
1:25:34see as well, but I can see more. Um, and
1:25:37so I I'm using this as a metaphor to
1:25:39think about how theories do help us
1:25:41focus on stuff, but sometimes theories
1:25:44do so at the expense of seeing other
1:25:46stuff. So, a theory is an explanation to
1:25:48account for things that's that's useful
1:25:50to try to come up with predictions to
1:25:53see if they're right. But sometimes
1:25:55theories can be too restrictive or
1:25:57limiting and sometimes they can stop us
1:25:59from being able to see important stuff
1:26:01elsewhere. So, I just want us being
1:26:03always humble and modest in our
1:26:05scientific claims and aware that
1:26:07theories might be limited um in how they
1:26:10enable us to see or not see certain
1:26:13information. Um, you know, there's a
1:26:16famous phrase attributed to Mark Twain
1:26:17sometimes that to someone with a hammer
1:26:20everything looks like a nail. And I
1:26:22think that that can be applied similarly
1:26:24to to theory. Sometimes to someone with
1:26:26a theory, everything looks like it can
1:26:29can be explained by that theory. And so
1:26:30I just wanted to be us to be a little
1:26:31more modest in our scientific claims
1:26:33about to what degree can we really apply
1:26:35a theory to explain everything. Okay. So
1:26:39there's a lot of theories. Um, which
1:26:40ones make predictions that can be
1:26:42tested? um or which ones can be turned
1:26:44into turned into predictions that can be
1:26:46tested and which ones can make accurate
1:26:49predictions. That's what makes for
1:26:50scientific theory. So again, getting
1:26:52back to our model of like we see some
1:26:54stuff, we ask questions about what's
1:26:55going on there. We try to come up with
1:26:56explanation for like I think this is
1:26:57what's what's happening. I think this is
1:26:58causing that. Let's test it to see if
1:27:00that's true, if it holds up, because if
1:27:02I if it's true that this causes that,
1:27:04then I expect under conditions where
1:27:06this is present, then that will happen.
1:27:08And it didn't. Uh-oh. So why didn't it?
1:27:11Um, so I think that if I show this ad,
1:27:14people will buy my stuff. Let's test to
1:27:16see if they bought my stuff. They
1:27:17didn't. How come? Oh, I I pitched it to
1:27:21a different kind of audience, to a
1:27:22different demographic. You know, I was I
1:27:24was appealing to a hipster sensibility,
1:27:26but the problem is that my my brand does
1:27:28not appeal to hipsters. So now I need to
1:27:30figure out like what's a better way to
1:27:31appeal to my particular audience that
1:27:33maybe is much more middle class um you
1:27:36know, normies. Um so all the stuff let's
1:27:40get back to the opening question what is
1:27:42communication science. Um so we want to
1:27:46understand and describe the world. Uh we
1:27:48want to make sense of what's going on
1:27:49with film in the world but we just
1:27:51observation isn't enough. We can't just
1:27:53say like oh I think this is happening
1:27:54because we don't know for a fact that's
1:27:55that's true. Maybe it's our cognitive
1:27:57biases um that are influencing how we're
1:27:59seeing things. We want to believe it's
1:28:01true but it may not necessarily be true.
1:28:03Um, and a lot of the forces that have
1:28:05effects in the world, we can't directly
1:28:06observe. I can't see what's happening
1:28:08when you're watching a movie to make
1:28:10sense of how it's influencing your sense
1:28:12of heroism or your sense of gender
1:28:14identity or your sense of like, you
1:28:16know, uh, injustice in the world, uh, or
1:28:19your sense of conspiracy theaters and
1:28:21what to what degree they might be
1:28:22likely. Um, I can't see if you see a
1:28:25post about about um
1:28:28uh about vaccines. Um, what's happening
1:28:31inside your mind in terms of your
1:28:34resistance to or acceptance of the
1:28:36claims in there? I can see your behavior
1:28:38afterwards, but I can't see directly
1:28:40what's happening it. So, um, we would
1:28:42need to construct methods, um, for how
1:28:46we can observe that. Um, and that brings
1:28:48us to what's called the field of
1:28:50epistemology. Epistemology is a branch
1:28:52of philosophy that focuses on theories
1:28:54of knowledge. That is, how do we know
1:28:55things? How do we know things are true?
1:28:56We want to believe things are true, but
1:28:58so often what we believe is true is a
1:29:00product of our cognitive biases as
1:29:03opposed to what is in fact true.
1:29:34Okay. So, as part of scientific
1:29:36reasoning, I want to go through a few
1:29:37fundamental components of logical
1:29:38reasoning. And bear with me because I
1:29:40want to make sure we're clear first upon
1:29:42what these these concepts mean and then
1:29:45I want to show how they fit into the the
1:29:48process of scientific reasoning. So just
1:29:49understand that we're going to go
1:29:51through the concepts first and then
1:29:53you'll see how they fit into the bigger
1:29:54picture. So first let's talk about
1:29:56deduction or deductive reasoning which
1:29:58is a logical process in which the
1:30:00conclusion that is the claim. So a
1:30:02conclusion and argument is like the the
1:30:04big point that's supported by the
1:30:06evidence. So the conclusion or main
1:30:08claim doesn't contain any more
1:30:10information than the premises on which
1:30:12it's based. So for example um about the
1:30:16Latin but I'm just going to give you
1:30:16like the logical terms for what this
1:30:18this is. It's called modus ponent which
1:30:20is just the Latin way to understand uh
1:30:22um if P then Q. The the arrow in logical
1:30:26reasoning means if then so it's a
1:30:28conditional statement meaning under the
1:30:30condition of P if P is present then Q
1:30:32must be present. So um all birds have
1:30:35feathers. In other words, if it's a
1:30:37bird, it has feathers. So if P in this
1:30:40case, P is bird. So if bird, then Q. In
1:30:44this case, Q is feather. Uh so um if the
1:30:47condition is bird, then the result is
1:30:49feather. Um so
1:30:52then we have um the additional uh
1:30:55proposition that robins are birds. And
1:30:57so if we have the propositions, the the
1:31:00evidence that's that says a all birds
1:31:02have feathers and b robins are birds,
1:31:04therefore we can reasonably conclude or
1:31:06logically with certainty that robins
1:31:09have feathers.
1:31:10So going back to the point about how the
1:31:13conclusion doesn't contain any more
1:31:14information than the premises in which
1:31:15it's based. The premises here are first
1:31:18all birds have feathers and second
1:31:20robins are birds. So to say that robins
1:31:23have feathers as our conclusion based
1:31:25upon the evidence, we're not saying
1:31:27anything more than what we already said
1:31:28in the premises because we already said
1:31:29that all birds have feathers and we said
1:31:31robins are birds. So therefore we
1:31:33conclude can conclude with certainty
1:31:35assuming the premises are true that
1:31:37indeed robins have feathers. So again
1:31:39there's no more additional information
1:31:40that's being conveyed in the conclusion
1:31:43beyond what's already been stated in the
1:31:45premises. If all birds have feathers and
1:31:47if robins are birds, therefore we know
1:31:49that robins have feathers. no additional
1:31:51information is being contained. Um so we
1:31:54also assess um deductive arguments based
1:31:57upon validity and soundness. This is a
1:31:59valid and sound argument because
1:32:03the conclusion follows logically from
1:32:04the premises and the premises are true.
1:32:07So validity simply looks at um does the
1:32:11conclusion follow from the premises
1:32:12logically. It doesn't actually ask are
1:32:14the premises are true. It simply asks
1:32:16assuming the premises we um we accept
1:32:20the conclusion must must be true.
1:32:23Soundness um is looking at both is it
1:32:25valid and are the premises are true. So
1:32:27again deductive arguments are evaluated
1:32:29in terms of their validity that is it
1:32:31follows inductive logic the conclusion
1:32:33follows logically from the premises
1:32:35assuming the premises are true the
1:32:36conclusion must be true and they're also
1:32:38evaluated in terms of soundness that is
1:32:39the premises are true uh and the
1:32:41argument is valid. So soundness means
1:32:43it's both valid and the premises are
1:32:45true. So in this case um it's valid
1:32:48because um if all birds have feathers
1:32:50and robins are birds, therefore it's
1:32:52logically true that robins have
1:32:53feathers. That's validity. It's also
1:32:55sound because all birds have feathers.
1:32:57That's true. And robins are birds.
1:32:59That's true. So it's both valid and
1:33:01sound. Again, these terms will be become
1:33:03more important as we see how they all
1:33:05fit into the big picture shortly. So
1:33:07continuing on um again when we're
1:33:10talking about deduction we're talking
1:33:11about conclusion doesn't say anything
1:33:13beyond what the premises already said.
1:33:14So um let's go through an example of um
1:33:18something that's not sound. So let's say
1:33:21um if P then Q again so uh if it's a
1:33:24bird it has language. So the premise is
1:33:26all birds have language and premise two
1:33:29is that robins are birds. Therefore uh
1:33:31based upon the premises we can conclude
1:33:33that robins have language. Now note that
1:33:36this would be a valid but not sound
1:33:38argument. It's valid because the premise
1:33:40sorry the the conclusion follows from
1:33:42the premises. It's not sound because
1:33:44premise one is not true. Birds don't
1:33:46have language. They certainly have a
1:33:48communication system but we tend to be
1:33:50fairly restrictive in um the the
1:33:53components that define a language and
1:33:55what what birds use would not be
1:33:57technically defined as a language. It's
1:33:59a communication system but it's does not
1:34:01have the complexity um that amounts to a
1:34:04language.
1:34:05Um
1:34:07and let's
1:34:10also go through syllogism. So let's go
1:34:12through another deductive argument
1:34:14again. If P then Q. So if Jon is sick
1:34:16then he'll be absent. In this case uh
1:34:18Jon is sick is P. Jon will be absent is
1:34:21Q. So if P is present if Jon is sick
1:34:23then he will be absent. That's premise
1:34:25one. Uh premise two is uh if Jon is
1:34:28absent um again you'll see um Jon is
1:34:31absent um is Q in the first premise.
1:34:33It's again Q in the second premise. So
1:34:35if John is sick then he'll be absent. If
1:34:37John is absent then he'll miss his
1:34:38classwork. Therefore we can conclude uh
1:34:41logically that if uh if P then R. So be
1:34:44again if P then Q. If Q then R then
1:34:47therefore if P then R. If John is sick
1:34:49then he'll miss his classwork. So
1:34:53now let's go to inductive reasoning.
