Stereotypes

I found the part about how we young people treat old people sometimes pretty sad. I don't know where we get the notion that we know more than they do. But we do it all the time. So often, we assume that old people would not understand what is going on today. We assume they would not be able to work a cell phone, hear us, etc. I know I do it sometimes when I am waiting tables at work. If I am taking an order, I will lean in to an older person when taking their order, I guess so they can hear me better and I can hear them better. In the business though, it is hard not to stereotype because so many people fill their stereotypes, that after we see the same thing 4 times in a row, we assume it will happen again the 5th time. Like when I get a tables of high-school kids, I assume they do not know how to tip. This is partly why I tip really well when I go to a restaurant, because I look young, and I know the server will assume they will get a bad tip from me. But they wont!

Everybody Loves Raymond

The chart of turning points in chapter 15 was pretty interesting. I found it weird how certain events would have such strong turning points with the relationship with the mother, but not so much the father, like Rebellious Teenager, and with some turning points, it would affect the relationship with the father, but not so much with the mother, like Jealousy. 

The physical distance was the most influential turning point. I guess that makes sense because a relationship is a lot easier to maintain when people are close in proximity. I mean, when an adult child moves away and starts a family somewhere, the new family will not have a close bond to the old family like one would that live in the same city. 

The TV show "Everybody Loves Raymond" is about a family that lives right across the street from the parents of one of the adults. The humor in the show comes from the lack of privacy, the constant fighting and the fact that they are just too close in proximity. So, I would say it is great to live in the same area for the grandkids and the grandparents, but not on the same street!

5 Conflict Styles

I find it so funny that in my first year at SJSU, I keep running into the 5 conflict styles in so many classes! And not all in the same department either. I first remember is from Organizational Comm, then from Business Management, then I think we went over it in Comm 101, and now here in Interpersonal Comm. 

Anyway, I find it interesting because looking at the 5 styles, one would think that some are good and some are bad. But all my classes that covered this topic taught that all are good and bad in different contexts. For example, Collaboration seems perfect. It is a win-win, but it is not always good because it takes a long time to come up with a win-win solution, and it is not always possible. And then Avoidance seems like it would be bad, but when one is dealing with a figure of authority for example, avoidance can be good because going into conflict can be a bad idea. It can get you fired or arrested, depending on what figure of authority we are dealing with. All 5 have ups and downs. The way to use ups all the time is to learn when to use what one.

Clean your room, OR ELSE..

I always find the culture part the most interesting. 

This chapter talked about seeking compliance and in the culture part it talked about how in our individualistic cultures we focus on rewards and punishments. But in collectivistic cultures they focus on altruism and duty. In our culture a mother would say "Clean your room and when you're done we will go out for ice cream" or "Clean your room today or else you cannot watch TV for a week." In Japan, for example, a collectivistic culture, it would sound more like "Clean your room because it is your duty in the family" or "Clean your room as to not embarrass your family when guests come over." That would not work very often with American kids! American kids would say, "I don't care" about altruistic or duty reasons. 

In fact, I am Russian and I don't know if Russia is individualistic or collectivistic, but when it comes to cleaning our house, my mom has always pushed me to do it for collectivistic reasons, and it does not work so well for me. My room is always a mess. I think another reason this works in collectivistic cultures so well is because there is such a great level of respect, where as in the US, we value everyone equally. So many children do not think of their parents as high of an authority, they see them as closer to equals than collectivistic children do. 

Cheating

The book talks about cheating and how when someone finds out about their partner's cheating, it depends on how they found out on how bad their reaction will be. The book said that they will feel better about the situation if they confronted the cheater and the cheater confessed, or if the cheater confessed on their own, versus finding out from a 3rd party or catching red-handed. The book gives the reason for it that they save face more and are less embarrassed in the private confession. I agree with that but I think that there is a stronger reason, which is honestly. I think honesty is valued very highly in our society and that the fact that the cheater confessed, makes it easier to bear because at least they were honest about it. When hearing from someone else, the one who was cheated on just thinks about how they were lied to and thats what hurts for most people.

Oh, boys

I found the part in chapter 9 on platonic relationships interesting. I am a girl with almost no girl-friends. Most of my friends are guys. They are easier to get along with for me. But as the book talks about, there are certain barriers. I do not want either side to get hurt, mostly the other side, because for the most part, I know who I can develop feelings for and who I will not, but I don't know what my actions might do to their feelings. So there are barriers I cannot cross with a lot of my guy friends. With some I can cuddle in a plutonic way, but with others thats too much. I can flirt, but only to a certain limit, not anything that will give anyone a too strong impression.

