Understanding My Dear Friend in a New Way

One of my dearest and closest friends from my Sierra college experience is of Filipino ancestry and was raised in Hong Kong.  He is an amazing individual who recently transferred to UCLA.  We worked very closely in leadership together on a number of on and off campus projects.  We had to constantly learn how to adapt to one another’s extremely opposite communication and leadership styles; mine which is known to be more direct than most (male or female), and his which I viewed as too passive for leadership. This seemed odd as I knew we both possessed strong leadership abilities. I attributed our differences more to personality differences than cultural since he seemed well integrated into American society. 

I have come to realize after reading this week’s text that our communication style differences have most likely had more to do with the fact that he originally comes from a high-context culture and I come from a low-context culture. 

He does not have an automobile, and the Sacramento region is not known for its ease of public transportation.  Given my recent understanding of high and low context cultures’ affect on communication, I now understand why he never directly asked me for a ride somewhere, but would indirectly mention his “working on transportation.”  I often picked him up in my car, and would sometimes be frustrated that he didn’t just come out and ask me to pick him up. I mentioned to this to him many times, asking him to “just come out and ask me.”  I understand now that he was simply doing what he felt was proper and respectful.  He was not being passive.  He was conducting himself according to his high-context, verbal-indirectness cultural upbringing.  I can’t wait to share this new revelation and understanding with him when I visit him in southern California next month.  

Ah, the Splendor in Gender!

Men and women absolutely do use language differently, but that is not to say that they do not also use language in similar ways.  As much as we would like to dispel gender notions, it remains a truth that they exist, and the gender expectations of both sexes vary to the extent that we are groomed early on to use language differently. However, I also believe some of the use of language differences stem from genetic and personality differences.

Case in point, I have raised two children who are now adults. My eldest a daughter, and six years behind her, I have a son.  My daughter genetically takes more after their father, and my son, more after me.  Interesting enough, while some of the gender differences cited in our text regarding language use are clearly witnessed in my two children, ex:  public matters (sports, news, etc.) more discussed by my son, more detailed color terms used by my daughter; and definitely, more tags such as “you know” and “right” are used by my daughter.  However, that’s about where the traditional tendencies of each gender end.

Our entire family is sports and competitive minded, focused on individual achievement and supporting one another in these endeavors and verbally discussing them equally, regardless of gender.  This has now carried over into both my children’s families with their children.  And, while my son is definitely a strong male, he tends to be more nurturing in relationships like I am than his sister who takes genetically and personality wise more after their father.  My son is more activity minded though, whereas my daughter enjoys activities but will sometimes talk away about various relationship matters throughout much of the activity.

I think genetics as much as gender expectations have at least some affect as to how male and female use language differently, and while both genders have similarities, we do well to take individual personalities, and to some extent, even birth order into consideration.  

Retraining Our Natural Tendency

It’s a stated fact we automatically judge others in the first few seconds (5-7) when we first see them.  We, also, have a tendency to judge others more harshly and ourselves more charitably.  I feel it’s important for each of us to make a more conscious effort to be more cognitive of judging information as oppose to judging people. 

It is difficult not to make initial assessments, judging and categorizing others. It tends to be a natural behavior, though some may disagree and prefer to categorize it as a learned behavior.  Regardless, things are never all this or all that... anymore than people are ever all good or all bad. We are all complex beings with varying lenses through which we view others and life experiences. My journey is not yours, nor is your journey mine. We will do well to stop the personal dogma, regardless of what lens we see through. Let's work (myself, so included!) to give others more grace, especially those who we have the most difficulty with... may we help each other reach greater heights, touch more lives in a positive way, and judge ourselves more honestly... my personal melancholy thought of the day.

From a scholarly point of view, it is said that when we exercise “cognitive complexity is a mark of maturity and is necessary for good communication” (49). When we lack in cognitive complexity and tend to use one or two simple constructs, ignoring contradictory information or experiences, we struggle to have a large, rich, and varied set of personal constructs and mature.

Empathy and active listening is critical in reaching for less judgment of others, but only if it’s genuine.  So next time we rush to judge others, let’s take a moment, pause, reflect, and reconsider how we can better respond in a caring, nurturing, and respectful manner regardless of whether we agree with or like the individual or not.  We can chose to disagree without being disagreeable or judgmental, but it takes effort and retraining our natural tendencies.

Faulty Communication Responsibility

I found it thought provoking to read the material regarding “Improving Faulty Communication” (26).  While there wasn’t an in-depth look at this subject in Chapter 1 or 2, I’m hopeful there will be more said on the subject in future text.

Over the years, I have been known for a few “Barbara-isms.”  A couple that can be aptly applied for my discourse on the subject of faulty communication is: “Leadership is always the problem, and communication is always the answer,” and “It takes two to make a relationship [of any kind] work, and one to make sure it doesn’t.” 

I believe faulty communication is primarily seen in our culture as being the source, or sender’s responsibility, and that we tend to view the sender as the leader in communication.  I don’t think this is always true.   I contend it is equally as important, if not almost more important, for the receiver to actively listen to the message for the sender to best be understood.  That is not to remove responsibility from the sender to communicate clearly, being certain to use “code” familiar to the receiver, or provide opportunity and a safe environment for the receiver to give feedback; but moreover, it is to say that the receiver must take the responsibility to minimize impeding “noise” or “competing internal stimuli” so that the sender’s message can be properly interpreted. 

