The part of Chapter 8 that I found interesting was the way information can flow in an organization. For instance, information can flow in a downward flow where someone near the top of the organization sends a message to someone near the bottom. There are also upward flows and horizontal flows. I think that defining these types of information flows as upward/downward and horizontal is interesting because there are many situations in an organization that occurs in these different flows. I think sometimes when something that needs to a downward flow, doesn’t always end up that way and vice versa. A subordinate who needs to send a message upward needs to go through a hierarchal system and if it is not met, sometimes the middle person may be upset.
For example, I work at a doctor office and he has a manager that supervises his staff. If we have a problem we should go to our manager and not directly to the doctor. Otherwise, he takes offense to how our manager supervises.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Week 13, Question 3
3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
In communication studies, I love topics on self-disclosure. For me, sharing things about yourself is an essential part to a good relationship. With self disclosure, we are able to gain insight into what a person may be thinking that we cannot gather by just looking at them.
In the text, Trenholm describes there are actually rules to disclosure and I thoroughly enjoy them. The first states that self-disclosure is not appropriate in all situations. This is true because sharing personal feelings is not something that can be discussed in perhaps a work environment.
Another thing is to consider the effect of your disclosure on others. In this case, views on certain things can be detrimental to a relationship. For instance, views on gay marriage are two-sider. Save yourself the fight when talking to someone who is gay or for it. If you don't agree with it, it's better to just keep quiet especially if you don't care too much about the topic or you dont have a dog in the fight.
In communication studies, I love topics on self-disclosure. For me, sharing things about yourself is an essential part to a good relationship. With self disclosure, we are able to gain insight into what a person may be thinking that we cannot gather by just looking at them.
In the text, Trenholm describes there are actually rules to disclosure and I thoroughly enjoy them. The first states that self-disclosure is not appropriate in all situations. This is true because sharing personal feelings is not something that can be discussed in perhaps a work environment.
Another thing is to consider the effect of your disclosure on others. In this case, views on certain things can be detrimental to a relationship. For instance, views on gay marriage are two-sider. Save yourself the fight when talking to someone who is gay or for it. If you don't agree with it, it's better to just keep quiet especially if you don't care too much about the topic or you dont have a dog in the fight.
Week 13, Question 2
1). Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?
Among the given patterns, the one I find most difficult to change is the rigid complemtarity. I believe that partners in this pattern fall into submissive/superior roles. If they begin this way, it's harder for them to break out of this. One partner will always feel dominated over the other and sometimes, they may even be oblivious to it. I think that when one is oblivious, perhaps he/she doesn't feel that there is anything wrong to begin with so this pattern might not be the most damaging. I also feel that relationships vary and maybe having a "rigid" pattern is what is viewed by our society but not others.
The patter that I feel is most damaging to the self esteem of individuals involed is the submissive semmetry. I think that when partners lose desire to make decisions, he or she has reached a stage where they have given up their self worth. Allowing the other individual to take control and being apathetic about it very damaging.
Competitive symmetry is damaging to the relationship because it causes individuals to compete. I personally feel that this is damaging because if one partner always wins, the other one almost feels as though they are less than the other. The one who wins all the time may also develop some kind of ego that causes him/her to think that they are better than their partner.
Among the given patterns, the one I find most difficult to change is the rigid complemtarity. I believe that partners in this pattern fall into submissive/superior roles. If they begin this way, it's harder for them to break out of this. One partner will always feel dominated over the other and sometimes, they may even be oblivious to it. I think that when one is oblivious, perhaps he/she doesn't feel that there is anything wrong to begin with so this pattern might not be the most damaging. I also feel that relationships vary and maybe having a "rigid" pattern is what is viewed by our society but not others.
The patter that I feel is most damaging to the self esteem of individuals involed is the submissive semmetry. I think that when partners lose desire to make decisions, he or she has reached a stage where they have given up their self worth. Allowing the other individual to take control and being apathetic about it very damaging.
Competitive symmetry is damaging to the relationship because it causes individuals to compete. I personally feel that this is damaging because if one partner always wins, the other one almost feels as though they are less than the other. The one who wins all the time may also develop some kind of ego that causes him/her to think that they are better than their partner.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Week 13, Question 1
2). Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?
There are many filters that I use to eliminate people from consideration as a potential partner. The major characteristic that my romantic partner has to possess is confidence. Confidence affects everything in a person including physical attractiveness because it affects their behaviors as well. For example, a person who is too clingy and seems too sensitive at early stages of a relationship is very unattractive.