1:34:56Before we go into into this just I want
1:34:58to reiterate um as you saw before
1:35:01deductive reasoning is a process where
1:35:03uh we look to see do the promises the
1:35:05premises lead with certainty uh assuming
1:35:08the premises are true to the conclusion
1:35:10and we assess them in terms of validity
1:35:12and soundness. Again those terms will be
1:35:14become more important momentarily. Now
1:35:16let's turn to induction which is another
1:35:18process of logical reasoning. So we're
1:35:20going to focus in this class on two
1:35:22forms of reasoning. deduction and
1:35:24induction both of which play a key role
1:35:26in the scientific process in the process
1:35:28of scientific reasoning. So induction um
1:35:31different from deduction uh is a logical
1:35:34process in which the conclusion does
1:35:36contain more information than the
1:35:38premises from which it's based. Uh which
1:35:40means that inductive conclusions are by
1:35:42definition uncertain. Okay, let's talk
1:35:44about what we mean by this. So um
1:35:47inductive arguments are not evaluated
1:35:49for validity or soundness. So that we
1:35:51have a different way of of assessing
1:35:53inductive arguments. Instead, they're
1:35:55evaluated on a continuum between weak
1:35:57and strong. So think about like very
1:35:59likely versus like not very likely at
1:36:02all. So very likely um would be will the
1:36:05sun rise tomorrow or you know with the
1:36:07earth's rotation will we perceive the
1:36:08rise of the sun? Um we don't know for
1:36:11sure because something cataclysmic could
1:36:12happen in the next few hours um in
1:36:15between it getting dark and it getting
1:36:16light that could stop it. I think that's
1:36:18exceedingly unlikely and I know that
1:36:20because um it's happened a billion times
1:36:23before. It will happen um many many many
1:36:26times again in the future until
1:36:28cataclysmic things really do happen. But
1:36:30that's long after we're all gone. Um but
1:36:33um so I'm just going to say that that is
1:36:35the um the most strong inductive
1:36:40argument. I don't have direct evidence
1:36:42that in fact absolutely with with a 100%
1:36:44certainty the sun will rise tomorrow.
1:36:46But I would say it's as 99.9 repeated uh
1:36:50percent likely as anything could
1:36:51possibly get. And I'm basing this based
1:36:54upon past observation as well as
1:36:56instruments that can tell us whether
1:36:58something is coming at us that might
1:36:59disrupt the earth's rotation or
1:37:01something. Um versus weak uh arguments.
1:37:05Okay. Okay. So, when I take my dog um
1:37:06out um uh you know to the to to go pee
1:37:10or whatever, uh there's a certain bush
1:37:12that one time he found a hot dog under.
1:37:15Um I don't know how the hot dog got
1:37:17there. Um he just he certainly does not
1:37:20know how the hot how the hot dog got
1:37:21there. Uh it's only happened once. Uh
1:37:24but every single time he walks by that
1:37:26bush ever since, he looks for a hot dog.
1:37:29He just makes sure he sniffs around and
1:37:30checks every part of it just in case
1:37:32there's a hot dog there. I would say the
1:37:34likelihood of there ever being a hot dog
1:37:35again under that bush is extremely weak.
1:37:38So, let's put on the continuum between
1:37:41um strong and weak arguments the
1:37:43likelihood the sun will rise tomorrow
1:37:45versus the likelihood that my dog will
1:37:47see um a hot dog under that random bush
1:37:50out um in the field near my house. Um
1:37:53and most arguments uh of an inductive
1:37:56nature will fall somewhere in between
1:37:57that degree of certainty and
1:37:58uncertainty. Okay. So, um here we have a
1:38:03bald dude. Um so, premise one, John is a
1:38:05grandfather and premise two, John is
1:38:07bald. So, we have one observation um of
1:38:11one grandfather and one grandfather who
1:38:13is bald and therefore I will conclude
1:38:15that all grandfathers are bald. Okay.
1:38:17So, when I say that the uh the
1:38:19conclusion contains more information
1:38:21than the premises from which it's based,
1:38:23um the conclusion is claiming that all
1:38:25grandfathers are bald. The premises only
1:38:28say that John is a grandfather and bald.
1:38:31So we only have one point of information
1:38:33or one data point of a bald grandfather
1:38:36and we're concluding from that one data
1:38:38point that every other data point within
1:38:40the set must be consistent um and
1:38:42similar to that data point. So what
1:38:44we're saying here is we're we're
1:38:45assuming more information in the
1:38:48conclusion. We're we're we're making
1:38:49statements about every other grandfather
1:38:52when we only have evidence in the
1:38:54premises about one grandfather. So
1:38:56obviously this would fall on the extreme
1:38:58weak side because we only have one
1:39:00observation. But think about um you know
1:39:02when we're making claims about
1:39:03communication behavior, you might see
1:39:06one post, you might see one um TV show,
1:39:09you might see one reality star doing
1:39:11something and we might conclude from
1:39:13that uh that like oh people who believe
1:39:16this are like this or reality stars are
1:39:19like this. And so how often do we make
1:39:21claims um that we we have the pretense
1:39:24of making theories about communication
1:39:27patterns or behavior when in fact we may
1:39:29only have one data point or a limited
1:39:31number of data points that there were
1:39:33then extrapolating from those limited
1:39:34data points into making claims about the
1:39:37full population of reality stars or u
1:39:40people on social media or uh fans of a
1:39:43given TV show.
1:39:46Um so
1:39:48let's take a quick um no stakes test um
1:39:51to try to fe see if an argument is
1:39:53deductive or inductive. So uh in the
1:39:56first argument premise one is the earth
1:39:57is getting warmer. Premise two is the
1:40:00increase in temperature is closely
1:40:02associated with specific human activity.
1:40:05And based upon that evidence, based upon
1:40:07those premises that first the earth's
1:40:09getting warmer and second uh that
1:40:11increase in temperature is closely
1:40:13correlated, closely associated with uh
1:40:16stuff that humans do. I'm going to
1:40:17conclude that humans are causing the
1:40:19earth to get warmer. Is that deductive
1:40:22or inductive? I will let you you can
1:40:25pause. I'll give it a few seconds before
1:40:27I give the answer. think um is that
1:40:30conclusion does it contain more
1:40:32information than is said by the premises
1:40:35and the answer is yes. Um uh so this is
1:40:38an inductive argument in that um we
1:40:41don't know for absolute certain it is
1:40:43extremely likely and based upon the
1:40:44evidence it um yeah it's it's very
1:40:46likely. So I will put this on the strong
1:40:48side of a continuum between weak and
1:40:50strong inductive arguments. And by
1:40:51continuum I mean like how likely is
1:40:54this? We don't have certainty. What we
1:40:56have is probability. So, we're thinking
1:40:58about like the likelihood from weak to
1:41:00strong. Um, and if it looks weird from
1:41:02my hands, uh, it's a mirror image. So,
1:41:03this is my right hand. Um, so that's why
1:41:06I'm thinking strong. But anyway, um,
1:41:09it's it seems very likely that indeed,
1:41:11uh, climate change is anthropogenic,
1:41:14meaning caused by human activity. But
1:41:16there's always the possibility.
1:41:17Scientists need to be humble and modest
1:41:19in their claims and they need to always
1:41:21say that based upon the available
1:41:22evidence, it does seem likely that human
1:41:25activity is causing climate change or
1:41:27causing global warming. However, um it's
1:41:30always possible that we may eventually
1:41:31discover through continuous scientific
1:41:33inquiry that it's actually caused by
1:41:35something else and it just happened to
1:41:36be that human activity was correlated to
1:41:38the increase, but it's not actually
1:41:40cause relationship. Unlikely, but
1:41:42possible in the same way that it's very
1:41:44unlikely the sun will will not rise
1:41:46tomorrow. possible, but again, extremely
1:41:48unlikely, and by the time you see this
1:41:50video, it's probably have risen, which
1:41:52will show how indeed likely it was.
1:41:54Okay,
1:41:56so continuing on, um, let's go through
1:41:59another argument. Uh, premise one, Star
1:42:01Wars made the most money ever of of any
1:42:04movie. Premise two, the movie that makes
1:42:07the most money is the best movie.
1:42:10Conclusion, Star Wars is the best movie
1:42:12ever. ask yourself, is this um deductive
1:42:16or inductive? And it's another way of
1:42:18asking, does the conclusion contain any
1:42:20additional information, make any claims
1:42:21beyond what's already stated in the
1:42:23premises? And the answer is no. It's
1:42:24it's deductive in that um assuming the
1:42:27premises are true, um the conclusion
1:42:30must be true. Now, it's valid in that um
1:42:33assuming those premises, the conclusion
1:42:35does follow logically, but it's not
1:42:36sound because the premises are not true.
1:42:38It's not true that Star Wars made the
1:42:40most money ever. Um, and we might argue
1:42:42all day long about whether um, uh,
1:42:45revenue is an adequate marker of
1:42:47quality. Uh, that's a subjective
1:42:49judgment. I don't agree with it, but I
1:42:50could see some people might. That's
1:42:52fine. Um, but, um, here we have an
1:42:56argument that again logically falls from
1:42:58the premises, but it's not sound because
1:42:59the premises are not true.
1:43:02Um, now let's go through another
1:43:04argument. Uh, John was sick when I saw
1:43:06him. So, I saw John and he was sick.
1:43:08Then I got sick the next day.
1:43:10uh John made me sick. So ask yourself is
1:43:13this deductive or inductive in that uh
1:43:16does does the conclusion follow with
1:43:18absolute certainty not 99.9% certainty
1:43:21but 100% certainty does it follow
1:43:24logically assuming the premises true
1:43:26must the conclusion absolutely be true
1:43:28no exceptions or is the possibility that
1:43:31I am making claims beyond what is said
1:43:34in the premises and the answer is yes
1:43:36this is an inductive argument because I
1:43:38don't know for certain that it was John
1:43:40who got me sick um And it could be that
1:43:42I was already nursing something. So it's
1:43:44it's a little quick to get sick the next
1:43:46day if it in fact he infected me with
1:43:48some virus. Um so I would say it's
1:43:50probably not likely or at most moderate.
1:43:53So um it it's possible I interact with
1:43:55other people who were sick but didn't
1:43:56know it or I didn't recognize that that
1:43:58they were sick. It's possible that I had
1:44:00been harboring something for a few days.
1:44:01So if I conclude that John made me sick,
1:44:04that's at best weak to moderate. But
1:44:06it's certainly making assumptions that
1:44:07are contained in the argument. Um if
1:44:09you're if you're familiar with um with
1:44:11logical reasoning, you might know that
1:44:12what's happening here is that we're
1:44:14we're making assumptions uh additional
1:44:16unstated premises that are sometimes
1:44:18called warrants. A warrant is an unsated
1:44:21assumption. Uh in this case, the
1:44:23assumption here here is that if you see
1:44:25someone who was sick, therefore that
1:44:27person must have got gotten you sick.
1:44:28And obviously that's a false assumption.
1:44:30Okay. Um so again, going back to
1:44:33theories, and I'll talk again about how
1:44:34inductive and deductive reasoning fits
1:44:36into the scientific reasoning process.
1:44:38Going back to theories, a theory is a
1:44:40statement about the probable
1:44:41relationships between things in the
1:44:42world. Like, I listen to true crime
1:44:44podcasts and I develop a more fearful or
1:44:46anxious view of the world. Or I watch uh
1:44:51certain news reports and develop certain
1:44:53attitudes about racial minorities or
1:44:55about other countries or about the
1:44:57economy or about political leaders. So
1:45:00in media communication, we're asking
1:45:02like if I'm exposed to certain media
1:45:03signals um and then develop certain
1:45:06political or social attitudes, are the
1:45:08media signals responsible for for that
1:45:10cause? Um or um if I have conflict with
1:45:14somebody uh and then uh become
1:45:16increasingly difficult to be around, was
1:45:19that conflict the cause of it? So we're
1:45:20trying to figure out what are the
1:45:21relationships between behaviors,
1:45:23communication signals, and outcomes. So
1:45:27um scientific theories are testable. Uh
1:45:30so we have all sorts of theories that we
1:45:31may not be able to prove about like you
1:45:33know um whether there might be aliens
1:45:37out there or whether cosmic rays are
1:45:39causing us to slowly go crate whatever.