Straight guys always ask why girls can so easily be sexual with gay guys, but not with them, this is exactly why! I can easily kiss my friend Brian and I know that neither side will ever get hurt because we both KNOW where we stand. We both know that neither side will develop feelings from that kiss. And most importantly, it will not ruin the friendship. 

Centripetal versus Centrifugal

Chapter 10 started off with the concepts of Centripetal versus Centrifugal forces of keeping relationships together. I understand both views but I have to say I can better agree with the Centrifugal force. I think a relationship is bound to break without effort to keep it together. Many relationships seem easy at first. They seem smooth and self-running but we are still putting effort in. We put effort in when we cancel, lets say, "Smallville night" for a date. This might seem like no effort because we are excited to see this person, but I say that even when we are glad to put in effort, it is still effort.

And then, later into the relationship, it is easier to see where effort comes in, because we sometimes have to push ourselves to do it. Or if not push ourselves, (because that sounds like we do not want to do it), we find compromise to put in effort. ("I will miss this week's girls night, but next week that night is mine".)  

Anyway, my point is that I think any relationship is not bound to stick together on its own. It needs work from both parties, and equity theory talks about that with respect to each person needing to put equal amount of effort for both people to be happy with the equality. 

Hooking up

Hooking up. Like the book says, it is a very broad term. Some people still use it meaning, get together. My old boss used to say, "You guys hook up and work on this project together." Mostly, today though, it is talking about something sexual. Even then, it is still broad. It is a very easy way to give someone a little information without giving any detail away, because hooking up can mean anything from kissing to sex. 

The book talks about hooking up and how it is so much more prevalent for people to hook up without commitment or a relationship than ever before. Are we more promiscuous than before? Are we more experimental? Do we not value relationships as much as we used to? 

I know for me, I am in this boat right now, because I am seeing someone who I have no interest in dating. I feel like I am young and I am just having fun. And if a serious relationship came along, I would love to take it, but this is just taking up my time while I am waiting for the real thing to come. I don't know how this helps explain this hook up craze, but I think a lot of people hook up for the same reason I just said. 

Equivocation

Equivocation was not mentioned in the book, but Prof Coopman talked about it in the lecture. I liked reading that part because it resinated with me very strongly. It was funny to read because I used to use equivocation very purposefully when I was a hostess at the restaurant I work in. 

When people ask how long their wait will be, its impossible to have the right answer. If I gave a real answer, it would only be a guess. Because I did not want to give people the wrong answer, (like saying 15 mins and their wait ending up being 25 mins) I always gave ambiguous answers that would not really tell them anything, but it satisfied most people and I would not have to give them a real answer. 

"How long is the wait?"

And I would give answers like, 

"Oh, well you're third on the list." or 

"There's a big party ahead of you, but they should be seated soon and you will be next." or

"There are 2 tables with their checks, so they might be getting up soon."

There were people once in a while who would say, "Yea, but how long is the wait." But like I said, I got away with that most of the time :)

Social Penetration Theory

I rememeber the social penetration theory from Comm 101. It talked about how a person's personality is like an onion, going deeper and deeper with each layer. The book also says that a part of this theory is the concept of rewards and costs, how a person will stay in a relationship if the rewards are higher than the costs, and will not stay if the costs are greater. If they stay with higher costs, it will not be a negative relationship and the participants will most likely not be happy. This is like a woman who gets beat up, but stays because she is scared to do something about it, or whatever the reason.

In Comm 101 though, we talked about that being a different theory, the social exchange theory.
Maybe social exchange theory is a bullet under social penetration theory.

Presenting the Self

This chapter, I hate to say, was the first that I did not enjoy. As I was reading it, none of it seemed interesting to me because it was all common sense. It talked about how people present themselves in a good light. Well, of course they do. If I was about to put up a new picture on my blog, and I had a good picture and a bad one of me, why would I put up the bad one? I mean, I have a picture on this blog, and although I could have put up some really impressive pictures of what I do, I chose to put up a picture of a simple skill because I like the mountain background. But nevertheless, I chose to put up a picture of my sport (knowing it is impressive) because I want people to know what I do. I am proud of what I do and I want others to be proud and impressed also.

