It's really hard for me to approach someone just to make friends. I'm really shy when it comes to people, even talking infront of them would give me the jitters. I don't come to people, I let them come to me. That might sound odd, and a bit egotistic but that's just me. So I would describe myself as a static person; just waiting for someone to come over me and he/she would be the one who initiates the first move. Pathetic right?
That's why it's hard for me to write this mini study about "Uncertainty Reduction Theory". It was even difficult for me to pick that one person that can serve as my specimen, my little white mice that I can easily manipulate(joke).No I'm not being mean, I just like associating it with scientific stuff.(hehehehehehe)
So, lets start talking about the said study that I conducted......
This particular person studies BA Communication Arts, like me. She is probably conducting the same study as me but atleast she wont know I'm conducting a study about her. Of course this person and I aren't that close. Our relationshp limits to simple "HI'S" and "HELLO'S". We do talk but not that often; the conversations we had happened by chance. Our conversations range from the dance practices that we have had down to our silly talks about our crushes. I don't know much about her but I do know she's nice and accomodating.
Now, the goal is to increase our closeness so that we would get to know each other a little bit better. So, my strategy is just to act natural, and not too lucid; I wouldn't want her to find out that i'm trying so hard. JUST BE NORMAL......
The study began when we finished our practice, that was last week, particulary friday. We were really hungry after that exhausting practice. I was planning to eat at the canteen so I invited her and some other friend. We were walking through the dark path when she suddenly squeaked. She told us that something had moved in the grass, I just giggled a little bit and thought that she was really getting hungry. So we walked as fast as we could and hurried into the canteen. We were about to order a meal when my other friend told us that he will just go to the comfort room but he said that he will be right back(he did not). So he left us there.......
At that time, we were so hungry that we ordered a bunch of food to fill us up until morning. We sat, placed our meals over our tables and began eating. Silence was evident in that table, it was probably the hunger that left us speechless. So our conversation began after our meal, which was not surprising at all. Our conversation have gone from our crushes(again) to my siblings;a topic which I don't share much about. She also shared lots of things about her highschool life, stuff that I could totally relate to. She also told me about her past relationships in highschool. I had found out so many things about her and she also did about me.....
I guess my strategy had worked right??????
So the next time we bumped into each other it's not probably just saying our "HI'S" and "HELLO'S".....It would be even better.....
Monday, January 29, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Would you Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth????
We like to be deceived.
-Blaise Pascal
-1623-1662, French Scientist,
ReligiousPhilosopher
Isn’t deception really essential in life? Can people handle the truth?
I mean if you think about it people unconsciously like to be deceived. For example, let’s visualize the scenes in the hit television show American Idol. Let’s focus on one of its judges, Simon Cowel. He’s rude right? I mean he really makes boorish comments. Like last night, I was watching the episode where there in Seattle; lots of people auditioned for the show. Of course there were great singers but there were people who just tried out for the sake of trying out. So back to Simon, what if he lied to all those people who were really bad singers, what if he tells them that they have a future in singing. Well, probably there will be no more quality singers in American Idol anymore. People just can’t handle the truth, especially when the truth is on them. That’s why some of us end up deceiving other people. Yeah, bummer isn’t it. But how do people deceive? And what are some factors that led them to deceive?
In David Buller and Judee Burgoon’s theory called Interpersonal Deception theory, it says that people always find themselves in situations where they make statements that are less than completely honest in order to “avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship (Griffin).”
Yes, I am sometimes trapped in a situation like that but I avoid exaggerating my words or making false comments, I sometimes do that to my friends. Because I really value our relationship I end up lying to them. Those were just white lies, that won’t hurt right?
I also lie to my parents; you know those instances where you try to get off easily, you don't want to be nagged so you create false stories and make it as believable as possible. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN……you create strategies, and the theory is here to justify it.
They classify these three strategies into three: concealment, concealment, equivocation(Griffin).
I sometimes try these strategies to avoid being caught. But seriously I really can't detect a person if he/she is lying or not. I'm gullible and easily deceived. But there were also instances where I can tell if the person was lying or not. Sometimes people are just so conspicuous with their non-verbal cues, thus I suspect their truthfulness. If I caught them red handed, well, it will probably affect our relationship; but not too much.
