"Giving" your attention

How to basically “give” your attention to someone. To take your attention and focus it solely on what they are saying and how they are saying it, hopefully resulting in the highest possible transfer of meaning between you and the person. But I think that one of the most useful tactics the book offered was how to receive feedback. Receiving feedback is tough, I think partly because most of the time, you really don’t want to hear what other people have to say about you. You might be willing to hear it sometimes, when your properly prepared and in the right context, but it can still be hard, as feedback for most people carries emotions. I dealt with getting feedback a lot during my time as an Art major. It took awhile to get used to the critiques and opinions of others, and not shirking off their advice as insignificant. But after awhile you realize that the reason feedback is so important is that others can see things that you never did, and usually in a totally different, unexpected way. This is a huge benefit in art, and most other areas. The biggest point for me was to realize that feedback is a sharing of perspective, and should be listened to intently and given a lot of weight, because feedback is hard to give as well as receive. The steps given by the book about receive feedback I see as very useful. Taking deep breaths, slowing your thoughts down, relaxing, listening, not interrupting, are all great steps to take in order to receive feedback on something. Making sure to let the person know that they’ve been heard is also very important, building an understanding and relationship between you and the giver. I think that the last piece of advice is one of the best, that if you don’t understand or like the feedback, ask questions from the give that can possibly make it clearer or more constructive.

Memory & Communication

I think that the most common mistake I make during listening relates to my memory. I’ve found, time and time again, that things that come up in conversation slip my mind. I think that the book offered some useful tools for my improvement in this area. The book talks about the distinction between short term memory and long term memory. Short term lasts from 1-60 seconds, during which time the brain decides if the info received is important enough to file over in the long term memory. The long term memory is an unlimited storage space for all types of information, relevant or ridiculous. But, as mentioned in the book, the info coming from short term must gain entrance into the long term through processing, processing that isn’t being taken up by distractions, and interpretations on what is or isn’t important. I think this is where my problem arises.
I’ve often had trouble with the simple conversations. A good example is in my home. I used to constantly be at odds with my mom over things that I needed to do or what she had asked me to do. And where the conflict typically arises is over the details of previous conversations, as she typically is able to recall little details about the conversation, while I typically remember the entire meaning of the conversation. I guess this would pin me as a “big picture” person. I think my problem with listening is that I usually concentrate on the entire scope of the discussion, what it was about, where it was, but most of the time not so much the exact terms and words. I don’t think this is technically an uncommon or bad thing, but it can prove annoying when trying to remember specifics of a lecture or conversation. After reading over the chapter, I think that a way to improve this part of my memory would be to up to make sure I’m adjusting the level of importance of each conversation accordingly. It’s important for me to recognize that the conversation is important and dial in my focus and therefore my memory.

Quick Rundown on Semantics

One concept that I thought could be discussed is the concept of semantics. Semantics studies are guided by three principles that look at the construction of meanings in language. It examines the fact that words alone have no power in meaning, but rather are given meaning as symbols by people. The idea that the words we use have no intrinsic value, except the value we assign to them as individuals, cultures, and societies is very significant. It helps one to understand how confusion and conflict can erupt over language. We are often face to face with disagreements over the importance of our words, and how we use them. A word or sentence that means very little to one person can easily carry much greater significance to another person. When people come to agree upon what a word means, and continue to agree on it, a real meaning for words is developed. I really enjoy the idea that the meaning to words lie in people, not in the words themselves. It helps me understand and realize that if I want to successfully communicate with others, I need to get an idea of how significant the words I use, and how I use them, are to others. A interesting example of this concepts could be found in the movie Citizen Kane (1946). In it, we are given what is, to the viewer, the meaningless word “rosebud”. It is only after watching the film, and understanding the significance of the word to the character, that the importance of using it in the movie is realized.
Other concepts of semantics state that language is a symbolic representation of reality, and it conveys meaning for our observations, inferences, and judgments. The main idea is that words we use are not actually the reality, but they stand in for the realities that we live out everyday. To me, this concept seems fairly simple on the surface. The word cup is obviously not the actual cup, but a representation of such that allows me to communicate to others a meaning for the thing I put my coffee in. Just as the fact I drank coffee this morning cannot be re-lived, or experienced by other individuals, but I can only convey what occurred through the language I use to tell them about the event. This idea follows the previous concept that the meanings we have are in people, not the words. This concept proves true only when individuals understand, transfer, and interpret symbolic representation for the words used.

