We all view video
gaming differently. Some people think that it is just for fun or a stress
reliever. While others view it as a competition to see who can out do the other
person. In the interview CH interviews B on his views of video gaming. CH
thinks that video gaming is “software”, while B does not think really anything
about it other than games. This is his profession. He is a gamer. He thinks
that it is just a game and nothing really to it. Everyone has their own opinion
of what gaming is. For CH and B, they have their differences about what they
thing of the term “gaming”. CH is acting as the teacher and B is acting as a
student when they are both at the same level. There are many codes (examples)
that the interview uses. The biggest question and focus that is posed
throughout this entire interview is what
language patterns shows about how people do not listen (disagree) with one
another? CH has her own view about what gaming is and B has his own view.
The different parts of the paper that will help to conclude what I have found
are as follows, disagree, and agree, vague, hesitation and assertive. These
aspects will be discussed throughout the rest of the paper.
Disagree
The interview starts out a casual interview. CH starts
off the interview posing the question and statement, “I wanted to talk a
little, you talk about yourself as a hardware expert, you said software novice,
although I bullied you into being competent, what software do you know how to
use?” CH is starting to form her own conclusions right off the bat. She just goes
right into it. She does not leave any room for basic conversation. CH goes on
to say “so you know lots of software”. Then B replies with “yeah, but it's just
games (laughing)”. This set of conversation is where the audience can see the
friction start to form. This is where CH and B start to have their differences
in opinion. You can really see here where CH and b are not listening to each
other. This is what starts off the disagreeing. B is not agreeing with what CH
has to say. He already has his on conclusions about what gamming is before the
interview even started. He is not changing what is in his mind about games. He has
what he knows and is not going outside the box with any judgments. CH is trying
to get B to see more than what B has come to the conclusion about gamming. She
wants him to see more what gaming is and that it can be more than just games.
Agree
There is a point
for a brief concept in the interview that CH and B agree. CH starts off with, “so
it's interesting, games aren't really considered software are they?” B comes
back with “they are”. That is the only
thing that the two of them agree on. It is nice to see that when the two of
them have such differences in opinion. He agrees briefly with CH that games
could be considered software. Then B reacts and goes back to his judgment about
how games are games and not software.
Vague
B is sometimes
not giving all the answers to Ch. He is avoiding giving CH the real answer or
minimizing the real answer. CH starts off with, “ I wanted to talk a little,
you talk about your self as a hardware
expert, you said software novice, although I bullied you into being competent,
what software do you know how to use?” B responds with, “You know, what
everyone else knows how to use, word, frontpage, powerpoint, excell,
spreadsheet things.” Then B responds with, “Well, just in learning how
to learn a program, I just see buttons, tool tips and ah I make a go
at it, the scissors mean I can cut in here, and I can just cut and drag and
drop - these a simple things everyone knows, I guess the only reason I can pick
up learning a program is that I just have that knack, no other way to explain
it.” The words that are underlined are the pined out words that will make what
B says vague. B is assuming that everyone knows what he is talking about. When
really most people do not know a lot about gamming if they have not experienced
it first-hand or introduced to it. B is trying to make gamming sound like any
other regular thing that most people would do on a regular basis. He is trying
not to make a big deal about gamming and gamming deals with.
Hesitation
B sometimes is
having a hard time finding ways about how to respond to CH interview questions.
For example, CH starts off with, “so what kind of crossover did you find
between learning the games and learning the software everyone needs to
know? Obviously it wasn't real hard for
you to learn, frontpage.” B responds with, “I think it's because I had ah,
background exposure”. B is trying to
think about how to respond to CH. He is insure of the wording choices that he
should be responding to CH. It feels like he does not want to answer the wrong
word to CH. B wants to make it sound professionally. He want to see if it is up
to the standards to CH. Or B is put on the spot and does not want to sound like
he has no idea what he is talking about. B is not responding in complete
thoughts to CH.
Assertive
In the interview
CH is pressing answers for B to respond to.
B answers with, I think it's because I had ah,
background exposure.” CH responds with, “what background?” B respomds
with, “Well, just in learning how to learn a program, I just see buttons, tool
tips and ah I make a go at it, the scissors mean I can cut in here, and I can
just cut and drag and drop - these a simple things everyone knows, I guess the
only reason I can pick up learning a program is that I just have that knack, no
other way to explain it.” CH responds with another literacy question, “that's
literacy - you have the basic tools, the right basic set of assumptions for
how to read, understand, interpret a program.
And so what I'm looking for is the connection between all the gaming
experience you have and your ability to do that with the applications - the academic
applications.” CH is pressing questions to B. B feels a little intimidated by
CH’s questions. She is putting B on the spot with questions. B feels
uncomfortable with answering some of the questions that he is making some of
them vague without meaning to.
To
go along with discourse community, the study will be identity. How that two of
them are disagreeing describes their identity. It describes how the two of them
will act in an interviewing session. We use ethnography in our everyday life
and we don’t even know it. From this interview we can see what language patterns shows about how people do not listen to each
other? From what was said in the interview and what was conducted, you can
see that the two people did not necessarily get along. They both had their
differences on what they view about gamming. The two people would cut each
other off when the spoke about their view point of gamming. These are the
patterns that people would notice about how people do not listen to each
other.
No comments:
Post a Comment