OeeeeOOOOooooEEEAAAAEEEAAAOOOOeeeeeeAAA.

That familiar tune plays again on television as the hit reaity show Survivor returns for a 17th season, this time, in Gabon, Kenya. Once again 18 castaways are grouped into tribes, knowing that in order to attain personal glory at the end, they first need to cooperate in order to achieve tribal immunity (losing tribe had to vote a member to leave the game) during inter-tribal challenges and avoid tribal council (where voting takes place). Also, their initial teamwork was demanded, literally, for survival sake as Gabon is a land of beasts that is almost untouched by humans.
Within the tribes, members demonstrate all the basic characteristics of being part of a group. There was casual interaction as everyone had begun as strangers to one another and needed to get to know their "team-mates". They're also interdependent for basic survival tasks i.e catching fish for food, collecting water, starting fires. Tribe members also have a certain degree of shared behavourial standards. For example, it is an unsaid rule that everyone must help in the day-to-day activities in camp. Lastly, each tribe has an obvious collective identity, albeit a rather superficial one, as they don their respective tribe's colours on their bandanas.

Interestingly enough, the oldest members of each of the two tribes were made the "leaders" of the tribe. In the second episode, members of tribe Fang came to an iffy collective agreement that their tribe did not need a real leader, largely because they weren't satisfied with some of Gillian's (oldest member of tribe fang) actions and the fact that nobody wanted to step up to assume that position of power since it would inadvertently make that individual look "strong" and therefore risk becoming a target. In other words, tribe Fang decided that they would count on their group synergy to pull them through.

Contestants have to constantly manage group dynamics and ensure that they balance their effort based on both individual and group needs. Should they choose to solely focus their energy on individual needs then they would be seen as selfish and voted off right away but at the same time they could not afford to just be the ultimate team player and not watch their backs because backstabbing was the name of the game. It is a classic case of group socialisation as contestants seeked to influence the group to act in certain ways or make certain decisions that would most benefit them in terms of their power and level of membership within the tribe.

Finally, the occurance of groupthink takes place repeatedly. Within a tribe, cliques or alliances are formed and the one with the most members is the group within the group that is in "power". Most of the time, the relatively low-profile members of a tribe go along with the decision of the dominant alliance on who to vote off even though they do not understand the logic behind it, for fear that their disobedience would put their heads on the chopping block instead.

Which role do you think would be the best strategy in this game of complex group dynamics? The manipulative backstabber, the quiet worker or maybe the outspoken leader? Ever thought of how you would play the game should you be a contestant on Survivor?

Meeting New People: Is It Fun, Or A Chore?

When you meet someone for the first time, how do you know what to say? Or how to present yourself? Surely you would act differently with different people, but if you did not have much to go by, how would you decide to behave in front of the person? Is all this instinctive or learned? Whatever the case, there is no doubting that interpersonal communication is a huge element of our lives.

A few weeks ago, I met someone who was visiting Singapore for the first time. He was an American and had actually never been out of the States prior to his trip here. Based on cultural and sociological information, I knew that I definitely had to cut the "Singlish" terms out of my vocabulary or he was probably not going to understand a word I said. Since it was going to be our first meeting, I could not gather any psychological information, like what his demeanour was. Therefore, not knowing what he was like exactly, I expected my interpersonal communication with him would be limited to very awkward, superficial conversation, at least initially.

During our first engagement, I realised within the first one minute that he was not that different at all. In fact, his personality and sense of humour were very much similar to most of my other friends. Therefore, based on stimulus generalisation, I found conversing with him rather effortless. The only thing that really got him confused was when I mentioned "football". "Oh! You mean soccer?" He clarified. Over time, through dyadic primacy, I found out that he was a little more emotionally sensitive than some of my other buddies, and so, by stimulus discrimination, I avoided teasing him too much. Overall, it was refreshing to meet someone from a different land and learn that they aren't so different after all.