There are two phenomenons in this chapter that were interesting though. One is when people lie to present themselves better than they are. This would be an interesting study to figure out why people feel they have to lie. Are they not confident enough in what they are to make up more? Where is that line and when does it get crossed? When does someone decide to embelish their story more than they been to?

The other thing I did find interesting is at the end of the chapter, the book talked about how Asian cultures present themselves versus our culture. We are ALL about ourselves.
"Tell me about yourself"
"Well, I am 22, I am Russian, I am a SJSU student, I am fun, I am friendly, etc.."
ME ME ME, right? It seems normal to answer with those answers, until I saw what the book said about Asian cultures, "My parents are the best, My friends and I like to party, My father is stern but supports me." In each of those, the person is still talking about themselves, but in a very different way than we do in the US. It is not self focused. I like this way better.

Drama for your Mama

Chapter 6 starts off with one of its first concepts, dramaturgical perspective. This concept is about how all of our public behaviors are based on 6 elements of theatre: actor, audience, stage, script, performance and audience reaction. This is interesting, because it reminds me of how predetermined we let our lives be. 

The new Bob Dylan movie just came out recently. Its called "I'm Not There". I've only watched half of it, but the part that sticks out to me is a quote from the trailer,

"People are always talking about freedom, freedom to live a certain way. 

Of course, the more you live a certain way, the less it feels like freedom."

This section really made me think about this quote because although it is just an analogy, it seems to me that we do live our lives like actors on stage. This varies from culture to culture, but it is very prominent in ours. How important is it that we have to dress a certain way to a funeral? To work? etc.  I mean, these are good things too, like dressing in black, nice clothes at a funeral shows respect for the deceased, and work clothes show professionalism. So most of our scripts and performances are not out of the blue, they make sense. But it also makes me think of how we act for other people, so other people are also acting for us. And I'm thinking that some people are so good at it, that how do we ever know if we are talking to them, or to their stage presence? 

I guess it does not really matter. If I am talking to someone who is really funny or interesting or captivating, it is still a good conversation, whether they really are those things, or if they just want me to think they are. 

This analogy made me think very liberally for a few minutes there, and I thought I'd write about that because it is interesting to think about. Anyone have anything to say about that?

Sweet Sixteen

This was the last chapter of the book, and I liked how it connected all the other chapters at the end when it ties its concept into each chapter.

The concept I liked most in this chapter is adaptability. I used to work for a drug prevention and leadership training organization for teens and thats one thing we talked about all the time, is flexibility. When leading a small group in discussion, when communicating with anyone really, its important to let the conversation take its desired course, unless it is going somewhere where it should not. We always told our teens to learn to adapt. If they were planning on playing a certain game that involves dice in their meeting, but they forgot the dice, don't go looking for dice, play something else!  I think it is very important to be spontaneous and creative, which I think goes hand in hand with adaptability, because life is just more fun that way.

-Aleks

Self and Society

This chapter, along with the non-verbal comm one, I have really enjoyed the most. I really liked this chapter because it was very interesting to apply all the concepts to myself and to people I know and see on a daily basis as I was reading. 

The ones that were easiest to see were the negative behaviors. For example, the whole time I was reading the Machiavellian Behavior part, I kept thinking over and over again how everything they are saying fits perfectly with someone I know. The part about an argumentative person versus a verbally aggressive person, I thought about how my mom fits very strongly into the verbally aggressive person and that it is such a strong barrier between us because I think I am a logical argumentative person. 

When I thought about myself and these categories, with some of these, I found myself fitting into both sides. For example, under self-monitoring behavior, I found myself scoring high in some aspects and scoring low in others. I guess that would make me a moderate self-monitor? Or maybe I am high in certain times and contexts and low in others. Or maybe these tests are made to be generic and do not work for each person who takes them. Who knows. 

But I really enjoyed this chapter, except for how it seemed to talk mostly about negative characteristics of people, and not very much about positive. 

-Aleks

Chapter 5

There are two parts of this chapter I found interesting. The first was under attributions. It is the concept of distress-maintaining bias and relationship-enhancing bias. That part of the text was talking about romantic relationships but this concept goes across all relationships.  This is a concept where if one person likes someone, the will see the best in them. If they do not like them, they will only see the worst. 

