Media

One area that I think merits further discussion is mass media and, in particular, the effect that changes in mass media are having on the way we communicate and our lifestyles. The predominant media in the past has been non-interactive broadcast media, like radio and television. These media are mainly passive. They have had a huge impact on society by exposing the population to information that might otherwise be hard to access and also by influencing the culture. The Internet has provided many types of new media and communication. People can now modify and participate in media. Individuals can re-mix music, post-video, write blogs and comment on news articles. Individuals are having greater influence on media and culture. Also, media like text messaging, social networking, alerts and Twitter are leading to a more connected society, but the pace is much faster and the depth and trustworthiness of the content is affected. In contrast to past broadcast media, I think the Internet allows for more individualism and diversity of ideas (but that includes bad ideas too and can spread rumors, gossip etc. as well as useful information).

Intercultural communication

I found the concepts about intercultural cultural communication and the resulting barriers to communication to be most interesting. I was recently at an event where most of the people spoke Spanish. At first I withdrew and spoke only to people I knew. I then started thinking about the concepts we studied and the barriers to intercultural communication. The book mentions that openness, resilience and self-esteem are factors in successfully adapting to a new culture. I tried this at the event and had a much more rewarding afternoon. While there are many barriers to intercultural communication, I think a lot of issues come from a person’s attitude and whether they want to make an effort. When someone is lazy about communicating, they withdraw and fall back to their own culture and habits.

Research methods

I think Experimental Research is most interesting. It gives the researcher the opportunity to design the experiment and variable to be tested. It is a creative process rather than just observation. In some methods like Unobtrusive Methods, it may be very hard to collect enough observed information on the particular variables you want to test. The risk with Experimental Research is that the experiment may not isolate the manipulation of the particular variable to be tested. The design of the experiment may not recreate things as they occur in the real world and may unintentionally introduce new variables.

The following is a potential research question regarding deception:

Do non-verbal communications in facial expression, eye contact and posture provide an accurate indication of deception during interrogation of suspected criminals?

I would want to use the Unobtrusive Method to answer the question. I would consider observing police interrogations without being seen or influencing the interrogation. I would observer non-verbal behavior and then see if there is a correlation to deception based on facts that come to light through other evidence.


______________________________________

Media and communication

Broadcast media, such has television, generally uses one-way communication. With the Internet, new technologies are providing increased interactivity and participation in broadcast media including television. For example, YouTube allows users to post videos and recently announced a feature where a user’s videos can be linked right into blogs and news article. It will be interesting to see what effect interactivity and participation will have on traditional broadcast media. With everyone participating, there is more opportunity for different points of view. On the other hand, this broad participation may undermine trust in the content, similar to what has happened with blogs. This kind of media seems to promote advocacy where the facts may be twisted rather than objective reporting. There are so many choices for sources of information, and it becomes harder and harder to determine what sources to trust. Instead everyone seems to cite whatever “facts” fit their argument the best.

Is medium the message?

I believe that the medium is not as important as its content. The Internet illustrates how different media and formats can lead to very different types of messages and communication. For instance, Twitter limits messages to 140 characters, but provides a quick way to send a message to a group of people (called followers). It allows followers to feel connected to the sender of the message. Even though the content is short and often seems trivial, Twitter is extremely popular because it allows short, convenient messages to be exchanged. This leads to a different kind of content and communications.

Traditionally, I think television is a cool medium in that people want to relax when they watch. It is not interactive and people often want a passive experience. It is already visually rich and full of information, so people don’t need to be as aggressive in communicating (for example, compared to talk radio). However, it seems to be changing. With so many other choices for communication and entertainment (cable, satellite, Internet – email, videos, social networking etc., cell phone/text messaging), it seems that many television channels are becoming more provocative. Reality television is often designed to shock the viewer. Also, talk shows on cable news seem are becoming more provocative like talk radio.

Friendships in cyberspace

I have developed friendships that exist today exclusively online. However, they are generally with people who I knew in person in the past, such as people that I went to school with as a child. I have not really developed friendships online with people I have never met in person. I communicate with online friends through social web sites and email. These relationships are different than face to face relationships, because there is more control over the information and experiences that are shared and there is more control about when I participate in communication. We share photos and exchange messages about our families, but it is hard to get a sense of what the other person is really feeling and how they are doing. The nonverbal cues such as tone, facial expression and appearance are missing. However, it is more convenient. I can write an email or post information when I want to and can control what information I share more easily than in face to face relationships. I have not really developed online friendships with people I have never met in person. I think this is, in part, because there is a lack of trust about who the person really is, and I think it is impossible to develop a personal bond online than in face to face relationships.