As I continue on life's journey and meet new people from all walks of life, the importance of effective interpersonal communication has become more evident to me. I have come to understand how it can be so powerful in persuasion, forming positive first impressions, and of course in building relationships with people. Mastering effective interpersonal communication can bring many benefits and in today's ever-growing population, with people becoming increasingly judgmental on looks and personality, has possibly become a necessity. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming social outcasts. What do you think?

Is killing so easily warranted?

It is no secret that in the Middle East, media, in every form, is controlled. Their society is awfully conservative and will not tolerate anything that might be even remotely suggestive, let alone insurgent. Almost anything that deviates from the conservative is viewed as "unholy". The above article from The Straits Times today reports on a Saudi Cleric who has called for the deaths of a few owners of certain Television Networks deemed to have broadcasted "immoral" material during the holy month of Ramadan. Apparently, it involved Television programmes featuring scantily-dressed women. In the cleric's eyes, these images have non-verbally communicated "evil" to the masses.

The cleric has probably taken such a strong view on this issue because of his social construct that has shaped his belief system and perceptions. In the West, such mindsets would be unheard of. This can be accredited to the vast Cultural differences that affect interpretation of certain stimuli. The senior Saudi Cleric has developed a mental framework over time which encompasses certain rules that probably coincide with the social rules and norms of his society. The images of women in skimpy outfits His rather extreme proposal to kill the owners might also be explained by his vocation as a cleric. He is probably a very religious individual who has almost zero tolerance for "evil" behaviour.

I don't mean any disrespect but I cannot help but feel appalled at the cleric's comments. I've always been aware of the nature of societies in the Middle East but to suggest lawfully killing someone over this matter is just absurd, dare I even say barbaric, to me. Granted, I may have social constructs and mindsets as well because of my environment and past experiences, but what happened to the value of human life? Is it that simple to be stripped of your right to live? The television programmes did not hurt anyone physically, and at the very most have caused severe disgust among some people. From whatever angle you look at it, one must ask, does it warrant a death sentence? The culture in the Saudi Kingdom's society seems to be much like the ancient Roman or Greek civilizations where human life had no sanctity and was expendable unless maybe you were of royal heritage.

Yes, we must respect others' way of life and culture. However, I could not help but feel disconcerted when reading this article.

Obama's Rhetorical Masterpiece

On the epic night of 28th August 2008, Barack Obama made history as he officially accepted the Democratic presidential nomination. He now became the first ever African-American presidential nominee of a major US political party.



His acceptance speech was a rhetorical masterpiece. It was delivered with loads of charisma and heartfelt emotion. I am not even American but i must admit that i was a little moves when i listened to it. It encompassed the five major constituents of a rhetoric (Logos, Lexis, Kairos, Audience and Decorum).



For the Logos aspect, Obama made if clear once again to the people what exactly he stood for and the policies that he intended to make should he become president. He vowed to cut taxes for almost all working-class families, emphasized the need for investment in alternate forms of energy and job creation, and reiterated his desire to "end the failed politics of Bush". In terms of the Lexis, he delivered his address in a most confident, loud and inspiring tone of voice that was filled with conviction, much like the way a medieval king would rally the front lines of his army just before entering into battle.



As for the Kairos, the date on which Obama gave his acceptance speech was decided in tribute to one of the greatest individuals in US history. The night coincided with the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Also, the venue was a dramatic setting. It was a filled sports stadium with bright camera flashes sparkling like stars among the 84,000-strong crowd in an enormous semicircle.



For the Audience part, the crowd needed someone to feed their desire for change. Obama duly composed his speech to assure the crowd that his top goal was to achieve change for the better. His empathetic and motivational words moved many sections of the audience to tears. Finally, the Decorum was rather perfect as his serious tone appropriately matched the importance of the day. His precise vocabulary and preacher-like style of delivery tied in perfectly with the landmark occasion and yearning audience.

Video of Obama's Speech