Tonight, we're going to talk about introverts and their relationship with the internet. To understand this relationship, we need to understand what an introvert is.
Introversion as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". In other words, introverts generally draw power from within themselves and not from an outside source such as praise or gratitude from other people. As such, they are often misunderstood as being shy, disconnected or slow. The introvert enjoys communication and interaction with others, but in small doses as opposed to an extrovert. They also prefer non-verbal, written messages over verbal communication.
Introverts find it easier to communicate online. The lack of a physical representation of oneself minimizes the prejudice one may face in the real world. Therefore, less stimuli is produced and introverts are not as drained as they would be if they were to attend a party or a large social event. This is especially useful to a shy introvert as it may serve to boost their low self-esteem.
As a shy person is one who avoids social meetings out of fear, online chatrooms may contribute to their low self-esteem. Adversely, cyber bullying may in turn, lower their self esteem even further, as they tend to take everything too seriously. There have been cases around the world where teenagers have been driven to suicide because of e-bullying.
This writer thinks that there is no such thing as e-bullying in reality. As at the end of the day, the internet is still just a string of text messages on a monitor which should not be taken too seriously.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
High context and low context cultures
As identified by Edward T. Hall in 1976:
High context transactions feature pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message. Low context transactions are the reverse. Most of the information must be in the transmitted message in order to make up for what is missing in the context.
In other words, high context culture focuses more on preexisting information and setting that the communicators are in. As such, it does not focus so much on the communicated message in contrary to the non-verbal cues, background and setting the communicators are in.
Low context culture on the other hand, focuses on the transmitted message between the communicators, with extra emphasis on verbal messages. It regards speech as a tool of expression and clarification. Non-verbal cues do not play as a big of a role as they do in a high context culture; as such, silence is taken as a sign of incomprehension.
Using the aforementioned classification, the majority of the East can be seen as adopting the high context culture, while the majority of the West adopts the low context culture.
In Asian countries like Japan, the culture is one of very high context. A conversation between two Japanese people may not make much sense to one of a low context culture. There is lack of clarity in their words and it is very hard to derive meaning from them. That’s because the Japanese rely on long-term and underlying meanings known by both because of their shared cultural background. They are also highly attuned to non-verbal communications and derive meaning from the speaker's facial expressions and body language. They view direct verbal communication as rude and insensitive.
On the other hand, in countries like the U.S. and Canada, one can clearly understand the meaning of a conversation held by people of a low context culture. Conversations will be direct, structured and to the point. The value of direct verbal communication will be much higher than that delivered by non verbal cues. As such they view indirect communication as deceptive and of questionable integrity.
With these stark contrasts in culture and perception it is no wonder that there has been many misunderstandings between low context and high context cultured countries. And as we all know, misunderstandings are the main causes of problems. Therefore it is important to understand a person's background and culture before confronting them.
High context transactions feature pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message. Low context transactions are the reverse. Most of the information must be in the transmitted message in order to make up for what is missing in the context.
In other words, high context culture focuses more on preexisting information and setting that the communicators are in. As such, it does not focus so much on the communicated message in contrary to the non-verbal cues, background and setting the communicators are in.
Low context culture on the other hand, focuses on the transmitted message between the communicators, with extra emphasis on verbal messages. It regards speech as a tool of expression and clarification. Non-verbal cues do not play as a big of a role as they do in a high context culture; as such, silence is taken as a sign of incomprehension.
Using the aforementioned classification, the majority of the East can be seen as adopting the high context culture, while the majority of the West adopts the low context culture.
In Asian countries like Japan, the culture is one of very high context. A conversation between two Japanese people may not make much sense to one of a low context culture. There is lack of clarity in their words and it is very hard to derive meaning from them. That’s because the Japanese rely on long-term and underlying meanings known by both because of their shared cultural background. They are also highly attuned to non-verbal communications and derive meaning from the speaker's facial expressions and body language. They view direct verbal communication as rude and insensitive.