1:45:41Um but scientific theories you know
1:45:43aliens sure there might be ways of
1:45:45testing but they seem very difficult
1:45:47especially given how vast the universe
1:45:48is. Um so science tends to focus more on
1:45:52um things that can be directly observed
1:45:54or tested. Um and most importantly that
1:45:57make falsifiable predictions. This is a
1:45:59key component of the of the scientific
1:46:01method. Uh that a scientific theory must
1:46:03be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable,
1:46:06it's not scientific, which is fine. We
1:46:08can have lots of theories that make
1:46:09claims about other things that science
1:46:10can't access. And there's been some
1:46:12interesting stuff in our discussions
1:46:14about um you know, to what degree um can
1:46:18we measure everything? And if something
1:46:20can't be measured, could it be true? And
1:46:22I want to make the claim for there are
1:46:24important there's important work being
1:46:26done in the non-scientific fields. So I
1:46:29don't mean to discount that at all. But
1:46:30when we're talking about science, we're
1:46:32talking about making claims uh making
1:46:34theories that we can test and
1:46:36potentially falsify. If you can't
1:46:38imagine a scenario where I can falsify
1:46:40the theory, which means that I tested it
1:46:42and the outcome that I expected does not
1:46:44turn out to be true, I have falsified
1:46:46that theory. If you can't do that, it's
1:46:47not science. That's fine. science means
1:46:49it belongs to a different field not
1:46:50within a scientific field. Um theories
1:46:53are inductive but they must allow for
1:46:56deductive reasoning. We're going to talk
1:46:57more about what that means but just keep
1:46:59that phrase in mind. Uh theories are
1:47:01inductive. That is I see a lot of
1:47:03observations and I come up with a theory
1:47:05in the same way that I saw one bald
1:47:08grandfather and then conclude that all
1:47:10grandfathers are bald. I might see
1:47:14a few teenage a few teenagers exposed to
1:47:16um uh problematic images on Instagram
1:47:19and develop uh body uh image issues and
1:47:22therefore conclude that Instagram is
1:47:25causing um teenagers to develop body
1:47:28issues. That's a theory that that is
1:47:30it's inductive because I'm moving from a
1:47:31few observations to a grand theory and
1:47:34it it therefore the theory contains more
1:47:36information than are contained in the
1:47:37premises because the premises are
1:47:38fundamentally I saw this teenager be
1:47:41exposed to these Instagram posts and
1:47:43then develop uh body image issues and I
1:47:45saw that teenager and I saw this you
1:47:46know I see a few cases or a hundred or
1:47:49whatever um if I'm doing a systematic
1:47:51study um uh and then see their their the
1:47:55affect the the response that they have
1:47:57and then I'm concluding from that
1:47:59limited uh sample to the population of
1:48:02teenagers. So I'm making additional
1:48:05claims in my conclusion.
1:48:07I'm making additional information in my
1:48:09conclusion beyond what I have in the
1:48:10premises. The premises only look at a
1:48:12handful of teenagers. The the conclusion
1:48:15is making claims about all teenagers and
1:48:17about exposure to these sort of images
1:48:20on Instagram leads to negative attitudes
1:48:22about one's body. Um but they must allow
1:48:25for deductive reasoning. I'll get to
1:48:27that in a few moments. Um, so the
1:48:29problem of induction is can inductive
1:48:31arguments give us knowledge? That is,
1:48:32can I reasonably um extrapolate from a
1:48:35handful of observations to make claims
1:48:37about the populations? This is where
1:48:38philosophy of science kicks in. Um, and
1:48:41an extreme form of of of this critical
1:48:43view says there's no justification for
1:48:45generalizing with any degree of
1:48:47certainty from some number of
1:48:48observations um or an assumption that
1:48:51the world is will always work the same
1:48:52in the future. that is like just because
1:48:54people um develop a fearful attitude of
1:48:56the world with watching true listening
1:48:58to true crime podcast now doesn't mean
1:49:00that'll that couldn't change uh within a
1:49:02year and all of a sudden you have
1:49:04different responses because maybe people
1:49:06had become more inured um to the
1:49:09negative effects of it. Maybe they're
1:49:11getting more cynical. Maybe they're
1:49:12becoming more critical. So just because
1:49:14that might be true now does not mean
1:49:15it's going to be true later on. So the
1:49:16point here is that um uh an especially
1:49:20skeptical uh view from the philosoph
1:49:22philosophy of science perspective might
1:49:25argue that there might be
1:49:28epistemological problems with
1:49:30generalizing a theory based upon a
1:49:32limited number of observations. So I
1:49:34might, you know, look at a few cases of
1:49:36people who became radicalized uh by
1:49:39political propaganda uh and then make
1:49:42the claim that exposure to um political
1:49:45propaganda leads to radicalization. Um
1:49:48how do I know that? Uh maybe it it was
1:49:50true in in the people I looked at. Maybe
1:49:52it's not true in other people I didn't
1:49:53look at. Maybe it's true in certain
1:49:55conditions or was true at the time I was
1:49:57looking at or true of the polit of the
1:49:59specific uh examples of political
1:50:01propaganda I was looking at. But if I
1:50:02looked at different political
1:50:03propaganda, if I looked at different
1:50:05groups, if I looked at different time, I
1:50:07would get different results. So the
1:50:08question here is like, are we really
1:50:10producing knowledge? And these are
1:50:11complex questions that I think
1:50:13philosophy of science is trying to
1:50:14engage with. And it's not saying no.
1:50:16It's saying, let's be skeptical, let's
1:50:19be humble, let's be modest in our in our
1:50:22claims.
1:52:22Okay. So coming to testing theories um
1:52:24you know the the general claims that
1:52:26we're making about the relationship
1:52:27between different communication
1:52:29phenomena like exposure to certain media
1:52:31signals results in these political
1:52:32attitudes. Um seeing these kind of
1:52:34social posts leads to this attitude
1:52:36about oneself or about loneliness or
1:52:39about sense of connection. So, think
1:52:40about um you might have marginalized
1:52:42groups that perhaps grow up in like
1:52:44small um conservative communities um who
1:52:48are able to find supportive communities
1:52:51online. And so you might say that okay
1:52:53in certain situations social media leads
1:52:54to loneliness but in other situations it
1:52:56leads to a sense of community and
1:52:58connectedness. So you might have a
1:53:00theory about um if you are in these
1:53:03conditions exposure to these kind of
1:53:05communication signals will result in
1:53:07these kinds of behaviors. That's a
1:53:08theory. um then let's test them. So uh
1:53:11again getting back to hypothesis, the
1:53:13hypotheses are testable predictions that
1:53:15make specific claims about the expected
1:53:18outcomes that are deduced from a theory.
1:53:20So if a theory is true, I must see these
1:53:23outcomes. Um if I don't see these
1:53:25outcomes, the theory is not true. So um
1:53:29the scientific method which is
1:53:30developing theories, deducing
1:53:32hypotheses, gathering data, revising
1:53:34theories assumes a cause relationship
1:53:36between events that is exposure to a
1:53:38signal and the effects the behavior that
1:53:40people might um engage in. So going back
1:53:42to the airplane example I gave you
1:53:44before, the the the idea here is that or
1:53:47the theory is that uh exposure to
1:53:50presumably signals of wealth, of
1:53:52opulence, of status where as I'm
1:53:55shuffling through the aisle, um I'm
1:53:57reminded these people have higher status
1:54:00than I am, I have and I'm lower status
1:54:02than they are and therefore that that
1:54:04develops a sense of resentment or
1:54:06inferiority that might result in an
1:54:08outburst of anger or frustration later
1:54:10on. So the assumption is that exposure
1:54:12to a signal results in that behavior.
1:54:14That's a theory. Then okay, let's test
1:54:16it. I mean, I don't think it's great to
1:54:18to go out and manipulate people into
1:54:20seeing if they erupt. But what we might
1:54:22do is observe already existing
1:54:24conditions to see if in fact when these
1:54:26conditions are present, do these
1:54:28outcomes happen. So the hypothesis will
1:54:30be I expect um when the plane is
1:54:34designed this way and people have to
1:54:35walk past first class I will see a
1:54:37higher rate um and I might predict a
1:54:39specific rate that is statistically
1:54:41significant. I predict that I will have
1:54:43a higher rate of um uh angry outburst
1:54:46and I would when the plane allows people
1:54:48to board and not have to pass by first
1:54:50class to to go to the economy section.
1:54:52And then I'll see do the um do the
1:54:55findings match my expected hypothesis?
1:54:57If so, that corroborates my theory. Um,
1:55:00if not, it falsifies my theory. Um,
1:55:04therefore, we're doing scientific
1:55:05thinking either way with whatever the
1:55:07outcome is. Okay. So, um, in the reading
1:55:10you also read about the null hypothesis.
1:55:12Null hypothesis null just means zero or
1:55:14none. It's a general statement or
1:55:16default position that there's no
1:55:18relationship between two measure
1:55:19phenomena. So what scientific reasoning
1:55:21also does is uh it it doesn't seek out
1:55:23to prove that the theory is true because
1:55:26you you as we saw with inductive
1:55:27reasoning um you can never prove a
1:55:30theory because you cannot see every in a
1:55:33single instance um so in the same way
1:55:36with the grandfathers you know I've only
1:55:38seen one grandfather and therefore I
1:55:40conclude that all grandfathers are bald
1:55:43um but I don't have access to every
1:55:44single grandfather to be able to make a
1:55:46claim about the the consistent nature of
1:55:48grandfathers. other than the definition
1:55:50of a grandfather which is that it has a
1:55:51child who has a child. Um so you can't
1:55:54prove theories in that you cannot
1:55:56observe every single instance um of a
1:56:00case. So what you can instead do is you
1:56:02can falsify it. Um so we can never prove
1:56:04it. What we can do is uh look for
1:56:07instances that show that it's not true.
1:56:10And if we can't do that then that says
1:56:11well there might be something to my
1:56:12theory. So what scientists typically do
1:56:15is seek to try to falsify the theory to
1:56:17see how easy it is to falsify it. Don't
1:56:20worry too much about the methods because
1:56:22um if you've taken COM 150 or if you do
1:56:24take COM 150 that will take you much
1:56:26more through the methods which will
1:56:27include um how to test for null
1:56:29hypothesis. This course in COM 100 is
1:56:32more focused on conceptual thinking and
1:56:34theoretical approaches. But don't worry
1:56:36about the specifics. um you saw some of
1:56:38it in the reading, but just understand
1:56:40broadly that scientists seek to attempt
1:56:42to falsify a theory because they can't
1:56:45prove it because they can't they can't
1:56:47test every single case. Um I can't see
1:56:50every single instance um where a woman
1:56:52listens to true crime podcast and then
1:56:54develops a more fearful attitude about
1:56:56their environment. But what I can do is
1:56:59test to see like if women listen to it
1:57:01and they came out like uh I'm I'm fine.
