Week of September 24-30 - Question 2

While reading the article “Listening is a 10 Part Skill” by Ralph G. Nichols, I learned that there are 10 things that a good listener must do. The first thing is to find an area of interest in the topic that is being discussed. The second is to judge what the person has to say rather than how they say it. You have to look past the personality or blandness of the speaker and discover what they have to offer. Next, a person must learn to not et excited about the points being discussed until they have been thoroughly understood. Fourthly, the listener must learn to listen for ideas rather than try to memorize each point that the speaker has to make. Next, the listener must be able to take a variety of different types of notes. The best listeners usually have four or five different note-taking systems that they adapt to the discussion. Something that I wasn’t aware of was that listening is characterized by health factors such as faster heart beat, quicker circulation, and a higher temperature. The seventh point was to resist distractions and attempt to concentrate better. Next is to expose the mind to a variety of presentations in order to gain experience in listening to many different subjects. The ninth point is to stay openminded and not allow emotions to be triggered by certain words. Lastly, it’s important to keep in mind that the brain thinks at about four times the speed that people speak at. This gives us a lot of time to allow our minds to wander, however rather than wandering we can use this time to find the key points of what is being said.

Week of September 24-30 - Question 1

The are six forms of nonlistening are pseudolistening, monopolizing, selective listening, defensive listening, ambushing, and literal listening. Pseudolistening is when a person pretends to listen, but in reality their thoughts are drifting elsewhere. Monopolizing is when a person constantly shifts the conversation toward themselves rather than listening to the person who is talking. Selective listening is listening to only particular parts of of a conversation, usually triggered by key words. Defensive listening is when a person only finds criticism and hostility in a conversation, even when it’s non-aggressive. Ambushing is when a person listens carefully to the speaker in order to attack them, usually without having the desire to understand them (this can be seen in debates). The final form of nonlistening is literal listening. Literal listening is when the person literally hears what is being said, but avoids the relationship level of meaning. As stated in my previous post, I often find that I pseudolisten. However, another form of nonlistening that I participate in is selective listening. An example of this can be seen in my previous relationship. We were complete opposites in almost every way and sometimes I just wasn’t interested in what he had to say. Of course I listened, but I would find myself focusing only on certain parts of the conversation. I plan on fixing my selective listening by trying to engage in conversations that interest me, and also by keeping in mind that the information could be useful to remember in the future.

Week of September 24-30 - Question 3

A concept that I found interesting this week was the concept of pseudolistening. When a person pseudolistens they pretend to listen to the speaker, but in reality their minds are somewhere else. People usually do this because they don’t want to offend the speaker by seeming uninterested. The easiest way to tell that someone has been pseudolistening is to listen to their responses. Oftentimes their responses will be tangential or completely irrelevant to the conversation. 

I know that I am guilty of pseudolistening, especially in class. Sometimes it’s just really difficult to focus on what the professor is saying, especially if it’s a really dry topic. I’ll continue to look at the professor and nod my head to appear that I am being attentive, but in reality I’m daydreaming about studying abroad or thinking about my art homework. I think that everyone is guilty of doing this whether it be during a meeting, in class, or listening to a lecture from parents. 

Week of September 10-16 - Question 1

One of the metaphors that I would use for America is a salad bowl. The term itself is very broad and there are many types of salads out there that are not from a specific country, so it’s not implying that one nationality is more dominant than another. With a salad bowl you can mix many different flavors, yet still retain the differences. Another metaphor that’s similar to the traditional term of “melting pot” but slightly different, is a pot luck. At pot lucks, people bring their own dishes for others to try and there’s usually a huge variety of food with flavors stemming from all over the world. This allows you to put a little bit of everything on your plate, yet you’re still able to see and taste the differences between the dishes. I think this is a good metaphor because it’s implying that different cultures are able to mesh together, while still being distinguishable. 

Week of September 10-16 - Question 3

The fact that symbols are arbitrary is something that I found to be very interesting. People often forget that language is simply made up of symbols that are not actually tied to the things that they are referring to. People of the same cultures associate symbols, such as words or signs, with certain physical objects or feelings, but to someone else that symbol could refer to something completely different. For example, older generations referred to the word "sick" as someone being ill, usually with a cough or a fever. Nowadays, younger generations use the word to refer to something as being awesome, even desirable.

Something that I always forget is that names of people are symbols as well. For example, my name is Alexandra, but my mom almost named me Natalie. I don't think that the name Natalie would've fit me, but why not? My name doesn't define who I am or what I do, it simply allows others to be able to distinguish me from a group of people. I think that's something that is often forgotten but is important to keep in mind.

Week of September 10-16 - Question 2

Despite being considered morally objective by most people, hate speech is protected under the first amendment as an important part of our freedom of speech within the United States.  The fundamental argument that protects hate speech is the impossibility of defining what actually constitutes hate speech: while clearly defined cases can be prosecuted under libel, there is a concern that allowing ambiguous cases to be subject would result in more harm coming out of denying the sharing of an unpopular minority opinion rather than good. The web in particular is a hard place to control, since despite being easily accessible it efficiently protects the anonymity of most users. While context usually offers a good indication for which particular instances of hate speech can actively be considered harmful, as in directly the cause of violent or unlawful actions, the seriousness of the threat is difficult to determine. It is easy, in theory, to wish for some universal control against hate speech, however it is important to remember the negative implications of such a law. A lot of people would be outraged and just rebel against it. Because of this, I don't think that there can really be much done to reduce hate speech.