On the other hand, in countries like the U.S. and Canada, one can clearly understand the meaning of a conversation held by people of a low context culture. Conversations will be direct, structured and to the point. The value of direct verbal communication will be much higher than that delivered by non verbal cues. As such they view indirect communication as deceptive and of questionable integrity.
With these stark contrasts in culture and perception it is no wonder that there has been many misunderstandings between low context and high context cultured countries. And as we all know, misunderstandings are the main causes of problems. Therefore it is important to understand a person's background and culture before confronting them.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Groupthink is a term first coined by William H. Whyte in 1952 as:
Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.
In other words, it is a situation when a group becomes so tight and together that members of the group are willing to overlook flaws which the group may have for group unity.
The symptoms of groupthink are:
- Illusion of invulnerability
- Unquestioned belief in group's morality
- Stereotyping anyone outside the group as inferior
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus
- Illusions of unanimity among group members
- Mindguards which are self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information
In this modern era, some argue that religion is a form of groupthink at its worst. Of course, this is not true for all religions. The most explicit form of religious extremism is usually found in religions worshiping the God of the Desert.
Let's go over the points
- Illusion of invulnerability
The classical belief that one's 'soul' shall live on after death and that their god is watching over them. May lead to excessive optimism and recklessness which may cause more harm than good.
- Unquestioned belief in group's morality
The view of "If it's written in our holy scripture, it has to be true!". May cause delusional thinking of self-righteousness and self-justification of actions. Has been true for many terrorist attacks and the crusades.
- Stereotyping anyone outside the group as inferior
The view of "Everyone else is wrong, we are the ones who are right". This is mostly true for evangelists who preach about the gospel to perfectly happy and decent people just because they are of a different religion.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group
Threats that deal with the member who questions the group usually ending up in alone and defenseless. This is quite similar to peer pressure in its workings.
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus
This is usually true for the members who are in the grey area between "all for" and "not for" the group. Inner conflicts arise in those members and may cause mental stress.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members
This one should be pretty obvious. Group members make assumptions that the rest of the group is thinking of the same thing. Also, closure is applied here.
- Mindguards
The ones who keep the group in line with their filtering of dissenting information.
In conclusion, groups should have a regular evaluation and feedback session done by either a specially elected member of the group or a party outside of the group to prevent groupthink. Critical examination of all alternative options should also be examined and considered.
Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.
Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, defined it as:
A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.
In other words, it is a situation when a group becomes so tight and together that members of the group are willing to overlook flaws which the group may have for group unity.
The symptoms of groupthink are:
- Illusion of invulnerability
- Unquestioned belief in group's morality
- Stereotyping anyone outside the group as inferior
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus
- Illusions of unanimity among group members
- Mindguards which are self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information
In this modern era, some argue that religion is a form of groupthink at its worst. Of course, this is not true for all religions. The most explicit form of religious extremism is usually found in religions worshiping the God of the Desert.
Let's go over the points
- Illusion of invulnerability
The classical belief that one's 'soul' shall live on after death and that their god is watching over them. May lead to excessive optimism and recklessness which may cause more harm than good.
- Unquestioned belief in group's morality
The view of "If it's written in our holy scripture, it has to be true!". May cause delusional thinking of self-righteousness and self-justification of actions. Has been true for many terrorist attacks and the crusades.
- Stereotyping anyone outside the group as inferior
The view of "Everyone else is wrong, we are the ones who are right". This is mostly true for evangelists who preach about the gospel to perfectly happy and decent people just because they are of a different religion.
- Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group
Threats that deal with the member who questions the group usually ending up in alone and defenseless. This is quite similar to peer pressure in its workings.
- Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus
This is usually true for the members who are in the grey area between "all for" and "not for" the group. Inner conflicts arise in those members and may cause mental stress.
- Illusions of unanimity among group members
This one should be pretty obvious. Group members make assumptions that the rest of the group is thinking of the same thing. Also, closure is applied here.
- Mindguards
The ones who keep the group in line with their filtering of dissenting information.