1:57:04I'm I don't I'm not afraid at all. Oops.
1:57:05I falsified my theory. Uh, which means I
1:57:08either need to discard my theory or more
1:57:10likely I need to go back and revise my
1:57:12theory and make it more sophisticated.
1:57:14And by sophisticated I mean I can't say
1:57:17something as broad and sweeping as women
1:57:19who listen to true crime podcasts
1:57:21develop a more fearful view of their
1:57:23environment. That's too simple and
1:57:25generalizing and reductive. So what I
1:57:27might say is um certain women who have
1:57:31these features present or are in these
1:57:34context or environments or listen to
1:57:37this specific kind of content um are
1:57:40more likely to develop more fearful
1:57:41attitudes. So again, I'm trying to
1:57:43complicate and maybe shade in and make a
1:57:45bit more detailed and specific uh my
1:57:48theory and I'll go test to see if that's
1:57:49true and then my I might falsify like
1:57:51nope even those conditions some women
1:57:53still don't like what is it? But then
1:57:55I'm making an observation that raises a
1:57:56question about what is it that makes
1:57:59these women fearful but these women not.
1:58:01Was it their upbringing? Was it their
1:58:04relationship to their environment uh as
1:58:06they were growing up? So what I might
1:58:07then do is ask add additional questions
1:58:10um that could could inform further
1:58:11studies to see like what does explain
1:58:14why certain people do develop fearful
1:58:16attitudes and certain people do not that
1:58:18I can continue to revise my theory and
1:58:20go through that process. Um so this also
1:58:23brings up what's called statistical
1:58:24inference which is um estimating
1:58:26properties of the population based upon
1:58:28a sample. So again I'm saying that
1:58:30people who are exposed to these signals
1:58:33um uh exhibit these behaviors. I can't
1:58:36uh witness every single person. So I
1:58:38look at a sample and then I'm I'm
1:58:39drawing an inference, a stat statistical
1:58:41inference. I'm extrapolating from the
1:58:44results of that sample to make claims
1:58:45about the population, meaning the full
1:58:47group, including the majority of folks I
1:58:50don't have access to based upon the
1:58:51limited sample of people I do have
1:58:53access to. So, for example, if I'm
1:58:55looking at people who are more likely to
1:58:56pass on misinformation as we're seeing
1:58:59uh more and more AI u misinformation
1:59:01spread or intentional misinformation
1:59:03consciously spread by people on the
1:59:05internet or unconsciously spread um
1:59:08under what conditions are people more
1:59:10likely to pass on misinformation
1:59:12uncritically. Um, and so what I might do
1:59:14is make predictions based upon my
1:59:16observations about I think people who
1:59:19share these characteristics or I think
1:59:21people who are in these conditions or I
1:59:23think people who um align ideologically
1:59:27with uh the bias inherently
1:59:29misinformation are more likely to pass
1:59:31off pass on misinformation. Okay, that's
1:59:33a theory. Then let's test it. Let's see
1:59:36um in specific conditions
1:59:38um I have a expected outcome based upon
1:59:41that theory that I will see this rate of
1:59:43passing on a misinformation by these
1:59:45folks compared to those. So we might
1:59:47have is like a sample group a um a
1:59:50testing group and a control group and
1:59:52I'm going to see if um if the two groups
1:59:55have the same rate of passing on. Uh so
1:59:57I might say like I think people who have
1:59:59these ideological predispositions or
2:00:01this level of education are more likely
2:00:03to pass on misinformation. Let's test it
2:00:05and see. Let's get some college educated
2:00:07folks, some people with graduate
2:00:08degrees, some people with only high
2:00:09school degrees, some people with no high
2:00:11school degrees, and let's like expose
2:00:13them to misinformation and ask them to
2:00:15pass on the things that they think are
2:00:16true. And let's compare the rates. And I
2:00:19expect, you know, my hypothesis based
2:00:21upon my theory is if my theory is true
2:00:23that people with this education level
2:00:25are more likely to pass on uh
2:00:28misinformation.
2:00:29uh if my theory is true then I must see
2:00:32this hypothesis of x% more um in this
2:00:36this group will pass on this information
2:00:39than that group um so if my theory is
2:00:42true then I must see this outcome which
2:00:44is deductive thinking so if the premises
2:00:47are true then I must see this conclusion
2:00:50um so if my theory is true then I must
2:00:52see this hypothesis if I don't see that
2:00:54hypothesis that tells me my premises are
2:00:56wrong which which tells me my argument
2:00:58is unsound. That's how you see all these
2:01:01terms sort of fit together. But again,
2:01:02I'll go through more examples of this in
2:01:04a moment.
2:03:12So yeah, the guy who um the philosopher
2:03:14who really focused on falsification as a
2:03:16core component of scientific reasoning
2:03:18is a guy named Carl Pauper. Um prominent
2:03:20scientist and philosopher um one of the
2:03:24really essential thinkers of the 20th
2:03:25century. Uh and Popper um uh you know
2:03:29historically science you know one sort
2:03:31of simp simple view of science is that
2:03:33we're seeking to prove things and Popper
2:03:35says like no you you can't you you can
2:03:37never prove it because you don't have
2:03:39access to everything. Um and it could
2:03:41always be as as likely as something
2:03:44might be there's always a possibility
2:03:46that you might continue to look and then
2:03:47one day you find an instance that
2:03:49disproves your theory or tell tells you
2:03:51that it's too simple and it doesn't
2:03:53account for these other phenomena. So
2:03:55what what he did was he challenged the
2:03:57idea that findings confirm a theory or
2:03:59prove a theory. So instead it says um
2:04:01positive findings only corroborate they
2:04:03support a theory they don't prove a
2:04:05theory. And so he said what we should do
2:04:06is focus on tests that try to falsify
2:04:08theories. For example
2:04:11um you know if if P then Q. So we're
2:04:13making the claim that if if these
2:04:15conditions are present these outcomes
2:04:17will happen. Um and so that means also
2:04:19I'm I I'm claiming that if I don't see
2:04:22Q, therefore um P wasn't present. So for
2:04:25example, if teenagers are are exposed to
2:04:28thinspiration, you know, inspiration to
2:04:31be thin uh images on Instagram, they
2:04:33will develop negative body image. Um so
2:04:35if P is exposure to # thinspinsspiration
2:04:39content, then Q is uh develop negative
2:04:43body image issues. um if um if not Q
2:04:47that means if I don't see teenagers with
2:04:49negative body issues therefore not P
2:04:51therefore they will not they were not
2:04:52exposed to uh that those thinsspiration
2:04:55uh images
2:04:57um so or in this case more likely um
2:05:00that that P doesn't cause Q so I so I
2:05:03saw P um I assumed that Q would happen
2:05:07but but I didn't see Q therefore P is
2:05:09not true therefore it's not true that um
2:05:12exposure to those images might cause
2:05:13these outcomes or um only in certain
2:05:16instances, but I didn't didn't see those
2:05:18teenagers. So, there's something about
2:05:19those teenagers that that create a
2:05:20difference between other teenagers. Um,
2:05:23and negative results, you know, if I
2:05:24don't if I disprove my theory, if I
2:05:26falsify my theory, uh, require either
2:05:29that I discard the theory or that I
2:05:31revise a theory. Much like my example of
2:05:33true crime podcast where if I find out
2:05:35that some women have a perfectly healthy
2:05:38view of their environment, don't feel
2:05:39afraid at all, are amused by the
2:05:41content, find it funny, they like the
2:05:43companionship of the hosts and the
2:05:45banter that's going on. But all these
2:05:47horrific stories about true crime and
2:05:48terrible things being being done,
2:05:50especially to women, uh don't cause them
2:05:53to become any more fearful or out of the
2:05:56ordinary fe fearful about their sense of
2:05:58safety in their environment than other
2:05:59women who are not exposed to this. So
2:06:01that tells me if I get those findings I
2:06:03would need to either discard my theory
2:06:04and say no actually these exposure to
2:06:06these podcast does not result in these
2:06:08outcomes or I would need to revise and
2:06:10say under these conditions with these uh
2:06:14factors present uh this is likely to
2:06:16happen but not for everyone. Um so again
2:06:20doesn't totally escape induction because
2:06:22theories um have more or less what's
2:06:24called vericissimilitude. Very means
2:06:26truth similitude means resemblance. So
2:06:28versitude means resemblance to the truth
2:06:30as we're trying to get a more lifelike
2:06:33realistic portrait of the truth. Uh in
2:06:36other words, the degree of positive
2:06:37empirical sport, the number of instances
2:06:39where like I see this case, I see this
2:06:41case, I see this case, I have all these
2:06:42observations that continue to
2:06:44corroborate my theory. So as I'm trying
2:06:46to falsify my theory and I can't falsify
2:06:49my theory because I keep going through
2:06:50tests, I keep them going through
2:06:52observations and none of them falsify my
2:06:53theory. What they're doing is further
2:06:55cooperating and adding more vertitude,
2:06:58increasing resemblance to the truth. I
2:07:00never quite get to the actual truth, but
2:07:03I get a a more lifelike realistic
2:07:05picture of the truth.
2:07:49And in a related point uh there's a
2:07:51famous um line attributed to the
2:07:53physicist Wolf Gang Py um who in talking
2:07:56about the work of one of his colleagues
2:07:58uh said that his work is not only not
2:08:00right it's not even wrong. So think for
2:08:03a moment what was he saying there which
2:08:05was you know this is often interpreted
2:08:07as like one of the all-time great
2:08:09scientific insults to throw at a at a
2:08:12scientific colleague and what he was
2:08:14saying was not only is it is it not
2:08:17accurate it's not even wrong meaning you
2:08:20can't even falsify it which means it's
2:08:22not even science because like you know
2:08:24it's making a claim that we have no way
2:08:26of assessing so you're not doing science
2:08:28here so that's why sick burn dude. Okay.
2:08:33Um so let's go through a few examples of
2:08:36deducing a hypothesis from an induction.
2:08:38Um so here we have um the construction
2:08:42of a theory. So what we know you know
2:08:44observation stuff we know are caffeine
2:08:47is a stimulant and we know that
2:08:48stimulants can increase some motor
2:08:50activity and we know that speech is a
2:08:53kind of motor activity. Uh so therefore
2:08:56I will conclude I will theorize that
2:08:58caffeine increases rate of speech. So,
2:09:00the more coffee I drink, the faster I
2:09:02talk. And as someone who naturally talks
2:09:04fast, I'm I try to be attentive to that.
2:09:06And especially when I've had caffeine,
2:09:09um, I talk super fast. But is that true?
2:09:13Maybe it's only I think it's true, uh,
2:09:16because of those assumptions and
2:09:18cognitive bias kicks in and makes me
2:09:19conclude it's true. So, what I might do
2:09:21is run a test to see if it holds up. Um,
2:09:24so induction is the process of
2:09:26constructing a theory. So inductive
2:09:28reasoning um you know I go from premise
2:09:31of caffeine is a stimulant. Stimulants
2:09:33increase some some motor activity.
2:09:36Speech is a kind of motor activity.