Chronemics and Proxemics

There's a lot of knowledge one can gain about human communication from understanding the concepts of chronemics and proxemics. Chronemics outlines the idea that the significance of time, and the interpretation of time, is a cultural creation. It looks to study how different cultures use, manipulate, and interpret time, thereby explaining the differences and helping small groups understand how people can interpret time differently. It is particularity important to small group and team communication because it helps a group understand how to orient and direct a group with different or irregular time perceptions. I find that chronemics is a dynamic and interesting concept that helps one understand that the meaning and value of time, something we all take as natural fact, can have multiple interpretations and meanings across cultures. It allows for a group, and a individual, to anticipate and account for differences and conflict that may arise when trying to schedule or facilitate group interaction.
Proxemics is another useful concept that offers just as much understanding into the dynamics of interpersonal and small group communication. Proxemics deals with the space between individuals during communication. It specifically looks at the distance of people communicating in relation to the level of communication they are involved in. This is a fairly understandable idea for most of us, as we all feel that we have a certain amount of “personal space”, and feel uncomfortable when it is encroached upon. Proxemics simply labels and organizes these feelings we have on communicative distances and helps us understand how to influence communication through it.
I think that trying to define universal laws that cover all cultures when trying to understand their chronemics and proxemics is out of the question. I feel that there is no way you could concretely say that a certain level of regard for time, or disregard for it, is the right way. I think that significance is not something that can be enforced, or ruled over. People will always hold differing feelings over how their time should be managed, and the proper way to incorporate time into groups. The same goes for the proximity of individuals to each other.

Principles of Non-Verbal Communication

I found the eight principles of nonverbal communication to be a useful explanation on the factors of communication that most of us take for granted and do autonomously. The principles outline the minute interactions that are continuously carried out during group communication. I think that understanding nonverbal communication as a system of principles creates manageable actions that one can think about and act upon during interaction inter personally and in small groups. I found the two most interesting principles to be how interpretation of nonverbal communication is guided by the context and power relationship in which they are sent, and the statement that women, in general, are more sensitive to sending and receiving nonverbal cues. These two concepts, at least in my own life, seem to always be true.
Understanding that nonverbals can be interpreted differently depending upon the levels of power between the parties, or the environment in which they are sent, is a valuable thing to know. I think that we all have an intrinsic understanding of this concept, as we are constantly exemplifying it. An easy place to find context/power playing upon our nonverbal would be at work. Our workplaces, as environments, contain many societal and cultural norms that may change or restrict our use of nonverbal. Understanding how these norms and regulations on the signals we are sending in a workplace context is important. Say you were to send a emblem at work to someone that placed more significance upon the context of non verbals in the workplace , you might get into trouble. Something like winking and smiling in the workplace could be interpreted much differently by a coworker than by someone you meet in a bar.
This bring me to the next principle about nonverbals that I find constantly happening in real life. The principle stated that women are more sensitive to sending and receiving, and responding accurately to non verbal messages. I've noticed that this principle proves true fairly often. Girls I hang out with constantly seem to notice cues that I would have never noticed. I've also noticed that this sensitivity can be a double-edged sword, because sometimes over interpretation of signals can produce more confusion than needed. My mother and I are constantly battling because of this. She seems hypersensitive to nonverbal communication that she perceives me to be sending, and this can often cause conflict over the meaning of the signals. However, I don't want to generalize or overstate that this principle is always true, because I think that another big area of confusion between men and women is that men think that women are perceiving every little signal they send.
This goes to show just how important understanding nonverbals can be. We can become much better at avoiding confusion if we improve our abilities to properly recognize, interpret, and send nonverbal communication.