Chapter 17- Four functions of decision making

In my place of work there is always decision making going on.  Sometimes it involves two people and sometimes it involves a group of people.  And sometimes it involves a group of people making a decision about one person or one topic.  

In chapter 17 it talks about 3 different types of communication in decision making groups:promotive, disruptive, and counteractive.  At work when a certain problem arises, we try to handle it as soon as we can.  But if it is a problem that we have to discuss with a higher ranked person, it takes a little more time than that.  Using the four functions of effective decision making, we identify the problem and ask ourselves what we can do to fix it and what others can do to fix it.  If we can't agree on a solution we try and think of something else.  If we decide on something and receive support on it, we then find out if the solution will work.  For example, I work in a department store and part of the team of employees who work the night's goals is to make the store nice and neat to the way it was before we opened when we close.   Because they were originally assigned one person to a department, the departments in the store were looking trashed and hard to manage.  Now, occasionally, they created something called the "wave" which consists of half of the employees on the salesfloor going to one department at a time, at a certain time of the night, and fixing the department as a team.  It seems to work on most nights but sometimes it doesn't.  

I guess it helps to have a backup plan when the plan intended doesn't go right.  Now, in some departments, there are 1-3 people at a time in a certain department and then they alternate and go to other departments to help out.  It really helps if the people you work with are actually helpful to the cause and aren't disruptive to the goal at hand, in other words lazy.

Chapter 12-Stability and Change

In chapter 12 there are three dialectics that affect relationships.  One of them is Stability and change.   In our book it states that Berger's uncertainty theory makes a strong case for the idea that people strive for predictability in their relationships.   Montgomery and Baxter are convinced that people are in search for novelty.

So the question is, what happens when a person doesn't want predictability anymore.  I saw a movie that kind of supports my example to the extreme.  Havoc, with Anne Hathaway, is a movie about a girl named Allison who, along with her friend, escape rich suburban life, and take frequent trips to the east side of Los Angeles to look for a thrill.  They encounter members of a local gang and hang out with them.  

Allison, who is one of the smartest girls in her class, is also faced with the unfortunate case that her parents are almost non-existent in her life as they are too busy with work.  So she frequently hangs out with her friend Emily who is a sheltered, naive, and somewhat insecure and inexperienced friend.  She wants to emulate what Allison does but what her friends don't know is that Allison is looking to change her life when she realizes the experience she thought she wanted doesn't pan out like she thought it would.  

This movie kind of paints this dialectic in a negative light but I think it is still an important example to consider.  You take this girl who is restless and bored, but also smart as hell, and she goes out to parties and drinks and does drugs.  Throughout the movie though she maintains some self control because she cares about her friend so much she doesn't want to see her get hurt or be put in a situation she cannot control.  

In the end, after a moment of legal issues and tragic events, she realizes that she is not the girl who she portrays at these parties.  But she learns that lesson in a hard way when her friends go out to seek revenge on the gang members who she got involved with.  It is a very interesting view on high class suburbia in the Bel-air type of area regarding the lives of these teenagers.  It seems that everyone is trying to be somebody they aren't or that really doesn't fit them, i.e. average white kids dressing like LL cool J knock offs and talking like wannabe gangsters.  

Comm 101- CMC

In chapter 11 it talks about the movie You've got Mail.  It goes into the theory that these two people, like other people communicating this way, express information about them and their feelings to eachother.  As a result they develop a relationship through their e-mails.  Funny enough, they do not and choose not to know eachothers names, instead, they go by pseudonames which clue 0ne another about where they live or where they work.

In the move Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan's characteres know eachother outside of the chat room but do not know that they are online couple they seem to be developing into.  In the real world, they kind of don't get along.  It all has to do with the fact that her bookstore may undoubtedly loose business because of the super bookstore that is being opened across the street from her  by Joe.  She views him a certain way and he views her a certain way.  As a result they cannot wait to get home and get online to talk to the one person that makes them feel loved, which happens to be the same exact person they don't like.  

