Posted by: saboy82 | August 20, 2008

I love it when a course come together!

I have “recognized walls” when I read everyone’s blogs that at first do not comprehend. These “walls” will act like communication barriers. Sometimes the expressions used or the way the writer describes himself/herself is different to what I am used to specifically if they are saying one thing I think it means something totally different, this is suggested in the theme “Bridging cultural differences”.  Because I am originally from another country/culture, I see the differences in culture and the way people express themselves.  I have learned not to let these “barriers” control my communication attempts, having people concentrate on my positive points, hence learned to “Manage my conflicts”. If I do not understand one blog, I read it again and again and if that doesn’t work, then I will get seek out another person’s impression to help me understand. After living through Apartheid and affirmative action I learned to never give up! Another way to manage my conflicts in communication and understanding is to simply raise questions and look for answers. For “Promoting Dialogue” after reading Scott’s article on “fierce conversation” I don’t see it much in my critic, I try promoting good dialogue with the help of “fierce conversation”.  So I try to present much opportunity for a “dialogue”.

Posted by: saboy82 | August 20, 2008

Criticizing myself!

Based on the Postman’s The Communication Panacea and Thich Nhat Hanh’s  Interbeing discussion threads It makes it clear how my writing has been subjective ever since I began this course. Lets start with “Interbeing”.  Swabbies suggested in his blog that the main idea was that everything that surrounds us is “inter-be” and everything is connected to one another, hence has a effect on something else making it “inter-be” with other things and events in the world. Jimmigarcia also suggested something similar by quoting Hanh directly, “a piece of paper is an “inter-being” with he clouds that provide the rain that helps the trees grow to make he paper. Without the clouds the piece of paper would not be able to exist therefore making the two “inter-beings”.” This is related to my writing because, my responses to other classmates and my own work used to be written solely with my point of view. Instead, now I follow my lessons, by trying to “listen”/”inhaling” as much as I can so that I can understand the authors from the articles and weblogs. I also try to “interweave” what I learned from these authors with my own ideas.  This will help me “next”/”exhale” in a successful way where I can create something fresh and new and not “push” my opinions and ideas upon everyone. In Postman’s The Communication Panacea, one of Postman’s main ideas (stated by Bridge of Ideas) is that complete honesty is very difficult to achieve “…since our motives and feelings are never all that clear”, hence “most of us are dishonest.” (Postman). In my writing a lack of honesty cannot be pointed out, however I can definitely agree that I am not as honest as I could be (mostly because My opinions need to come out on top). For example when I wrote about other students projects and presented them as being very good idea, honestly my thoughts were that many were just throwing in information and quotes without including all the “ideas”. I did not illustrate this in my response however, because it is a “way to both be respectful, and to protect ourselves.” (ShinyGinger)

Posted by: saboy82 | August 20, 2008

Self Evaluation

The theory that explains the interpersonal communication in regards to the comments in my presentation was “Relevance of Good Research”. The lecture offered by Stephanie portrays many ways in which the student describes a “good research paper”. Students mentioned that a lot of research is needed in order to create a good paper. The comments to my presentation used many examples from other classmates and readings in order to support the main idea.  For example, Spiceynoodlesoup used quotes in order to prove that being “open” would lead to effective “nexting”. Spiceynoodlesoup quoted a student saying, “While reading what Summer22 wrote I saw openness being used as a tool to express her own reflections” and “as a way to raise her interpersonal communication.” Then Spiceynoodlesoup rephrased the quote but with his own words, this shows how good research can lead to selective quotes that will support the writer’s main idea/argument. In my blog response I wrote about how Gym411 and I share the commonality of being from a different culture.  I had also mentioned how Gym411 had experienced some of the cultural barriers that I had experienced myself living in the US. I also mentioned how students can overcome these cultural differences by building meaningful relationship through being open, listening to other, and knowing what to self disclose. These lessons that we learnt from Stephanie and our fellow classmate act as tools when we have to do our research before we write our papers. I know I don’t want to get “look like a fool” (Stephanie’s Lecture) by having insufficient research.

