There were many new challenges for me during this course blogs, facebook and online communities. These all had varying degrees of uncomfortableness for me. I haven't done any of these things before. Just getting going on the blog was broaching on unknown territory but joining facebook was the most uncomfortable task of all. I haven't even signed back in since I signed up.
I think that having to write a blog was good for me and now I'm much more comfortable with it and could find myself being much more creative. As far as facebook, I really have no interest but I found the whole experience a good introduction since it's a very big part of what people do in our society.
I found both books to be interesting but the Postman book was my favorite. I found the last chapter both inspiring and thought provoking. I think the assignments as a whole were just about right as far as workload.
My favorite part was reading the books my least favorite part was writing blogs. I found myself more interested and intrigued by your questions pertaining to the reading. It was hard for me to get the idea that the blogs carried more weight as far as points. I sometimes found it difficult to connect the blogs to the reading.
One thing that was frustrating was that when we logged into blogs it was impossible to find out if a particular person had written a blog without going to each individual link. I like to get my work done early so it was time consuming to find someone who had actually answered before the last minute. People were seemed respectful and thoughtful when responding to one another which was nice.
Overall, this class gave me a good overall view of some issues that need to be addressed by society and myself as an individual. It also reiterated some of the attitudes and beliefs I already held but maybe wouldn't have known how to articulate.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Whoa, it's not what you think?
I can't remember the exact details of the incidents because it's happened several times but the scenerio is the same. I will go to my e-mail and of course I look to see who the message is from before I open it. When a see a name then I immediately attach a particular relationship to that name or maybe something I know they are personally going through or maybe we are going through in our relationship. There are actually many things that happen before I open that message that influence how I anticipate what the message might be about including my mood.
There have been many times that I've initially read a message and interpreted it to be critical toward me or in some kind of negative light. The funny thing is that I'm not a negative person, in fact, I tend to be an optimist. I can only attribute this "negative" perception to come from my insecurities or maybe my attitude at the time.
I've learned to read a message and then reread it, sometimes several times, to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. The truth is that in most every instance my first initial negative response was totally off. I know this has to do with the absense of nonverbals. Not being able to see and hear the person has everything to do with the difficulty in interpretation of the tone of the message.
An example would be that if I were meeting a friend for lunch we would probably exchange a hug or warm smile first which would set the tone for a positive encounter. On the other hand if there were nonverbals such as the absense of a smile or warm interaction then that would indicate something was not right between us.
That is the problem with internet only communication. When the relationship is heavily dependent on online communication only then the chances greatly increase for misunderstanding. I had a friend that lives in a remote area and we would only physically see each other once a year but we tried to keep in touch via e-mail. I sent an e-mail which she took completely out of context and the more I tried to explain online the worse it became and our relationship has never been the same. I now know that I should have at least tried calling her at the time rather than trying to make sense out of an already stilted conversation.
This would have never happened outside of cyberspace. We could have easily seen each others facial expressions and nonverbals that would have clarified the meaning of what was being said. As I'm writing this it even reminds me of the reading this week in "Wood and Smith" where the discussion of the "right" or necessity of the internet is addressed. This is one example where the internet was not only unecessary but determental. I'm one to use the internet to keep in contact with friends and appreciate that aspect of internet but at the same time maybe it would be good to be forced to actually use the phone or make the time to get together.
There will never be an equitable substitute for one on one, face to face communication. A handshake, hug or kiss is invaluable as a commmunication tool as well as essential for our well being. E-mail has it's place but I will not hesitate to call someone to clarify if I think something is wrong.
There have been many times that I've initially read a message and interpreted it to be critical toward me or in some kind of negative light. The funny thing is that I'm not a negative person, in fact, I tend to be an optimist. I can only attribute this "negative" perception to come from my insecurities or maybe my attitude at the time.
I've learned to read a message and then reread it, sometimes several times, to make sure I'm interpreting it correctly. The truth is that in most every instance my first initial negative response was totally off. I know this has to do with the absense of nonverbals. Not being able to see and hear the person has everything to do with the difficulty in interpretation of the tone of the message.
An example would be that if I were meeting a friend for lunch we would probably exchange a hug or warm smile first which would set the tone for a positive encounter. On the other hand if there were nonverbals such as the absense of a smile or warm interaction then that would indicate something was not right between us.
That is the problem with internet only communication. When the relationship is heavily dependent on online communication only then the chances greatly increase for misunderstanding. I had a friend that lives in a remote area and we would only physically see each other once a year but we tried to keep in touch via e-mail. I sent an e-mail which she took completely out of context and the more I tried to explain online the worse it became and our relationship has never been the same. I now know that I should have at least tried calling her at the time rather than trying to make sense out of an already stilted conversation.
This would have never happened outside of cyberspace. We could have easily seen each others facial expressions and nonverbals that would have clarified the meaning of what was being said. As I'm writing this it even reminds me of the reading this week in "Wood and Smith" where the discussion of the "right" or necessity of the internet is addressed. This is one example where the internet was not only unecessary but determental. I'm one to use the internet to keep in contact with friends and appreciate that aspect of internet but at the same time maybe it would be good to be forced to actually use the phone or make the time to get together.
There will never be an equitable substitute for one on one, face to face communication. A handshake, hug or kiss is invaluable as a commmunication tool as well as essential for our well being. E-mail has it's place but I will not hesitate to call someone to clarify if I think something is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)