Although nonverbal messages are more universal than verbal messages, nonverbals do not always carry the same meanings in other cultures. Can you give examples of some of the nonverbal displays that take on different meanings in other countries? If you have moved around within this country, have you ever encountered regional differences in nonverbal meaning?
When I traveled to Scotland this past summer, I noticed a few differences in nonverbal cues, especially when it came to body language. Here in the Silicon Valley life is very fast paced, and it seems like our gestures are very sharp and uptight. In Scotland, however, I found that many people were very relaxed in their movements, and generally easy going with their body movements. Here we might believe these relaxed movements as laziness or indifference.
A good childhood friend of mine (who is from India) once told me that if a guest leaves something on their plate or there is water leftover, it is a sign of disrespect to the host.
I have also read in various courses that in some Asian cultures, it is rude to look someone in the eye for a long period of time. In our culture, however, looking someone in the eye seems like it symbolizes kindness and confidence.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Week 7 Discussion Post #1
Nonverbal messages can be ambiguous, they are open to misinterpretation. Have you ever been wrong about the meaning of someone's nonverbal message? Describe what happened. How can people increase the accuracy with which they interpret nonverbal messages.
A situation that could lead to misinterpretation would be an interview. I have interviewed for various jobs and even if I have been offered the job, I can interpret the interviewer’s nonverbal cues in a negative way. When the interviewer seems serious, with hands tightly clasped upon a desk, it sometimes gives me the impression that he or she is uptight, disapproving, or in a bad mood. However, in this type of situation, I think to increase the accuracy of nonverbal messages we must check the context of the situation. In an interview, I have to remember that I am not the only person applying for a position. Interviewers will hide their happiness or approval because it could end up being favoritism, or maybe the interviewer has other people left to interview. I could also ask the interviewer for verbal feedback, and clarification regarding the situation or environment. Lastly, I could compare current behavior to baseline behavior. It is very unusual for interviewer and interviewee to sit side by side- usually the interviewer sits at the main desk and the interviewee sits across the room. I think it is easy to misinterpret nonverbal cues on a daily basis. But by checking out the environment and breaking down the facts, it should become easier!
Have a great week! ☺
A situation that could lead to misinterpretation would be an interview. I have interviewed for various jobs and even if I have been offered the job, I can interpret the interviewer’s nonverbal cues in a negative way. When the interviewer seems serious, with hands tightly clasped upon a desk, it sometimes gives me the impression that he or she is uptight, disapproving, or in a bad mood. However, in this type of situation, I think to increase the accuracy of nonverbal messages we must check the context of the situation. In an interview, I have to remember that I am not the only person applying for a position. Interviewers will hide their happiness or approval because it could end up being favoritism, or maybe the interviewer has other people left to interview. I could also ask the interviewer for verbal feedback, and clarification regarding the situation or environment. Lastly, I could compare current behavior to baseline behavior. It is very unusual for interviewer and interviewee to sit side by side- usually the interviewer sits at the main desk and the interviewee sits across the room. I think it is easy to misinterpret nonverbal cues on a daily basis. But by checking out the environment and breaking down the facts, it should become easier!
Have a great week! ☺
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Week 6 Discussion Post #3
1). Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make more fair?
I think that it can be very difficult to perceive others without judging them. We use our values and experiences when we meet a person, and sometimes it leads to pre-conceived judgments of feelings deeply rooted within ourselves. As Trenholm explains, “person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person” (Trenholm 51). I definitely think I subconsciously use person prototypes when I meet someone. I think if a person embodies a few qualities that mold a stereotype, it can be easy to put them into that stereotype altogether. If I meet an athlete, I will sometimes assume the person is a very hardworking and driven individual. Or, if I meet someone works in advertising, I might automatically assume they are untrustworthy or suspicious.
By using person prototypes, we are choosing not to learn about other significant facts that define who people are. It can be easy to make assumptions and compartmentalize what someone is like into a category. I think being open minded and aware is one way to limit judgments. If we try to realize that every person is an individual and unique self, we can avoid separating people into generalized categories. Acknowledging the issue of judging others is one effective step to progress.
I think that it can be very difficult to perceive others without judging them. We use our values and experiences when we meet a person, and sometimes it leads to pre-conceived judgments of feelings deeply rooted within ourselves. As Trenholm explains, “person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person” (Trenholm 51). I definitely think I subconsciously use person prototypes when I meet someone. I think if a person embodies a few qualities that mold a stereotype, it can be easy to put them into that stereotype altogether. If I meet an athlete, I will sometimes assume the person is a very hardworking and driven individual. Or, if I meet someone works in advertising, I might automatically assume they are untrustworthy or suspicious.