 

URL:

https://saboy82.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/presentation-follow-up-pt-2/

http://spiceynoodlesoup.wordpress.com/

https://learning.umassonline.net/webct/urw/lc26190.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Posted by: saboy82 | August 19, 2008

Presentation Follow-up Pt 2

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.”

https://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/

Posted by: saboy82 | August 18, 2008

Presentation follow-up

I find it very fitting how all these concepts about interpersonal communication compliment each other, specifically “openness” and “fierce” conversations. “Fierce Conversations” by Susan 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 failure. For example when we are put into a certain situation our conversations tend to portray us in a fashion were we are not true to ourselves but rather portrays us in a fashion that is pleasing to the environment and person we are talking to. When Susan Scott uses the words Fierce Conversation she means having an honest, true to how you feel, and yourself conversation. The blogs written by Jimigarcia27 talks about openness as an essential tool for interpersonal communication. Specifically Jimigarcia27 states “Summer22 has used openness as a tool to further her IPC skills and also as a way of “nexting”. By expressing her own opinions and reactions to others in an open fashion she leaves ideas for people to think about which can continue the conversation. I believe that openness has been an essential tool”; and in Cake’s blog he mentions that David Johnson article about Being open with and to other people”explains how the self-disclosure can be used to enhance the relationships between the people”. The way openness is being described here shows us how it can create an opportunity to have a real “fierce” conversation. After all when you are open when you self disclose you are being authentic, hence the “fierce” conversation. Both team two and team four have illustrated how being open with other people, while at the same time helping explain why self disclosure could be helpful when communicating with others. These teams have also helped portray alternate ways to create an opportunity for an authentic conversation.

(team 2) http://sports08.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/openness-opens-the-doors-to-ipc/

(team 4) http://ohnothecakeisalie.wordpress.com/2008/08/

Posted by: saboy82 | August 16, 2008

Midterm

Consequentiality of emotion in Interpersonal Communication applies to everyone; this is because an emotion is a reaction based on how something was communicated or “nexted” if you will. For example a person “nexting” in a fashion that was displeasing to the people he/she is having a conversation with, hence creating an opportunity for a negative emotion. In other words it “matters” because it affects the kinds of lives people lead. And more importantly, this impact is due more to the way people communicate rather than what they say (Sigman pg46). For example in the Group Dynamics class there were a few examples that stuck out, specifically the speeches given by the presidential candidates.  The consequentiality of the speeches created an emotion were the people believed in the candidates (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms&feature=related) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BC1Ls0yK1_o). Senetor John McCain’s courageous service video sends an emotional message of admiration, patriotism, perseverance, and service, among other things. Some other examples that I have obtained from my fellow classmates were comments in response to the weblogs and discussion threads. Specifically the introductions/ something new we have learnt, I mentioned that I was an immigrant and based on past experiences in regards to racism and affirmative action I mentioned how pleased I was with American society. In Gym411 comments, he disagreed and released an emotional story from the past. He says: “I came from Puerto Rico to the US when I was 12. I also experienced many embarrassing moments and some “cruel” ones that dealt with racism. Now I’m not saying that everyone is cruel, but are there cruel people in the world? Sadly yes. Some people feed of stereotypes and enjoy making others feel less so that they can feel better about themselves. But, that’s life; we can’t concentrate on the ignorance of others, that’s their problem.” (https://saboy82.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/3/#comment-3). When having a conversation with someone, we can be certain that how we next or have a conversation with someone, may lead to a person trying to relate to you so that it may create the opportunity for a some what less formal response. For example delivermesummer expressed her same love for South Africa, while being very specific about it (https://saboy82.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/3/#comment-4). 