Its funny how these two people grow to loving eachother and haven't even seen what they look like.  It just goes to show that a picture may not say a thousand words.  Its obvious that they felt comfortable with one another on the level of communication they were working with but at what point and what cost would one of them be eager to meet or be hesitant to meet.  What if one person starts to doubt themselves or doubting the other party?  Will it end the online relationship and or ruin any chance of a physical relationship?

Comm101 Axioms

In chapter 10 it shows us a chart on how to map out uncertainty and the outcomes of it.  It's kind of interesting.  It's like a contingency plan for social fallout.

Anyway, its almost like a guide to finding a way to socialize and how not to socialize.  I can take axiom 1: verbal communication and use it to decrease the level of uncertainty by verbally communicating with other people.  

I was doing recruitment during the first weeks of school and I was fairly loud and energetic so that I could get people to learn more about KSJS, our radio station.  Keep in mind there are a lot of fresh new faces on campus and they tend to look like they are lost.  So I go up to them and initiate the conversation and even welcome them to participate in our meetings as well as participate in a "toss the water balloon at a KSJS DJ" activity that we had going.  They got to win a prize if they hit them.  Needles to say they had fun.  They also left with a smile on their face and looked a little more relaxed.  Who better to communicate with people than our friendly KSJS DJ's.  We're a lot of fun.

I was on the air this morning and I recieved a lot of calls today.  People were asking about the concert events that were taking place this week.  I gave out a lot of information over the air on several events.  People were calling in and were very interested in what I had said.  I don't see an axiom for something like this, information giving, although it could fall under self disclosure.  But it doesn't really disclose anything about me, just the music artists and events.  So I don't know what kind of axiom it would fall under.  Maybe it was just because that I sounded professional and informative that I gained a positive response from my listeners.  

Comm 101-Axiomatic theory

In chapter ten of our book there is a section that explains different axiomatic theories about uncertainty.   Most of them has to do with getting to know the person and reducing uncertainty through different methods.  

It got me thinking.  Reducing uncertainty is used in dating.  How many of us have been on a date where you are so uncertain about the person, it practically obliterates any chance of having a conversation with them?  Maybe some of us have been on those dates where trying to find something you like about the person maybe pointless because they just seem uninterested.  I can tell you that I've been on several of those dates where you don't know too much about the other person and yet you are trying to tread softly and be reserved so you can impress someone.

But sometimes that may not work and the other person can tell how uncomfortable you are thus increasing uncertainty.  Maybe that person wanted or expected you to be more forthcoming and relaxed from the get go so that they can make an observation and formulate an opinion on you.  Sometimes that's how it works.  It's like they are scouting for your personality. If they like what they see and hear, uncertainty is reduced and as a result the conversation and expectancies are opened up more.  

I've been on a date where I was so nervous, I prepared for it by setting up a picnic, bought flowers, made a mix cd for the occasion and then when we got to our destination, like a jackass, I confessed that I liked the girl a lot and I asked her if she liked me.  Way to go huh?  I at least could have waited till the second date, which never happened.  My point is that people respond in different ways to this which is why I think there is so many axioms in the first place.  Sometimes knowing the truth, in this case for her, increases uncertainty.  My god , I'm laughing so hard right now about this.  Maybe crying too.  Sometimes you have to leave room for the unknown.  Every girl has different tastes.

Comm101-Ch.9-A multilayered onion

I like the analogy that is used in Chapter 9 about how everyone is a multilayered onion.  Isn't it true?  You may not know everything there is to know about a certain person unless you peel away a certain layer to delve deeper into their persona.  And you never know what aspects of that person's life is within that layer.  

It's interesting to know a person more intimately if they feel like disclosing something that you want to know about them.  That sort of evaluates the level and closeness of the relationship as well as gets the person to open up more about their feelings.  How much is a person willing to disclose though?  Think about when we do open up to someone.  How much are we willing to tell them and how much to we still keep for ourselves?  I don't think that a whole lot of people are capable of disclosing everything, such as their feelings or thoughts, because those things are re-occurring and ever-changing.  Us, as wedges, can only get so far to learn more about the person. 

Its up them and us if we want to tell someone something.  And in the end, we have to want to.  