Week of September 3-9 - Question 3

Something that I found interesting from the reading this week was the concept of identity scripts because I never really realized that my opinions on life had been formed so early on. Identity scripts are rules that define how we live and act as the foundation of our lives. They are formed very early on in our childhood by our parents and adult influences which means that the creation of our identity scripts are basically out of our control. It isn’t until we are adults that we can challenge these identity scripts and alter them to fit our lifestyles and personalities. An example from my own life is that when I was little, I was raised as in a religious atmosphere. It wasn’t until I was older that I evaluated this identity script and decided to challenge it. My family wasn’t thrilled about my decision to change this identity script, but after a few years they have come to terms with my differing viewpoints and actually very accepting of this.

Week of September 3-9 - Question 2

Race is a way for people to classify one another, usually just by looking at them. According to the text, “race is considered a primary aspect of personal identity.” I think that race is a good way for the government to easily classify a group of people as a whole; however, I don’t think that it’s the best or most accurate way. The way that we perceive race is far too flawed for us to generalize the people of that group. They might have some similar characteristics (where stereotypes come from), but there’s no way that every person will have those same traits. Plus, as Western society develops there are more interracial children being born which makes it hard for them to identify with just one race. Because of this, I think that Census Bureau should definitely allow people to check multiple races to define themselves. Of course, there has to be a limit on how many boxes can be checked otherwise people will get carried away, but I think three is a good number.

Week of September 3-9 - Question 1

The woman that I talked to that is twenty years my senior was my mom. My mom grew up in Mexico and explained to me how different it was being a twenty year old there than in America. She said despite being over eighteen, she was expected to live at home with her family (which included six sisters and two brothers) and had to follow certain rules. She was expected to clean, cook, go to the market once a day, and follow the family tradition of becoming a lawyer. Anyone who strayed from this proper path was seen as being inappropriate and indecent. She also said that any young woman who had a boyfriend, or especially teens who got pregnant, were outcasted in the town and were portrayed as being cheap. 

The man that I talked to that is twenty years my senior was my dad. My dad grew up in the communist Soviet Union and explained that twenty year olds were expected to obey all laws and stay loyal to the communist government. Since he was an able-bodied male, he was required to join the army for a minimum of two years. Not doing so was seen as inappropriate and was punishable by the law. He said that many teens and young men in their twenties reacted to their frustration by drinking heavily, getting into fights, and experimenting with drugs. 

My neighbor is about forty years older than me, so I decided to interview her as well. She grew up in California as a twenty year old and said that most young women were expected to marry their high school sweethearts and have kids at a young age. She said women were supposed to be obedient and were expected to cook and clean the house, and stay by their husband’s side no matter what. She also said that getting a divorce was seen as very taboo and inappropriate.

My other neighbor who is also about forty years older than me let me interview him as well. He grew up in North Carolina and said that at twenty years old he was expected to help pay the bills, give a portion of his paycheck to his family, and help on the family farm. He was expected to go to church every Sunday and join the military. Not helping out with the bills was seen as inappropriate, and when he picked up and moved to California his family told him he was ungrateful.

With these interviews, I realized that men and women of older generations were much more family-oriented and hard working than the twenty year olds of today. Most of them followed society’s standards and followed the path that was set for them. It was seen as inappropriate to stray from these paths, or to travel and discover what else is out there. Nowadays, wanderlust is encouraged and creating your own path is essential. People are much more liberal with their views today in comparison to how they were forty years ago and twenty year olds have much more freedom to do what they wish.

Week of August 27-September 2 - Question 3

A concept in the book that I found interesting was Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I’ve learned about it in three other classes: Career Exploration, Intro to Psychology, and Intro to Business. There are five levels in Maslow’s pyramid ranging from basic to abstract needs. The first level is physical needs for survival which includes very basic needs such as air, water, and food. The next level is safety needs such as shelter. Shelter is one of the most basic needs because it protects us from danger and harm. The next level is belonging needs including interaction, acceptance, and affirmation. We need others to enjoy life and being social is the middle need. The second to last level is self-esteem needs which involves having self respect and being valued by others. Lastly, the most abstract need is self-actualization. What this means is to fully develop our talents and abilities. According to my psychology professor, a very small percentage of people achieve this level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In order to achieve this, one must refine talents that they have already developed.

Week of August 27-September 2 - Question 2

A relationship of mine that has become closer over time is with one of my closest friends, Pranil. During the earliest stage of our friendship, neither one of us liked each other. To put it simply, I thought he was an a**hole and he thought I was a b*tch. It was definitely an I-You relationship at the time because we would make small talk and acknowledge each other’s existence, but we wouldn’t get too personal. We would see each other at parties and ask one another how their day was going and if they wanted another drink, but that was the extent of our conversation. 

It wasn’t until I called him out one night on running his mouth that we strangely gained respect for each other and became more communicative at parties. We began talking about politics and religion, but would avoid talking about personal matters. Fast forward a year and a half, and both of our three year relationships with our partners had ended. Because our situations were similar, we were able to help each other through that difficult time and grow closer in our friendship. It’s now been four years since I met him, and he’s one of my best friends; we talk about everything. There wasn’t really a difference in our shared fields of experience. The friendship definitely progressed at an equal pace.

Week of August 27-September 2 - Question 1

The textbook discusses two different models of interpersonal communication: linear models and interactive models. Linear models are portrayed as very one-sided, with information only moving in one direction. It’s not a realistic model of communication for the real world because, assuming that the listener is paying attention, they will usually give feedback. Interactive models are more realistic in the sense that it allows listeners to respond to speakers. However, it’s still a flawed model because it still portrays one person as a speaker and one person as a listener when in reality, both subjects send and receive messages. 

An example of a linear model from my life is when I would be scolded by my parents when I was younger. If I did something wrong they would lecture me and it would be very sequential. An example of an interactive model would be getting feedback during the art critiques in my 2D Design and Color Concept class. The class critiques a piece of art from someone in the class and gives feedback as to what they like about the piece, and how it could be improved.