Online communication

Online communication has had a major impact on the way teenagers communicate, form relationships and break up. I have two nieces that are teenagers and they are constantly either online, sending text messages or talking on the cell phone. During family events, they will be checking in on their friends and gossiping. They will even talk on the cell phone about what message to send to someone else online. This type of communication was not widely used when I was a teenager.

They seem to have far more casual friends. They share pictures, links, music and other online experiences with their friends. However, they seem detached in person and are always tethered to their online activity.

This takes away a lot from a real friendship. A new friend is only a mouse click away. The anonymity also makes them more bold. It is easier to break the ice online than to approach someone at a crowded dance, football game or other school activity for the first time (which was the main way of socializing when I was in high school).

The online communication also seems to breaking friendships easier. When something goes bad, it may be posted in a very public way that cannot be undone. In my younger niece’s junior high class, some people break up online or ridicule people on their Facebook page. Teasing and bullying is no longer limited to a small group. Everyone in the school learns about it, and it even becomes a form of entertainment and way to spread gossip.

Patterns

I think that submissive symmetry would be the most difficult to change, even though I do not think it is the most damaging pattern. When people are submissive by nature, it is often difficult to get them to change. Their personality may not lend itself to assertiveness. I think it is easier to teach assertive people to use some self control, although it may be frustrating for them. It seems pretty common in our society to teach self-control, such as not interrupting others, taking turns, and sharing, but I think it is very hard to teach passive people to become more dominant. Also, it is probably hard to get people to acknowledge that there is a problem (as opposed to an abusive relationship where one person is dominant and the other is submissive).

I think the most damaging to a relationship would be competitive symmetry, at least from a day to day perspective. There would be constant conflict and competition. This would likely lead to arguments and anger. In the long run, I think rigid complementary might be worse, such as in abusive relationships where the husband physically and mentally dominates the wife. I think these rigid complementary relationships would be most damaging to self-esteem. The submissive partner always gives in and does not have a role in the relationship to provide self-esteem. I think this is worse for a submissive stay at home parent who may judge her self worth based on the family and relationship. A submissive person who works may build self-esteem outside the house and may be willing to play a secondary role at home.

Filters and Duck's theory

In the past, I have used a number of filters to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners.

I have used sociologic and incidental cues, both when considering people initially as well as determining whether to continue a relationship. I would typically date someone from the same school or social circle. If someone was visiting or lived in another city, I would be less likely to consider them. In one newer relationship, when the other person moved, it was not worth continuing a long distance relationship.

Preinteration cues can also be important. If someone dresses in a manner that shows no care at all or that identifies them with a group that I do not respect, I am less likely to consider them. For example, the manner someone dresses may make them come across as sloppy or irresponsible. On the other hand, if someone dresses very fancy and drives a showy car, they may come across as arrogant or self-centered.

Interaction cues are very important. I may filter people out if they don’t seem engaged or interested, seem arrogant or are not considerate of others. Examples are if someone puts others down to make themselves look better, or doesn’t seem interested in what I say. Even something as simple as aggressive driving may tend to show that someone is inconsiderate of others. However, it is the overall set of interactions rather than a single behavior that create that impression.

Of course, cognitive cues are most important, if someone is still being considered. However, sometimes people will try to seem interested in the same things or seem to share common values, but they are just trying to make you like them. I find that the cognitive cues need to be judged over a period of time.

I do think Duck’s theory makes sense to a degree, although I don’t think there are strict filters at each stage of a relationship. Every person is different as is every relationship. There is no room for strict filters, the filters overlap, change, develop over time and disappear. I may not initially be interested based on early cues, but through familiarity, I may find the person to be interesting. In one case, I thought someone was arrogant, because of the way he dressed and the fancy sports car he drove. However, I learned later that it was more out of insecurity than arrogance and the person was very nice. Other times, I have gotten into a relationship and found strong common interests (cognitive cues), but did not continue the relationship because of changes in sociological and incidental cues. For instance, in one case, I ended a relationship with a very nice person when they moved away, but I did not feel strongly enough to try a long distance relationship.