Interpersonal Deception theory also includes 18 propositions which is the skeletal link of the theory.
I agree with most of them especially proposition number 8 which is: “As relational familiarity increase, deceivers become more afraid of detection, make more strategic moves, and display more leakage”(GRIFFIN). Because when I get into a situation where I am force to lie to one of my closest relationships, I tend to be careful with my words because I'm afraid to get caught; our relationship is so important to me that I protect my image.
I also agree with one of the ideas in the theory where it says that ,as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, I am an active participant (for receivers, you were not just a passive listener even if you did not harbor any suspicions) in the deception. I agree because the deception would not happen if the deceiver wont interact with the receiver, because their interaction is the basis of the deceiver's strategy; by the help of the receiver's non verbal cues the deceiver could easily spot suspicion. Truth bias is also one of the factors that makes the deception successful; by trusting a person not to deceive you, will just lead them to deceive you more and more.
I will definitely subscribe to Buller and Burgoon's theory, although their theory is quite complicated, I still liked how they explained and elaborated some of their ideas. I quite agree with Bella DePaulo’s critique of their theory, because it does lack an explanatory glue in some parts. There were ideas that confused me, but Buller and Burgoon did justified their ideas by saying that their theory offer multiple mechanism to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I was also curios why the communication scholars were silent about the moral implications in the theory, but I realized that the communication aspect of deception is important in studying the nature of communication itself.
I probably would require of others to subscribe to Kant's Categorical Imperative, because we as humans have the responsibility to tell the truth. As for me, I prefer Augustine's Divine Will, I truly value my spiritual convictions.
-Blaise Pascal
-1623-1662, French Scientist,
ReligiousPhilosopher
Isn’t deception really essential in life? Can people handle the truth?
I mean if you think about it people unconsciously like to be deceived. For example, let’s visualize the scenes in the hit television show American Idol. Let’s focus on one of its judges, Simon Cowel. He’s rude right? I mean he really makes boorish comments. Like last night, I was watching the episode where there in Seattle; lots of people auditioned for the show. Of course there were great singers but there were people who just tried out for the sake of trying out. So back to Simon, what if he lied to all those people who were really bad singers, what if he tells them that they have a future in singing. Well, probably there will be no more quality singers in American Idol anymore. People just can’t handle the truth, especially when the truth is on them. That’s why some of us end up deceiving other people. Yeah, bummer isn’t it. But how do people deceive? And what are some factors that led them to deceive?
In David Buller and Judee Burgoon’s theory called Interpersonal Deception theory, it says that people always find themselves in situations where they make statements that are less than completely honest in order to “avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship (Griffin).”
Yes, I am sometimes trapped in a situation like that but I avoid exaggerating my words or making false comments, I sometimes do that to my friends. Because I really value our relationship I end up lying to them. Those were just white lies, that won’t hurt right?
I also lie to my parents; you know those instances where you try to get off easily, you don't want to be nagged so you create false stories and make it as believable as possible. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN……you create strategies, and the theory is here to justify it.
They classify these three strategies into three: concealment, concealment, equivocation(Griffin).
I sometimes try these strategies to avoid being caught. But seriously I really can't detect a person if he/she is lying or not. I'm gullible and easily deceived. But there were also instances where I can tell if the person was lying or not. Sometimes people are just so conspicuous with their non-verbal cues, thus I suspect their truthfulness. If I caught them red handed, well, it will probably affect our relationship; but not too much.
Interpersonal Deception theory also includes 18 propositions which is the skeletal link of the theory.
I agree with most of them especially proposition number 8 which is: “As relational familiarity increase, deceivers become more afraid of detection, make more strategic moves, and display more leakage”(GRIFFIN). Because when I get into a situation where I am force to lie to one of my closest relationships, I tend to be careful with my words because I'm afraid to get caught; our relationship is so important to me that I protect my image.
