Sometimes, how things happen amazes me. “Things” – that word is about as vague as possible, yes? Yet, the diction is also the most broad: there is such extreme unpredictability about conversation, and yet – if one steps back a bit, just far enough to perceive the current, then the contours of dialogue (technically, an interweaving of discourses) do become apparent.
This morning I logged in to class to assess the progress of five teams on their “midterm” projects. (The course officially ends in four days, but there will be a separate “final,” and a few more assignments related to the major Team Projects – links posted below.) There are dynamics I recognize from the usual stages of group development, including the increasing challenge I face in drawing connections between theory and practice, and continuing to provide opportunities for skills enhancement and new comprehension right up until the end. I sit down to type with an idea in mind to weave
- student responses to the most recent individual assignment (selecting which chapter/topic to read for our last unit), with
- some kind of explanatory context for the Replies (comments) that the students will add to this entry later today (a summary of their Team Project and links to the Project on each of their individual weblogs), and
- the basis for what will become the final self-evaluation of cumulative learning about interpersonal communication.
My routine with this course is to check the logistics folder and respond to the group-level concerns first, since these apply to all of us. Today, I discovered a message from one of the students about an assignment I had apparently not graded. Indeed, upon checking, it seems I neglected to evaluate Johnnie Drama’s post about the role of emotion in IPC. (It seems I started the process, as a few submissions are graded, but I must have gotten distracted (!) and never returned to complete the task.) Call this co-incidence what you will (serendipity, fate, synchrony, other), but the relevance of Johnnie Drama’s comments to this moment in our course is beyond words. For one thing, it is one of the first indications of what the Team Projects could accomplish (without links – darn! - and the instances (the evidence) are not presented as communicationally linked with each other, however the potential (!) is all there.) Second, JD took to heart the assignment’s requirement to “Develop the habit of reading to situate your “turn” in the conversation – read whatever has been written (Steph’s original, and any comments) and edit (revise or add to) what you’ve written so that it flows with the logic of a conversation.”
Language shows more than it can tell.
JD writes:
“…in terms of deciphering the nature of a group-mate’s emotion and nexting that emotion, I do have a bit of a concern. Using this online format, it makes our listening and nexting skills infinitely more important due to the possible miscommunications that might occur. A lot of times, especially at a large university like UMass, people of several different backgrounds are attracted to the diversity that is offered, and this will create diversity in classes. Usually, in a “normal” class, diversity can be seen (via people’s appearances), sometimes even heard (through people’s voices/accents), but not here. When reading a comment or a weblog or a discussion post, the way it is written is now more important than ever. The slightest type-o or grammatical error can throw off the reader, and make the reader think that the writer is of a different background than the reader – whether culturally, religiously, socioeconomically, or mentally.”
One of the choices for our last textbook reading is the topic of “Bridging Cultural Differences.” There were two votes for this topic, and three statements against it. SA Boy wrote: “everyone in one point in time has experienced difficulty communicating with people due to cultural differences”, while Memphis Burns argued that there is
“a certain gravity to the readings when the
overall goal of the thought process is
a common good that adheres to
no superficial or cultural separations.”
Outer Body Boi is ambivalent: “I’m not sure about chapter 11 either, because the focus is on cultural differences, and although we all do have cultural differences, I believe we changed our words so that it would be a more universal line of communication. From my memory, we didn’t really discuss much cultural difference other than it should be respected.” Johnnie Drama is convinced that even though “intercultural communication difference resolution is more and more a pertinent topic in this day and age, there are simply more pressing issues at hand that should be covered before this topic.” Grant2U agrees, “The only chapter I feel that has any relevance to where we are at is chapter 12…”
To be fair, you need to know that I asked the students to make their selections specifically based on what they felt would most benefit their own Team, given the status of IPC within the Teams as they prepped for the Projects. (Also, most of the quotes are from comments to the previous lecture, “conversing toward team projects,” but I have provided the links to each student’s individual weblog.) Some students kept the “team criterion” in mind while others either did not register it or preferred to make their argument on the basis of individual criteria – such as what they would personally find most useful or interesting. Grant2U’s vote for chapter 12, “Promoting Dialogue,” is echoed by four classmates, and countered by Johnnie Drama, who thinks “It’s too soon.” The temporal reference intrigues me, as if “dialogue” is a steadystate that can be reached in some progressive fashion and . . . then maintained? Lost? Grant2U thinks it “seem[s] like there was more dialogue in the beginning of the class,” and I certainly got excited at the moment earlier in the course when I thought the standard monologic structure was breached.
In supporting the topic of dialogue, OhNOTheCakeisALie “would have just expected more conversation and interaction recently.” Outer Body Boi also seems disappointed, ““we are holding back for many different reasons;” while Beaver asserts a criterion of “be[ing] able to communicate with each with out having some type of argument.” Ninjacook agrees: “my team has been losing steam.” She continues: “our class, particularly myself and my group, has some significant “walls” to “bridge” in terms of opening up meaningful dialogue for the group projects. We seem, my team at least, to be lacking the fundamental “push-pull” dynamic in our conversations when we tend to agree with each other and the material.”
Seven students want to read about “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges“, although Outer Body Boi states conflict “doesn’t really summarize our participation.” Deliver Me Summer, The Gymnasium, and Oo Love Shoo are both attracted to the notion of framing conflict as positive and productive, while President Makalele is intrigued by “the concept of realistic and nonrealistic conflicts.” Interestingly – as a juxtaposition of different perceptions – Johnnie Drama says, “What we have learned so far – listening, nexting, inhaling, exhaling, consequentiality, assertiveness, self-disclosure, tensionality, letting others happen to you, standing your own ground – none of it has covered what we should do when we encounter interpersonal communication conflicts.” Spicey Noodle Soup, however, argues that “we should read this chapter because it is about conflict management, which is something I have been learning throughout the class by being more conscious of what I exhale and inhale and why.” Speaking of exhaling, I am fascinated by President Makalele’s assertion: “There is no place for hostility in our class and therefore conflicts with the goal of defeat or hurt are not prevalent. It is all productive conflict for this project from deciding on a topic, to organizing individual work and finally right down to determining a team representative to compile the project for everyone.” On the one hand, I can inhale from this statement the viewpoint expressed by Bridge of Ideas, “our approach to the situation [is what] defines the outcome,” with which I completely agree. On the other hand, what does it mean to ban hostility? Please understand, I am not inviting violence, but what of all those negative emotions that contribute to the expression of harmful exhales and warp the filters of our inhales?
“Recognizing Communication Walls” was the preferred topic for five students, several of whom singled out a particular article by on Deception, Betrayal, and Aggression (Stewart, Zediker, & Witteborn). Reasons against this topic were provided by Outer Body Boi (“it doesn’t completely relate to our group”) and Johnnie Drama, who says the chapter “appears to merely give the readers insight into how to discover a problem.” Masr thinks this chapter is “the most interesting” of the choices, and Sports says,
“The reason we have to understand this is because typically this ‘hurtful’ type of communication is that brings about problems in arguments… Especially so we can relate this to our personal experiences with those people who are closest to us.”
Jimi Garcia cites a classmate: “I agree with TennisFan when they talks about how our communication will be like turning bridges into walls. They say, “I think this chapter is important for all of us because we’re all going to have trouble communicating in certain situations.” I appreciate TennisFan’s emphasis on the mutual, co-constructed meaning of lying (for instance): that it is a mutual behavior just like all interpersonal communication. Finally, Top Of The Morn paraphrased the authors’ point that those messages which harm us the most tend to be the exhales to which we are least able to respond. I am reminded, reading these comments, about the use of my authority as teacher to compel our group to conform to my expectations for the enactment of this course. Emotions about the structure and process of this class have definitely been experienced, and some of them have even been expressed. 
“All of this stuff plays into itself.”
So wrote Spicey Noodle Soup.
Now we know why this course is billed as an introduction to interpersonal communication! Oo Love Shoo notes how we have been “slowly learning the otherness of each others,” and Top Of The Morn articulates that we have been “exploring how [IPC] effects real word situations.” Over the remaining assignments, we will do our best with these topics. Now, an odd tangent: remember how I wrote recently about us always being in the position of joining conversations that are already in progress? What about when someone tries to join us in the middle of our conversation?! Here’s an extra credit chance: let Sunrise know what you think of her proposal by replying to her on her weblog – fast! Meanwhile, how about that external audience? We have at least one fan. Thanks Alex!
Ok folks – time to shine! I know I will be proud of your work.