In conclusion, groups should have a regular evaluation and feedback session done by either a specially elected member of the group or a party outside of the group to prevent groupthink. Critical examination of all alternative options should also be examined and considered.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Reality and Perception
The words we use influences the way we think. The way we think also influences the words we use. It's sort of a circular statement. In the beginning though, the words we know and learn, influences the way we think.
For example, let's say parents are fighting in front of their 5 year old child. Words that came out of their mouths would have a negative connotation to the child because they have been associated with anger and hate among other things. This may have an impact on the child's way of perceiving things, his idea of reality if you will. It is because children in general are very vulnerable. They have not formed their own ideas of what reality is yet, they understand us just to a certain degree which is sufficient for their learning process to take place, and they are a bit primal, if you will.
In this stage a child's world view is very simplistic:
- All is fine as long as I get fed.
- Everything is new to me so I'll do my best to learn a lot of things.
- Unreachable places hold the most appeal since I can't reach them.
Later when he grows up and becomes a teenager, words that he picks up from the environment, television, anywhere really, excites him. Especially the vulgar ones, why? Because it's taboo, they don't allow him to use such language in a formal setting. But he'll learn. He'll learn what to say and when to say it. What is appropriate and what isn't. And soon the way he thinks will influence the words he uses.
During adolescence, the boy's views will change quite a bit:
- I have a pretty good idea of what's going on
- I MUST try EVERYTHING no matter what the cost.
- The media and their ideas are generally correct.
- I feel insecure on my own; therefore I must go with the flow of the mainstream to make myself feel secure
Yes, they begin to act up. Of course I’m just generalizing; a teenager’s perception of reality all comes down to how they were brought up by their parents. And there’s the environment. But I digress.
Teenagers grow up to become adults. Not much to say here because their perceptions of reality are already formed. They start to deal with adult things like paying taxes, worrying about getting married, worrying about their children and their future, etc2. By this stage, the words he uses are influenced by the way he thinks. He must be careful in the usage of his words. Some may consider them to be offensive, some may not. It all comes down to how well he can perceive another’s perception.
Therefore, I conclude that the words we know do influence the way we think. But the words we use are influenced by the way we think.
Here’s to all our twisted perceptions of reality.
Cheers.
For example, let's say parents are fighting in front of their 5 year old child. Words that came out of their mouths would have a negative connotation to the child because they have been associated with anger and hate among other things. This may have an impact on the child's way of perceiving things, his idea of reality if you will. It is because children in general are very vulnerable. They have not formed their own ideas of what reality is yet, they understand us just to a certain degree which is sufficient for their learning process to take place, and they are a bit primal, if you will.
In this stage a child's world view is very simplistic:
- All is fine as long as I get fed.
- Everything is new to me so I'll do my best to learn a lot of things.
- Unreachable places hold the most appeal since I can't reach them.
Later when he grows up and becomes a teenager, words that he picks up from the environment, television, anywhere really, excites him. Especially the vulgar ones, why? Because it's taboo, they don't allow him to use such language in a formal setting. But he'll learn. He'll learn what to say and when to say it. What is appropriate and what isn't. And soon the way he thinks will influence the words he uses.
During adolescence, the boy's views will change quite a bit:
- I have a pretty good idea of what's going on
- I MUST try EVERYTHING no matter what the cost.
- The media and their ideas are generally correct.
- I feel insecure on my own; therefore I must go with the flow of the mainstream to make myself feel secure
Yes, they begin to act up. Of course I’m just generalizing; a teenager’s perception of reality all comes down to how they were brought up by their parents. And there’s the environment. But I digress.
Teenagers grow up to become adults. Not much to say here because their perceptions of reality are already formed. They start to deal with adult things like paying taxes, worrying about getting married, worrying about their children and their future, etc2. By this stage, the words he uses are influenced by the way he thinks. He must be careful in the usage of his words. Some may consider them to be offensive, some may not. It all comes down to how well he can perceive another’s perception.
Therefore, I conclude that the words we know do influence the way we think. But the words we use are influenced by the way we think.