2:09:38Therefore I'm going to conclude that
2:09:39caffeine increases rate of speech. So
2:09:41that claim contains a bit more
2:09:42information because stimulants increase
2:09:44some motor activity. I don't know if it
2:09:46increases all motor activity and I don't
2:09:48know if speech is uh the kind of motor
2:09:51activity included in that category of
2:09:54motor activities that are increased by
2:09:56stimulants or not. So you can you can
2:09:58think about a vin diagram where um you
2:10:00know there's there's two types of motor
2:10:02activity. One type is increased by um uh
2:10:06stimulants and one type is not. And I
2:10:08know that caffeine uh speech is a kind
2:10:10of motor activity. I just don't know
2:10:12from the premises whether it belongs in
2:10:14the first category the second category.
2:10:16So the conclusion that caffeine
2:10:17increases rate of speech is including
2:10:18some additional information that is not
2:10:20contained in the premises. So again
2:10:22induction is the process of constructing
2:10:25a theory. But then once I've constructed
2:10:27a theory, I then break it over to the
2:10:29deductive process which tells me that if
2:10:32my theory is true, then I must see with
2:10:35certainty this outcome. Um, so if
2:10:40caffeine does increase rate of speech,
2:10:42which is basically my theory. So what
2:10:44I'm doing now is turning my theory into
2:10:46a premise of the seductive argument.
2:10:48Then I'm assuming that people who
2:10:49consume caffeine, everything else being
2:10:50equal, that is I'm trying to control the
2:10:52experiment. So they're not stressed,
2:10:54they're not tired. Um so everything
2:10:56about us being equal where I'm trying to
2:10:58remove any other fact that might affect
2:11:00rate of speech then then I must see if
2:11:03my theory is true then I must see um the
2:11:07outcome of if I give some people
2:11:09caffeine and some people know caffeine
2:11:11the people who got caffeine will talk
2:11:12faster uh than the people who didn't. So
2:11:15the idea here is um uh again that if the
2:11:19theory is true if the if um if the
2:11:21premises are true then the conclusion
2:11:22must be true. So um the validity of
2:11:25deductive reasoning tells you based upon
2:11:27the premises assuming that the um the
2:11:29conclusion does not contain any
2:11:30information beyond the premises the
2:11:32conclusion must follow. Um if it's an
2:11:35unound argument that is it's valid but
2:11:38but the premises are not but it's unound
2:11:41uh and the premises are not true that
2:11:42tells you either your theory is wrong or
2:11:44your method of testing was wrong. That
2:11:47tells you got to go back to the drawing
2:11:48board and either revise or discard your
2:11:50theory or maybe you had the wrong
2:11:52testing mechanism. So either way, you
2:11:54know, your the premises of the deductive
2:11:56process of testing your hypothesis are
2:11:58premise one to simplify things. Premise
2:12:00one is your theory, premise two is your
2:12:02method of testing, the conclusion is
2:12:04your hypothesis. If you didn't get your
2:12:06hypothesis, something's wrong with your
2:12:08premises.
2:13:34So then I run my experiment um and these
2:13:36the findings where the blue line is the
2:13:38the group that drank caffeine and the
2:13:40red line is the group the control group
2:13:41the group that did not um consume
2:13:43caffeine and you see like oh cool my
2:13:46findings found um on average a a faster
2:13:49rate of uh speech for the uh the
2:13:51caffeine group the test group or the
2:13:53control group. Not everyone, you know,
2:13:55there were some fast talkers and
2:13:56actually a few talkers over um on the
2:13:59far right side of the red line were uh
2:14:02faster than a lot of the blue folks, but
2:14:03on average blue folks were a little
2:14:05better. So I could either, you know, say
2:14:07versitude added to my theory or I could
2:14:09I could continue to ask more questions
2:14:11based on the observations and go like
2:14:13not always true um for some people. So I
2:14:16might ask a more refined question to
2:14:18continue to try to refine my theory
2:14:19that's that might say generally speaking
2:14:22caffeine does increase rate of speech.
2:14:24However, under certain conditions um it
2:14:27might increase it to a greater or lesser
2:14:28degree or not at all. Um so that I might
2:14:32try to figure out under what conditions
2:14:34could that vary which gives a bit more
2:14:36complexity and sophistication to my
2:14:38theory.
2:14:40Okay. Now let's go through another kind
2:14:41of dumb um example I just sort of made
2:14:44up. Uh this is in by no means really
2:14:46scientific reasoning, but I just want to
2:14:47give kind of a simplistic uh example
2:14:49from my own experience just as I'm
2:14:51walking around thinking dumb stuff. Um
2:14:54so here are a few observations. You
2:14:55know, I used I used to live in Echo
2:14:56Park, which is the neighborhood uh in
2:14:58Los Angeles on the east side. Um that at
2:15:01the time I lived there at least was uh
2:15:02somewhat in transition. um uh you know
2:15:06it was g getting safer um and there's a
2:15:10lot of gentrification but there was also
2:15:12so still a fairly high rate of crime as
2:15:14as it was transitioning from a more
2:15:17workingass um and um
2:15:21um and sometimes uh uh gangridden
2:15:24neighborhood into a more uh affluent
2:15:27neighborhood much these days it's much
2:15:28more affluent uh than it was even then
2:15:31um and so uh When when I would walk my
2:15:35dog around my neighborhood, a lot of
2:15:37people would say hi, like, "Oh, cool
2:15:39dog." Um, or like, "Hello." And these
2:15:41are people I never seen before and
2:15:43didn't necessarily see me as a as a
2:15:44neighbor. But then, uh, sometimes my
2:15:46partner and I, her parents live in a
2:15:49gated community in Nevada, Las Vegas.
2:15:52Um, and we would often go there for
2:15:55vacations or just um, or for the
2:15:57holidays. And I'd be walking my dogs
2:15:59around there. And in the gay community,
2:16:01no one would acknowledge me. And I
2:16:04thought, that's interesting. Wh why is
2:16:06that? Why is it that in my own
2:16:08neighborhood when people I never saw
2:16:09before, never saw me before, uh I would
2:16:11pass them on the sidewalk, they would
2:16:13say like, "Hi." Um and then when I would
2:16:15pass people often quite close in the
2:16:17sidewalks in these gated communities,
2:16:19they wouldn't. And I thought like, what
2:16:20what accounts for those differences? So
2:16:22here are some observations that might
2:16:23lead to a theory. Uh so let's go through
2:16:26the inductive process of moving from
2:16:29specific observations to a general
2:16:31theory. Um so inductive reasoning allows
2:16:33me to move from premise one. People were
2:16:36friendlier to me in Echo Park than the
2:16:38gated community. Premise two is uh Echo
2:16:41Park is a gentrifying neighborhood,
2:16:43meaning it's gradually transitioning
2:16:44from a less to a more affluent
2:16:46neighborhood. And my conclusion is that
2:16:49um people are friendlier in gentrifying
2:16:51neighborhoods than in gated communities
2:16:53that tend to be more more affluent. Um
2:16:56now I talked before about being careful
2:16:57with theories because they might adhere
2:16:59to your your cognitive biases and and
2:17:01I'm giving you an example that's
2:17:02intentionally organized around the
2:17:04prospect of maybe just more reflecting
2:17:06one's one's viewpoint as opposed to
2:17:08something that actually makes true
2:17:09claims about the world. But just bear
2:17:11with me for a silly example. It's more
2:17:12about trying to illustrate how we're
2:17:14using inductive and deductive process.
2:17:16So I move from specific observations to
2:17:19a general theory. That's inductive
2:17:20reasoning in that I'm moving from
2:17:22specific to general making much more
2:17:24expansive claims in the conclusion that
2:17:26are stated in the premises. So I'm
2:17:28stating additional information beyond
2:17:29what's contained in the premises. So I
2:17:31don't know if the conclusion is true. It
2:17:33does not follow logically. So I have to
2:17:35think, you know, where does it fall on
2:17:36the weak to strong continuum. And I
2:17:38would say it's probably kind of weak.
2:17:40But um anyway, it's just an example. So,
2:17:43yeah, it's pretty weak induction
2:17:44because, you know, I only saw um maybe a
2:17:46few examples. Maybe I just happen to be
2:17:48a bad day. Maybe it's about me. Maybe
2:17:49it's about my dog. Maybe they don't like
2:17:51big bulls. Maybe they don't like my
2:17:52look. I don't know. Um and they're
2:17:54they're conditions that can't be
2:17:55controlled. So, there might be something
2:17:58um uh specific about the conditions that
2:18:00influence the outcomes as opposed to
2:18:01anything true that we're saying about
2:18:03how people behave in these communities.
2:18:06Um,
2:18:23okay. Now we got to test the hypothesis.
2:18:25So we use induction to construct the
2:18:26theory. Now we use deduction to test the
2:18:29theory uh or test a hypothesis based
2:18:31upon that theory. So again we move from
2:18:33induction which is used to create a
2:18:34hypothesis to deduction which is used to
2:18:36test a hypothesis. Um so premise one um
2:18:40again is my theory uh that people are
2:18:43friendlier in gentrifying neighborhoods
2:18:44than gated communities. Premise two um
2:18:47and I should should have expanded on
2:18:48this this point but premise two would be
2:18:50um uh I'll do a test um and so I'll look
2:18:53at gentrifying neighborhood. look in a
2:18:55uh gated community and I expect to see
2:18:58um and so I'll premise two is
2:18:59fundamentally like the observation or
2:19:01test that I engage in and the conclusion
2:19:04um and I I should have been more
2:19:05specific about the expected outcome that
2:19:07I will see like uh 30% higher rate of
2:19:10hello you know I I would operationalize
2:19:13like what do I mean by friendly by
2:19:14defining it as they will greet me either
2:19:17uh by gesture or by statement or smile
2:19:20or something so I would need to uh qu uh
2:19:23both uh define the key terms and also
2:19:26find a way to quantify the expected
2:19:28outcome for what I would then see.
2:19:46So just to reiterate um testing a
2:19:48hypothesis is engaging in deductive
2:19:50reasoning. So premise one to simplify
2:19:52things down to its basic um essence.
2:19:54Premise one is my theory. Um so I'm
2:19:57assuming this premise two is the
2:19:58conditions of the test or the experiment
2:20:00to see if the theory holds up. And the
2:20:02conclusion is the hypothesis or the
2:20:03specific prediction the outcome of the
2:20:05test or experiment or observation. So
2:20:08assuming my premises are true, the
2:20:09conclusion must follow. If the
2:20:11conclusion uh didn't happen, if I don't
2:20:13see the expected outcome, that tells me
2:20:15something's wrong with my premises.
2:20:16Because um deductive reasoning tells me,
2:20:19assuming the premises are true, I must
2:20:21see the hypothesis. I must see this
2:20:23outcome. My prediction must come true.
2:20:25If my prediction does not come true,
2:20:27that tells me is an unound argument.
2:20:30It's a valid argument. Uh or in this
2:20:32case, maybe it's not because the
2:20:33conclusion doesn't follow, but it's
2:20:35certainly unsound because the premises
2:20:37are not true. So either my theory was
2:20:39wrong and or um the uh the way I set up
2:20:43the test uh was wrong and maybe
2:20:45something was skewed about how I tested
2:20:46or observed it and it gave me skewed
2:20:48findings. But either way, I know
2:20:50something's wrong with either or both my
2:20:52theory and or my my test or observation.