By using person prototypes, we are choosing not to learn about other significant facts that define who people are. It can be easy to make assumptions and compartmentalize what someone is like into a category. I think being open minded and aware is one way to limit judgments. If we try to realize that every person is an individual and unique self, we can avoid separating people into generalized categories. Acknowledging the issue of judging others is one effective step to progress.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Week 6 Discussion Post #2
2). Do you agree that men and women use language differently? In what areas?
I wholeheartedly agree that men and woman use language differently. From the time we played with "gender appropriate" toys in kindergarten, our social interactions tend to depict our use of language. I agree with Trenholm's example on page 89. When I am lost, I immediately want to call up a friend and ask for directions. Most male friends I know seem more embarrassed or uncomfortable when they do not know where they are going. Generally and subconsciously, girls and boys are taught to express themselves differently. I am a nanny for 3 children, two girls and one boy. Without a doubt, their genders play a huge role in the way they handle situations. Both girls cry freely if they had a bad day, whereas the boy tends to "suck it up" and hold back his tears. I find that girls tend to ask more questions, analyze situations, focus on details, and the boy is more direct and to the point. I find that girls use language if they need reassurance, by saying little things like "Do you know what I mean?", or "Does that make sense?". Boys are interested in working out a specific problem in a direct manner, using their language as a way to explain a situation or experience. I find they spend less time talking about the details and more time talking about the facts at hand.
I think that for the most part, men and women can use language differently, but I know men and women that do not fall specifically into one category. I have met men that are very free to express themselves and women that rarely cry. I think it really does depend on the individual. :)
I wholeheartedly agree that men and woman use language differently. From the time we played with "gender appropriate" toys in kindergarten, our social interactions tend to depict our use of language. I agree with Trenholm's example on page 89. When I am lost, I immediately want to call up a friend and ask for directions. Most male friends I know seem more embarrassed or uncomfortable when they do not know where they are going. Generally and subconsciously, girls and boys are taught to express themselves differently. I am a nanny for 3 children, two girls and one boy. Without a doubt, their genders play a huge role in the way they handle situations. Both girls cry freely if they had a bad day, whereas the boy tends to "suck it up" and hold back his tears. I find that girls tend to ask more questions, analyze situations, focus on details, and the boy is more direct and to the point. I find that girls use language if they need reassurance, by saying little things like "Do you know what I mean?", or "Does that make sense?". Boys are interested in working out a specific problem in a direct manner, using their language as a way to explain a situation or experience. I find they spend less time talking about the details and more time talking about the facts at hand.
I think that for the most part, men and women can use language differently, but I know men and women that do not fall specifically into one category. I have met men that are very free to express themselves and women that rarely cry. I think it really does depend on the individual. :)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Week 6 Discussion Post #1
3). Pick one concept from the assigned readings that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
I found the concept of listening to be instructive in Chapter three. It’s funny, when I think about the word “communication”, I mostly think about the speaker. But communicating in any way is a two-way act involving the giver and the receiver. Our listening skills determine how we interpret and understand each spoken or nonverbal message.
“When we listen, we are not passive receivers but active creators of meaning “(Trenholm 45). I like this quotation because many times we use our own life experiences in order to formulate an opinion or belief about what someone else says. And I firmly agree that listening and hearing are such different things. Even now, when I am writing this post at the library, there are voices of children doing homework and sounds of cars outside that I can hear, but I have not attached a meaning to what I have heard. It is interesting to learn that listening, on the other hand, involves all of the senses. If someone says “It is really hot today”, and emphasizes the word “really” in a complained or exaggerated town, I would listen to both the actual sentence as well as how the sentence was spoken.
Generally, I think listening is a very active process that can take a lot of energy. It is an important act in my personal and professional relationships and at school and at home. By listening to another person, I am trying to show the person that I am there for them and interested in his or her life. And if I am either complaining about a rough day or feeling excited about a job promotion, I value my friends and family who actively listen and care about my well-being. I think listening is a key component for healthy relationships.
I found the concept of listening to be instructive in Chapter three. It’s funny, when I think about the word “communication”, I mostly think about the speaker. But communicating in any way is a two-way act involving the giver and the receiver. Our listening skills determine how we interpret and understand each spoken or nonverbal message.