Some cultural diffrences are not acceptable

When trying to communicate across cultures, being open, showing mutual respect and adapting to the host culture can help to remove obstacles to communication. However, people tend to believe that their own culture is correct, which can lead to ethnocentric pride.

There are many different cultures. For example, Americans focus on individualism and freedom and many Asian cultures value consensus and community. Some cultural differences challenge our basic sense of right and wrong and it is impossible to accept and adapt to these cultural differences. Many cultural differences seem designed to control and diminish others. For example, some cultures oppress women and limit their role in society. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive cars and are not allowed to testify in court in most cases.

We can try to adapt, accept and respect these differences to make communication easier, but should we? Communication has other purposes as well, including advocacy and pushing for change. At some point, however, we need to fight for basic principles, like human rights, that we believe are correct even if it results in culture clash.

Rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises

I do not believe in the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises, but do agree that aspects of them are important in American culture.

The rationality premise is based on the idea that most people can use logic to find the truth. However, I think that there are big differences in people’s analytical abilities. Many people do not make good decisions. Also, there is no single truth. People have different perspectives and different decisions are appropriate for different people. However, I do think that the American culture is built on the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to provide for themselves. For example, even if democracy can lead to poor decisions the ideas that individual Americans choose the government and that the government works for the people are important in American culture.

The perfectibility premise is based on the idea that people are born in sin, but can overcome it through hard work and self-control. I do not believe that people are born in sin or that asserting control over basic human nature is necessary to achieve good. However, I do believe that acceptable cultural and moral behavior needs to be learned. Also, hard work and individual achievement are big parts of American culture. Individuals are expected to work hard and take advantage of the opportunity and freedom provided in America. However, the outcomes will vary based on the path people choose.

The mutability premise is that humans can be improved through their environment. I think this is generally true. This belief is part of the reason for free public education or programs for criminals. It may not always work, but is hard to argue with the idea that education can help people improve in general.

Are we creatures of our culture?

I believe that we are “creatures of our culture” only in part and that individual traits and personality are also very important in determining who we are and how we communicate. The definition in the reading by Donald Klopf is that culture is “that part of the environment made by humans.” Culture greatly impacts our assumptions about normal behavior and communication styles. However, I think it is a matter of degree. As quoted from Harry Hoijer in the reading “Intercultural communication, however wide the differences between cultures may be, is not impossible. It is simply more or less difficult.”
The importance of individual traits should not be overlooked. One of my relatives has three adopted children, who are now adults. They were all adopted at childbirth and were raised in the same environment in the same culture. However, they are all have very different personalities and communication styles. One of the children connects emotionally with others; one of them is very logical and reserved; and one of them is very spiritual. Sometimes basic personality differences are just as big a barrier to communication as cultural differences.
In order to overcome the limits of our cutures we need to realize that there are differences and not to assume that things are the same, keep an open mind and ask lots of questions. It is extremely helpful to develop a close friendship with someone in diffrent culture culture. Culture is less of a barrier in communication at a personal level when the other person already understands that you are coming from a different perspective. That person can be a guide and answer questions that may be difficult to ask others. Having a good relationships with a person from a diffrent culture allows to check your assumptions about things as you experience them and also ask questions later to confirm your understanding.

Time orientation

I have noticed that people with time orientation may become frustrated with one another and that this may interfere with their ability to communicate with one another effectively.
I fall into the category of future, pragmatic-action. I am concerned about planning for my kid’s education and my retirement. Every day I plan my kids’ meals, activities and schedules. I want to make sure they get everything they need. One of my relatives has a present orientation. She can never seem to plan ahead and she seems more comfortable being busy in the present and ignoring the future. Even before she had kids, she thought little about the future or the consequences of her actions. When she recently read an article about how much it takes to retire, she decided not to even try saving more. She said that she would never be able to save that much, so why try.
While my relative is a warm and caring person, I interpret what she says based on my underlying feeling that she is irresponsible and doesn’t think ahead. I think she interprets what I say with an underlying feeling that I am judgmental and don’t enjoy life enough. Generally, we get along, but we avoid talking about responsibility and planning. If we do talk about these things, it often leads to frustration or a misunderstanding.

