Blind spots in early dating often jeopardize the ability to make proper decisions

Just as I had completed my essay on “Judging Others,” and how important it is to be aware of our limitations, I read an article by Kaja Perina (the editor of the magazine) in Psychology Today (January/February, 2007) entitled “Love’s Loopy Logic,” which explained the reasons why our ability to judge others is so limited — a situation in which Perina explains, “it sometimes pays to deceive ourselves.”   I have borrowed some of the language and many of the observations in this essay from that article, and I have, for the most part, refrained from using quotation marks simply because of the distraction that often causes.  The ideas in this essay belong to Kaja Perina, and I owe her a debt of gratitude for her insights.  Read her essay. 

You [the reader] will best profit from [at the very least, identify with] the observations in this essay if you can transport yourself back to the time when you were trolling for the wit, kindness, curiosity, intelligence, and “chemistry” that would allow you to make the proper decision regarding a future mate.  It is often within the parameters of such a quest that an explanation for the limitations of our observations and judgments can best be understood.  Perina casts both her observations and descriptions within the broad rubric of “mating intelligence,” which, she explains, is as oxymoronic as the term suggests. 

The key sentences in Perina’s article are, “We’ve all got blind spots about the opposite sex.  And sometimes that’s for the best.” 

The first blind spot occurs very early in the dating experience when men are wooing by grossly exaggerating their income, commitment, and affection for the opposite sex, and, despite the outlandish hyperbole, women are accurately gauging their date’s personality.   The blind spot occurs in the report of what occurred.  For example, if males have a great first date it is likely they will disclose more interest in themselves by their date than females are likely to describe.  Women, on the other hand, are likely to give an account that men are interested in no-strings-attached sex than is likely to be the case. 

Geoffrey Miller, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, labels these very early meetings as a “never-ending arms race of romantic skepticism and excess.”  Glenn Geher, an associate professor of psychology at SUNY at New Paltz, who, with Miller, has edited a volume on mating intelligence, comes to the conclusion that women who are skeptical of men’s intentions are almost always better off than women who spend hours deconstructing the first date.  For women, Geher suggests, using the rule that “men are always pigs,” will more likely result in finding honest, committed, and long-term-seeking males. 

A second blind spot, and one, too, that contributes significantly to the first one described above, is how males and females see the world through their own deeply skewed lenses.  This has less to do with minds set in mating mode, than it has to do with everyday perceptions.  Role play once again, and you are likely to see the problem.  Pretend your date is both powerful and beautiful.  Isn’t it likely that along with these features you imbue him or her with personal and intellectual qualities he or she is unlikely to possess? —smart, intuitive, creative, knowledgeable, gifted, and talented?  In addition, in such a situation, you overestimate your own abilities [after all, you have attracted a powerful and beautiful date!] and downgrade the importance of any skills that elude you. 

There is a third blind spot, too, that results from gender-related characteristics.  When I describe it, you will quickly agree, I’m sure, but what this bias does is tend to obscure other possibilities.  Men scan potential mates for sexiness and availability while women scavenge for clues to personality and commitment readiness.  Men are not looking for intelligence, creativity, curiosity, talent, or sense of humor.  If they find any of these characteristics, of course, it is simply icing on the sexy and available cake they desire.   

That is precisely why women are likely to be more accurate and realistic when it comes to looking for relationship partners.  They look for the things that will secure the foundation of relationships and better predict longevity such as a man’s character, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.  Their judgment of a male’s commitment readiness may be inaccurate [males often lie about this to increase a woman’s sexiness and availability]; however, despite the static, at least females’ antennae are attuned to the proper station. 

The fourth blind spot is embellishment.  When all goes well early in a relationship, both partners tend to embellish the other.  Many call this the “infatuation stage” of dating.  The positive experiences the two of you have tends to turn up the volume on the traits you love.  Your date becomes the best-looking guy in his family, or the unheralded star of her office.   Faby Gagn , a research consultant and visiting scholar at Wellesley College, found that 95 percent of people think their paramour is above average in appearance, intelligence, warmth, and sense of humor.  There is a great deal of wisdom reflected in these observations, of course.  Not only does this help confirm a mate’s knowledge that he or she has struck romantic gold, but it, too, increases their own self-esteem for having found a mate of this caliber.  Gagn  discovered that when partners feel their mate has such outstanding qualities they are more satisfied with their relationship and more committed to their mate. 

The fifth blind spot, in a sense, justifies (more than some others) the basic premise of Perina’s article, that it sometimes pays to have blind spots. Self-deception is an equal opportunity bias. She says that the kind of positive illusions illustrated in the paragraph above help us marvel at our mates, overlook irritating or noxious behaviors (especially when a relationship split jeopardizes children, finances, or status), and make exceptions for aberrant or unjustified actions, especially when it is likely to bring on the alternative: uncertainty, distrust, and fractured loyalties.  Without the fifth blind spot, there is likely to be paranoia, heartache, and paralysis. 