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 8:11 pm
In order to resolve emotions, one must identify and name then first. According to John M. Gottman, in his article “Putting Feelings Into Words,” it is necessary to verbalize feelings in order to harness them. It is also beneficial to express specific feelings in relationships. By naming our feelings, we begin to understand them. Emotions are not only a part of our close relationships; they have also been a part of this class. As Steph says in this lecture, “Emotions about the structure and process of this class have definitely been experienced, and some of them have even been expressed.” Our project highlights the ways four distinct emotions have been expressed successfully in our class, as well as in the Group Dynamics class. MemphisBurns chose relief, Masr27 chose confusion, tennisfan816 chose empathy, and jaggerbunny chose frustration. The most important thing our group hopes the audience takes from our project is the idea that there is nothing wrong with being open about your emotions. In fact, it is harmful to yourself and others to hide them. Understanding and expressing your own emotions is a key part of being a successful communicator.
http://Masr27.wordpress.com/
http://tennisfan816.wordpress.com/
http://MemphisBurns.wordpress.com/
http://jaggerbunny.wordpress.com/
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 9:00 pm
The examples our team used to illustrate and track progressions of Interpersonal Communication were based on openness. Swabbies’ example shows us openness by the way of self disclosure between Getouttakingshous and John Elder Robison. Both interlocutors were open about problems they have while communicating to others but it was Steph who unknowingly at the time “nexted” to John Elder Robison therefore inspiring him to write about how he tries to reach his communication goals dealing with Asperger’s Syndrome. Sports08 discusses how he himself used openness to add flavor and back up his points in a conversation about John Robinson’s book “Look Me In The Eye” along with Stephanie’s lecture “Continuing Conversing.” JimiGarcia used examples from “group dynamics” from a user named Summer22 who used openness as a way to react to other classmates posts and a way to express personal ideas and personal information. Bridgeofideas used examples from Jimigarcia’s weblogs showing how his openness in his posts led to other classmates using openness with their responses to his posts. The most important thing that can be learned from this class is that being open during interpersonal communication can lead to new ideas or can be used as a tool to “next” the conversation and keep it going over time.
http://jimigarcia27.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/openness-essential-tool-of-ipc/ (Brian Terrill)
http://swabbies24.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/openness-can-open-the-door-to-ipc/ (Matt Amirault)
http://sports08.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/openness-opens-the-door-to-ipcopenness-opens-the-door-to-ipc/ (Evan Violette)
http://bridgeofideas.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/opennessopenness/ (Mary Vilbon)
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 10:12 pm
[...] identities in communication without completely losing ourselves. It has been difficult because, as Johnniedrama wrote, ” Usually, in a “normal” class, diversity can be seen (via people’s appearances), sometimes [...]
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 10:39 pm
There are many crucial parts to how we have individually and as teams worked on building and developing our relationships over the span of this course. Our interpersonal skills necessary to achieve this were: nexting, self-disclosure, listening, balancing tensions/frustrations while trying to maintain our identities, exhaling, negotiation, and supporting each other through the class. Trying to “synthesize” what we have learned and applying to concrete examples of our classmates to convey a deeper understanding of these core concepts. And now, the cake-grant-singer-boi-shooproudly presents our project!
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Who really defines who we are?: The manifestations of tensionality
Group 1 consisting of Ania, Nick, Liz, Charles, and Sean decided to focus on the transition of interpersonal communication (from one role as one type of communicator to a new role as a new type of communicator) as a by-product of tensionality. To sum it up, our broad topic is the “chicken and the egg” theory behind defining roles. Who defines who we are as communicators? Us – the ones who speak? Or the interlocuters – the ones who next us?
Furthermore, as roles are defined, tension might be created because someone might not want to be defined in such a way by his/her interlocuters, peers, observers. In these instances, a tensionality argument arises. Does someone “let others happen to them” or does one “stand up for oneself”? Through our research of our class and the Group Dynamics class we have come to find these answers based on various examples. These examples range from personal experiences in working (and developing roles) with other classmates to studying role development as an observer looking into a class about interpersonal communication.
The most important thing to take away from our presentation is one simple piece of advice – allow tensionality to happen. As communicators, when we allow the other to happen to us, we expand our knowledge of not only our peers but our surroundings. When we hold our own ground, we allow others to do the same – learn about us and attempt to truly understand us. Through allowing tensionality to happen we are eliminate confusion and thus eliminating conflict.
Blog Links:
Beaver32
CommSyr09
Johnniedrama
Topofthemorning
DeliverMeSummer
Saturday August 16, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Here is the team 3 project on the consequentiality of emotions in Interpersonal Communication.
http://spiceynoodlesoup.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/team-3-project/
Sunday August 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I’d like to start by explaining my selections for analysis and critique. In looking through the blog summaries, I wanted to find two presentations that I felt would relate to one another – and subsequently, play off of one another. Like most things with this class, I didn’t anticipate just how well things would overlap ☺ .
In JimiGarcia’s Presentation, I really felt that “openness” could be linked to disclosure (especially with Summer22’s example, and how she was able to express her feelings), as well as the last lecture themes, bridging cultural differences and promoting dialogue. Of course, I’ve written about disclosure before, specifically related to development of self (and I decided to take this angle). To my delight, TennisFan’s entry seemed to fit into this really well. In fact, TennisFan’s example of empathy – with the waiter – really demonstrated the importance of having an understanding for others but at the same time “standing your own.” (Again, I’m amazed by how well these concepts overlap with each other).
Taking a slight break from the presentations, I returned to the theory of Bohm – and what I had written for assignment 9.1/9.2. In my response I referenced the Stewart, Zediker, and Witteborn article on “ascription” and “avow-tion” of the “self.” I found it fascinating (and apparently I missed it the first time around) that Bohm could argue that you have to communicate your feelings to others without expecting to influence how they feel (what TennisFan argued about empathy) and Stewart, Zediker, and Witteborn’s proposal of “self” definition. Both of these concepts form an extremely interesting and compatible working framework for the tensionality related to self-disclosure. To explain, I see Bohm’s belief that good communication arises from sharing, but also withholding (“standing up for the self” but also “letting others happen”) falls into place with Stewart, Zediker, and Witteborn’s ascription and avow-tion (again, this idea of (“standing up for the self” but also “letting others happen”) – both on this sliding scale of tensionality and related to the course themes, managing conflict and recognizing communication walls. In a way, being “open” and disclosing is one half of the spectrum – and the other half is empathy (or having an understanding where others are coming from) – and thus, TennisFan and JimiGarcia’s work fall right into the continuing discussion of the course themes, as well as tensionality, self-development, and perhaps provide a greater understanding of the “ideal” balance of the tensionality-conflict-disclosure spectrum in interpersonal communication.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 10:18 am
From steph blog post culmination the very first thing that jumped out to me was what she wrote about JD:
JD took to heart the assignment’s requirement to “Develop the habit of reading to situate your “turn” in the conversation – read whatever has been written (Steph’s original, and any comments) and edit (revise or add to) what you’ve written so that it flows with the logic of a conversation.”
https://learning.umassonline.net/webct/urw/lc26190.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct
JD has some worries about working with other people work which he fully express in his post:
“…in terms of deciphering the nature of a group-mate’s emotion and nexting that emotion, I do have a bit of a concern. Using this online format, it makes our listening and nexting skills infinitely more important due to the possible miscommunications that might occur. A lot of times, especially at a large university like UMass, people of several different backgrounds are attracted to the diversity that is offered, and this will create diversity in classes. Usually, in a “normal” class, diversity can be seen (via people’s appearances), sometimes even heard (through people’s voices/accents), but not here. When reading a comment or a weblog or a discussion post, the way it is written is now more important than ever. The slightest type-o or grammatical error can throw off the reader, and make the reader think that the writer is of a different background than the reader – whether culturally, religiously, socioeconomically, or mentally.”
https://learning.umassonline.net/webct/urw/lc26190.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct
This totally ties in with what I just talked about in my critque that I did for http://jimigarcia27.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/openness-essential-tool-of-ipc/#comment-10 and http://masr27.wordpress.com/.
I critiqued both of there presentation using Bohm principles of communication which I talk about on my web blog page http://beaver32.wordpress.com/.
Bohm talks about how it’s so hard for people from different backgrounds to communicate with each other. Because everyone has their on insights on about things and takes offense when some else is disagrees with what they believe to be true about the subject. I can totally agree with what JD is worried when he has to critique other people work he doesn’t want them to take it in the wrong way. But its so hard to show a person what you really are saying because this is an online class so it’s solely up to reader to decided what the person is really saying when they exhale their thoughts on what you wrote.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm
For my analysis, I have chosen Team 3’s project on the consequentiality of emotions and the project entitled “Openness can open the door to Interpersonal Communication” As the title clearly states, Openness truly can open the door to interpersonal communication, the thesis being “Openness is a skill that really makes interpersonal communication more interesting, with out it conversations can are much less personal and with out much flavor. Openness is essential in building relationships, and relationships can not be possible with out interpersonal communication.” As we’ve discussed in the class, authenticity also is a building block of interpersonal communication, this mutual relationship between authenticity and openness can bring down any walls that separate you and another, it can instantly make a dialogue far more natural and comfortable, and raises the chances of having a successful dialogue to the Nth degree. Team 3’s project on the consequentiality of emotions fits in perfectly with the openness factor. Openness can be considered as an emotion, or a demeanor, and different consequences will come as a result of this emotion, and as the other group theorizes, what is a result of openness is a greater chance for true and honest dialogue and communication, and a far greater chance of creating a lasting relationship and maintaining a mutual respect. Group 3 States “The consequentiality of emotions is a way of saying that the way that we feel, our individual emotional response to a situation, has an impact on the communication process.” This to me, is something that should be evident to all people, but evidently isn’t. I would assume that it is common knowledge that our emotions can set the tone in communication, and change severely alter the result of the communication process. For example, If I began a dialogue with someone, and I was in a mad mood, and very withdrawn from conversation, not looking them in the eyes, and replying with short stern answers, this will clearly effect what is to come of this dialogue, which could be, for one, a misrepresentation of myself. On the other hand, if I began a dialogue with someone, and I was very open, engaged, and interested, different effects will come as result of this, one of which may be a good reputation. In the end, openness and the contemplation of the consequences of emotions is something that should be far more talked about, seeing as how it is so relevant to our lives, and has the ability to change almost everything in our lives.
http://spiceynoodlesoup.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/team-3-project/#comment-22
http://swabbies24.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/openness-opens-the-doors-to-ipc-team-2/#comment-12
Monday August 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm
After reading Stephanie’s lecture: “Culmination” I have a better understanding of the four themes and topics that we learned about through our last reading from our text. For instance as I have wrote in the past I found that Bohm’s reading was the most interesting and that it would benefit our group the most to focus on the themes found throughout this reading. I chose to critique Jaggerbunny’s presentation along with Delivermesummer’s presentation. These two presentations relate to each other in what their topics are. They also relate to one-another by the way they use the themes we learned about throughout Stephanie’s lecture and the assigned reading.
