Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Shannon And Weaver's Transmission Model Of Communication
Shannon and Weaver's Transmission Model of Communication was intended to assist in developing a mathematical theory of communication. While this model has contributed to computer science and communication engineering, some commentators believe that the model can be applied to human communication. This idea is ridiculous. The model itself is clearly designed to describe a communication process of machines (technology) not people. The diagram given is too linear to attempt to describe human communication. When computers communicate over the internet using packets, there is a set protocol that computers must adhere to, the same does not exist for human communication. Computers have the OSI model, humans have no such standard for communication. How people can try to apply this model to human communication is beyond me. In human communication there are too many variables, an infinite amount when you think about it, to deal with. Computers can abstract the unwanted information as 'noise', but how can humans do this? What determines if a certain type of information is relevant or considered noise? There exists no standard to describe such information. I think the people who think that the model of communication made by Shannon and Weaver are trying to apply a technological flow chart to human behavior when there lies no significant correlation between the two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of view on the subject of S&W's model, clearly any machine, computer or device designed for communication cannot in any way shape or form mimic the faculties of human behavior. Chandler expressed such ideas and his opinion himself in the essay, and I feel if we think of mass communication as well, we can see how corporations and marketing executives produce the same "general idea" commercials and ads to get us to believe something as if we all think alike. Prime example, just because a "transmission device" (e.g. TV) relays the message for all of us to go jump off a bridge, I doubt many people will do so! The essay itself was quite interesting in regards to this and I hope it will spark discussion as to the real world effects of the varying theories and usages of communciation.
Good post,
Ian
It is understandable and easy to use Shannon and Weaver's model as the basis for human communication. When we are young we are taught by our parents if you ask for something (politely, of course) you will mostly like receive it. It does represent human communication at its most basic level. However, just like Kevin and Ian agreed upon, the Shannon and Weaver model does not represent how humans truly interact with one another.
ReplyDeleteCommunication is more complicated than one person transmitting a message and another person receiving it, which is how machines work. However, we are not machines. We alter the ways in which we communicate depending on who our audience. Language is a tricky medium because language itself is slippery. From Hamlet to Bill Clinton, once we think we grasp meaning (as the receivers), it evades us. How are we suppose to grasp any meaning in this world when language can be constantly manipulated and interpreted in a multitude of ways? I guess when it comes down to it, all human communication is really miscommunication.
I have to agree with what both of you have said. Chandler clearly identifies some of the countless variables that are included in human communication that the model fails to take into account. To try and apply a clearly technical model to something has complicated and difficult to quantify as human communication is not really possible. The way in which people break down and understand what is being presented to them can vary based on so many factors. As Kevin pointed out, there is no protocol for communication that humans must follow, which leaves Shannon and Weaver’s model pretty useless when applied to humans.
ReplyDelete