Here’s to all our twisted perceptions of reality.
Cheers.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Knapp's Model of Relational Development
Knapp's model is one of the most influential models of relationship. There are ten stages in two phases:
1. Initiating
2. Experimenting
3. Intensifying
4. Integrating
5. Bonding
which come under the Escalation Model
6. Differentiating
7. Circumscribing
8. Stagnating
9. Avoiding
10. Terminating
which come under the Termination model
The first stage is the initiating stage. This stage is very short. Subjects involved in this stage try to make a favorable first impression and observe the other subject through their mannerisms and body language.
The second stage is the experimenting stage. Subjects involved in this stage try to find out more about each other. They ask questions about their backgrounds, personalities and culture. If they have that special chemistry, they move on to the next stage. Otherwise, they remain in the second stage as acquaintances.
The third stage is the intensifying stage. The relationship becomes more friendly and personal and disclosure of feelings to the other party becomes more prevalent. There is also a heightened expression of affection between the subjects involved. It is in this stage that people begin to further their relationships from "just friends" to something more romantic and committed. Methods to further their relationships include subtle hints and asking the other party for approval to take their relationship to the next level.
The fourth stage is the integrating stage. This is the stage where two become one. The two individuals come to be seen as a unit than two separate individuals. There is a more physical display of affection and there may be a public declaration of how far the relationship has gone.
The fifth stage is the bonding stage which basically is the stage where the relationship becomes legalized and formalized. Subjects may engage in public rituals such as marriage and engagement. Few relationships ever make it this far.
The sixth stage is called the differentiating stage. This is the first stage of the termination phase. The integrated unit of two individuals begins to fall apart due to the differences they have. It may also be due to one of the parties refusing to compromise about their partner's negative aspects. A large amount of differences may be caused due to a relationship that has developed too fast.
The seventh stage is called the circumscribing stage. I personally call this stage the lovers' quarrel stage due to its qualities. Conversations are restricted to small talk and necessary conversations. Commitment and interest in relationship becomes diminished due to the effects of the sixth stage. And there is a degree of avoidance in topics of discussion. Mostly ending with the words, "I don't want to talk about it." At this stage, attempts to return the relationship to a more positive state is still possible.
The eighth stage is called the stagnation stage. Subjects avoid discussions of the relationship as they feel that they know what their partners will say. Emotional detachment begins and others around them begin to notice that there is something wrong with their relationship. Subjects persists the relationship and they go through with it just to avoid the pain of termination.
The ninth stage is called the avoiding stage. There is a significant increase in emotional detachment that it becomes a withdrawal of both physical and emotional. Communication becomes very minimum, only doing so if it is an absolute necessity. If it were a married couple, divorce will be considered during this stage.
The final stage is called the terminating stage. The relationship ceases to exist and parties move on to another relationship.
1. Initiating
2. Experimenting
3. Intensifying
4. Integrating
5. Bonding
which come under the Escalation Model
6. Differentiating
7. Circumscribing
8. Stagnating
9. Avoiding
10. Terminating
which come under the Termination model
The first stage is the initiating stage. This stage is very short. Subjects involved in this stage try to make a favorable first impression and observe the other subject through their mannerisms and body language.
The second stage is the experimenting stage. Subjects involved in this stage try to find out more about each other. They ask questions about their backgrounds, personalities and culture. If they have that special chemistry, they move on to the next stage. Otherwise, they remain in the second stage as acquaintances.
The third stage is the intensifying stage. The relationship becomes more friendly and personal and disclosure of feelings to the other party becomes more prevalent. There is also a heightened expression of affection between the subjects involved. It is in this stage that people begin to further their relationships from "just friends" to something more romantic and committed. Methods to further their relationships include subtle hints and asking the other party for approval to take their relationship to the next level.
The fourth stage is the integrating stage. This is the stage where two become one. The two individuals come to be seen as a unit than two separate individuals. There is a more physical display of affection and there may be a public declaration of how far the relationship has gone.
