Lunel is an Architecture student here in UP Mindanao. He is slender with a brown complexion. He is smart, nice, and very funny. He was my classmate way back in elementary.
Lunel and I were not really that close but we were friends. We went to different high schools and never heard from each other. I could barely remember the last time we had a conversation. Until, college came in.
At first, I was hesitant to talk to him because its been a while since we talked. But it was easy for me to be comfortable talking to him since he treats me like we were in elementary.
Last week, I was about to go out the dormitory when he came. We smiled at each other. Then he asked me “San ka?” “May klase ako sa CSM.” I said. He asked me again “Kumain ka na?” I said “Hindi pa eh, samahan mo nalang ako.” Then after we had breakfast. After we ate, we walked under my pink umbrella on the way to CSM. It was a long walk and the perfect time to catch up on things.
He was the best person to conduct an experiment to. I am not a Biology student so don't worry, I won't dissect him like a frog! I will conduct a communication experiment regarding how will I be able to create a strategy that will increase our intimacy.
This is in line with the Uncertainty Reduction Theory by Charles Berger.
I was lucky that Lunel and I were getting closer a week before our professor asked us to conduct an experiment. It was easier for me.
Last January 26. It was Friday afternoon, I was excited to go home. I was waiting for the jeepney to go when Lunel came in and sat beside me. It was another perfect chance to have a conversation since the travel will be a bit far.
Our conversation defeated boredom! I enjoyed our talk because I learned so much from him. The difference between Fine Arts and Architectural Arts. And so much more.
After we got off the jeepney from UP to ADDU. Together, we rode on another jeep going home since our houses are just a few kilometers apart. We became that close that I was not ashamed to borrow 4 pesos from him!haha Since I only have 3 peso coins and a One hundred peso bill on my wallet. He was very generous to lend me a few coins.
My jeepney ride with Lunel was a memorable one. Not because I borrowed money from him! But because our closeness was now a level higher. My experiment was indeed a success!
Monday, January 29, 2007
Saturday, January 20, 2007
People are People
Liars go to hell. Is this true? If this is true, then why do people lie? That is the big question!
I bet Interpersonal Deception Theory of David Buller and Judee Burgoon can be a helpful tool in finding answers.
I remember when I was in first year high school. My father talked to me about a very serious matter: ARMANDO. He was the boy that my parents thought was my boyfriend! I was very nervous then because even though he was not my boyfriend, we shared something special. I was really afraid that my father would be very angry. I remember I was giving senseless answers. Then my father told me “...anak, ang trust parang crystal ball, kapag yan nabasag ay hindi mo na mababalik sa dati.Mabalik mo man pero may lamat na. Kaya ikaw ingatan mo yang pagtitiwala ko sa iyo.” Those words were tattooed on my mind and in my heart.
Since then all my interpersonal relationships were based on trust. But I admit that telling the truth all the time is a very difficult thing to do.
After discussing Interpersonal Deception Theory, I realized that big or small lies can greatly affect a relationship.
I have difficulty in detecting if the person I have a relationship with is telling the truth or not since trust is the foundation of most of my interpersonal relationhsips. Nonverbal cues can be very helpful in spotting a deceptive message but I often rely on my instincts. Though I know that my instincts are not accurate.The 18 propositons of Buller and Burgoon were all true but can be applicable in different situations.
When I am not telling the truth, I usually drop the important details(concealment) and my statements are uncertain and vague (uncertainty and vagueness). My statements are like this because I don't want my answers to lead to more questions and so on.
I agree that in deception, the sender and/or receiver engage in strategic deception. May you be a sender or the receiver,you participate on the interaction. The theory is a complicated one. Though Buller and Burgoon presented the theory the best way they can, I appreciate more the simple model of Steven McCormack because it simplified the complexities of the subject.
I am confused if I agree with Bella De Paulo's critique or not. De Paulo and her colleagues fail to spot an explanatory glue(Griffin) they were looking for. However, it is true that Buller and Burgoon offered multiple mechanisms to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I think communication scholars are relatively silent about its moral implications because it is part of the nature of communication. But ethical stands exist, since not all of us share the same religious beliefs, I would require to others Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. As for me, I would pick Augustine's Divine Will because I value my religious convictions.
All I can say that why make life so complicated if you can make it simple? Lying cannot do you any good. So abstain from doing it!
I bet Interpersonal Deception Theory of David Buller and Judee Burgoon can be a helpful tool in finding answers.
I remember when I was in first year high school. My father talked to me about a very serious matter: ARMANDO. He was the boy that my parents thought was my boyfriend! I was very nervous then because even though he was not my boyfriend, we shared something special. I was really afraid that my father would be very angry. I remember I was giving senseless answers. Then my father told me “...anak, ang trust parang crystal ball, kapag yan nabasag ay hindi mo na mababalik sa dati.Mabalik mo man pero may lamat na. Kaya ikaw ingatan mo yang pagtitiwala ko sa iyo.” Those words were tattooed on my mind and in my heart.
Since then all my interpersonal relationships were based on trust. But I admit that telling the truth all the time is a very difficult thing to do.