The idea of “Bridging Cultural Differences” can be found throughout both topics I have chosen. For instance in the topic of emotion, and how essential it is to share our emotions when communicating. Different cultures have different ways of showing emotion. For instance if a group of men in America are talking and one guy from another country starts crying because of something that is said in this conversation, the men from America may think this is a little bit weird. It is not often that men in our country are comfortable around other men that are crying. This topic relates to the other presentation that discusses who really identifies who we are? Our identities are formulated differently by different people. People of a different culture may see us as rude if we look them in the eye when we talk to them. But people of our culture may see us as rude if we do not look them in the eye when we talk to them. Cultural differences are everywhere, we are surrounded by them in our own country, but of course they will seem more prevalent to us when we are visiting an alien country. The fact is that we have to learn to “bridge” the differences, and accept them, so therefore they do not seem foreign to us. At that point we as all different cultures can get along as one.
The article “Promoting Dialogue” discusses the significance of dialogue in interpersonal communication. We now have experienced all different examples of dialogue through our class. Dialogue can be used to show emotion, if we simply tell who we are talking to how we feel about something it will be a lot easier for them to understand our feelings. As opposed to not using dialogue and just getting upset, and making facial expressions to show that; our interlocutor would have no idea what we got upset about, and therefore may continue to upset us unknowingly. Our individuality is often based off of our dialogue, and how we speak. If we speak with a sarcastic tone often, we will be perceived as cynical and sarcastic. Also our accents play a large role in our dialogue, if we have what is known as a “southern accent” and people of the north recognize that, they will immediately assume we are from the south.
“Turning Walls Into Bridges” was by far my favorite article of the four. This one relates so greatly to both presentations I have chosen. We can’t keep walls up, we have to be open with whom we are talking to no matter what. We can turn a conflict into something positive if we want to. This is the greatest power one has, in my opinion. To be able to turn something that could easily, and often times is seen as a negative into a positive. Some of the hardest conversations come when we are telling someone that we disagree with them, and/or our emotions differ from theirs on a topic. But if both people are able to handle this is in a fashionable manner this ‘conflict’ has been relieved. When people identify whom they are, and whom others are, if one has the ability to turn a conflict into a positive this is virtuous. After reading this article we all have the awareness of how to do this.
“Recognizing Communication Walls” is something that we all have to be able to do in order to have a successful conversation with someone, and to form a relationship with one. We have to be able to identify when there is a conflict and when there is a potential ‘wall’ that is occurring in a conversation. For instance we need to have the ability to understand that when we are in disagreement with who we are talking to, that this is not a problem that can’t be fixed. If we recognize that we both disagree over a particular issue we can simply drop the topic, or we can discuss it in a mature manner where we are conscious of the other’s feelings towards the discussion, so we will not offend them. This is a necessary ingredient for a good conversation, and with good conversations comes good relationships.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 2:46 pm
After reading Stephanie’s lecture: “Culmination” I have a better understanding of the four themes and topics that we learned about through our last reading from our text. For instance as I have wrote in the past I found that Bohm’s reading was the most interesting and that it would benefit our group the most to focus on the themes found throughout this reading. I chose to critique Jaggerbunny’s presentation along with Delivermesummer’s presentation. These two presentations relate to each other in what their topics are. They also relate to one-another by the way they use the themes we learned about throughout Stephanie’s lecture and the assigned reading.
The idea of “Bridging Cultural Differences” can be found throughout both topics I have chosen. For instance in the topic of emotion, and how essential it is to share our emotions when communicating. Different cultures have different ways of showing emotion. For instance if a group of men in America are talking and one guy from another country starts crying because of something that is said in this conversation, the men from America may think this is a little bit weird. It is not often that men in our country are comfortable around other men that are crying. This topic relates to the other presentation that discusses who really identifies who we are? Our identities are formulated differently by different people. People of a different culture may see us as rude if we look them in the eye when we talk to them. But people of our culture may see us as rude if we do not look them in the eye when we talk to them. Cultural differences are everywhere, we are surrounded by them in our own country, but of course they will seem more prevalent to us when we are visiting an alien country. The fact is that we have to learn to “bridge” the differences, and accept them, so therefore they do not seem foreign to us. At that point we as all different cultures can get along as one.
The article “Promoting Dialogue” discusses the significance of dialogue in interpersonal communication. We now have experienced all different examples of dialogue through our class. Dialogue can be used to show emotion, if we simply tell who we are talking to how we feel about something it will be a lot easier for them to understand our feelings. As opposed to not using dialogue and just getting upset, and making facial expressions to show that; our interlocutor would have no idea what we got upset about, and therefore may continue to upset us unknowingly. Our individuality is often based off of our dialogue, and how we speak. If we speak with a sarcastic tone often, we will be perceived as cynical and sarcastic. Also our accents play a large role in our dialogue, if we have what is known as a “southern accent” and people of the north recognize that, they will immediately assume we are from the south.
“Turning Walls Into Bridges” was by far my favorite article of the four. This one relates so greatly to both presentations I have chosen. We can’t keep walls up, we have to be open with whom we are talking to no matter what. We can turn a conflict into something positive if we want to. This is the greatest power one has, in my opinion. To be able to turn something that could easily, and often times is seen as a negative into a positive. Some of the hardest conversations come when we are telling someone that we disagree with them, and/or our emotions differ from theirs on a topic. But if both people are able to handle this is in a fashionable manner this ‘conflict’ has been relieved. When people identify whom they are, and whom others are, if one has the ability to turn a conflict into a positive this is virtuous. After reading this article we all have the awareness of how to do this.
“Recognizing Communication Walls” is something that we all have to be able to do in order to have a successful conversation with someone, and to form a relationship with one. We have to be able to identify when there is a conflict and when there is a potential ‘wall’ that is occurring in a conversation. For instance we need to have the ability to understand that when we are in disagreement with who we are talking to, that this is not a problem that can’t be fixed. If we recognize that we both disagree over a particular issue we can simply drop the topic, or we can discuss it in a mature manner where we are conscious of the other’s feelings towards the discussion, so we will not offend them. This is a necessary ingredient for a good conversation, and with good conversations comes good relationships.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm
LINKS.. Apparently they did not go through on that post..
Culmination – Culmination
Jaggerbunny – Jaggerbunny’s
DelivermeSummer’s – Delivermesummer’s
Monday August 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Links did not work.. Here they are
Culmination – http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/204/
Jaggerbunny -
http://jaggerbunny.wordpress.com/
Delivermesummer –
http://delivermesummer.wordpress.com/
Monday August 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm
At the beginning of the semester I started to recognize the processes that are involved in communication and recognized it happening. Steph wrote, “there is such extreme unpredictability about conversation, and yet – if one steps back a bit, just far enough to perceive the current, then the contours of dialogue (technically, an interweaving of discourses) do become apparent.”
The four recent reading assignments and the two assignments I have critiqued for this assignment reiterates how we communicate, creates our identity. “As with many concepts studied in this course, we create our “selves” – develop our roles and experience tensionality – constantly, whether aware of it or not,” wrote delivermesummer.
In the first reading, Bridging Cultural Differences, SA Boy wrote: “everyone in one point in time has experienced difficulty communicating with people due to cultural differences.” I agree with this statement and is our awareness of these differences that will allow us to be accepting of others. Tennisfan816 discussed empathy and how we all want to understood. “When we listen to other people talk, we find ways to relate to them such as understanding their situation, thoughts and feelings. By doing this, we are being empathic.” (http://tennisfan816.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/sawatdee/#comments)
Awareness seems to be a thread that brings many of the pieces of communication together. Dialogues can begin and end in many instances by our choice and happen only by our direction. “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges,” is a tool in communication that dictates appropriateness. “There is no place for hostility in our class and therefore conflicts with the goal of defeat or hurt are not prevalent. It is all productive conflict for this project from deciding on a topic, to organizing individual work and finally right down to determining a team representative to compile the project for everyone,” stated President Makalele. And last but not least is Recognizing Communication Walls,” Sports says,“The reason we have to understand this is because typically this ‘hurtful’ type of communication is that brings about problems in arguments… Especially so we can relate this to our personal experiences with those people who are closest to us.”
Our identity is defined in many ways through our interpersonal communication skills. As we grow and change perspectives it is important to be aware of the many facets of communication. The important thing I have learned is that we can adapt and enhance our skills as communicators.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm
For my critique I chose two groups that I feel, most directly associated with the ideas and concepts behind the writing of Susan Scott in her piece. I chose the two individuals that I was going to examine completely randomly. One of the groups that I analyzed chose to tackle the concept of tensionality. This has a lot to do with fierce conversation, as there is a constant push-pull relationship in the class which is dominated by strong opinions. This looked at the process that took place and how it effected their status in the group. The other group that I chose to look at more closely was the group that tackled the concept of openness. I chose this one because it goes hand in hand with honesty. If we are open to give our honest opinion, then we are ready to have fierce conversations.
Fierce conversation coincides with promoting dialogue, and not only promoting dialogue, but promoting growth through intense interactions. I felt that group 1 really went after this “promoting dialogue,” and expressed it as tensions that are constantly shfting around as people add on. Group 3 analyzed openness which is another key element in order for fierce conversation to exist.
I don’t believe either tackled cultural differences, but if anyone it was JimiGarcia’s critique on Summer22. Summer22 expresses her reasons for self-disclosure, and Jimi picks up on this as her/his opening up and saying how he/she feels. All of the work for this class is interweaved in these presentations and sometimes it’s hard to point out the links without going in circles! One leads to another, which is interlocked with another. They are all about the science of dialogue and analyzing how to become better at it. As Spicey Noodle Soup wrote, “All of this stuff plays into itself.” The articles that we have read explored the boundaries of each angle. It’s our job to decide where to balance it all. Should we disclose more? Be more open? Be more fierce? Be more understanding? It’s our job to work within the constraints and find our own comfort zones, and live in them (even if they’re not comfortable sometimes).