Fortunately for most males and females, their goals, in the end, are overlapping.  Both want stable relationships in which to raise children.  Women, however, tend to want an earlier commitment than men.  But when the female-male tracks converge in commitment, the early biases often fade into the background, and males and females begin to share important goals, the most important of which is preserving the relationship. 

----- 

At the Relationship Saver Blog, there are four wonderful, informative, and provocative essays that treat the blind spots people face in relationships—all written from different perspectives. 

The essay located at the Psychology Today website, entitled, “ Marriage Help: Rear and Side View Mirrors,” (January 23, 2009) ends with the paragraph: “Adjusting for your blind spots in emotional interactions has to be intentional, just as you have to intentionally adjust the rear and side view mirrors of your car. If you drive on automatic pilot on the road or in your relationships, your blind spots will lead you to disaster. Putting a little care and effort in your blind spot adjustments will get you where you want to go.” 

----- 

Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.

Day #222 - Your secret to success is in your effort.

SMOERs: Words of Wisdom

"You cannot plow a field by turning it over in your mind."  --Anonymous

Day #222 - Your secret to success is in your effort.

SMOERs: Self-Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules! - Daily Reminders for Outstanding Living
An everyday guide full of quotations to uplift your spirits.
Free 30-Day sample: smoers.com

Blind Spots in Relationships that Rule!

And Then Some Publishing News

Have you seen all the books, videos, and blogs from And Then Some Publishing? An easy place to get started is the black and yellow links at the top of this page. We don't want you to get lost so every link opens in a new tab/window. Get more information about World War II, baby books, public speaking, relationships, great art... And Then Some!

Coinciding with this week's essay about relationships, author Richard L. Weaver II offers a book to help you in your relationship. Once you understand the "rules" of relationships you will be able to create a long lasting bonds built for long-term happiness, security, and commitment. There are numerous suggestions, steps, and additional ideas that will motivate, encourage, and challenge relationship partners. Relationship Rules is available at Amazon.com.

Thursday's And Then Some Essay preview:

Thursday’s essay is called, "Blind spots in early dating often jeopardize the ability to make proper decisions."  Just as I had completed my essay on “Judging Others,” and how important it is to be aware of our limitations, I read an article by Kaja Perina (the editor of the magazine) in Psychology Today (January/February, 2007) entitled “Love’s Loopy Logic,” which explained the reasons why our ability to judge others is so limited — a situation in which Perina explains, “it sometimes pays to deceive ourselves.”  I found it to be such a perfect example of what I wrote in my essay last week, that I felt an obligation/responsibility to share it with readers.

Blind spots in early dating often jeopardize the ability to make proper decisions
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:

You [the reader] will best profit from [at the very least, identify with] the observations in this essay if you can transport yourself back to the time when you were trolling for the wit, kindness, curiosity, intelligence, and “chemistry” that would allow you to make the proper decision regarding a future mate.  It is often within the parameters of such a quest that an explanation for the limitations of our observations and judgments can best be understood.  Perina casts both her observations and descriptions within the broad rubric of “mating intelligence,” which, she explains, is as oxymoronic as the term suggests.  The key sentences in Perina’s article are, “We’ve all got blind spots about the opposite sex.  And sometimes that’s for the best.”

And Then Some Works!

Power of 2: How to make the most of your partnerships at work and in life

Book Club... And Then Some!

Power of 2: How to make the most of your partnerships at work and in life         

by Rodd Wagner and Gale Muller


Book Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.

One of the reasons this book caught my attention was simply that I have written extensively on interpersonal communication—relationship partnering.  My Understanding Interpersonal Communication college textbook (designed for freshmen and sophomore students) went through seven editions, and had this book become available during any of that time, it certainly would have been used throughout that book as a competent, highly relevant, well-written addition.  I used sections from books like this one in my “Consider This” boxes scattered in all the chapters.

One of the strengths of this book is their use of original Gallup polling research to identify “the dimensions of partnership.”  The authors “analyzed the responses of thousands of people in search of the variables that are best at differentiating between a great partnership and a poor one.  People from all walks of life scored their working relationships with their coworkers, fellow volunteers, other students, managers, and hundreds of others with whom they regularly interact[ed]” (p. 7).

The research the authors conducted reveal eight elements of a powerful partnership: 1) complementary strengths, 2) a common mission, 3) fairness, 4) trust, 5) acceptance, 6) forgiveness, 7) communicating, and 8) unselfishness (pp. 28-30).  Brief definitions and explanations are offered in the introduction to the book, then there is a separate full chapter on each one with a final chapter, “In Closing: Looking Within,” summarizing them.  There is a section “Additional Insights for Businesspeople,” and an appendix, “How the Gallup Research Was Conducted.”