The fifth stage is the bonding stage which basically is the stage where the relationship becomes legalized and formalized. Subjects may engage in public rituals such as marriage and engagement. Few relationships ever make it this far.
The sixth stage is called the differentiating stage. This is the first stage of the termination phase. The integrated unit of two individuals begins to fall apart due to the differences they have. It may also be due to one of the parties refusing to compromise about their partner's negative aspects. A large amount of differences may be caused due to a relationship that has developed too fast.
The seventh stage is called the circumscribing stage. I personally call this stage the lovers' quarrel stage due to its qualities. Conversations are restricted to small talk and necessary conversations. Commitment and interest in relationship becomes diminished due to the effects of the sixth stage. And there is a degree of avoidance in topics of discussion. Mostly ending with the words, "I don't want to talk about it." At this stage, attempts to return the relationship to a more positive state is still possible.
The eighth stage is called the stagnation stage. Subjects avoid discussions of the relationship as they feel that they know what their partners will say. Emotional detachment begins and others around them begin to notice that there is something wrong with their relationship. Subjects persists the relationship and they go through with it just to avoid the pain of termination.
The ninth stage is called the avoiding stage. There is a significant increase in emotional detachment that it becomes a withdrawal of both physical and emotional. Communication becomes very minimum, only doing so if it is an absolute necessity. If it were a married couple, divorce will be considered during this stage.
The final stage is called the terminating stage. The relationship ceases to exist and parties move on to another relationship.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Idols of the cave and theatre
During the modern period of rhetorical study, Englishman Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1625) created an analysis of mental distortions/biases in thought and speech which may lead to misunderstandings in communication.
These are called the Four Idols, which are comprised of:
- Idols of the tribe (human nature)
- Idols of the cave (individual prejudices)
- Idols of the marketplace (use of language)
- Idols of the theatre (acceptance of fashion uncritically)
I believe that no person can be free of having prejudice so I'll try as best I can to cover the Idols of the cave.
The Idols of the cave is a result of an individual's upbringing, one's beliefs and mentality. It can be affected by the media, like watching too much TV may lead one to think that what happens on TV is actually analogous to the happenings in real life when it is fictional. As such, it may lead to a stereotyping of a particular race or culture.
The Idols of the theatre is a result of an abuse of authority, or media, if you will. The uncritical acceptance of fashion and trends may become quite a problem especially among the young generation as most of them think that those who don’t follow the recent trends are different and they are ostracized because of it. This may lead to a loss of identity as they just follow the trends and do as the media tells them. But of course that could be seen as an identity in itself.
In conclusion, we must keep these idols in check if we are ever to progress as a species. Close mindedness will only serve to hinder progress and may even regress it. Traditions should be preserved for the sake of culture but extreme conservatism will hurt progress.
So here’s to progress and all the perks that come with it.
Cheers.
These are called the Four Idols, which are comprised of:
- Idols of the tribe (human nature)
- Idols of the cave (individual prejudices)
- Idols of the marketplace (use of language)
- Idols of the theatre (acceptance of fashion uncritically)
I believe that no person can be free of having prejudice so I'll try as best I can to cover the Idols of the cave.
The Idols of the cave is a result of an individual's upbringing, one's beliefs and mentality. It can be affected by the media, like watching too much TV may lead one to think that what happens on TV is actually analogous to the happenings in real life when it is fictional. As such, it may lead to a stereotyping of a particular race or culture.
The Idols of the theatre is a result of an abuse of authority, or media, if you will. The uncritical acceptance of fashion and trends may become quite a problem especially among the young generation as most of them think that those who don’t follow the recent trends are different and they are ostracized because of it. This may lead to a loss of identity as they just follow the trends and do as the media tells them. But of course that could be seen as an identity in itself.
In conclusion, we must keep these idols in check if we are ever to progress as a species. Close mindedness will only serve to hinder progress and may even regress it. Traditions should be preserved for the sake of culture but extreme conservatism will hurt progress.
So here’s to progress and all the perks that come with it.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)