2:20:56So here's another um silly example. So I
2:20:59got dogs behind me. So, um I'm thinking
2:21:02uh what I know um is that dogs respond
2:21:05positively to treats as a form of
2:21:06positive reinforcement and
2:21:10I give my dog a treat. So, I shouldn't
2:21:12have said what I know is premise one.
2:21:13That's that's a theory. Um that is
2:21:16generally true. It's generally
2:21:17supported. It's generally corroborated.
2:21:18So, plenty of risk too, but not always
2:21:20true because there's plenty of
2:21:20situations where I might give a treat
2:21:22and doesn't reinforce positive outcomes.
2:21:24And then I might think, why is it with
2:21:26with this dog it didn't whereas with
2:21:28other dogs it did. Anyway, there's a
2:21:29general theory that says um it's best to
2:21:32give positive reinforcement to dogs to
2:21:34train them effectively. And generally we
2:21:36we think positive reinforcement means
2:21:37giving them a treat. So um when I want
2:21:40them to do something good like so when I
2:21:41taught my dogs how to shake uh shake
2:21:43paws um initially they had no idea what
2:21:46I was asking them to do and they just
2:21:47look at me like I'm an idiot. Um, and
2:21:49then, um, I would gradually try to, um,
2:21:53move their their paw closer to my hand.
2:21:56And when they would, the paw would land
2:21:58on my hand, I would go like, oh, good,
2:21:59good boy. And hand him a little treat.
2:22:01And then like maybe they'd be like, cool
2:22:03treat. Yes. And then gradually it sunk
2:22:06in of like, oh, when I when I move my
2:22:08paw this way, I get a treat. And then um
2:22:12they they learn the trick. And sometimes
2:22:14they do it too often and constantly just
2:22:16paw at me thinking like, "Well, give me
2:22:17a treat." Anyway, um so I have a theory
2:22:20in premise one that dogs will respond
2:22:21positively if I give them positive
2:22:23reinforcement. Premise two is I try to
2:22:25experiment. I give my dog a treat uh
2:22:27when they did something I liked. Um and
2:22:30the outcome will be that I hope that
2:22:33they'll perform the trick that I'm
2:22:34asking to do. And then what I might do
2:22:36is test to see if that's true. Um or
2:22:38under what conditions is it true?
2:22:40Inductive reasoning. Uh so going back to
2:22:42inductive reasoning uh that's what I'm
2:22:43using to construct a theory. So I move
2:22:45from observation I do some more
2:22:47observations and from all those
2:22:48observations I then construct a theory.
2:22:50Again I I read things where women who
2:22:54listen to podcasts about true crime seem
2:22:56to develop um more fearful attitudes
2:22:58about their environments and therefore I
2:23:00theorize that the podcast is causing
2:23:01those uh those outcomes. So I move from
2:23:04observation to theory. I don't know for
2:23:06a fact that's true. I need to
2:23:07scientifically um test to see does it
2:23:09hold up otherwise just another opinion.
2:23:11It's just another belief that I don't
2:23:12know if it's true or not but just
2:23:13reflects my worldview but maybe it's not
2:23:16actually accurate and this reflects more
2:23:18one's cognitive biases. So again
2:23:20inductive reasoning where I'm I'm making
2:23:23uh bigger claims. I'm I'm claiming more
2:23:25information in the conclusion than is
2:23:27contained in the premises is involved in
2:23:29construction of a theory. Whereas the
2:23:31testing of a hypothesis based upon the
2:23:33theory engages in deductive reasoning as
2:23:36we see here. So so again the structure
2:23:38as I keep saying is um premise one is a
2:23:41theory. Premise two is the conditions
2:23:43the test or observation experiment and
2:23:44the conclusion the hypothesis. If I
2:23:47don't see the conclusion uh borne out by
2:23:49the evidence that tells me my premises
2:23:50are wrong. Um so to simplify this I move
2:23:54from observation to construction of the
2:23:56theory using induction um in the factory
2:24:00um where I I make the uh the theory then
2:24:02I go over to the scientific lab um to
2:24:04test hypothesis based upon theory using
2:24:06deduction and then if the hypothesis
2:24:08holds up the theory is corroborated and
2:24:10therefore increases
2:24:12if the hypothesis does not hold up the
2:24:14theory has to be discarded or revised
2:24:16and you got to start the process all
2:24:17over again with observation to try to
2:24:18make sense of huh why didn't I get the
2:24:20findings I expected what's going on
2:24:22there. Um, so yeah, going back to
2:24:24observation to question to theory to
2:24:25prediction, experiment to observation to
2:24:27question of what why did I get the
2:24:29observations I expected? Um, let's
2:24:31figure out why that is. Oh, I have a
2:24:33theory that might account for that.
2:24:34Let's test it to see if it's true. Um,
2:24:36so another way I like to think about
2:24:37this is as we're trying to um represent
2:24:41the world through models, through
2:24:43theories that attempt to uh accurately
2:24:45depict the relationship between
2:24:47different communication phenomena. Often
2:24:49theories uh initially as initially
2:24:52formulated are crude and simp simplistic
2:24:54much like a child's drawing like this
2:24:56not very good drawing here uh on the
2:24:58left of the slide but then gradually as
2:25:01you continue to revise it like you get
2:25:03you have a hypothesis you test it test
2:25:05the hypothesis you get findings like
2:25:07oops I didn't get what I expected huh
2:25:09got to go back and revise my theory and
2:25:10make it more sophisticated make it more
2:25:12specific say in these conditions that's
2:25:14true but in these conditions it's not
2:25:15true I go test that like oh that's also
2:25:17not true these conditions when these
2:25:19factors are present. It's true. Oop,
2:25:21that didn't didn't work out either.
2:25:22These conditions when these factors are
2:25:23present with these kinds of um subjects
2:25:26is true. Okay, a little more to that.
2:25:29Gradually, as you refine it, it gets a
2:25:31little closer to this kind of image. And
2:25:33I I put this image in on the right. Uh
2:25:35this looks like a photograph. It is not.
2:25:36It's a drawing. Um it's what's called um
2:25:39it's an example of what's called photo
2:25:40realism, which is a particular art
2:25:43practice in particular um practiced by a
2:25:46famous artist named Chuck Close. That's
2:25:48who is depicted here. This is a
2:25:49self-portrait by the artist Chuck Close,
2:25:51who drew himself with extreme um
2:25:55lifelike photo realism. But I I say this
2:25:58as a metaphor, as an analogy for how to
2:26:00think about scientific modeling and
2:26:01thinking, which is you're you're not um
2:26:06showing the truth. You're showing a
2:26:08representation of the truth. We're
2:26:09showing a picture um uh a model that is
2:26:14not the truth itself but an attempt to
2:26:16try to make it uh realistic and
2:26:17lifelike. And as theories are tested
2:26:20more, as they become uh more and more
2:26:23corroborated, as they are giving
2:26:24increasing personalitude through further
2:26:26testing, um through further observation,
2:26:29through further refinement, they
2:26:31gradually move from that more crude like
2:26:33image on the left side to the more
2:26:35lifelike veritudinal uh image on the on
2:26:38the right side. Um or another silly
2:26:41example is like start off crude
2:26:43gradually through refinement you get to
2:26:45a very sophisticated image at the end
2:26:47literally.
2:26:48Um okay let's talk about another um
2:26:51silly but interesting experiment uh that
2:26:53was done um by actual researchers. So in
2:26:55this case um so this is a um experiment
2:26:58done in um some restaurants in Europe to
2:27:01try to see how different kinds of
2:27:04communication from the servers in a
2:27:06restaurant will result in different
2:27:08kinds of responses from the customers.
2:27:10So the observations the things we know
2:27:11the premises that we start off with uh
2:27:13are let's first start off with um some
2:27:16some knowledge about mirror neurons. So
2:27:19there's a theory about um primates,
2:27:22especially humans, having more um
2:27:24specialized brain cells or neurons that
2:27:27um are particularly skilled at mirroring
2:27:30um or simulating other people's
2:27:32behavior. So I see you do something and
2:27:35I can I can imitate it. I can mimic it.
2:27:37And so primates are especially good at
2:27:39mirroring behavior. And so the theory is
2:27:41that in particular primates have a much
2:27:44higher percentage or a much higher
2:27:46number of neurons that are specially
2:27:48evolved uh to enable primates to mirror
2:27:52or mimic behavior much more than other
2:27:54species that to a greater or lesser
2:27:56degree other animals can somewhat mimic
2:27:58behavior, but they're not nearly as good
2:28:00as it as primates. And what that speaks
2:28:02to it um what that speaks to is that
2:28:04especially in social animals and
2:28:06primates are an especially social uh
2:28:09species uh or human beings especially or
2:28:12and all primate species are are social
2:28:14species. Um the ability to mirror other
2:28:18behaviors to demonstrate for example
2:28:21pro-social behavior um is especially
2:28:24important for community cohesion and
2:28:26therefore individual and group survival.
2:28:28So, this an evolved adaptive um
2:28:31development that enables uh communities
2:28:34and individuals to thrive as a result of
2:28:36pro-social communication that
2:28:38demonstrates like, oh, I like that you
2:28:39like you're doing the same thing I'm
2:28:40doing because it shows like we're
2:28:42connected and therefore I trust you more
2:28:43and therefore I'm more likely to rely
2:28:45upon you and therefore we can work well
2:28:46better together during hunts or during
2:28:49attacks or during um uh farming that
2:28:53make it more likely we will survive and
2:28:55prosper. Um what we also know is there's
2:28:58a tendency in human beings to divide
2:29:00between us and them. So one of the
2:29:02fundamental acts of cognition in initial
2:29:05communication when we're meeting someone
2:29:07new and this goes back to ancestral
2:29:09conditions and it's still to somewhat
2:29:10true now is are you an us or are you a
2:29:12them? I try to figure out like oh oh you
2:29:15went to UCLA cool you're an us or like
2:29:17oh you're from Los Angeles oh you're an
2:29:18us. or or whatever your home state is,
2:29:20or are you a them? And it's necessarily
2:29:22bad, but we're all trying to figure out
2:29:23like what's our connection? And often
2:29:25the initial communication acts that we
2:29:28engage in with with a per with with new
2:29:30people, people we just met is an effort
2:29:32to try to figure out where's the us, you
2:29:34know, how are we connected? like, "Oh,
2:29:35you like that kind of music," or, "Oh,
2:29:37you're from this place." Or, "Oh, my
2:29:38sister went there." Or we're always
2:29:39trying to find like how we might try to
2:29:41make an us to increase the likelihood of
2:29:43connection and recognition of um you can
2:29:47trust me or uh yeah, we're connected
2:29:49somehow versus like, oh, you're oh, you
2:29:51went to that school or oh, you're from
2:29:53that place or oh, um you know, you like
2:29:55that kind of music. Okay. Um and there's
2:29:58some also some interesting elements
2:30:00about this, too. Like there's also this
2:30:01this term that's called shibth. A
2:30:03shibileth. It gets a little funny. Um, a
2:30:06shibileth literally is the He I'm not
2:30:09pronouncing it ideally, but um it's it's
2:30:12the the Hebrew word for an ear of corn.