After discussing Interpersonal Deception Theory, I realized that big or small lies can greatly affect a relationship.
I have difficulty in detecting if the person I have a relationship with is telling the truth or not since trust is the foundation of most of my interpersonal relationhsips. Nonverbal cues can be very helpful in spotting a deceptive message but I often rely on my instincts. Though I know that my instincts are not accurate.The 18 propositons of Buller and Burgoon were all true but can be applicable in different situations.
When I am not telling the truth, I usually drop the important details(concealment) and my statements are uncertain and vague (uncertainty and vagueness). My statements are like this because I don't want my answers to lead to more questions and so on.
I agree that in deception, the sender and/or receiver engage in strategic deception. May you be a sender or the receiver,you participate on the interaction. The theory is a complicated one. Though Buller and Burgoon presented the theory the best way they can, I appreciate more the simple model of Steven McCormack because it simplified the complexities of the subject.
I am confused if I agree with Bella De Paulo's critique or not. De Paulo and her colleagues fail to spot an explanatory glue(Griffin) they were looking for. However, it is true that Buller and Burgoon offered multiple mechanisms to link the many variables that affect interpersonal deception(Griffin).
I think communication scholars are relatively silent about its moral implications because it is part of the nature of communication. But ethical stands exist, since not all of us share the same religious beliefs, I would require to others Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. As for me, I would pick Augustine's Divine Will because I value my religious convictions.
All I can say that why make life so complicated if you can make it simple? Lying cannot do you any good. So abstain from doing it!
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Going up or down?
“You're invading my personal space!” sounds familiar right? Maybe you have heard this from someone caught in a situation where his personal space was threatened.
What is personal space anyway? Burgoon defines personal space as the “invisible,variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines the individual's preferred distance from others”(Griffin).
Proxemics is part of communication. Illinios Institute of Technology anthropologist Edward Hall coined the term proxemics to refer to the study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture(Griffin).
We had a fun activity in class last Thursday. We were asked to act as if we were in a real life situation, in this case in an elevator. It was not realistic though but I really enjoyed it. It was funny how my classmates and I behaved. We were like a bunch of children playing their favorite game. In that kind of situation, there was one observation that when a person or a group of people stepped inside that limited space, they preferred to stay at the corners. It was because they want to keep their personal bubbles. After the activity we discussed EVT.
Expectancy Violation Thoery by Judee Burgoon has been used to explain and predict attitudes and behaviors in a wide variety of communication context(Griffin).
Through that theory, I have learned the whys and hows of our demeanors inside a limited space like in an elevator. I have also learned that people value their personal spaces but they tend to ignore other's personal bubbles.
Relationship,culture,gender,and age are some of the determinants of how near or far a person is from another when they interact.
However, though people try so hard to keep their distances, there are still instances where their expected interaction range is violated. When someone violates another's expectancy, whether the act was negative or positive, the person(whose expectancy was violated) examines if he have gained or lost something during the said interaction. The person's reaction depends on whether he liked the act of violation or not.
The thoery of Judee Burgoon may not be applicable to all situations. It is a case-to-case basis. Nevertheless, it added flavor to the theory.
So guys do not be afraid to take risks in communicating, violating one's expectancy may lead to a good outcome. Unless you hear that person say “You're invading my personal space!'” then you know the next thing to do. Keep your distance!
What is personal space anyway? Burgoon defines personal space as the “invisible,variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines the individual's preferred distance from others”(Griffin).
Proxemics is part of communication. Illinios Institute of Technology anthropologist Edward Hall coined the term proxemics to refer to the study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture(Griffin).
We had a fun activity in class last Thursday. We were asked to act as if we were in a real life situation, in this case in an elevator. It was not realistic though but I really enjoyed it. It was funny how my classmates and I behaved. We were like a bunch of children playing their favorite game. In that kind of situation, there was one observation that when a person or a group of people stepped inside that limited space, they preferred to stay at the corners. It was because they want to keep their personal bubbles. After the activity we discussed EVT.
Expectancy Violation Thoery by Judee Burgoon has been used to explain and predict attitudes and behaviors in a wide variety of communication context(Griffin).
Through that theory, I have learned the whys and hows of our demeanors inside a limited space like in an elevator. I have also learned that people value their personal spaces but they tend to ignore other's personal bubbles.
Relationship,culture,gender,and age are some of the determinants of how near or far a person is from another when they interact.
However, though people try so hard to keep their distances, there are still instances where their expected interaction range is violated. When someone violates another's expectancy, whether the act was negative or positive, the person(whose expectancy was violated) examines if he have gained or lost something during the said interaction. The person's reaction depends on whether he liked the act of violation or not.
The thoery of Judee Burgoon may not be applicable to all situations. It is a case-to-case basis. Nevertheless, it added flavor to the theory.
So guys do not be afraid to take risks in communicating, violating one's expectancy may lead to a good outcome. Unless you hear that person say “You're invading my personal space!'” then you know the next thing to do. Keep your distance!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)