I also agree with one of the ideas in the theory where it says that ,as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, I am an active participant (for receivers, you were not just a passive listener even if you did not harbor any suspicions) in the deception. I agree because the deception would not happen if the deceiver wont interact with the receiver, because their interaction is the basis of the deceiver's strategy; by the help of the receiver's non verbal cues the deceiver could easily spot suspicion. Truth bias is also one of the factors that makes the deception successful; by trusting a person not to deceive you, will just lead them to deceive you more and more.
I will definitely subscribe to Buller and Burgoon's theory, although their theory is quite complicated, I still liked how they explained and elaborated some of their ideas. I quite agree with Bella DePaulo’s critique of their theory, because it does lack an explanatory glue in some parts. There were ideas that confused me, but Buller and Burgoon did justified their ideas by saying that their theory offer multiple mechanism to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I was also curios why the communication scholars were silent about the moral implications in the theory, but I realized that the communication aspect of deception is important in studying the nature of communication itself.
I probably would require of others to subscribe to Kant's Categorical Imperative, because we as humans have the responsibility to tell the truth. As for me, I prefer Augustine's Divine Will, I truly value my spiritual convictions.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Would you Swear to Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth????
SIr namali ang akong last post sa deception magpost ko usab......idelete nalang to nako ang last...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Taxi!!!
I don't usually ride a taxi to go where ever I wanted to go. A taxi ride is so expensive, and the thought of a twenty pesos minimum fair really pisses me off; and besides we have the ever loyal “jeepneys” to do the job for just over seven pesos.
But yesterday was different; and yesterday was Monday and that's when I usually return to the dormitory. Of course, I had lots of baggages and it was really difficult for me to handle all of them. So I had no choice but to ride a taxi. So I got into one, and I asked the driver to take me to Roxas, specifically in front of Ateneo de Davao University. While the vehicle was moving, I was very silent but a bit agitated because of my baggages. Then surprisingly, the driver spoke to me. He asked me a question which I did not expected. These were his exact words: “Day, aha na nimu gipalit imong bag og tagpila pud na..?”. See what I mean when I say I did not expected it? But I answered him with decency and politeness. I really thought that he wouldn't ask questions anymore but his previous question led to more questions like: where did you get your bag?, what is your school?, How come you wanted to be taken to Ateneo?, What's your school like?, and Is it difficult to get boarding houses in your school?DO you want some mangoes?
What was he thinking????,
It was like a part of me was being slowly stripped out. At that time I don't know if it's really necessary to answer his questions;I began wondering his motives. But with all that skepticism happening in my mind, still I had answered all his questions before we arrived at Ateneo. Why? You may ask....well Judee Burgoon has the answer........
Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violation Theory, states that expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction patterns, on their impression of one another and of the outcomes of their reaction.
That's why at first, I was very hesitant to answer the taxi driver's questions. I did not expected that a stranger like him would ask me personal questions like that. I evaluated his motives because I felt that he was invading that personal barrier that was between us. But why did I end up answering his questions? Well, again Judie Burgoon has an answer for that...
In her theory there is what we call “violation valence”, which refers to the positive value we place on a specific “unexpected behavior”, regardless of who does it.
So, it is up to me if my response to a violation is negative or positive. In our case, I responded positively to the unexpected behavior of the taxi driver by answering all his questions truthfully. But why do so?
Burgoon thinks that when someone violates our expectation and there's no social consensus as to the meaning of that act, the issue of reward potential moves from the background to the foreground of our minds(Griffin). She uses the term “communication valence” to label the results of our mental audit of likely gains and losses(Griffin).
So even though the taxi driver asked me so many questions and a couple of personal questions too, I did not think that his motives may go way beyond from what I could have imagined. He looks just like an ordinary taxi driver and he sure dress like one. He was probably just so friendly yet little bit nosy. Anyway the point is, that status, ability, and good looks are standard “goodies” that enhance the other person's reward potential(Griffin). However, most of us value words that communicate acceptance, liking,appreciation and trust(Griffin).
So I guess, the theory of Judee Burgoon had explained it all. So the next time I ride a taxi, I will not be so surprise if the driver asks me so much questions; they're just naturally friendly.
P.S: the name of the driver was not mentioned in this entry due to personal issues; I might invade his own personal bubble......what the???