2:30:16But uh that word has now become an
2:30:18English word that means something
2:30:20different. um a chival in English it
2:30:25means anything that um by using it
2:30:31indicates what tribe you're from. So in
2:30:34the Bible there's a passage where
2:30:36someone is traveling in enemy land and
2:30:40different tribes um pronounce the word
2:30:43for an ear of corn differently and you
2:30:45can tell uh whether you're from this
2:30:47tribe or that tribe from the way that
2:30:49you pronounce ear of corn. So they were
2:30:51traveling through enemy land and they
2:30:53had like a um um a cart full of corn um
2:30:58and the guards stopped them and said
2:31:00like hey what you got there and they
2:31:02they pronounced it the way that their um
2:31:04their own tribe says caleith as opposed
2:31:06to shibth and they go like oh you're
2:31:07from enemy land. Um and there so a
2:31:10shivalith has become any term that
2:31:11indicates like are you an us or are you
2:31:14a them okay um there's also accents and
2:31:16accents are an interesting evolution of
2:31:18human speech that tells us um you know
2:31:21are you from my place are you from
2:31:22somewhere else and the fact that we have
2:31:24accents I think is a really interesting
2:31:26evolution of communication behavior that
2:31:28enables us to quickly recognize again us
2:31:30versus them um and again there's also
2:31:32mirroring that's an extension of mirror
2:31:34neurons where we tend to um like people
2:31:37that communicate like us um uh and we
2:31:41tend to feel recognition when when our
2:31:43words when our phrases when our gestures
2:31:45are acknowledged and we tend to value
2:31:48that sense of recognition. Okay. Um so
2:31:50based upon all this, you'll see how this
2:31:52all fits together in a bit. We have a
2:31:54theory or the researchers came up with a
2:31:56theory that uh mimicry when it's not
2:31:58being insulting. So I want to be clear
2:32:00like you know me like if I mimic someone
2:32:02like that obviously I'm insulting them.
2:32:03So, we're talking about non-inssulting
2:32:05mimicry that is meant to be like, "Oh,
2:32:08we talk the same way. We we like the
2:32:09same things. We do the same stuff."
2:32:11Mimicry um increases pro-social
2:32:14behavior. That is, if I mirror the way
2:32:16you're something, like if you come at me
2:32:18enthusiastic and I'm respic,
2:32:20you you might like me more. Like, oh,
2:32:22okay, cool. They're in the same
2:32:23wavelength. Um so, mimicry can increase
2:32:27social behavior. Okay, that's my theory
2:32:29based upon those observations of all
2:32:30that stuff that tends to show like the
2:32:32ways that humans interact and trust each
2:32:35other when we share the same language,
2:32:37when we share the same accent, when we
2:32:38share the same way that we say words,
2:32:40when we feel like it's an us. And
2:32:42mirroring becomes a way of signaling,
2:32:44oh, you're an us. All these these
2:32:45different things, shibil accents,
2:32:47mirroring are ways of indicating that
2:32:50we're an us. And when I feel like you're
2:32:52an us, I tend to be happier and nicer
2:32:56than if I feel like you're a them. when
2:32:58I tend to be less trusting. Um so my
2:33:02hypothesis would be and this is where we
2:33:05lead to the the researcher's experiment
2:33:07in a controlled experiment mimicry that
2:33:09is um and you'll see what we mean by
2:33:11mimicry specifically in a moment will
2:33:13increase tips by at least x% and again
2:33:16uh different researchers can come up
2:33:17with different expected outcomes that
2:33:19would be statistically significant to
2:33:20show that it's not just a random outcome
2:33:22but in fact um the mimicry caused the
2:33:25increased tips and we're using increased
2:33:27tips as a pro proxy for customer
2:33:30satisfaction. All of the things being
2:33:31equal, the service is equal, um the fact
2:33:34that you know that customers were happy
2:33:36based upon like oo I like that person uh
2:33:38the tips will be higher. Okay. So uh
2:33:41this this was um conducted in um the
2:33:44Netherlands and in Dutch
2:33:47uh the at like brew hubs the most common
2:33:49dish is just beer and fries like hey
2:33:52welcome to Applebee's. What would you
2:33:53like? Um oh beer and fries sweet. Okay,
2:33:55coming right up. Uh but in Dutch you can
2:33:57say that one of two ways. Um uh you can
2:34:00say beer uh or or or pills like Pzner um
2:34:05or you can say the fries as fre or or
2:34:08patat either they mean the same thing.
2:34:10Um so that means that you can either say
2:34:13like um uh beer and fruit or pill and
2:34:16patat. Um so then let's say that the
2:34:20waiter comes up or the server comes up
2:34:22and says like hey welcome to Applebee's
2:34:23or Dutch Applebees whatever um and says
2:34:26like how can I take your order? Like you
2:34:27say, uh, beer and fruit and the server,
2:34:30you know, on the server and I say like
2:34:32pills and pat coming right up and like
2:34:34what? I mean, I you got the order, but
2:34:37that was weird though how you just
2:34:38changed that. Okay, cool. I guess um
2:34:42versus um you say beer and fruit and I
2:34:45say beer and fruit coming right up.
2:34:47Okay. So, uh in this experiment, the
2:34:49servers were given um directions to
2:34:53either mirror the statement or change
2:34:56it. And the question is what happened
2:34:59when they mirrored or changed it? And
2:35:02again going back to let's ship us and us
2:35:04and them um you know some some people
2:35:06call it call um call it soda, some
2:35:09people call it pop. Um and like you know
2:35:12that's the kind of shibilith in American
2:35:14culture. uh Midwesterners
2:35:17uh tend to more often call it pop.
2:35:18People on the coast and more often to
2:35:20call it um soda. And so like you can
2:35:22tell like oh what tribe you're from
2:35:24whether you say um soda or pop. Um and
2:35:28that becomes an indication of like an us
2:35:30or a them. So um if you say pills and
2:35:34patat, you know, like the customers
2:35:36might might go like, "Oh, you're a
2:35:37you're a them. That was a that's fine.
2:35:39You bring me the food, but you're kind
2:35:41of a them." And it's also important to
2:35:43note that um tipping culture in Europe
2:35:45is not the same as in America. In
2:35:47America, it's an expected act of you put
2:35:49on 15, 18, 20% on top of the bill as
2:35:52like that's the way that the the servers
2:35:54get paid. In Europe, um servers are paid
2:35:57a living wage. And so tips are not
2:36:00expected. Uh they're not required,
2:36:01they're not expected. So you don't put
2:36:03on like, you know, additional 18%. It's
2:36:05just built into the bill. But sometimes
2:36:08like if you're really happy with the
2:36:09service, you might tip like a couple of
2:36:10euros. So I want to make clear like 140%
2:36:13larger um what the findings were that
2:36:15when the server mimicked um mirrored the
2:36:19phrase like you know you say bill and
2:36:21freak and I say bill and fruit coming
2:36:22right up or you say pills and patat and
2:36:24I say pills and patat coming right up
2:36:25when I when I mirrored the uh the order
2:36:28that resulted in more than double uh the
2:36:31tips uh when they changed when they sent
2:36:34them to to save the order. So um it's
2:36:36not like you might normally leave leave
2:36:3720 and leave 40. if you might leave like
2:36:40you know a euro uh and in this case you
2:36:42left like two two two um two euros and
2:36:4640 whatever. Um
2:36:49okay so let's go through inductive
2:36:51reasoning again to make clear what's
2:36:52going on here. Um constructing a theory.
2:36:55I notice people tend to be nicer when I
2:36:56reflect their own language or behavior
2:36:58back to them. That's my observation. Uh
2:37:00and then my conclusion, my theory. So, I
2:37:02might have a bunch of observations that
2:37:03are my premises that make me think like,
2:37:05huh, I noticed that when I when I mirror
2:37:07the enthusiasm, when I mirror like the
2:37:09way they're talking, they tend to be
2:37:10more uh they tend to like me more. And
2:37:12so, I think like I think mimicry might
2:37:14increase procial behavior. Um, and so
2:37:17then I go over and uh I use deductive
2:37:19reasoning to test it. So, then I my
2:37:21theory again is going to be turned into
2:37:23my premise here. So, the the conclusion
2:37:25of the inductive argument is now turned
2:37:26in the premise of the deductive
2:37:28argument. So, I say again, memory
2:37:30increases procialocial behavior. That's
2:37:31my theory. Then I have a a test where I
2:37:33say I engage in mimicry by apparenting
2:37:35customers language or changing it. Uh I
2:37:37compare it and then the conclusion is
2:37:39I'll receive higher tips which is an
2:37:40indicator of pro behavior. So again
2:37:42we're we're we're accepting the tips as
2:37:44a proxy indicator of procial behavior
2:37:47and I expect to see this outcome and if
2:37:49I don't oopsie falsified my theory. If I
2:37:51do corroboration, increase risk of risk
2:37:54of
2:37:56one more um so um
2:37:59the in the slides separate from the
2:38:01recording I will upload a um a link to a
2:38:03recording you can actually listen to
2:38:05this but um those of you who live near
2:38:07coyotes might have occasionally heard
2:38:08what's called the yip howl uh that
2:38:10coyote um bands engage in that often if
2:38:13you're not used to it can be terrifying
2:38:15or sometimes hilarious but they engage
2:38:17in this very loud yep yep yep how pow
2:38:18how and the question is why why do they
2:38:21do that. Um, and so, um, we don't have a
2:38:24ton of research on coyotes because
2:38:25there's not a lot of money in coyote
2:38:27research. So, that becomes an
2:38:28interesting area for experimentation.
2:38:31Um, but I want to make sense, you know,
2:38:33let's let's say we want to try to make
2:38:34sense of why do coyotes do this? Um and
2:38:38um but there's an interesting claim
2:38:40that's being made by some coyote
2:38:42researchers that says um
2:38:46that
2:38:48when there's a lot of these
2:38:51vocalizations of these group
2:38:53vocalizations in a given area. So
2:38:56there's different bands. So think about
2:38:57like different gangs of coyotes
2:38:59traveling around and you're you know
2:39:01this co's part of that group and this
2:39:02co's part of that that other group. So
2:39:04they're all roaming around. Um and um
2:39:09what what these researchers are claiming
2:39:11is when there is a higher rate of
2:39:14vocalizations of these yip how
2:39:16gatherings um in a given season, the
2:39:20following spring um the the mothers give
2:39:26um uh birth to to smaller litters,
2:39:29meaning fewer coyote puppies, which is
2:39:33bizarre to think about. like how is it
2:39:34that somehow processing the
2:39:36communication signal uh leads to your
2:39:39body um producing fewer puppies? And the
2:39:42you know the argument would be that um
2:39:45something in them has evolved to
2:39:47recognize that if there's more
2:39:49competition that means there's less food
2:39:52available and therefore it is a waste of
2:39:54resources to make more puppies that
2:39:55would starve or die uh or or be eaten.