Monday August 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm
In terms of the four themes topics introduced by Steph from Bridges Not Walls (ed. Stewart) (“Bridging Cultural Differences”, “Promoting Dialogue”, “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges“, and “Recognizing Communication Walls”) the presentations that I critiqued in terms of Scott’s article, “Fierce Conversation” touched on ideas from all of these chapters. I think the group project led by Jabberbunny and Group One’s presentation however relate mostly to the chapter “Promoting Dialogue.” Both presentations acknowledge the need for expressing emotions and ideas in a real and “fierce” way to maintain necessary tensionality and also realize our roles as communicators. I think that Scott’s article contains some very powerful suggestions for improving one’s emotional health by having fierce conversations. Again, the group projects maintain some sense of relation to these ideals by encouraging naming and expressing emotions and allowing the tensions necessary for dialogue.
Also present in the examples/evident from the groups that I critiqued were examples of the other three topics, and I believe all of these topics relate in a way to Scott’s notion of fierceness. Having fierce conversations can help us alleviate conflicts, learn about ourselves and each other, and create stronger relationships in general, building “bridges” to new possibilities. Delivermesummer says in Group One’s introduction “As communicators, when we allow the other to happen to us, we expand our knowledge of not only our peers but our surroundings. When we hold our own ground, we allow others to do the same – learn about us and attempt to truly understand us.” Here they are touting the idea of “allowing tensionality to happen” and creating deeper relationships through dialogue. Jaggerbunny echoed a similar sentiment in their group introduction saying “it is also beneficial to express specific feelings in relationships. By naming our feelings, we begin to understand them.” Both of these group presentations did well to address some of the ideals present in these four topics, and Scott’s ideas of being real and fierce in conversation related in a way also, in that each group expressed themselves authentically and learned in the process.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm
The themes of the last four readings tie in to the themes of the team projects my teammates and I critiqued. The idea of communicative “openness” offered by the team projects could increase cultural openness, and help in “bridging cultural differences.” I agree with Saboy’s statement, “everyone has experienced difficulty in communicating with people due to cultural differences,” but effective communication and overcome these difficulties. Openness also promotes dialogue as well because being open means sharing ideas, and respecting commonality and difference.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 8:56 pm
In the first part of this assignment our group decided to work with the presentations from team’s two and four. They talk about being open to the openness of others”, and team four was chosen because they speak about many of the topics discussed in class. However although my team member (gym411) chose to concentrate on the Bohm’s articles, I chose to work with Susan Scott’s articles on “fierce conversation”. These topics were chosen also because they compliment each other, specifically “openness” and “fierce” conversations. Scott makes some interesting key points on how we are not as authentic as we should be when it comes to having a conversation, hence creating even greater opportunities for not achieving the desired result.
When I think about the themes/concepts of interpersonal communication, the movie “Crash” come into mind. The movie plot illustrates the problems with bridging cultural differences”, “promoting dialogue”, “Managing conflict”, and “recognizing communication walls” amongst a small group of people, however by the end of the movie it portrays how everyone and everything is connected hence helping manage these communication and conflict issues. This portrayal of this movie and the way we have learning about the courses concepts through the literature and through each other, I find it very fitting how all these concepts about interpersonal communication compliment each other. Specifically Gym411 and I mentioned how the cultural differences between our home country and the United States had presented difficulties when making the transition. Eventually we learned that it was not a good idea to exclude ourselves from the rest of society because of our cultural differences, and the best way to overcome this barrier was to learn how to “be open” to those of a different culture. By “opening up” we can all learn from the other culture. Cake, mentioned in her blog that she had language barriers that could affect her communications attempts with the class and other students. Hence she chose to “break” this wall by not letting this be a communication barrier. Specifically: “To build a meaningful relationship you have to disclose yourself to the other person”. Summer22 expressed that in order to “promote dialogue” she noticed that she needed “… to be cautious of not being too overpowering. Finally Grant2u mentioned how he “manages conflict” by recognizing that he “… was no longer the one with all the answers, but the one who had to listen, let go, and allow someone else to lead the way.”
http://saboy82.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/presentation-follow-up/
(team 2) http://sports08.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/openness-opens-the-doors-to-ipc/
(team 4) http://ohnothecakeisalie.wordpress.com/2008/08/
Monday August 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The teams that were chosen for the first part of this assignment were teams #2 and #4. Team #2 was chosen because it spoke about an important topic that without it none of the other communication topics could occur (in our opinion). Team #2 speaks about being “open to the openness of others”. Team #4 was chosen because it speaks about many of the topics discussed in class; it was a good project that “summarized” a large part of the course.
The theorist that was used for the assignment was Bohm. Bohm speaks about the “problems in communication” that arise from people not listening to each other and rather choosing to defend their own thoughts which can lead to more confusion and aggression. According to this theorist, creating something new together is the result of good communication, since both parties listen and consider the other person’s point of view. The key is not trying to influence each other, but to listen so that something new can be created.
The four main theme/topics can be seen in many occasions in the students writing (maybe because we have been practicing them all this time!). Let’s start with “Recognizing Communication Walls”. One of the students, Cake, mentioned in her blog that she had language barriers that could affect her communications attempts with the class and other students. Cake decided to share this on her first class blog in order to “break” this wall and not let this be a communication barrier. Cake was following Johnson’s theory because in order “To build a meaningful relationship you have to disclose yourself to the other person and take the risk that the other person may reject rather than like you.”(p.232, 8th edition). She recognized the possible communication wall and instead made this part of her identity in order to build strong relationships with her classmates. Another topic is “Managing Conflict”. An example of this topic can be seen through the blogs of Grant2u. Grant2u expressed his interest in wanting to learn how to better communicate. He recognized that in the past he has “held on” to his identity and not given other points of view the consideration needed in order to successfully communicate. Grant2u managed this conflict by recognizing that he “… was no longer the one with all the answers, but the one who had to listen, let go, and allow someone else to lead the way.”
The third topic “Bridging cultural differences” is presented in Saboy82’s blogs. In one of Saboy82’s early blogs he mentioned how the cultural differences between his “home country” South Africa and the United States had presented difficulties, “Everything was so different and big, the food, classrooms, and buildings all big and different. When I had my first day of school I had no idea that you had to dress and act certain way and be popular.” Gym411 also shared some of these cultural differences/difficulties. Saboy82 and Gym411 learned that it was not ok to exclude themselves from the rest of the society because of these differences, and that the best way to overcome this barrier was to learn how to “be open” to those who have different cultures. By “opening up” they can learn from the other culture and let others learn about them.
The fourth topic “Promoting Dialogue” is also presented in different examples. Summer22 expressed how she was a passionate person and enjoyed being the leader in a conversation, but in order to promote a dialogue she noticed that she needed “… to be cautious of not being too overpowering, my (Summer22) goal has always been to express my views but make sure that everyone else feels comfortable expressing their own views.”. By recognizing her tendency to be “overpowering”, Summer22 is able to promote a better dialogue with her future encounters. Another way to promote a dialogue is by having an open discussion as the one that took place in class with John Robinson. Students were able to give their point of view on the book “Look me in the Eye” and at the same time share their own communication difficulties they have encountered in the past (as John responded to the students).
Students URL Used:
http://grant2u.wordpress.com/ (Grant2u)
https://learning.umassonline.net/webct/urw/lc26190.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct (Cake)
http://jimigarcia27.wordpress.com/ (Jimigarcia27)
http://saboy82.wordpress.com/ (Saboy82)
Critic on 2 Projects:
http://gym411.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/presentation-follow-up/ (by Gym411)
http://saboy82.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/presentation-follow-up/ (by Saboy
2)
Monday August 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm
My critiques focused on fierce conversations and how being fierce was represented in Team 5 and 4’s presentations. It seemed to me that fierceness was applicable to both topics in the presentations because emotions and identity expression both can next to helpful information for the entire group. In terms of the four topics from our previous reading, bridging cultural differences, promoting dialogue, managing conflict by turning walls into bridges and recognizing communication the presentations showed instances of all of these. While in the online environment I feel that cultural differences have been bridged throughout the time we have been together because the only way to identify if there is a cultural difference is to read it in a post or discussion thread. Apparent cultural differences can in fact promote dialogue among the participants in the discussion and through that dialogue the bridge can be made. All of the confusion that there was leading up to the team project was eventually clarified by teams using one or more of the four topics from the reading to figure out the answer. A big wall that I think every group had I will call the “wall of confusion”. The wall of confusion stood up and while everyone was in fact confused it stood strong creating conflict among groups. When push came to shove though groups handled the situation by promoting dialogue about the conflict and therefore turning the wall of confusion into a bridge of group purpose. All it took was some quality dialogue to recognize the wall that was present and turn it into a bridge the group could cross in order to attain the common goal of the team project.
My Reply to Team 5
My Reply to Team 4
Team 4 Presentation
Team 5 Presentation
Monday August 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm
From the first analysis I did on “Group Project” I will be using the first two quotes to demonstrate a way that “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges” from the book Bridges Not Walls by John Stewart. I think that the way this group addressed the importance of identification and resolution of emotions are interconnected with the necessity of “honesty” in relationships. “Identifying one’s emotions is a necessary part of succeeding as a human being.” This holds truer with some emotions than others, but is certainly true for all. Addressing and expressing the emotion of relief, specifically, can be of great use in interpersonal communication”, from introductory paragraph. Memphisburns continues on to say, “In order to resolve emotions, one must identify and name then first. According to John M. Gottman, in his article “Putting Feelings Into Words,” it is necessary to verbalize feelings in order to harness them. It is also beneficial to express specific feelings in relationships. By naming our feelings, we begin to understand them. Emotions are not only a part of our close relationships; they have also been a part of this class.”