But yesterday was different; and yesterday was Monday and that's when I usually return to the dormitory. Of course, I had lots of baggages and it was really difficult for me to handle all of them. So I had no choice but to ride a taxi. So I got into one, and I asked the driver to take me to Roxas, specifically in front of Ateneo de Davao University. While the vehicle was moving, I was very silent but a bit agitated because of my baggages. Then surprisingly, the driver spoke to me. He asked me a question which I did not expected. These were his exact words: “Day, aha na nimu gipalit imong bag og tagpila pud na..?”. See what I mean when I say I did not expected it? But I answered him with decency and politeness. I really thought that he wouldn't ask questions anymore but his previous question led to more questions like: where did you get your bag?, what is your school?, How come you wanted to be taken to Ateneo?, What's your school like?, and Is it difficult to get boarding houses in your school?DO you want some mangoes?
What was he thinking????,
It was like a part of me was being slowly stripped out. At that time I don't know if it's really necessary to answer his questions;I began wondering his motives. But with all that skepticism happening in my mind, still I had answered all his questions before we arrived at Ateneo. Why? You may ask....well Judee Burgoon has the answer........
Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violation Theory, states that expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction patterns, on their impression of one another and of the outcomes of their reaction.
That's why at first, I was very hesitant to answer the taxi driver's questions. I did not expected that a stranger like him would ask me personal questions like that. I evaluated his motives because I felt that he was invading that personal barrier that was between us. But why did I end up answering his questions? Well, again Judie Burgoon has an answer for that...
In her theory there is what we call “violation valence”, which refers to the positive value we place on a specific “unexpected behavior”, regardless of who does it.
So, it is up to me if my response to a violation is negative or positive. In our case, I responded positively to the unexpected behavior of the taxi driver by answering all his questions truthfully. But why do so?
Burgoon thinks that when someone violates our expectation and there's no social consensus as to the meaning of that act, the issue of reward potential moves from the background to the foreground of our minds(Griffin). She uses the term “communication valence” to label the results of our mental audit of likely gains and losses(Griffin).
So even though the taxi driver asked me so many questions and a couple of personal questions too, I did not think that his motives may go way beyond from what I could have imagined. He looks just like an ordinary taxi driver and he sure dress like one. He was probably just so friendly yet little bit nosy. Anyway the point is, that status, ability, and good looks are standard “goodies” that enhance the other person's reward potential(Griffin). However, most of us value words that communicate acceptance, liking,appreciation and trust(Griffin).
So I guess, the theory of Judee Burgoon had explained it all. So the next time I ride a taxi, I will not be so surprise if the driver asks me so much questions; they're just naturally friendly.
P.S: the name of the driver was not mentioned in this entry due to personal issues; I might invade his own personal bubble......what the???
Monday, January 1, 2007
Sibling Rivalry
I always argue with my siblings!!!!
You know, there is not a day where we live in peace without having an argument. We always exchange harsh words and it always end up, someone getting hurt. We sometimes get in to the action, like smacking each other. There was this instance where my younger sister and I fought because of something we both said, and the fight even reached its peak when “one of us” (because I can’t remember who), picked up a knife. Honestly, I forgot what we were fighting about and besides that happened ages ago; my younger sister didn’t even remember it. That’s history now!
Well, my younger sister and I were not the only ones who engage in a brutal fight; well, that’s the understatement of the year! Sometimes my younger sister and I were provoked to have an argument with our elder siblings too: that is our older sister and our older brother. I don’t know why we are stranded in this never ending loop of fights, but I think it has something to do with CMM. Don’t you think?
In Pearce and Cronen’s theory called Coordinated Management of Meaning, it says that person-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create.
I see now, why my siblings and I always argue. Maybe the social realities that we create are different from each other and it gradually shapes who we are as a person, that’s why we have our own ideas about the world and we have our own individualities. Wait, does this mean that the more different our social realities are, the more chance of us arguing all the time?
Well, according to CMM, not exactly. It says that this intentional of meshing of stories lived does not require people to achieve coherence in the meaning of their joint action; they can decide to coordinate their behavior without sharing a common interpretation of the event.
So, does that prove that it doesn’t matter how different we are as a person and we can still coordinate without arguing? I think so….