Nonverbal communication and diffrent cultures

I have noticed that nonverbal behavior may mean different things in different cultures. I grew up in Poland and came to the United States as an adult. I noticed that Americans have more physical space around them when they talk. In Poland, this might be considered rude by some people. Usually people during conversations touch each other, such as patting an arm. I have not seen this in an American culture.
Also, Europeans tend to use kissing on the cheek as a greeting, but many Americans seem uncomfortable with this custom. On the other hand, hugging is a common greeting for some Americans. This is not as common among Europeans. Usually, these differences in customs do not lead to misunderstandings, although some people may feel a little uncomfortable. However, my friend travels for business and has told about some misunderstandings he has seen in other countries. On one trip to Korea, an American business man rested the side of his shoe against the table during a break in the meeting. The bottom of his shoe was facing some of the Koreans. Apparently, this was considered very disrespectful and the Koreans refused to continue the meeting with that person in the room.

As I have traveled around the United States, I have noticed that the large cities on the coast (like San Francisco) tend to be more open to nonverbal behavior from other cultures. I assume this is because there is more immigration in these areas and a greater mix of cultures.

Nonverbal messages are often misinterpreted

I have noticed that nonverbal communications are often open to misinterpretation, particularly in the context of dating and personal relationships. In the past, when I was first dating someone new, I would pay close attention to nonverbal communications to get some feedback. In one example, some friends tried to introduce me to someone new at a social event. We started talking and I sat down on a couch. Instead of sitting next to me, he sat in a chair next to the couch. I interpreted that as a sign that he was not interested. However, I was wrong. He was very interested but did not want to be imposing as I learned later. He later became my husband.

People can improve the accuracy of interpreting nonverbal communications by looking for confirmations of the message and avoiding putting too much weight on an isolated action. For example, when I met my future husband, he seemed interested in our conversation and leaned towards me when he talked. He looked directly into my eyes and did not get distracted by other people around us. Even though he did not sit next to me, these other actions helped overcome my initial impression that he was not interested. I have also found that verbal comments can be used to help confirm a message. It many contexts, such as dating, it may be difficult to ask someone directly what they mean. However, the other person’s reaction to verbal comments related to the nonverbal action can help confirm the interpretation.

Memory

The reading discusses factors affecting memory. The reading states that stress is one of the biggest impediments to memory and may make us unlikely to remember events accurately. In my own experience, I have noticed that stress can actually make a memory more vivid and longer lasting, but also inaccurate. For example, a few years ago I had to take one of my family members to the emergency room. We did not know how serious the problem was and thought it could be life threatening. Some of my most vivid memories are of that day. However, when I returned to the hospital later and walked by the emergency room, it looked very differently than I remembered it. Everything seemed smaller. My memory had magnified the size of the room (and probably the number of people waiting in it), the distance from the parking lot and the length of the hallways.

The reading also suggests that, when studying for a test, you should study only a single subject area to avoid retroactive inhibition. The reading also suggests visualization and other mnemonic devices to aid memory. I have used these techniques to study for tests and they have worked well for a test the next day. After a test I had forgotten everything. I did not create vivid or long term memories like I did with the emergency room. I have found that revisiting the material over a longer period of time gives me a longer term memory. Things that I really learn, I have heard over and over or have used many times. If I study in a relaxed environment and reinforce the materials over a longer period of time, I also tend to be accurate and avoid retroactive inhibition even though other events have occurred in between. On the other hand, if I learn material quickly in a stressed environment before a mid-term, it is difficult for me to accurately recall the information for the final exam without studying all over again.

Judgments in perceiving others

I do not think it is possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them. We base our perception on past experiences. In order to make sense of the world around us, we compare new perceptions to those we have had in the past.
We cannot process all new information every time we see a new person and need shot cuts to make sense of what is happening around us. We often categorize and judge people (consciously or unconsciously) based on their physical appearance, how they dress, how they speak, what they choose to speak about and how they respond when we speak to them.
For example, when I see someone every day, I do not notice gradual changes. Whenever I see the person, I do not re-evaluate my perception – they are the same person in my mind. However, when someone else sees the same person after a long period of time, their physical behavior or appearance my no longer match their prior perception and the person has to relabeled.
We have to realize that we use short cuts and remind ourselves to engage in mindful processing as well. We need to remind ourselves to re-evaluate and look for areas where we may have jumped to a conclusion or unfairly judged others.
I sometimes rely on my judgments and overlook changes. It happens during discussions with my husband. He may be raising the topic to make a different point than he has made in the past. I walk away from the conversation thinking I heard something similar to what we have discussed before, but miss the new point he is making. When I check my perceptions by making comments and asking questions, I find myself less likely to do this.