Bridges explains that when there is a need to “manage conflict” or in our instances we have managed it I think by avoidance of certain behaviors. By being open and creating an environment where people feel safe to share themselves we can produce great “things” as groups. “Deep honesty comes hand in hand with safety and trust. Give constant attention to how the processes are creating and assuring spaces with these characteristics(Lederach 538).” My response to jaggerbunny can be found at my reply.
In the other critique I did on “Openness: Opens the Doors to IPC” fits in with the same principle’s mentioned above. I think that that openness and honesty go hand and hand-one can’t survive without the other and that these are important aspects of “Promoting Dialogue”, chapter 12 from Bridges that mentions encouraging people “to talk respectfully and candidly with each other, rather than trying to shout each other down(591).” I think that in order to do this we need “to keep the door open”.
In closing I’d like to take a quote from a link from our reading of “culmination” . Jimigarci said (when talking about anticipation of working in teams) that if we
” . . . use the ideas of listening incorporated with how we have progressively been responding to each other . . . If we study through each response made to each other how we have learned to “listen” to each other and use the other terms learned from class to complete our midterm I think we will find success,”
jimigarcia’s comments. I think this important to take another look at because we needed to work on an develop the IPC skills such as openness and honesty at the same time as being able to identify our emotions and others throughout this class in order to achieve success.
My reply to this project can be found at my reply.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The two critiques that I read, Team 3’s about consequentiality of emotions, and Team 5’s about self-actualization of your feelings, can relate to all of the final chapters with the possible exception of Chapter 11 (Bridging Cultural Differences). I am going to take these two presentations and combine them into one, because they basically stress the same ideas, and if combined, make a more cohesive argument (see my explanation of this)
The concepts – and practical usage – of recognizing and expressing your emotions through communication to ease consequences can solve a number of communication conflicts. For one, by simply knowing what you are feeling and knowing how to express that, you are quite possibly recognizing a communication wall before it truly becomes an issue. In jaggerybunny’s contribution to the group project, he uses, in his first example, the issue of Steph preemptively stressing how improper use of the discussion threads (ie posting a new discussion when it should be a reply) will no longer be tolerated after just a handful of mistakes. Steph recognized her emotion of frustration, and anticipated the possible consequences of what her future actions might be, and decided to take the shortest path to fix the problem. Because Steph new her emotions, she quickly recognized a future communication wall. Furthermore, with her communication fully expressing her emotion (frustration), she resolved any future conflicts (by threatening us). However, by both recognizing and resolving these walls, she in turn promoted stronger dialogue amongst us. She basically forced us into dialogic situations by forcing us to read all of the discussion posts ahead of our own, in order to make sure that our topic didn’t fit in as a reply or a new topic. Also, this forced us to inhale others, and shape our exhales appropriately.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm
10:2
The various team projects shed light on the specific aspects of communication that tend to be overlooked. The two groups I chose to analyze were Jaggerbunny’s and Swabbie’s. Jaggerbunny’s team dove into the importance of naming emotions, and how that is the only true way to resolve them. While Swabbie’s group discussed openness and it’s significance to progress in communication. The two use similar ideas and concepts to get across their points, as all we have learned throughout this semester highly relates.
“Understanding and expressing your own emotions is a key part of being a successful communicator.” (Group 1) I completely agree with this statement and Jaggerbunny refers to my writing in their project: I wrote about the frustration I felt as my fellow sorority sisters and classmates in other sororities were at “war” with the elder alumnae advisors. It was pinpointing the frustration, Jaggerbunny explains, that led me to be able to step in, take charge, and do what I had to, to fix it. Had I not stopped to think for a second and recognize my strong emotions, I would not have been able to make sense of the situation and how my peers and myself were feeling.
Tennisfan816 explains, “By speaking out, you get to learn that some people do feel the way you do…helps to accept our feelings as valid.” Once I spoke out about how frustrated I was, and how I was determined to make things right, others followed suit. Naturally, once one does not feel alone, they are much more likely to speak up. It is at that point that genuine, successful communication can take place. As Summer 22 tells us, as quoted by Masr27, “It’s ok to question things and be confused,” because once it is identified, everything becomes much easier.
The second group that I read over in depth stressed the role of openness in the progression towards successful communication. Swabbies, in particular discusses the idea of self-disclosure to elaborate. Swabbies uses John Robison as an example, and how he was able to open up about his issues with communication as a result of living with Asperger’s. Until John was open with his struggles, he suffered bad relations with others due to a lack of communication. Once he named his issues, he was able to move forward in the right direction. Communication became, not only a possibility, but also a reality, for someone who thought it never possible.
Openness is similar to naming emotions, because both deal with honesty and bravery. It is not easy to share intimacies and feelings, yet without doing so we hinder our likelihood for good, strong relationships. However, it does not end with disclosing personal views and thoughts. Naming emotions and being open does not guarantee success, rather it then takes the understanding and respect of the listener, to complete the circle.
Bohn writes a wonderful article on how to achieve by listening. He tells us that it takes genuine listening and processing of each other’s ideas. We are to think deeply about the words one another say, think about them, but do not try to change them. We are not all meant to agree at all times, yet me must accept and respect each other’s varying viewpoints. It is through naming emotions, being open, and truly listening to those thoughts shared by others that creates “perfect” communication.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 10:24 pm
10:3
The two groups I chose to analyze and discuss wrote about emotions and openness. I selected them on purpose as they related to one another so intensely, and they pinpoint such important factors of successful communication. In addition, they both wrote very well and included helpful quotes and examples that enhanced their group’s final product, and grabbed my attention. The first part of this assignment asked us to connect our critiques on our two chosen teams to our writing on the communication theorist we had previously chosen. Now, however, we must relate team projects to writings that discuss very different aspects of interpersonal communication.
“Bridging Cultural Differences” points out the obvious, and no less important, truth that cultural variances are common and affect communication. Saboy put it well when they stated, “everyone in one point in time has experienced difficulty communicating with people due to cultural differences.” To be more specific and relevant to emotions and openness, different people, coming from different countries with different backgrounds choose to use emotion differently. Feelings and openness, or the lack their of, are things that are very shared and widespread in some places of the world, and very hidden and private in others. It would be tough to attempt successful communication, by being Open as discussed by Swabbies group, and by naming and sharing emotions as told by Jaggerbunny’s team, with someone who is from a place who is against such frankness. As Ooloveshoo points out, however, we are “slowly learning the otherness of each other.” We must be willing to listen and react appropriately to different people with different ways if doing things.
In “Promoting Dialogue” the importance of conversation, words are explained. It is through straightforward, respectful, and open dialogue that communication may take place successfully. To relate the article to the two teams, Words, discourse, are to be used to share one’s feelings and express oneself. Dialogue makes openness possible, and therefore sincere listening. “Turning Walls into Bridges” expresses that positive communication has no place for hostility. DelivermeSummer and OoloveshoO both understood from the reading, that conflict should be framed as positive and productive. It is once communication becomes personal and emotional that conflict is likely to arise, however, as BridgeofIdeas puts well, “our approach to the situation defines the outcome,” hence making it imperative that we be respectful from the beginning.
The last article, “Communication Walls,” reasons the existence and purpose of roadblocks in communication. We are all bound to run into issues, problems when communicating, the key is learning how to recognize them so as to fix them. Just as team 1 mentions with naming emotions, and team 2 shares about openness, without all three, communication would lack realness. Problems are inevitable, emotions are to be expected, and it is through openness and genuine care and listening that interpersonal communication exits at its best.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm
When reading through “Culmination” it became clear that despite the various cultural differences one can see in our class (just look through the roster, there are all different backgrounds brought into this class, plus someone in the class isn’t even in America right now), the discussion of cultural differences didn’t seem to be warranted. I think this is because when the online format is taken on, and anonymous weblogs are used, names, ethnicities, backgrounds, etc are all thrown out the window, and can only be brought back in by the owner of that alias. I’m Irish and from Boston, so naturally people would assume beer-drinking Catholic, and they’d only be half right. Given that I have disdain for organized religion, and attend UMass, you can guess the answer. This relates to my critique because the stereotype is the Catholic Irish Bostonian who likes the Sox (again, sorry, baseball just isn’t my thing… it’s all about the Patriots). Just like a classmate took offense to being lumped in with the slackers, I take offense to being lumped in with the typical Bostonian. (Don’t misunderstand me, I love Boston, but I just don’t fit the stereotype at all.)
The next item was “Promoting Dialogue”, which was the topic that at the time I had felt was best for our team. Now that the project has come and gone, I feel that “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges” would fit better overall in the class. The reason I said “Dialogue” before was as Steph quoted me, I “would have just expected more conversation and interaction recently.” Once we got a slight jolt, that was the jumpstart we needed and I feel our team did a good job getting everything ready and presenting the project. I said towards the beginning of the class that I enjoy working with people I don’t always see eye-to-eye with and the “Conflict” section seems to deal mostly with that.