It also says in CMM that, in a dialogic communication, we reaffirmed that dialogue requires remaining in the tension between holding our own perspective and being profoundly open to others who are unlike us, and enabling others to act similarly.
I think that my siblings and I may have a different perspective of the world, we may have our differences but it doesn’t stop us to have a decent conversation without the need to argue, we just have to stay open with each others perspective but we need not lose our own.
So it is possible for my siblings and me to live in one roof without actually killing each other in the end…Well, now that’s the overstatement of the century!
CMM really held on to its aim to function as peacemakers, “providing a way of intelligently joining into the activity of the world so as to enrich it.”
Maybe Pearce and Cronen, guessed it right that we can work together without chaos ever occurring. I think that’s what the world really needs right now; working together with peace, harmony, and communicate rather than making irrational decisions. Yes, that’s a bit of a cliché thing to say but that’s what we really need in order for us to live together in this world full of misunderstandings.
Our world may not be perfect right now but we can still try; we can try to make our world a better place. In the end the way we communicate with other people is the key to help create a higher quality of life.
Oh yeah, I give the credit to Pearce and Cronen for their wonderful work and for trying to make the world a place which we can actually live without misunderstandings. Personally, they made me more interested about studying communication; they made me realize that studying communication does not only involves being familiar with its process but it does involves concern for the social relationship of all people in the world. Actually, as a communication student we can make the world a better place…..seriously I’m not joking….
You know, there is not a day where we live in peace without having an argument. We always exchange harsh words and it always end up, someone getting hurt. We sometimes get in to the action, like smacking each other. There was this instance where my younger sister and I fought because of something we both said, and the fight even reached its peak when “one of us” (because I can’t remember who), picked up a knife. Honestly, I forgot what we were fighting about and besides that happened ages ago; my younger sister didn’t even remember it. That’s history now!
Well, my younger sister and I were not the only ones who engage in a brutal fight; well, that’s the understatement of the year! Sometimes my younger sister and I were provoked to have an argument with our elder siblings too: that is our older sister and our older brother. I don’t know why we are stranded in this never ending loop of fights, but I think it has something to do with CMM. Don’t you think?
In Pearce and Cronen’s theory called Coordinated Management of Meaning, it says that person-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create.
I see now, why my siblings and I always argue. Maybe the social realities that we create are different from each other and it gradually shapes who we are as a person, that’s why we have our own ideas about the world and we have our own individualities. Wait, does this mean that the more different our social realities are, the more chance of us arguing all the time?
Well, according to CMM, not exactly. It says that this intentional of meshing of stories lived does not require people to achieve coherence in the meaning of their joint action; they can decide to coordinate their behavior without sharing a common interpretation of the event.
So, does that prove that it doesn’t matter how different we are as a person and we can still coordinate without arguing? I think so….
It also says in CMM that, in a dialogic communication, we reaffirmed that dialogue requires remaining in the tension between holding our own perspective and being profoundly open to others who are unlike us, and enabling others to act similarly.
I think that my siblings and I may have a different perspective of the world, we may have our differences but it doesn’t stop us to have a decent conversation without the need to argue, we just have to stay open with each others perspective but we need not lose our own.
So it is possible for my siblings and me to live in one roof without actually killing each other in the end…Well, now that’s the overstatement of the century!
CMM really held on to its aim to function as peacemakers, “providing a way of intelligently joining into the activity of the world so as to enrich it.”
Maybe Pearce and Cronen, guessed it right that we can work together without chaos ever occurring. I think that’s what the world really needs right now; working together with peace, harmony, and communicate rather than making irrational decisions. Yes, that’s a bit of a cliché thing to say but that’s what we really need in order for us to live together in this world full of misunderstandings.
Our world may not be perfect right now but we can still try; we can try to make our world a better place. In the end the way we communicate with other people is the key to help create a higher quality of life.
Oh yeah, I give the credit to Pearce and Cronen for their wonderful work and for trying to make the world a place which we can actually live without misunderstandings. Personally, they made me more interested about studying communication; they made me realize that studying communication does not only involves being familiar with its process but it does involves concern for the social relationship of all people in the world. Actually, as a communication student we can make the world a better place…..seriously I’m not joking….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
