VidClip 2.2 Shannon and Weaver Model

[@alexanderlyon]

I like the example of distance education for how this model can be applied. Great work and thank you for posting.

[@SohaleZakeri]

Being such an old model, it's interesting to analyze how the Shannon and Weaver model of communication applies to today's digital communication methods. Looking at methods such as internet chat/instant messaging, we still see the key components of the model coming into play. The sender and receiver's roles remain unphased as these two components are essential in any form of communication. The encoder and decoder now become electronic devices such as mobile phones or PCs that have the IM capabilities. Instead of physical/written channels, we are now dealing with an electronically written channel that has an interesting impact on the communication noise. In my opinion, such electronic channels eliminate noise in the traditional sense. The message is delivered to the receiver exactly as it was typed out by the sender, and there is no point at which any noise or interference can distort the message. However, the use of electronic channels introduces a number of other issues that were nonexistent in traditional communication methods. Issues with latency and connectivity can cause a message to be delivered in an untimely manner which can cause an undesired response for the receiver. Such occurrences can make the receiver feel as though they have lost the other individuals interest or have invoked some form of negative emotions.

[@uzairlimbada5939]

Communication is a rather complex on its own but I believe regardless of the day in time, 2014 or 2050, the way we choose to communication will remain consistent. Shannon and Weaver’s model definitely applies to digital communication technologies. I also think that many other factors contribute to the miscommunication with digital technologies today other than noise, the tone of which the message was written, delayed response, the receiver’s emotion in the moment.

[@richard.p3550]

I agree with Andrew fully. I believe that the Shannon-Weaver model applies to all forms of communication, even with digital communication technologies. I think many forms of digital communications technologies can be used to communicate depending on the purpose or the type of information needed to be shared. For example, a man would probably not text his wife to ask her what type of ring she wants if he was buying overseas, but instead use video calling (ex. Skype) or maybe send her a few picture messages of different rings and let her decide.

[@Deztray9]

the way in which we communicate will always remain consistent, no matter what the year is. I find it interesting to see how some variables within this theory have slightly diminished due to the rapid change in technology. It will be interesting to see how the channel will change in the future and what's next to come for means of communicating in say, 50 years from now. I can only imagine what it will look like! When you're communicating today in 2014, typically its via instant messaging or strong phone calls. The noise has sincerely reduced because there's little distortion that barely modifies the message. The only way that noise really comes into play in today's society is how the message is received by the individual.

[@pranavsoneji]

I think this model applies to digital communication technologies. For example, when you send a text message it is encoded into binary and then the decoder turns the binary into a msg that orginally send from the user.

[@chonachannel8713]

We take communication for granted, but it is a very complicated process, more so when it is face-to-face. In certain parts of the world the tone of voice has a lot of meaning in a message. Even a smile can make the words spoken positive or negative in a message.

[@MrDrewHaHa]

I believe Shannon-Weaver's model of communication applies, even when using digital communication technologies. These new ways of communicating can, however, provide us many different channels through which to send messages. In the end, this selection may improve the quality of communication as people can ensure the channel they use has the least potential for noise in a given situation.

[@vk-ph4kh]

Other problems other than noise can include delayed or alerted timing in response, not being able to understand the tone or non verbal cues within the message, and some social platforms even filter out certain content to the individual based on there likes/dislikes, so not being exposed to a variety of opinion or ideas would be another problem from digital communication technologies and interactions.

[@Deztray9]

Agreed! Sometimes I can't tell if osmeone is being sarcastic or serious in a text message and it drives me nuts.

[@jasonst.jacques5176]

I also think that Shannon & Weaver's model can apply to digital communication technologies. For example, I'm sending a message to a friend on facebook. Source: Myself, any communication comes from somewhere. Transmitter: I'm encoding a meaning into my message since my message must have some purpose. For example, I'm trying to convince my friend to come to the movies with me. Channel: Any means used to send the message, so in this case, the internet. Noise: Lack of non-verbal cues. Receiver/Destination: My friend receives the message and attempts to decode my message. Feedback: They respond to my message. If they don't understand, they'll ask me to explain. Even something like posting a picture on Reddit can encompass the Shannon and Weaver model Some problems that can be associated with digital communications are the obvious lack of body language and tone (Depending on the method used), lack of identity( Someone can pose as you, your accounts can be hacked), lack of honesty( Some people simply use the internet to annoy and mislead other people).

[@LeviEIsrael]

Shannon and Weaver's model do indeed apply to digital communication technologies. If, in any way, shape, or form, data (information) is being sent from one source to another, the model directly applies (Skype, Facebook, MSN, Instagram, etc.) I do not think that any of the components play more roles than one another. They are all equally important. In a world where nothing is perfect, if one of these components were to disappear, the model fails. - Windjy E. Jean

[@creativeartnikki810]

It's explained awsome goooooooooooooooooooooooooooood understand in correct way

[@dhavalkumarpatel895]

the model is suitable for face-to-face communication thereby cutting away the vast audience of organizational communication

[@elizabethc421]

I think this model does still apply through virtual communication. Can a form of noise be connectivity issues? Like not having a good WIFI connection which would result in delayed responses? In that case, the transmitter/receiver could misinterpret the delay and think perhaps the other person is not paying attention or was bothered by what they said.

[@jamesrobertson579]

So true, Elizabeth. Isn't it funny how we make up stories to fill in the holes in communication? Its human nature to want to fill in the gaps, and so VERY often we do so with fiction rather than work to ascertain the fact. For example, I'm communicating with you online. there is lag. you infer that I'm bored or distracted or thinking about my answer, when really I'm just waiting fir my internet to catch up. The whole rest of the conversation is now impacted by that assumption. Is that noise? Heck yes!

[@kevinmooney8014]

After re-watching this video and reading the comments there seems to be a lot of focus on the lack of non-verbal cues in digital communications. I would agree fully that this is a huge issue with text based language exchange. I think the lack of these non-verbal cues in digital communication falls under the NOISE descriptions as the original message can be misconstrued. Like Desiree's comment regarding the loss of sarcasm in text messaging. It could be very easy for a person to take the text literally thus missing it's intended meaning.

[@jamesrobertson579]

So funny. I had to watch this video twice and I was still confused about the "noise" aspect. I can appreciate that S&W intended the "noise" to represent barriers or distractions that impact the transmission of the message, yet I have found that its the noise that usually makes the message more accurate. Take, for example, body language, or proxemics, or tone of voice. These are all factors we are aware of in F2F communication. Do they distract from the message or enhance it?

[@hoyili6136]

Of course it applies to digital communication technologies. Here is a link that explain how Shannon and Weaver Model applied into twitter. The Shannon-Weaver Model as it applies to Twitter

[@Christian_Prepper]

*ANOTHER PROBLEM is WHEN THERE is NO SENDER (INFORMATION SOURCE)* 6:03

[@anthonyturchiaro2570]

Body Language could be used as noise in this model. Would anyone disagree?

[@creativeartnikki810]

Nice easliy understand

[@eabutosi]

Yes, I think that this model applies to digital technologies as well. Since we transmit messages via the internet. They also go through the same steps. 1. Send email 2. Encrypted 3. Email server 4. Unencrypted 5. Inbox

[@shinyujin8790]

Can someone give examples of situations using shannon's model?

[@tannerjohnston9544]

What if the reciver has a disability such as a.d.d. or is def. Or better yet the transmitter has a speech impediment.

[@jameszhere07]

The noise part was pretty confusing

[@MTIDTM]

Noise is the environment where the message is delivered, it can be a classroom and the noise are the students who talk and make the understanding of the message harder