The final item was “Recognizing Communication Walls”, which relates to my critique because when a classmate was offended by a light comment that lumped them in with slackers, he took offense, and one of the reasons was probably because tone and inflection cannot be conveyed through text, our only real means of communication. Not being face-to-face is definitely a wall, and as with most walls in our world, one cannot see through them to get deeper meaning. Also, whenever we were frustrated with what we felt was a lack of communication, aka a wall, we would take our frustration to the boards, and ultimately to Steph, just as I had observed that the other class had done in Masr’s group’s project.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 11:30 pm
For my critique, I have discussed about openness and empathy. Interestingly, I was able to create connection between them. When we have any conversation, it is important to be open about yourself or what you hear. In other words, we need to show our emotions toward those conversations, and we need to express our thoughts. The way we are expressing our emotion or thoughts can be defined as being empathetic. Therefore, I conclude that they have a close relationship with each other. Also, one cannot be fully opened without being empathetic.
I think these two important interpersonal communications make people to create conflicts or it can sometimes help them to solve conflicts in good ways. In chapter 10 from “Bridge not walls” by John Stewart, he has described conflicts as a tool that can bring people more closely to each others: those conflicts can help people to destroy the walls that they have with the other people and build strong bridges instead. When you being open about yourself, I think there is possibilities that you might create conflicts with the other person. Everyone is different and the way they think is also different. Therefore, it is hard to expect someone to agree with your opinions; and they might disagree with it. In this case, the conflicts have to be created since they are having a hard time with accepting the each other’s differences. No one would enjoy hearing negative opinions about something that you believe to be right. I think it is same for putting your emotion to conversation. Too much emotion or too little emotions can bring discomfort to the listeners. That discomfort can be another reason to create bigger conflicts. However, the conflicts are not always bad according to Stewart, and we can use it as a tool to make bridges the others.
Monday August 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm
The two presentations I focused on, were chosen based on how well they relate to one another. Group 3 (JimiGarcia) focused self-disclosure and openness while Tennisfan’s group focused on four common emotions we experience in interpersonal communication. While essentially all of these presntation fit in with one another (as they are all about interpersonal communication), I felt these related related to another.
The process I saw was that often times when we do self-disclose or the reasons why we don’t are affected by emotions we feel – most of which were addressed by TennisFan’s team. A lightbulb went off when I realized how evident this was. Through JimiGracia’s analysis of Summer22 and Sports we see how important self-disclosure is. Unforunately, the team did not give an adequate view of what happens when being open goes awry. I think this element is essential in understanding emotion.
Luckily, we are all communicators who all took this class so we can easily theorize that the fear of openness backfiring is indeed what stops many people from doing so. Often times, this occurs in cross-cultural situations as discussed in the articles we read. With so much conflict, judgment and discomfort between nationalities, ethnicities, religions, cultures, etc, it is no wonder people are afraid to be open.
Bohm’s piece on tensionality really struck a chord with me when considering both the concepts of openness and emotions experienced through IPC. Bohm describes that in order to successfully achieve a dialogue in which both parties benefit we must hold our own ground – thus self-disclose and be open about our opinions, values and beliefs and let the “other” happen to us – experiencing emotions of letting go of preconceived notions and allowing someone else to penetrate the barrier we all put up. Through doing either we can experience confusion – not understanding someone when they are being open, frustration – someone not understanding you or you trying to understand someone and not doing so, relief – what comes when someone does not reject you for your self-disclosure, and empathy – truly feelings the emotions someone else is trying to convey.
The difficult part is not necessarily understanding these concepts, but in fact achieving them. To say that we will not only self-disclosure, but also embrace tensionality and the uncomfortable feelings that come, is easy, to do it is another feat. However, through not only the presentations but from what I have learned over the course of the class, it is important to grasp these ideas and commit to doing them in all levels of interpersonal communication.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 1:13 am
I chose to analyze Group One’s project on tensionality
, and Group Three’s project on the consequentiality of emotions. There is definitely a relationship between these two topics. The emotions that someone experiences definitely shape the tensionality of a dialogue they might have. If they are feeling stubborn, they may be more likely to hold their own ground more than they let the other happen to them. “Promoting Dialogue” is a topic that relates quite a bit to tensionality. Without dialogue, there would be no tensionality! Dialogue should be promoted, because more dialogue often leads to faster communication and clearer emotions.
I agree with some of the other students who don’t think “Bridging Cultural Differences” is extremely relevant to the class. OuterBodyBoi says “I’m not sure about chapter 11 either, because the focus is on cultural differences, and although we all do have cultural differences, I believe we changed our words so that it would be a more universal line of communication. From my memory, we didn’t really discuss much cultural difference other than it should be respected.” Of course, our cultural differences are present in all areas of communication, whether we know it or not. However, it is not something we have carefully examined in this class, and I don’t think we would have enough time to spend on it now.
“Managing Conflicts by Turning Walls Into Bridges” would be an interesting read. Although I haven’t personally had any conflict with anyone in the class, learning how to deal with conflicts is an extremely useful skill. JohnnieDrama seemed to be one who enjoyed instigating a little bit of conflict, from what he wrote in the project. Now I can see where his name comes from!
The relationship between emotions and conflicts is extremely clear. No one would care enough to argue with someone if they did not have emotions leading them. I think this article sounds like it would be interesting to Bohm, as he does not believe in holding onto one’s ideas for extended periods of time. A lot of conflict would be resolved if no one had strong opinions, but I think strong opinions are what makes communication interesting.
“Recognizing Communication Walls” sounds useful because some of the hardest parts of communication are the parts we are least equipped to deal with. The emotions we exhale when we feel betrayed are hard to contain and/or express rationally. Learning how to argue without being offensive is an important skill, and is also part of the push-pull of tensionality.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 10:16 am
I noticed that two themes were more apparent in my critique than others. I touch on “recognizing communication walls” by explaining the difference between dishonesty and disclosure. The two can often be misinterpreted and lead to confusion. If we recognize the fact that someone may have intentionally left out information or looked over something, we can try to understand the driving force behind that behavior. Even if it does not change what your reaction is, you will at least have a better understanding of why you are reacting that way, and have a better chance of articulating and ‘nexting’ the way you feel. I also spoke on Hanh’s concept of “inter-being’ in my critique. While doing so, I cite all the examples of classmates depending on each others’ work to get the most out of this class. This parallels the theme of “promoting dialog.” If we continue to communicate, not just wait for our turn to speak, we can effectively progress our knowledge and perspective. In this class environment we were forced to depend on each other’s work, but it promoted attentiveness to others’ work that goes overlooked almost as rule in secondary education. I hope that our inter-dependency can lead to the increasing presence of other themes, like “bridging cultural differences” and “turning walls into bridges”. With effort we can all take the communication skills honed, or at minimum addressed, here and take them to the rest of the world.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I found several similarities between my critiques and the lecture and the whole team presentation group project that our class did. I found paraphrases and quotes from the lecture and what quotes Steph included in the lecture from students assignments that were relevant to the group projects and my own. Two classmates in particular that I found quality relevant information from were Memphisburns and Nijacook. Memphisburns was one of the students that I critiqued so this made it even better for this assignment because I could remember more clearly what I wrote to their blog.
The information that I found in Memphisburns paraphrases and quotes in Stephs lecture was more relevant to the class project as a whole rather than particularly to my critique of their work. This person responded to whether or not each reading was important to their group or them as an individual. I thought this was important because using the project as a general topic means that they were commenting to all of us rather than just one person or group. Memphis says, “a certain gravity to the readings when the overall goal of the thought process is a common good that adheres to no superficial or cultural separations.” This is basically talking about how the class or group has a collective overall goal that we are going for which I found important for team presentations.
The second classmate I chose for this assignment was Ninjacook who used some “openness” as a way to express their ideas on the subject matter. There seemed to have been a decrease in energy for the group that this student was in and they recognized it which I think was very important. To be in an online class and have a group project which continues over several days it is important to recognize if the team is slowing down. Ninja wrote, “We seem, my team at least, to be lacking the fundamental “push-pull” dynamic in our conversations when we tend to agree with each other and the material.” This is suggesting that the team is agreeing on a subject just to agree on it which is not a collaboration of ideas. I find this was an important recognition on the part of Ninja and I hope they talked to their group about this.
http://memphisburns.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/team-5-project/#comment-16
http://johnniedrama.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/who-really-defines-us-manifestations-of-tensionality/#comment-25
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm
It’s one thing to read chapter after chapter on theory, but it’s another thing to be a part of the chemistry that creates them
The theory that I felt held the most weight as far as our class discussions and group projects would have to be the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. Its basic angle is that through the process of communication we are able to create and manage our social realities. It’s a group working together to come up with a reality. This also leads into promoting dialogue, because by creating in depth discussion we are able to solidify our realities further.
We worked together to construct this class. Steph is asking us now, “Do you imagine that interpersonal communication begins with you (what you say, what you mean?), or do you believe that interpersonal communication begins with everything everyone else says and means?” I believe that it’s a constant negotiation.
In President Makalele’s critique of our group he mentions, “you are nexting in order to spurn some sort of expression from the other party.” This is talking about the need for a connection to be made. We need this connection in order to negotiate meaning amongst ourselves. The essence of communication is this creating and managing our reality. Through the practice of nexting, we can clarify what each other mean and negotiate further.
Another point made in President Makalele’s critique was that, “We want to be part of the conversation, but we also tend to want our interpretation to be the focal point, or at least carry as much weight as any other’s.” This comment connects directly with how the individual influences rules. We are breathing in order to be heard and effect the environment as much as it’s doing the opposite towards us as individuals.