I liked reading about this because I think about this concept all the time, I find it very interesting. I always notice how often people do this and I catch myself doing it as well. It is something I had to deal with in my sport a while back. (I work with two other girls in a gymnastics trio.) One of my partners did not get along with our coach for a long time, and she was always offended when the coach yelled at her or was rude to her. She always felt like she was the only one getting picked on. But watching it from being in the middle of it, I saw how she refused to notice all the times our coach was nice to her, or when she yelled at others the same way she yelled at my partner. So like the distress-maintaining bias says, she would only see the worst because it is what she expected and it was the bias she always had before she even walked into the gym each day. (You guys might have to know my sport to fully understand that, but I hope it made sense.)

The other concept that resinated with me was Social Cognition online. I think this goes for any mode of text communication like texting as well. Without being able to hear a voice or see a face when communicating with someone makes for misunderstandings a lot easier. The book talked about a study where people talked online and a confederate used misspellings and crazy punctuation on purpose to see how the other person will interpret it. Have you ever tried to be sarcastic in a text or online and have the other person completely miss the sarcasm? I know I've had that happen. And just the other day I was texting with a friend and he thought I was mad at him, and I had to say, "Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was upset about it." 

I'd like to finish off by saying that it could also be a good thing, not having other people see you, because it gives people the chance to create identities that they cannot create for themselves in their normal lives. It gives them a chance to get to know someone first, before being judged, instead of what happens in our face-to-face interactions where we are judged right away, and sometimes not even given a chance to show our good qualities.

That is all from planet Aleks for one day. 

Until Tomorrow.

Listening

I just read chapter 4. I read about the different components of listening, and the different context where listening is important, and the whole time I was reading it, I kept thinking, "..Yea.. and.. what do I DO about it?" 

Then finally at the end, the chapter talked about what I wanted to hear. It talked about the different types of listeners and how to be a better listener. First it was talked about an empathic listener, and I thought, “That is so me!” And then I read on to what a deliberative listener is and I thought, “I do that too!” And with active listening, I do that as well. And I read on and the book said that the best kind of listener uses all three characteristics in appropriate times, so I was pretty happy with myself there!

I also liked the list at the end with 12 ideas to improve listening skills. I think I am very good at most of them. My biggest weakness is the “Avoid distractions” one, especially when I cannot relate to what I am listening to very well. Like today at the doctors, she was telling me all about something, and I felt like because it was a lot of medical jargon, I just could not concentrate and I did not take in everything she said. That’s what I have to work on with listening. 

Welcome

Hey everyone and welcome to my blog.

My name is aleks. 

A brief intro about me:

I am 22 years old. I am a level 10 acrobatic gymnast. (If you want to know what that is, ask me, I'd love to show you what I do. You'll be impressed, I promise.) I am russian. I love being with people who make me laugh. I love to read Harry Potter. I love asian foods. This summer SJSU is taking me to Peru, and in Spring 09 I will be studying in Bath, England.

Those are what come up at the top of my head.

A topic I enjoyed reading in the first 3 chapters of the book was chapter 3. Nonverbal communication is fascinating to me. I realized that we use it very often, but I did not realize how much more there is to it. I did not realize, for example, that things we cannot control are part of nonverbal communication. Walking down the street, people see me go by, and the fact that I have white skin, brown hair, etc, these things all communicate something about me. Whether these things communicate the truth are irrelevant. For example, anyone would assume I am an average American, born in the US, because I am white and look like a typical American. But in truth I was born in Russia, and still speak the language. The point still stands though that regardless of the truth, people see me on the street, and my appearance tells them things about me. 

I also found interesting reading the part on physical attractiveness. How we gravitate towards attractive people. How the assumptions we make about people, are more positive assumptions about attractive people than not. It is sad the way this works, but we all do it. One of my favorite comedians says something along the lines of, "If you have to release bad news to the public, it would help if you are not ugly." And this is only funny because it is true! The book talks about how people gravitate towards attractive people because we assume they have more good qualities. How unfair is that! But we all follow this social norm. What is interesting though is that the book says that a lot of the time, people get these good characteristics because people think they have them. The example the book gave is that attractive people have more social skills because people think they do, so they approach them more, and they have more practice in developing better social skills. It is a vicious cycle!

Thats all for today. Im about to go take this week's quiz. Wish me luck!!

-Aleks