Gender and communication

I do agree that men and women tend to communicate differently.
There is a difference in focus in discussing personal matters. If I have a problem or an emotional concern, my husband tries to find a solution. He is very task and goal oriented. Once he has analyzed the problem and recommended a solution, he becomes disengaged. He wants to fix the problem, although I am often just looking for emotional support. When I discuss the same issues with my sister, she usually shares her experiences in dealing with similar problems and lets me know that she understands how I feel. She connects with me and validates my feelings. Both my husband and my sister provide support, but in very different ways.
I also notice that women tend to talk more about family and relationship issues, and men tend to talk more about events, like sports and politics. In mixed groups, men tend to dominate the conversations.
We recently had a group of friends visit from Poland. When I spoke to the women, they were all very talkative and shared information about how everyone was doing (focusing on family and relationships). When the men and women spoke together, the women tended to pause, often just nodding and smiling. The men became very engaged in discussions of current politics. They took sides on the issues and sometimes interrupted on another. The women contributed comments that helped guide the conversation, but did not take the lead in the conversation.
These differences seem to be most apparent in personal, family and social settings. I have not noticed these differences as much in educational or work settings. This makes me think that many of these differences result from upbringing and social influences, although biological tendencies likely play a role as well.

Definition of communication (week 3, post #3)

Communication is a complex process, and it is difficult to define it. A reasonable definition of communication would need to cover at least the situation where a person intends to convey information and a person receives information as a result (whether or not is intended). There are also many types of communication (or miscommunication) where a person attempts to convey information, but it is not received or has no impact. For example, advertising attempts to stimulate a response on the part of the audience, but in many cases it seems unclear if the messages are even received. Nonetheless, this could be an important form of communication even if only a small percentage of the audience reacts to the stimulus. There are also many situations where a person derives information or reacts to a stimulus even when nothing was intended to be communicated. For example, there are many situations where a person’s appearance conveys a message to others that was not intended (for example, that the person is sloppy or lazy).

Each of the models in Chapter 2 is useful in describing some aspects of communication. The psychological model seems the most robust, since the messages that are meant to be sent and the information that is received are the result of mental processes. In particular, this model seems more appropriate for predicting responses to advertising and mass media. The psychological model is criticized for focusing on the individual and ignoring cultural context. However, culture impacts a person’s psychology, so cultural aspects could be incorporated into the model to some extent. Extending the psychological model to incorporate cultural aspects from the social constructionist model seems to be a good direction for developing a more complex model of communication.

The pragmatic perspective

The pragmatic perspective looks at patterns of interaction between people. People communicate by making individual “moves” like a game.
Communication clearly includes aspects that are like a game and that result in patterns of interaction. In communication, like a game, every move generates verbal or nonverbal responses. For example, physical appearance, facial expressions or gestures can trigger thoughts that lead to specific verbal responses.
However, this model only explains some aspects of communications. The pragmatic approach focuses on the moves and structure of the game itself. Other aspects are ignored, such as the personality of the people playing the game. Communication is also influenced by outside factors and is much more complex than a game based only on “moves” between participants. Psychological and cultural factors also play a major role. The emotional and verbal responses that are triggered by a “move” depend on the psychological profile of the participants and the cultural rules. For example, in the Polish culture, people kiss each other during greetings. It is considered a friendly gesture. In American culture, kissing may trigger a different, possibly negative, response. The pattern of behavior is difficult to understand without knowing why people react the way they do and the social and cultural context in which they are reacting. In communication the players and rules are constantly changing and it is hard to really understand what game is being played. Also, many aspects of communication, like mass communication and advertising, seem more difficult to model as a game based on individual “moves” and are more easily understood in terms of the psychological and cultural factors that influence the reaction of the audience.