I guess this can kind of be combined with therapy.  And as I think about it, Dr. Drew Pinsky, a board certified physician, addiction medicine speacialist, helps a lot of people in his practice and radio show(Love Line) just by offering advice and in return getting his patients and listeners to disclose certain information that allows Dr. Drew to give his expert  medical advice and or diagnosis.

On top of being a doctor, he also has a mountain of credibility and rapport, and knowledge to go with his practice.  Maybe that's why people can trust going to him for advice.  I've been listening to him since I was 13 years old and throughout this time, just listening to the advice he has given for all those years, he truly has passion for his work.  He's helped me through some of my most difficult years, my teen years.  Granted I never called the show because I decided I was mature enough at that age to figure things out for myself and take the right path.

Now, I have noticed that my friends and other aquaintences, for some reason decide to confide in me about problems they are having.  Surprisingly enough I have given them good advice.  I think to mysefl, What would Dr. Drew say?  I surprise myself with some of the stuff I say because it helps my friends to understand.  

When I ask my friends who told them to come talk to me they give a name of someone who I have offered advice to previously.  I feel good about that.  

 

I think I can go further into the onion without forcing a wedge into it.  And I think it all has to do with the technique of cutting it open.

Comm101- default assumptions

The story about the father and son getting into a car crash, in chapter 5, almost got me.  I thought I was fooled for a while there.  How often do we assume that the people in highly esteemed positions such as a surgeon, are men?  When do we assume it will be a women?  I can't wrap my mind on how or why I think this.  I gotta be honest.   A position like that I would assume that it will be a man.  Then again, the only reason I would assume something like that would probably come from experience only.  

In the work that I do now, there are a fair amount of women and men that are in executive positions.  They work just as hard and effectively as the men.  A couple of them even more so.

For some reason I refer to default in my thought process as who to expect in a certain topic like this one.  Are the words we use that basic?  If we were to be told a story about the greatest warrior that ever lived, how many of us would imagine a man to have something to refer to?

It's probably due to our cultural history that has developed this thought process.  Media can also paint a picture of the roles of men and women in this day and age, even if some seem ridiculous.  

Comm 101-Communication as Ping-pong

In the subsection of our book about Interpersonal messages, there is a description of communication as a game of ping pong.  I can relate to this description because having a conversation with someone that you're interested in can be just like this.  Just like the ping pong ball, the conversation can be hit back and forth at different strengths, angles, attitudes.  The goal of this kind of conversation is to hopefully have another conversation in the future.  Or to get the person's number to have the conversation over the phone.  I guess it can also be like bowling too because the goal is to send the message and hopefully the receiver responds.

The Social-psychological tradition

In Chapter 4:mapping the Territory, there is a section that talks about communication as interpersonal interaction and influence.  It talks about how scholars observe certain behavior in communication and look for cause and effect links to try and predict whether or not that behavior will succeed or fail.  When they are close to finding an answer to the behavior they ask the question, "What can I do to get them to change?"

It made me think about the movie "A Clockwork Orange." The main character, Alex, is a chaotic and relentless harbinger of anarchy in the movie with a love for classical music.  All througout the movie he behaves violently and sadisticly.  His idea of fun is figuring out what to do each night to disturb the peace of law and order.  Until one day he is arrested and captured and sentenced to prison for the crimes he commits.  I forget what happens during that time but he is then entered in a program that will treat his psychological disorders.  The treatment involves forced viewing of violent behavior and disturbing images.  He is strapped to a chair with metal prying apparatus's holding his eyes open.  Much to surprise, Alex cannot stand to watch the images he is seeing as he begs them to stop.  All the while this is taking place, his favorite classical music is playing in the background. He undergoes this treatment several times until finally he is released and demonstrated to an audience.  The treatment's effect had rendered him unable to respond violently to violent behavior as he was slapped and kicked by a random person for the viewing audience.  

I find this movie a good example to demonstrate how an odd solution to a certain behavior characteristic can be applied to reverse it altogether.  In the case of Alex, the scientists and doctors must have observed that his violent nature and psychological profile would only respond to more violence.  Who knew that one of the most violent people would be changed psychologically by some of the same violence he has seen or done by simply viewing it.  But at the cost of his brain being imprinted somehow not to act out in any violent manner whatsoever.  Imagine what that would be like.