President Mikalele points out that, “AP1115 goes on to say that this darkness created confusion and as a result it made each individual rely on everyone else to figure it out. In this instance people had to respond fiercely in order for success as a whole by relying on each others.” This can be said of conversation outside of a project as well. We are constantly relying on each other and negotiating meaning and importance, whether it’s with a goal in mind or none at all. This connects with the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory. The theory states that communication is a process that allows us to create and manage social realities. This entire short semester, we’ve been creating social realities through our powerful words, and then in discussion with others we manage these realities. This means that we are in a constant push-pull negotiation of reality in which each student participates differently. It’s our collective consciousness that creates the reality that we continue to interact in. I can’t say that any one of us did it on our own. The cause and effect of our writing is a series of chemical reactions that led to what we constructed.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 8:40 pm
There are many different theories involved in Interpersonal Communication. A visual way of thinking about all of these theories is having interpersonal communication the center, with all of these other branches coming off of it that are also interweaved. For instance recognizing communication walls can relate to a lot of things that we’ve learned. Not to be farfetched but I want to display exactly how interweaved these theories can be. Recognizing communication walls can be related to adding to a conversation, believe it or not. A conversation may not go over well with someone from an Asian culture where it may be perceived as rude to look your interlocutor in the eye, and someone from our American culture where it is rude to look someone in the eye. This conversation has the potential to take all different routes, but with the ability to recognize the difference between each culture the conversation has the potential to be successful. To add to a conversation can start with listening, you can not add to a conversation successfully if you have not been listening to the other person. One may not listen to the person of the Asian culture if they are not looking them in their eyes when talking, because they may mistake this as being rude, and that would turn them off from wanting to listen. Promoting dialogue is essential when communicating, this also relates to all different theories of Interpersonal Communication. With out dialogue there are limited ways to converse- very limited ways. Dialogue is something that makes a conversation what it is. There are very many different ways to add to a conversation, using dialogue may be the most efficient way.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I find that only a few of the four theories that I just read are evident in my critiques of other students work. For example, the theory on “bridging cultural differences” in Stephanie’s lecture is not something I feel is evident in my critiques of other peoples work. I did not base any of my work on people’s cultures and in fact do not even know about people’s cultures really from reading their work. However, on the other hand I find that the theory “Promoting Dialogue” is a bit evident in my critiques. I mean, how can it not be when I am adding to a conversation and doing a bit of “nexting”. Im promoting for more people to contribute by giving my own ideas. I also feel that by using quotes from classmates like Swabbies, Abridgeofideas and Sports08 that I am promoting dialogue by prompting them to respond. I feel as though “Managing conflict by turning walls into bridges” is another theory that is a bit evident in my critiques. Some people would look at critiques as a negative thing like I would have to criticize someone. I feel as though this would be building walls if I was to do that so instead I was positive and I created bridges by offering my own ideas. I think this is a better approach because people might not be so “open” next time if I was to build “walls”. The final theory “Recognizing communication walls” is not evident in my critiques. This is merely recognizing a conflict or recognizing a problem which is something I did not do. If I was to approach the critique in a negative way I think this would something that was very evident in my critiques.
Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 9:43 pm
All Coming Together
How are the main four themes apparent in my critics?
I have “recognized walls” when I read blogs that at first do not make sense to me. These “walls” act like communication barriers. Sometimes the expressions used or the way the writer describes himself/herself is different to what I am used to. This also has to do with a difference in languages (Spanish being my first) which brings another theme into effect (“Bridging cultural differences”). Because I am originally from another culture, I see the differences in language and the way people express themselves. I have learned not to let these “barriers” control my communication attempts, and so have learned to “Manage my conflicts”. If I do not understand one blog, I read it again, and if that doesn’t work, then I will read a URL that this writer used so that I can see where his/her ideas came from. I learned to never give up! (well most of the time ) Another way to manage my conflicts (in communication and understanding) is to simply ask questions. It will not hurt to ask, especially in an online environment. Now as for “Promoting Dialogue” I don’t see it much in my critic. My critics present a point of view that I have gathered from my classmates and my own thoughts, but I do not present much opportunity for a “dialogue”.
URL:
http://gym411.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/final-self-evalutaion/
http://gym411.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/self-critic/
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 1:19 am
The web blog page I just did it really connects to the theory about adding to conversation I had to again put a post for my fellow classmates to look at and reply to. I really want to hear my classmates thoughts on what I exhaled about the term interbeing. I find that word to be very interesting to me I’m not exactly sure if I have a true grasp of what interbeing means. So I am up to see what reponses I get back from my classmates. With me doing that this also ties in with the theory adding a conversation I presented new ideas on how interbeing was presented in my critques my classmates may feel a diferernt way about what I have to say. They all have the freedom to say what they agree with me on or disagree. Which brings us right back to the article about the postman and how he feels honesty is a big key in every person life. Being honest isn’t always a good thing to especially when your talking with someone else from a different culture some things are meant different in each different county. So we must watch how we speak to each other and people from different countries . If we can continue to do this over maybe the next five or six years the word could become a place were we all will be able to connect with each other.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 2:20 am
After reading about Postman’s theory and “Inter-being,” and writing a self-critique, I really feel that it was possible to take a step back and look at the broader picture. As I wrote in my most recent post, essentially everything is inter-related (whether it be directly, or through varying influences). When looking at the course themes (of bridging cultural differences, promoting dialogue, managing conflict by turning bridges into walls, and recognizing communication walls), one is able to take away several key points. First, interpersonal communication requires an awareness of self and an awareness of others. I’ve written about this idea, specifically of “tensionality,” and the creation of “self” in relation to one’s own expectation and that of others. One must be able to “bridge cultural differences” by having an awareness of others and maintaining an open mind. Promoting dialogue arises from remaining honest and “inhibited” – one must anticipate the flow and direction of communication in order to enrich the relationship. Managing conflict and recognizing communication walls again stem from an awareness of interpersonal communication barriers and mechanisms to successfully move past them.
All in all, everyone is unique (obviously, this goes without saying) – but what I mean is that these principles each mean something slightly different for individuals. It may be hard for some to be honest, while it may be difficult for others to be inhibited. Ultimately, however, having an awareness of “tensioality,” “nexting,” “consequntiality,” etc. will likely lead to richer interpersonal communcation.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 6:01 am
First things first, in Steph’s above blog, Culmination, I am referenced several times as to my stances on topics other than “Managing Conflict by Turning Bridges into Walls.” Bear in mind, while I may not think that recognizing communication walls, bridging cultural differences, and promoting dialogue are THE MOST important topics, I certainly do not feel that they are worthless. I just want to make it clear that of the four topics available, I picked the best next logical choice. Once again I feel “bamboozled” by Steph. She takes an excerpt of what I wrote about understanding those around us, and then juxtaposes my stances on the same issue – which are opposites. Why would I bring up the effect of cultural differences in this course if I didn’t want to learn about them? (see above statements)
Ok, now that that bit is out of the way… on to my self-critique. When I wrote the self-critique, I did not want to narrow the scope of the post to just one or two things. Rather I took the stance on the entire life of this course, in fact, I took the stance on my entire life. And I realized, after re-reading it several times combined with culmination, that I address many issues that were covered as part of our final textbook readings. I see that I have the ability to recognize and overcome communication walls – “I was able to make the connection to a distant childhood where self-esteem and my own self-worth came into jeopardy.” In a deep self-re-evaluation, I saw why I communicate the way that I do, and the way that I worked through any challenges that I faced. Furthermore, I promote dialogue on a daily basis, especially in class settings and in group work – “as much as I want to say what I really want to say, I can’t knowing that words are hurtful and may harm another. So instead, I try to phrase my criticism in the most constructive way possible.” So even though pretty much everything I do is in my own self-interest, it does benefit the “other guy” in that it synthesizes a more cohesive communication process between the two or more individuals involved.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 6:54 am
I am not sure the four theories are as apparent in my critique as I would hope they might be. The Coordinated Management of Meaning does reflect through the discussion as we each agree that we inhale, but we exhale in appropriate manners depending on the situation. ShinyGinger expressed, “In the responses, I noticed that although I was respectful and tried to connect to other classmates over the common shards of ourselves that we shared, it was somewhat forced. It was polite conversation for the sake of making polite conversation.”
In my critique, in reflecting on the chicken and the egg, I would respond by saying that the conversation begins with me. I make the choice of what to disclose that dictates the relationship and how it will develop.
The theory of discourse, each of us respond to others that we feel we have something in common with. Conversations become much easier and less challenging to continue. In other circumstances we try to be open to others differences and respectful to avoid arguments. In the particular course, working in groups, with our classmates, and with our professor there were disagreements on some of the assignments or how assignments were impacting students. But, form what I witnessed, we were respectful.
http://bridgeofideas.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/being-open-without-being-dishonest/
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 9:24 am
As I through Steph’s culmination it takes me back to thinking about “Promoting Dialogue” from Bridges and “Letting the Other Happen to Me”, because what I think that we have been doing here is precisely this. While we have been constructing our identities and “making bridges” instead of putting up “walls” in our ongoing communication we have produced some really great “things” (as Steph would put it!). From chapter 12 on Promoting Dialgue by Stewart and Zediker on Dialogue’s Basic Tension they write that “letting the other happen to me-this means that you let someone happen to you-to touch, connect with, and influence you (615).” My critique/analysis is found at analysis. which further looks at my reflections on this class. Another thing the book mentions about Promoting Dialogue is that “elected officials a national and local levels want better two-way communication with voters. Teachers on campuses across the country want less lecturing and more active involvement and open communication is their classrooms (591).” This is so important, and even more important the fact that Steph has created this goal through the true nature of this online class. She has in fact made it possible to “promote more dialogue” by fostering an environment of “less lecuring and more active involvement” while she has been teaching us the crucial elements of IPC, such as “nexting”, inhaling, exhaling. Steph has done this in way that has not only made us students of IPC but also teachers, by sharing our learning with each other and on a public space.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 9:34 am
As I sat down to write this last aspect of this assignment, I had to stop myself for a moment. At first glance, one would think that there is little to no way to connect the four themes from last homework, to the theory I chose and the critiques of this one. However, if there is one thing I took from this class it is that a connection can be found anywhere; there is always a way to communicate an interweaving of thoughts, opinions, and ideas, even if it seems impossible at first. The theory of impression management related to the critiques my classmates made on my own group and other group’s projects, as it was because of the truth of this theory that we wrote exactly what and how we did. Choosing to hold back some views, and selecting the evidences and examples we did, all came from the desire to be viewed well by our peers.
