Communication is an exclusively human process. According to its psychological components, structure and functions, it is undoubtedly consubstantial to the human being. However, in the different bibliographic sources there are constantly exposed points of view and theoretical conceptions that show confusion between this process and the transmission of information.
In this regard, and as confirmation of the previous idea, we have that in Wikipedia communication is considered as "(...) the process by which information can be transmitted from one entity to another". Later on, it is expressed that "(...) Communication processes are interactions mediated by signs between at least two agents that share the same repertoire of signs and have common semiotic rules". In this
Last but not least, there is full agreement.
Thus, G. Maletzke is a victim of the above-mentioned confusion in re-dimensioning the definition of communication. It attributes to mass communication issues inherent to the information transmission process and in this sense defines mass communication as the "(...) form of communication by which public messages are transmitted through technical means of dissemination and the unidirectional and unilateral form of this type of communication
means that there cannot be a change of roles (sender-receiver) as in other types of communication" . In this definition it is difficult, and we could say impossible, to stop recognize the unidirectional and unilateral nature of this type of communication, according to the
Maletzke explains. This unidirectional and unilateral character alters the interactive essence of communicative process, that is, the communicative process ceases to be such if it does not guarantee interaction
social, exchanges, interinfluences, information transmission, feedback.
On the other hand, Manuel Martín Serrano (2005) states that "(...) communication, because it is a
form of interaction, involves the participation of at least two actors (...)" the above presupposes that interaction is a subordinate process and communication is a process
subordinate. This is an aspect with which it does not coincide, since social interaction is a necessary but not sufficient quality in every process or communicative act, which in fact
reverses the essence of both terms: what was considered by Manuel Martín as subordinate acquires the character of subordinate and vice versa.
In this sense, it is considered that not always when there is social interaction one is in the presence of a communicative process, however, whenever there is a communicative process, one is in the presence of social interaction. Such is the case of formal interactions between individuals
manipulators: rites, hobbies, formalities In these there is social interaction, however it cannot be assured with 100% certainty that they constitute a communicative act, because
They may lack sympathy, empathy, honesty, sincerity, authenticity, etc.
In these interactions, manipulative individuals perceive others as objects. To them are only interested in using those around them as long as they respond to their interests or
allow to achieve some objective. When others cease to be of interest to him he ignores them. It is Thus it fulfills the proverb that says "The satisfied one turns his back on the source". In these scenarios, individuals may become confused into believing they are in the presence of a communicative act,
when what has been achieved most is to transmit some information among an amalgam of messages that may or may not have been meaningful to any of the parties involved.
Respuestas
Respuesta:
No viene ninguna activudad... Asiq ue supongo que es una traducción....
Dice algo así...
Explicación paso a paso:
La comunicación es un proceso exclusivamente humano. De acuerdo a sus componentes psicológicos, estructura y funciones, es indudablemente consustancial al ser humano. Sin embargo, en las distintas fuentes bibliográficas se encuentran constantemente expuestos puntos de vista y concepciones teóricas que muestran confusión entre este proceso y la transmisión de información.
Al respecto, y como confirmación de la idea anterior, tenemos que en Wikipedia se considera la comunicación como "(...) el proceso por el cual se puede transmitir información de una entidad a otra". Posteriormente se expresa que "(...) Los procesos de comunicación son interacciones mediadas por signos entre al menos dos agentes que comparten un mismo repertorio de signos y tienen reglas semióticas comunes". En esto
Por último, pero no menos importante, existe un acuerdo total.
Así, G. Maletzke es víctima de la confusión antes mencionada al redimensionar la definición de comunicación. Atribuye a las cuestiones de comunicación de masas inherentes al proceso de transmisión de información y en este sentido define la comunicación de masas como la. Este carácter unidireccional y unilateral altera la esencia interactiva del proceso comunicativo, es decir, el proceso comunicativo deja de serlo si no garantiza la interacción.
social, intercambios, interinfluencias, transmisión de información, retroalimentación.
Por otro lado, Manuel Martín Serrano (2005) afirma que "(...) comunicación, por ser un
forma de interacción, implica la participación de al menos dos actores (...) "
Pueden carecer de simpatía, empatía, honestidad, sinceridad, autenticidad, etc.
En estas interacciones, los individuos manipuladores perciben a los demás como objetos. A ellos solo les interesa utilizar a los que les rodean siempre que respondan a sus intereses o
Permitir alcanzar algún objetivo. Cuando otros dejan de interesarle, los ignora. Es así se cumple el refrán que dice "El satisfecho da la espalda a la fuente". En estos escenarios, los individuos pueden confundirse al creer que están en presencia de un acto comunicativo.