Posted by: saboy82 | August 13, 2008

Teaming

I would like to build a case for the David W. Johnson article on Building Relationships with Diverse Others (chapter 11). I believe this will be a suitable article for our class, because I am sure everyone in one point in time has experienced difficulty communicating with people due to cultural differences. “ We live in one world. The problems that face each person, each community, each country cannot be solved without global cooperation and joint action” (pg543). The article also has similar concepts to what we have been learning in class, such as listening, nexting, exhaling, and fierce conversations. These concepts apply when the author describes how we need to accept ourselves, lowering the barriers to building relationships with diverse peers, recognizing that diversity exists and is a valuable resource, and clarifying misunderstandings.

Posted by: saboy82 | August 12, 2008

Synthesis

“Fierce Conversations” written by Susan 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 failure. For example when we are put into a certain situation our conversations tend to portray us in a fashion were we are not true to ourselves but rather portrays us in a fashion that is pleasing to the environment and person we are talking to. When Susan Scott uses the words Fierce Conversation she means having an honest, true to how you feel, and yourself conversation. She also mentions that when we don’t have fierce or authentic conversations for creating a situation were you want to achieve something positive, but nothing is achieved because you were not having a fierce conversation. When this happens we tend to put blame on other people for the failure of achieving your goal. Susan Scott refers to this as the accountability shuffle, because in all truthfulness you have no one to blame but yourself. Based on past summary analysis by my teammates, it is clear that some members don’t have a problem with having a fierce conversation. For example ninjacook took the initiative by going for what he wanted. Specifically speaking he got things started by introducing himself and getting others to join in. In his summary/analysis he goes one step further by describing that the authors: G. Corey & M. Schneider-Corey point out “although self-acceptance is a pre-requisite for meaningful interpersonal relationships, there is a quest to go beyond self-centered interests.” This is a similar point to what Scott is making. In the Rodriguez article ninjacook also mentions that the author struggles to realize his identity within American society due to the generalization of ethnicity. I see this as a metaphor because “fierce conversation” requires us to be authentic and stand out, not be like everyone else.

Spiceynoodlesoup analyzed an article by Navita Cummings James, she describes how stories that were told to her growing up influenced her perception of black and white people. Although the people of color were always portrayed negatively, and white people were always portrayed as the dominant race, these environmental factors should not influence what a person feels is right or wrong. Being “fierce” means being authentic to your own feelings.

Posted by: saboy82 | August 9, 2008

Dialogue

The message in the article: Dialogue’s Basic Tension by Karen Zediker and John Stewart that is being conveyed here is that when we have moments of dialogue, the people involved in said dialogue maintain one primary tension. The one between “letting the other happen to me while holding my own ground” In other words when we let the other happen to me, you are letting someone happen to you or influence you.  “Holding my own ground” on the other hand takes place when in the moment of primary tension of dialogue the person holds their ground by asserting himself or herself.

My team’s basic tensions based on their weblogs give out the vibe that everyone is “letting the other happen to me” more than “holding my own ground” I say this because it seems that everyone is has similar views with each other. For example, “We have members that like to find a common relationship amongst each other when working in teams and one member that is open to working with those who are similar and different to him” (gym411). However they hold their ground by sticking to the idea that they chose. (I like and agree with what Spiceynoodlesoup offers saying “hopefully this project will just be a frenzy of nexting from the beginning.”) (ninjacook). Although these “basic tensions” were displayed, I cant help but to think that without “letting the other happen to me” a person may not have the opportunity for “Holding my own ground”.  

Posted by: saboy82 | August 8, 2008

7.2

I have chosen to do “nexting” as a topic, These are the Urls I believe to help with this path.

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/time-to-decide-what-do-you-believe/

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/what-are-youwe-going-to-produce-com352/

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/consistency-and-consensus-mutually-exclusive/

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/can-we-articulate-the-frames-emergent-in-our-interaction/

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/building-on-success-a-3d-puzzle/

http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/when-confusion-is-the-condition/

Older Posts »

Categories