“When we listen, we are not passive receivers but active creators of meaning “(Trenholm 45). I like this quotation because many times we use our own life experiences in order to formulate an opinion or belief about what someone else says. And I firmly agree that listening and hearing are such different things. Even now, when I am writing this post at the library, there are voices of children doing homework and sounds of cars outside that I can hear, but I have not attached a meaning to what I have heard. It is interesting to learn that listening, on the other hand, involves all of the senses. If someone says “It is really hot today”, and emphasizes the word “really” in a complained or exaggerated town, I would listen to both the actual sentence as well as how the sentence was spoken.
Generally, I think listening is a very active process that can take a lot of energy. It is an important act in my personal and professional relationships and at school and at home. By listening to another person, I am trying to show the person that I am there for them and interested in his or her life. And if I am either complaining about a rough day or feeling excited about a job promotion, I value my friends and family who actively listen and care about my well-being. I think listening is a key component for healthy relationships.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Week 4 Discussion Post #3
Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is this speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?
Many of the students have mentioned it, and I too feel that Barack Obama is a person who encompasses all three characteristics in a positive way, which make him a memorable speaker. I think he is emotionally attractive- he appeals to a wide audience and most people can relate to what he speaks about.
Obama is very articulate, well read, and educated, and he knows what he is talking without being condescending. It seems like he really cares about his cause, and this in itself, gives him power. His words are his power, and he is able to connect with the audience through his ideas and goals.
Obama is credible by connecting with his audience and giving them reasons to trust and believe in him. He doesn’t seem like a salesman trying to sell something to the audience. He is very endearing, and his promises and hopes are toward a positive common goal for the country.
Obama’s ethos could be built in these areas by him continuing to share his ideas and hopes for this future and continuing to be articulate in his concepts and goals. I think as long as he stays true to himself and the needs of the audience (ie the country), his speeches will be effective.
Many of the students have mentioned it, and I too feel that Barack Obama is a person who encompasses all three characteristics in a positive way, which make him a memorable speaker. I think he is emotionally attractive- he appeals to a wide audience and most people can relate to what he speaks about.
Obama is very articulate, well read, and educated, and he knows what he is talking without being condescending. It seems like he really cares about his cause, and this in itself, gives him power. His words are his power, and he is able to connect with the audience through his ideas and goals.
Obama is credible by connecting with his audience and giving them reasons to trust and believe in him. He doesn’t seem like a salesman trying to sell something to the audience. He is very endearing, and his promises and hopes are toward a positive common goal for the country.
Obama’s ethos could be built in these areas by him continuing to share his ideas and hopes for this future and continuing to be articulate in his concepts and goals. I think as long as he stays true to himself and the needs of the audience (ie the country), his speeches will be effective.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Week 4 Discussion Post #2
Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?
The best speaker I have ever heard is the pastor at the church I grew up in. His communication was memorable because of his attractiveness to the audience and his personal character. It didn't feel like he was "preaching" or telling his audience what to do in life. He gave eloquent information and universal ideas that anyone could relate to. For me, I am very skeptic of churches that force their opinions on you and tell you "you are going to hell if you are this or that", etc. But this particular speaker emphasized global awareness, and caring for the less fortunate, which are ideas and concepts that are hopeful for positive change. His sermons do involve God, but they also focus on living a healthy life, being kind to others, and feeling connected in some way to the world. His communication has always been memorable because the ideas and concepts he uses are very relative to many parts of my life.
The worst speaker I have ever heard is my high school drama teacher. She was very eccentric and always came off as condescending, even before she started her lectures or speeches. Many of her students were scared of her (including me!), and she usually instilled fear when she was speaking about an assignment or project. She didn't seem very inspiring, and her messages and ways of communications did not seem very effective.
The best speaker I have ever heard is the pastor at the church I grew up in. His communication was memorable because of his attractiveness to the audience and his personal character. It didn't feel like he was "preaching" or telling his audience what to do in life. He gave eloquent information and universal ideas that anyone could relate to. For me, I am very skeptic of churches that force their opinions on you and tell you "you are going to hell if you are this or that", etc. But this particular speaker emphasized global awareness, and caring for the less fortunate, which are ideas and concepts that are hopeful for positive change. His sermons do involve God, but they also focus on living a healthy life, being kind to others, and feeling connected in some way to the world. His communication has always been memorable because the ideas and concepts he uses are very relative to many parts of my life.
The worst speaker I have ever heard is my high school drama teacher. She was very eccentric and always came off as condescending, even before she started her lectures or speeches. Many of her students were scared of her (including me!), and she usually instilled fear when she was speaking about an assignment or project. She didn't seem very inspiring, and her messages and ways of communications did not seem very effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