I believe faulty communication can best be repaired when there is a willingness to look into the receiver’s responsibility, regardless of whether the sender and/or receiver have had shared experiences or not.  This would seem to be possible only if the sender has articulated their message in a respectful tone.  But even then, if the receiver is not actively listening responsibly, it won’t matter how well the sender delivered the message.  I think it’s all too easy to immediately point the finger at the sender when there is faulty communication occurring because they are the audible participant, when, in my opinion, the listener has a significant responsibility, too, and one that is more challenging to successfully assess because it’s often taking place internally.

Game Time

2). Consider the pragmatic perspective.  Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction?  How is communication like a game?  How is it different from a game?

I found the pragmatic viewpoint of interest because I’ve often been quoted as saying, “No answer is an answer.” And it turns out, I’m correct, although many have made argument with me, otherwise.  Now, according to our text, I have the facts to back up what I have always insisted is true:

          “According to the pragmatic viewpoint, the smallest significant unit of    communication is the interact, which consists of two sequential acts….every action is important. Every   player is affected by what another player does…. [they] need each other if they are to play [communicate]….If a friend promises to write to you and doesn’t, his or her silence speaks louder than words.…it is impossible not to communicate, just as it is impossible not to behave” (32).

I’m not convinced communication is a patterned interaction, as yet, though.  I need more insight into this school of thought before drawing a conclusion.  I do, however, see communication having some semblance of a game.  The speaker says this; the receiver does that.  The speaker says this; the receiver does that, back and forth like a tennis match. Regardless, of whether the speaker and receiver have knowledge as to what to expect from the other, some interplay of action, verbal and/or non-verbal is continuously occurring.  I think the interpretation of what either sender or receiver may do or say, can be predictable depending upon the intimacy level shared within the relationship. 

At the same time, communication can be said to be different from a game, because while there are perceived rules of engagement similar as in a game, participants do not have to play by those perceived rules for there to be communication. Whereas; in a game if someone does not choose to play by the rules the game is, most often, over or does not occur at all.

First Amendment Perceived Realities

1). Consider the social constructionist perspective.  How do we "build worlds" through communication?  Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures.  How do these concepts contribute to our happiness or success (or the lack of these) in our culture? 

Given an American cultural context considering the social constructionist perspective, our political democratic society has been formed in large part from unilateral views based on First Amendment rights within our Constitution.  They are: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition the government for redress.  Many Americans, and other democratic societies worldwide, view this perspective (and its subsequent rights) in a prideful, and sometimes seen, arrogant ethnocentric stance; that is to say, culturally superior to other societies void of democracy.

Our citizens believe these democratic concepts, and our ever evolving vociferous communication of these concepts, contribute to our overall happiness and success, primarily focusing on our right (and ability) to choose, to disagree, and still reside within a civil society.  Democracy, as we know far too well, is not present in all societies within the world we live in today.  And many, even longtime patriotic Americans, from all sides political parties are becoming, more and more, assertive to voice their concerns that our First Amendment rights are eroding in rapid fashion.   It is our freedoms, which is an inherent tool within our society utilized to “create [our American] collective representation of reality”(24).

The Merging of Arts and Sciences

 Pick one concept from the assigned reading, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

The Merging of Arts and Sciences

I am always intrigued when the study of Arts and Sciences converge.  I am most often noted as a definite right brain individual, and find myself significantly more drawn to the Arts, not only because I’m an expressive individual, but because I tend to more readily assimilate the information in this field than in the field of the Sciences.  Given such, I found the modern period of rhetoric in the path of the psychological epistemological approach to be of eye opening interest.

As a student of communications, I have often heard of the equally, if not a more important role, of the listener/receiver in relationship to the speaker/sender. Active listening versus passive, and the perception lens in which a listener receives and accepts the intended information being delivered, plays an important role as to whether authentic communication is actually taking place.  In fact, it’s noted active listening is a greater percentage of the communication process than verbal speech. 

Additionally, to receive knowledge (the message), it seems imperative for the speaker to take into consideration the psychological disposition of thought and the individual or collective group lens of perception in which the receiver(s) view the speaker, the intended message, and the relationship which exists amongst them.  For a speaker to forego this consideration in advance of delivery, and not place great emphasis on the receiver(s) as active participant(s) in the formulation of meaning and interpretation of the message, seems futile.  It is this merging art and science through the psychological epistemological approach that not only intrigues me, but places a new lens upon my own inquisition and understanding in the field of communication.

Power to the Pathos!

1). Think of a speaker you admire (please do not use the President of the United States as an example).  Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos?  Think about your own ability to persuade others.  What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive?  Does Aristotle's classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

I admire a number of modern American speakers, but for the purposes of this question I’m going to choose Oprah Winfrey for her overwhelming ability to persuade a wide variety of people from all three categories: ethos, pathos, and logos; However, although she persuades from an ethos base of trustworthiness and credibility, and her facts and sources are well researched and verifiable, I believe it is her pathos ability which is her strongest ally and greatest force of power to persuade an extensive and diverse audience.

As for my ability to persuade others, I think I, too, am best known for my pathos ability to reach the heart of others.  I am very passionate about most things I speak on, especially when it comes to protecting children, and addressing third world poverty, childhood slavery, or lack of education.  I use facts (logos), and am viewed as credible because of my humanitarian work overseas, but my primary source of power to move people to respond, definitely comes from pathos.

I think the classification scheme of Aristotle best works with my pathos ability in that I am able to align my presentation to deliver a difficult, often uncomfortable to hear message regarding starvation or childhood slavery, and make a palatable appeal to a wide variety of audiences, taking the setting, and status of that audience into consideration, and adapting appropriately so as to be effective.