Duck’s theory makes sense to me. The part of the theory I liked the most was the final stage, grave-dressing phase. It states that each party determines the meaning of their time together. They decide what to take away from their relationship. This is the phase that takes the longest to me. Relational dissolution or break-ups are messy and sometimes the lesson you get is blurred. Like the text states, its an important phase because it helps you in your next relationship.
I have definitely eliminated someone through preinteraction cues which include nonverbal impressions. We have learned that nonverbal cues include physical beauty or dress. I need to be attracted to someone to consider them as a potential romantic partner. I do think that attraction can grow through a relationship.
There are many filters that I use to eliminate people from consideration as a potential partner. The major characteristic that my romantic partner has to possess is confidence. Confidence affects everything in a person including physical attractiveness because it affects their behaviors as well. For example, a person who is too clingy and seems too sensitive at early stages of a relationship is very unattractive.
Duck’s theory makes sense to me. The part of the theory I liked the most was the final stage, grave-dressing phase. It states that each party determines the meaning of their time together. They decide what to take away from their relationship. This is the phase that takes the longest to me. Relational dissolution or break-ups are messy and sometimes the lesson you get is blurred. Like the text states, its an important phase because it helps you in your next relationship.
I have definitely eliminated someone through preinteraction cues which include nonverbal impressions. We have learned that nonverbal cues include physical beauty or dress. I need to be attracted to someone to consider them as a potential romantic partner. I do think that attraction can grow through a relationship.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Week 11, Question 3
The concept in this chapter that I found most interesting was the portion in text that Trenholm discusses language style. I completely love this topic because I am minoring in speech pathology and the particular part of the text that I enjoyed is that many people believe that when you translate a phrase in English to a different language, it means the same thing. However, given the cultural background, direct translation of the terms doesn’t mean the same thing. Language is more than just a string of words, but culture adds to the language in every culture. This is why barriers in language are more complex and difficult than a person thinks.
Week 11, Question 2
Among the three premises provided by Trenholm, rationality, perfectibility, and mutability, I agree with the first and last. I feel that rationality seems very understandable because it states that people are capable of discovering truth through logical analysis. The average person has the tools to make the right decisions and there are several institutions in tact that allow for this view such as jurys and enterprise.
The second premise, perfectibility is a bit hard for me to grasp because I feel that it should be the other way around. We are born innocent rather than sinned.
The last one, is one that I feel like i can relate to the most. I believe that people are shaped by enviornmental factors and in order to better themsleves, they need to look within their psychological and physical self.
The second premise, perfectibility is a bit hard for me to grasp because I feel that it should be the other way around. We are born innocent rather than sinned.
The last one, is one that I feel like i can relate to the most. I believe that people are shaped by enviornmental factors and in order to better themsleves, they need to look within their psychological and physical self.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Week 11, Question 1
According to anthropologist Ruth Benedict, we are “creatures of our culture” and I cannot agree more. Culture is more than the color of our skin, race, and our ethnic back ground; it is a part of our identity. Our cultural identity deals with our gender, sexual orientation, age, etc. When we add all these things together, we get one whole person that is able to take characteristics, beliefs, and traits from each aspect we identify with.
For example, I am a woman so the cultural identity I identify with is from what society feels is expected from a woman. They are to be care takers, bear children and etc. For a woman, obtaining a high position is more difficult than a man and when and if she is able to reach this level of success, there is a negative attachment that comes along with it. This is an example of an impossibility that comes from gender identity.
Also, women have habits that identify only with their group. Women talk, act, dress as society sees fit. This may change over time, but we are creatures of our culture.
The only way I see that we could breakthrough from limitations from our culture is by creating equality. Perhaps this is easier said than done however, if there was no defining characteristic that made an individual superior or inferior over the other, then limitations may not be such a big problem.
For example, I am a woman so the cultural identity I identify with is from what society feels is expected from a woman. They are to be care takers, bear children and etc. For a woman, obtaining a high position is more difficult than a man and when and if she is able to reach this level of success, there is a negative attachment that comes along with it. This is an example of an impossibility that comes from gender identity.
Also, women have habits that identify only with their group. Women talk, act, dress as society sees fit. This may change over time, but we are creatures of our culture.
The only way I see that we could breakthrough from limitations from our culture is by creating equality. Perhaps this is easier said than done however, if there was no defining characteristic that made an individual superior or inferior over the other, then limitations may not be such a big problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)