Social constructionist perspective (post #4)

From the social constructionist perspective, we “build worlds” by creating a collective representation of reality. Rather than experiencing the world directly, our perception is shaped by our society and culture. Our culture determines what things are significant and how we process and respond to them.

For example, the culture in the United States often focuses on the individual rather than the community as a whole. Our culture makes individual success and individual beauty significant. This focus has had both positive and negative effects on our society. On the one hand, this focus has led to materialism and unrealistic standards of beauty and success. Many people may feel lonely and unhappy, because they do not feel that they meet these standards individually. On the other hand, there is an emphasis on equal opportunity and individual freedom that permits people to pursue the “American dream”. This has led to greater individual freedom and opportunities.

In some cultures, the community is emphasized over the individual. The culture in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, emphasizes religious and social rules over the individual. For example, the way that women behave and dress and the roles that they are permitted to play in society are restricted in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the United States. However, there is a different social construction and view of reality. People in those cultures may feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. The culture has made this more significant than individual freedom.

Bacon's perceptual bias analysis

Francis Bacon discussed four categories of distortion in human communication: Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, Idols of the Market Place and Idols of the Theatre. I grew up in Poland under communism and saw many examples of these idols in public communication.

“Idols of the Tribe” are errors based on human tendencies generally. One of these tendencies is to believe that there is something greater than oneself. For example, a child tends to believe that her parents never make mistakes. In Poland, the government tried to convey a sense that the communist system was greater than the individual and that the government was always right. Triumphs were celebrated (and in some cases manufactured) and mistakes were never admitted.

“Idols of the Cave” are errors based on an individuals own tendencies and experiences. In Poland, an individual’s views of communism often depended upon whether they were raised by parents who were official communist party members, whether they went to certain schools and whether their families attended church.

“Idols of the Market Place” are errors from imprecise language. The use of distorted language like “comradeship” and “equality”were used to mask a system that was quite the opposite.

“Idols of the Theatre” are tendencies based on systems and ideas that have been accepted uncritically. Communism was propped up by “Idols of the Theatre”. Communism was taught in the school system without question or criticism. Military parades and other propaganda events were used to show the strength of the state. When protests and economic shortages unmasked the truth, the illusion quickly disappeared and the system collapsed.

Does an orator have to be morally good?

I disagree with the Greeks’ belief that an orator has to be morally good to be a good public speaker. A message may be bolstered by its truth and goodness, but history is full of examples of great orators who used their powers of persuasion for evil purposes. Adolf Hitler is a primary example of someone who was very effective at public communication, but morally corrupt. He was able to use rhetoric, symbolism and propaganda to rally an entire nation to an evil purpose. His ability to persuade so many people to follow his cause is perhaps more impressive given that the cause was based on principles that are not true or morally good. Rather, he had to overcome truth and morality in persuading others to follow him. If a message is based on truth and morality, it should be easier to communicate and require less skill as an orator. A message based on falsehoods and immorality, on the other hand, may require greater skills of persuasion, and even manipulation, in order to convince others that it should be followed. Based on an example of Hitler and his ability to persuade I think an orator should be morally good to send the right message to the society.

Discussion # 1 The speaker I admire

While primarily an entertainer, I admire Dr. Phil McGraw’s public communication skills. He is able to engage with his guests while also effectively communicating with his audience. He is able to guide the discussion to demonstrate his points and convey his message. His power of persuasion comes from a combination of ethos and logos. His own personal character gives him credibility. He combines this credibility with basic, common sense logic to provide a compelling message. While he is often sympathetic, he does not primarily appeal to the emotions of those with whom he is trying to communicate (although he may appeal to his audience’s emotions to keep them watching). He is willing to challenge his guests to “get real” and take ownership of their own self-destructive behavior, rather than appealing to their emotional desires.

My own ability to persuade comes primarily from logic and reasoning, and fits well within Aristotle’s classification of logos. However, my focus on logic can also be a weakness at times. I may feel that my position is logically correct, so it should be obvious to my audience. I may overlook the emotional response of those I am trying to persuade.

Introduction

Hello Everyone,
I am looking forward to meeting all Comm 105 students and having good conversations online.
I major in psychology. I am a mom of two boys who keep me very busy. I love being a mom and I spend a lot of time in parks and playgrounds. I am taking Comm 105 to complete SJSU Studies requirement.