2:39:58Um, and therefore it would be a better
2:40:00use of resources to have fewer puppies
2:40:02that will not have to compete as much
2:40:04for a limited food supply. Maybe it's a
2:40:06pretty out there claim. I would say this
2:40:08is sort of like, you know, in the
2:40:09distinction of like, you know, junk
2:40:11science, pseudocience, uh, fringe
2:40:14science. This might be sort of on the
2:40:15fringe science thing. Um, but we can
2:40:17test it. Um, so, uh, that's that's
2:40:20observations. So, some researchers have
2:40:23have noticed what they what they believe
2:40:25is true that um when there's a lot of
2:40:28vocalizations in an area from different
2:40:30rival coyote bands, um coyote mothers
2:40:34tend to produce litters. So, that leads
2:40:36leads to [snorts] the theory that more
2:40:38vocalizations from rival bands will lead
2:40:40to smaller litters the following spring.
2:40:41Okay, that's a cool theory, but theories
2:40:44are easy. Um proof is not so easy. So,
2:40:48let's now engage in deductive reasoning.
2:40:50So let's bring that theory over to
2:40:52become the premise that more
2:40:54vocalizations from marble bands will
2:40:55lead to smaller letters in the following
2:40:56spring. And then I set up a test. So I
2:40:58set up an experiment um where um what I
2:41:02do is I don't know let's say I I record
2:41:05coyotes doing this and I have some big
2:41:08speakers and I broadcast this on a
2:41:10regular basis outside my window in my in
2:41:13my neighborhood where we have lots of
2:41:14coyotes. Um, and I have some way of
2:41:16measuring the number of coyote puppies
2:41:18that are made in the next spring. Um, so
2:41:21I set up an experiment where yeah, I
2:41:22blast the recordings on a regular basis
2:41:24of different coyote bands. So they get a
2:41:26sense of like, wow, there's so much
2:41:27competition. And then I see I expect to
2:41:30see um this percent fewer puppies uh or
2:41:34this this percent, excuse me, smaller
2:41:36litter, smaller groups of puppies. um if
2:41:39I if I blast sorry
2:41:43um these recordings of kite vocizations
2:41:45then from the bands if I then in areas
2:41:47where I don't do that so I expect to see
2:41:49this outcome um if I don't see that
2:41:51outcome theory is bunk and turns out was
2:41:53just fringe junk science and if I do
2:41:55that see that outcome a corroborates my
2:41:58theory adds similitude let's keep on
2:42:00testing to see if something holds up and
2:42:02then it's be like what what biological
2:42:04psychological process is happening that
2:42:06could explain how that's happening
2:42:07because it's pretty while to think
2:42:08about. Um, so again, if if the findings
2:42:10uphold my hypothesis, then I've
2:42:12corroborated and added risk militude to
2:42:14my theory, but I haven't proved it. All
2:42:16I've done is add corroboration, add
2:42:17riskitude. Uh, and if they don't, if the
2:42:19findings do not uphold my hypothesis,
2:42:21then I falsified my theory and it's back
2:42:22to the drawing board where I have to
2:42:24revise or discard.
2:42:26Okay, so a quick recap. Um, theories are
2:42:29again are models or of explanation that
2:42:31we need to test. Inductive reasoning is
2:42:33the process where I move from individual
2:42:35observations to general conclusions.
2:42:37that's used to construct theories.
2:42:39Deductive reasoning is a process that's
2:42:40used to test theories or more precisely
2:42:43test hypotheses
2:42:45uh that are based upon those theories.
2:42:47Expected um specific um predictions of
2:42:50results where the theory is one of the
2:42:52premises. If the theory is true, then I
2:42:54expect to see X, which is the
2:42:55hypothesis. Falsifiability refers to how
2:42:58scientific theories need to be able to
2:42:59be falsified. If they can't be
2:43:01falsified, it's not a scientific theory.
2:43:03There's value to other kinds of theories
2:43:05because we can't observe everything
2:43:07through science. But if we're talking
2:43:08science, if we're trying to expand
2:43:10actual knowledge, we're looking for
2:43:12stuff that can be falsified. But I can
2:43:13set up an experiment, set up an
2:43:14observation where I can potentially
2:43:16disprove my theory and find an instance
2:43:18where like, oopsie, that didn't happen.
2:43:20So that tells me my theory is not quite
2:43:22true. Um, and verse refers to the degree
2:43:26of positive empirical support that
2:43:28indicates the likelihood of my theory.
2:43:30So going back to the big question we
2:43:32started with. What's communication
2:43:33science? Well, here's one explanation.
2:43:35Um, communication science seeks to
2:43:37understand the processes of interactions
2:43:39evident in various facetoface and
2:43:41mediated contexts. Face to face means
2:43:43I'm talking directly to you. Mediated
2:43:45like right now mediated through this um
2:43:47recording or you're watching a Tik Tok
2:43:49or you're you're watching Fox News or
2:43:52CNN or MSNBC or whatever. Uh, or you're
2:43:55reading something newspaper. Um, so
2:43:58we're trying to think about interactions
2:43:59either direct or through a medium um as
2:44:02they relate to the cognitive, social,
2:44:04and cultural functions of communication.
2:44:07Um, and this is one explanation. I'm not
2:44:08saying it's the only explanation, but
2:44:10one one school uh says it's organized in
2:44:12three broad topical areas. Um,
2:44:14communication and social relationships,
2:44:16that is how relationships among people
2:44:17are initiated and maintained in various
2:44:19contexts. We can think about how work
2:44:21relationships are built or weakened. um
2:44:24how intimate personal rel romantic
2:44:26relationships are are strengthened or
2:44:27weakened. How friendships um or
2:44:30communities uh why is that some
2:44:32communities are strong and some are weak
2:44:34weakened? Why is that right now in the
2:44:35United States democracy seems to be
2:44:37under attack and we have a a much more
2:44:39polarized um sense of connection than we
2:44:43perhaps once did and is that the result
2:44:45of media operations, communication
2:44:46operations? Um which brings us to media
2:44:49effects? Um so it so uh communication
2:44:52science also looks at the effects of
2:44:54media on individuals and groups and it
2:44:56also looks at social influence. So
2:44:58processes of social change. How do
2:44:59social movements happen? Uh how does
2:45:01change happen? Um how do protests uh
2:45:05occur? What kind of communication can
2:45:07result in a riot or um a protest or a
2:45:11peaceful demonstration? um how do
2:45:14leaders and how do um uh how individuals
2:45:18mobilize uh individuals and group
2:45:20decision-m that can follow persuasion,
2:45:23deliberation, discussion, exchange of
2:45:25information that can lead to social
2:45:27change, cultural change. Um so but again
2:45:30as we talked about with different
2:45:31definitions like this is one approach
2:45:33and you might see different approaches
2:45:34but as we're trying to make sense of
2:45:36what communication science really boils
2:45:37down to it really involves asking
2:45:39questions and that that to me I think is
2:45:41the most important part is being curious
2:45:43about the world being curious about
2:45:45communication behavior and phenomena
2:45:46asking questions trying to make sense of
2:45:48what's going on here and then going
2:45:50going through the process of scientific
2:45:52reasoning and the scientific method to
2:45:54see if we can test to to find out if
2:45:57predictions based upon on that theory uh
2:45:59that we generate from the questions and
2:46:01observations we we raise and and and
2:46:03make uh hold up or not. Um so uh mission
2:46:08science can can look at a wide range of
2:46:09topic and themes. Health um so for
2:46:11example um why do some people um engage
2:46:15in conspiracy theorizing about vaccines?
2:46:17Why why is antivaccination sentiment on
2:46:20the rise? Uh why is it that some people
2:46:22were resistant to wearing masks during
2:46:24the during the pandemic? Why were some
2:46:25people much more open to it? Um so any
2:46:29kind of health communication like you
2:46:30know if if another uh epidemic uh
2:46:33approaches us um how will health
2:46:36communication effectively get people to
2:46:39accept um lockdowns, accept masking,
2:46:42accept um vaccinations or or not um or
2:46:46racial um uh uh communication for for
2:46:50how different groups are represented and
2:46:52thought of. Obviously, this is a
2:46:54sensitive issue right now, especially
2:46:55when it comes to the immigration raids
2:46:57and how um Americans view immigrants. Um
2:47:01it can look at um or race and ethnicity.
2:47:03If you look at civ engagement again, to
2:47:05what degree do people feel deeply
2:47:06connected to their environment versus
2:47:07disconnected? Do they feel like
2:47:08democracy is effective um at ensuring
2:47:11representation or not? To what degree do
2:47:13we feel like protests can actually bring
2:47:15about meaningful change? To what degree
2:47:17do we feel like we can use uh individual
2:47:20and public group um communication to
2:47:22affect change politically, socially? Um
2:47:25how's public opinion adjusted through
2:47:27propaganda, through advertising, through
2:47:29marketing, through political
2:47:30communication? How do group dynamics
2:47:32change? Like how is it that on like
2:47:33Reddit or another social media um uh
2:47:37people's attitudes about a given
2:47:38celebrity can change? like um change you
2:47:42know think about any famous star like
2:47:43Taylor Swift or uh Blake Lively um you
2:47:47know or name your own. Think about how
2:47:48public sentiment is continuing to evolve
2:47:51as a result of people who support them
2:47:53or might be critical of them and how
2:47:55group group dynamic can continue to
2:47:57adjust uh in response to new information
2:47:59and new new influencers
2:48:02uh in the literal or or figurative
2:48:04sense. Literally I mean people who call
2:48:05themselves influencers figurative sense
2:48:07in the sense of like there might be some
2:48:08people who engage in a Reddit thread or
2:48:10social media thread who some something
2:48:12about their position or what they're
2:48:14saying can be influential at changing
2:48:16group dynamics um or the uses and
2:48:18effects of information technologies and
2:48:20communication technologies like AI. How
2:48:22is AI changing the way that we
2:48:24communicate the way that we think? It'll
2:48:26be a big topic of conversation as we
2:48:27continue in the course um uh as we think
2:48:30about the effects of information and
2:48:32communication technologies on how we
2:48:34organize um our information, the ways
2:48:37that we produce and receive it. Um so
2:48:40boiled down here's another explanation
2:48:42or another definition of communication
2:48:43science which is fundamentally the study
2:48:45of the causes and effects of the sending
2:48:47and receiving of signals. Why' you say
2:48:49that? Why did you react that way? Uh
2:48:52what have you seen that that caused you
2:48:53to think that? Why do you have that
2:48:54political view? Why are we seeing a
2:48:56decline in reading? Why are we seeing a
2:48:58decline in political engagement? Why are
2:49:00we seeing a decline in news consumption?
2:49:02Why are we seeing a shift more towards
2:49:04um consuming news um from people who are
2:49:08not traditionally uh journalists, but
2:49:11often we tend to gravitate more toward
2:49:13influencers that we feel like we have an
2:49:15individual connection to and are more
2:49:17trusting towards. And even though
2:49:18they're not news experts, even though
2:49:20they're not journalists, we tend to
2:49:22trust the news they're giving us because
2:49:24we already trust their them and feel
2:49:26like they're part of our community. And
2:49:28so how social media affected that
2:49:30change. So again, the study of the
2:49:32causes um of like what signals are we
2:49:34producing and the effects, what signals
2:49:36um are we receiving and how we react to
2:49:38them uh for the signals that we Yeah.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of COMM 100 Lecture 1 – Philosophy of Science by Gabe Jones, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 30,279 words across 4,419 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.