Looking at my analysis and critiques, I can see the four themes throughout. For example, “Bridging Cultural Differences” discusses the commonality of cultural variances, and how they affect communication. It is those very cultural differences that enhance our paranoia and cause us to concentrate even harder on censoring our words. In addition as mentioned in my critique, noting Hahn’s work, when we notice such variances, it is then that we begin an intense search for a commonality among us. Thinking about the theme of “Promoting Dialogue,” it is highly relatable, and seen in my critique, as it encourages openness. Going along both with impression management and Postman’s writing, we should use discourse, dialogue, words to share ourselves, our personalities.
“Turning Walls Into Bridges” is slightly harder to find in my critique, as its focus is on how positive communication comes from leaving out hostility. Yet, of course it can be found in my critique, as I note the desire for people, not just to watch what they say, but also to get themselves heard. It is at that point in the communication that we must be sure to speak (write) with respect. Lastly, “Communication Walls” reveals roadblocks in IPC, and how me must find and fix them. The theory of impression management and the writings of both Postman and Hanh all go along with this theme. All are roadblocks to successful interpersonal communication. We must take all that we have learned in our class from the readings, lectures, and each other’s writings and critiques and break through these walls to continue our path towards positive IPC.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 10:07 am
My critique and analyses show some examples of the four themes/topics for the end of the course. I was initially drawn to the comments of others that showed the most engaged attempts at dialogue. These comments were based on some criticisms of our work that were intended to be “next” or point out something new. I think that these ideas relate most to the theme of “Promoting Dialogue” in terms of the readings for the end of the course. The theme/topic of “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls Into Bridges” was also evident in my critique where I discussed Thecakeisalie’s interesting analysis of a conflict between myself and a team member. I was able to look past the conflict itself and actually learn from the analyses of it, creating a “bridge” to greater learning through successfully managing conflict. Thirdly, the theme/topic of “Recognizing Communication walls,” is also evident in that that Thecakeisalie recognized the potential for a “communication wall” with myself and the teammate that I supposedly “lumped into a negative group without being looked at as an individual.” As I mentioned already their comment led to deeper thinking on my part and this conflict became a source to base some interesting discourse on. As for the fourth theme/topic, “Bridging Cultural Differences,” I believe that this was somewhat evident in my analysis of contrasting American immigrant experiences offered by Jaggerbunny. They talked about the contrasting experiences noting that in their example their sources were sometimes able to offer both negative and positive opinions on America regardless of their own opinions. By examining these cultural differences in this objective manner they cease to be differences in that they inhibit communications but rather inspire thoughtful dialogue on the topic, in effect “bridging” said differences.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 10:29 am
The first topic covered was “Bridging Cultural Differences” and I feel there wasn’t too much to be discussed on this topic, as I had said before. There is only one thing that hints at our culture in my critique, and that was my statement about in our culture there is a saying “if you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it” (which I think is crap in most cases, but still applies). The next topic was “Promoting Dialogue” which I think is omnipresent in this class, because without dialogue, what else would we have? We have no body language to read, so there goes the other half of communication. Dialogue is all we have. While we promote dialogue though, we need to be careful not to disclose too much, as I had said in my critique (again, nudists). “Managing Conflicts by Turning Walls into Bridges” didn’t really appear in my critique, but I definitely encountered it in my other response today while talking about ooloveshoo’s disclosure that English wasn’t her first language. What could have potentially blocked her from good conversations might have actually opened up new ones. This leads to the last topic, “Recognizing Communication Walls”. I feel I touch on this a little bit with my quoting of Grant2u above. She was talking about how being correctly dishonest can help a conversation and relationship, rather than hurt it. If you fudge a detail, or omit it, even though it isn’t the complete truth, it probably will end up better off in the long run anyway.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
The four topics of bridging cultural differences, promoting dialogue, turning walls into bridges and recognizing communication walls are all important in interpersonal communication. My critique included dialogue promotion because of the idea that everything is inter-be. Dialogue is promoted in most of the things we have written for IPC class this past month or so and when dialogue is promoted, walls can be bridged through that dialogue. So just by writing my critique I believe that if there are walls present they can be bridge through dialogue. The cultural differences was not so much in the critique because it was based solely on what was previously written and not on the cultures of those who wrote those previous entries. Communication walls can also be recognized through the same dialogue that is promoted because dialogue is where you would recognize a wall if it was there. I don’t think that there were many walls to bridge when I wrote my critique because it was recognized that everything is inter- be in the class and we need all the other stuff we have done before this point in order to begin to understand the concepts presented to us now at the end of class. My New Blogpost
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 11:22 am
The topics we were asked to consider were “Bridging Cultural Differences,” “Promoting Dialogue,” “Turning Walls into Bridges,” and “Recognizing Communication Walls.” As far as my critique, I definitely discussed the idea of bridging cultural differences. What I grasped from EOC theory is that a lot of group coding of communication styles comes from culture and our environment. Promoting dialogue as mentioned by previous posters is omnipresent in this class and most definitely in my critique. Promoting dialogue is a way in which we achieve tensionality while advancing our knowledge of our surroundings, those whom we communicate with, and ourselves. My critique did not so much touch upon turning walls into bridges, however I do believe that through effective dialogic listening and communication wall can be turned into bridges. This concept definitely goes hand in hand with bridging cultural differences and through dialogue the uncertainty that causes walls can be eliminated. Finally, I did not focus much on recognizing communication walls however doing so is necessary for turning bridges into walls and bridging cultural differences. All of these topics are in face interrelated or as Hahn would say, “interbeing” of one anther. To truly grasp effective communication and achieve promisng results, one must achieve the skills involved in all of the four above topics.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 11:42 am
In order to communicate effectively one needs to use emotion and give another the believe that they truly understand the conversation. Without the reassurance that there is understanding the communication can not continue. We bring up this idea of turning a wall into a bridge. We are trying to analyze the hold ups in communication because a lot of walls are built not because we disagree because we do not understand.
Stephs post about Jonnydrama is something I do agree with but not entirely. “…in terms of deciphering the nature of a group-mate’s emotion and nexting that emotion, I do have a bit of a concern. Using this online format, it makes our listening and nexting skills infinitely more important due to the possible miscommunications that might occur. A lot of times, especially at a large university like UMass, people of several different backgrounds are attracted to the diversity that is offered, and this will create diversity in classes. Usually, in a “normal” class, diversity can be seen (via people’s appearances), sometimes even heard (through people’s voices/accents), but not here. When reading a comment or a weblog or a discussion post, the way it is written is now more important than ever. The slightest type-o or grammatical error can throw off the reader, and make the reader think that the writer is of a different background than the reader – whether culturally, religiously, socioeconomically, or mentally.”
There are so many instances on campus in other classes were we find out self’s arguing about something we both agree upon . I feel like with an online setting we are arguing about the words not appearance. However when we are online we write are thoughts down and post them for everyone else to digest and respond to. This gives us a lot of time top reread and over analyze. So if we make a mistake online and do not notice until the next time we log in people have already responded and it makes it harder to reiterate the point or fix the problem of miscommunication.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Promoting Dialogue” is definitely present in my self-critique as it is a critique of my own dialogue. Part of my critique explains how my analysis is connected to the class as a whole; it began the day the class started. I also explain that I speak (or write) in a way that is not meant to offend anyone. I don’t think it is very relevant to “Bridging Cultural Differences,” as I do not mention anyone’s ethnicity. I have not met anyone in the class, and though I know a few people are not originally from the United States, it wasn’t really an issue we touched upon in class. “Managing Conflicts by Turning Walls Into Bridges” fits because I mention an issue I had with JohnnieDrama, (although he still doesn’t know it!) I am making progress toward expressing my feelings to other people in an attempt to resolve them. “Recognizing Communication Walls” is also relevant because I am starting to recognize the aspects of communication I have trouble with. For example, I mention that I can be too polite, and it becomes a form of dishonesty.
Wednesday August 20, 2008 at 11:00 pm
In section four of “Bridges not walls” by John Stewart brings out four ideas to help to communicate with others:”Promoting dialogue”, “Bridging cultural differences”, “Recognizing Communication Walls”, “Managing Conflict by Turning Walls into Bridges”. I was able to connect these four themes to impression management. I think that every conversation is starting from experiencing the walls between the people since they do not know each others, especially, when you try to start a conversation with strangers. People who are having the conversation are responsible for destroying those walls and change into bridges. I think that the process of impression management can create some misunderstanding about the others. These impressions are often created by putting personal opinions after observing someone rather than just believing what they see. These conflicts have possibilities to destroy walls and create bridge between people, but it can also harden the walls if they cannot resolve this conflicts. People can work to solve conflicts by promoting dialogue. They can understand each others from listen to the others and continue their conversation by “nexting”. While people are having conversation, they might experience culture differences since everyone has their own different backgrounds and beliefs which also can be a reason to create conflicts between them. However, they also can learn these differences or problems by having dialogue.
Thursday August 21, 2008 at 11:52 am
I’ve been working my way through this three-part assignment, leaving comments on students’ blogs. For instance:
“I mentioned Masr’s comment as an example of interdependence to Memphis Burns, and also used it as an instance of reification (to President Makalele at Swabbies).”
This is a lot of work to do now that the class is officially over, but I am optimistic that these last interactions matter and will move us (somehow, separately for sure and in surprising ways maybe possibly together) further in talk and action toward