Let me, through a quotation from the book and the chapter on “Communicating,” provide an example of their writing as well as a demonstration of the power that partnerships offer (as revealed, of course, throughout the book):

        “To solve the puzzle [trying to find the structure of DNA], required a tremendous amount of conjecture.  The ability to bounce ideas off each other proved to be the principal strength of the collaboration between [Francis] Crick and [James D.] Watson.  The American admired that Crick ‘never stops talking and thinking.’  The two men ate lunch together almost every day.  Afterward, they would exchange ideas while strolling along the grounds [at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where Crick was already working].  They shared coffee in the mornings and tea in the afternoons.  When the group in Cavendish was offered an extra room, two of Watson and Crick’s colleagues announced they were going to give it to them ‘so that you can talk to each other without disturbing the rest of us’” (p. 147).

The demands that great partnerships require of each participant are extreme and well described in the chapter, “Looking Within,” toward the end of the book.

The stories and anecdotes are arresting, the writing style is straightforward, comfortable, and engaging, and the insights, research, and substance of the book make this a “must read” selection for everyone involved in, interested in, or moving into an essential and necessary partnership.  All those who are beginning a relationship should read this book as well.  A great book!
----- 
This book is available from Amazon.com: Power of 2: How to make the most of your partnerships at work and in life. 

Friday's Laugh . . . And Then Some!

TEACHER:  Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?

DONALD:  HIJKLMNO.

TEACHER:  What are you talking about?

DONALD:  Well, yesterday you said it was H to O.

Laugh Like There's No Tomorrow: Over 2,000 jokes from the Internet

From our upcoming book compiled by Richard L. Weaver II
Laugh is setup with just over 4 jokes a day, all 365 days, and can be read in any order!
Expected Release Date: Fall 2010

In judging others, we need to be aware of our limitations

Because I taught students how to be effective persuaders, I was often asked, “Why couldn’t someone take the exact persuasive techniques that you teach and use them the way Hitler used them in Germany more than sixty years ago?”  The answer is: “They certainly could!”  When you teach persuasion, you either teach ethics (what ethical behavior involves) or you assume that those learning the persuasive techniques will use them ethically.  Perhaps the key is to screen students first to make certain they know the difference between right and wrong, have the proper value system in place, and that their past standards of behavior are irreproachable. 

Everyone reading this knows the impossibility of such a test of principles.  But the reason I have proposed such an examination of students’ right-minded conduct is that even if students were to pass such an assessment and the appraisal turned out to be first-rate, and even if you combined such an appraisal with additional corroborating evidence from friends and family, you still could not make an accurate prediction about how these top rated individuals might behave in specific circumstances. 

The point is simply that it is not easy to assess the character of a person.  Here is a close, personal example, although the names have been changed.  Jason came from a Christian family.  His parents were missionaries abroad, and Leesa knew Jason throughout junior and senior high school.  He was the school’s athletic star (outstanding in every sport), and she was captain of the cheerleaders.  Even Leesa’s parents, who knew the family and Jason for many years would have given Jason a strong, positive reference.  Leesa and Jason married; Jason physically abused Leesa; they were soon divorced.   

In another instance, Emily was an outstanding high school student and voted head of student council.  Jacob was a star basketball player.  Jacob, like Jason, came from a religious family.  Both his parents were teachers; the father was a basketball coach at the local high school.   Emily and Jacob were introduced through friends, dated, and, finally, married.  Jacob, as it turned out, was a frequent user of pornography, a thief, a child abuser, and a chronic liar.  Because of these traits and a deceptive lifestyle, Emily and Jacob divorced. 

There is a third similar example as well.  Ethan and Ashley were both members of the high-school band.  They had gotten to know each other because they went to the same church.  Everyone knew both Ethan’s and Ashley’s parents as respectable, upstanding members of the community.  Ethan played drums in the high school pep band, and Ashley, an outstanding athlete, always saw Ethan at her sporting events.  Some interest was sparked between the two as they would hang out together after games.  Interest led to dating, dating led to marriage, and the marriage ended in divorce.  Why?  Ethan abused Ashley emotionally, preferred being single to being married, was too closely tied to his parents, and never seriously considered the importance of either a family or spiritual life. 

We often make decisions about people in real life based on insufficient evidence.  For example, talk to people about whom they voted for and why.  Often, they choose to vote for someone because they like how they look, they hear an insignificant comment made to them about the person by a friend, or they listen to their candidate respond to a reporter’s question in a way that pleases them.  The point of the three examples in the paragraphs above is that even when you think you know someone and even when you think you have sufficient evidence to judge their character, you don’t. 

In most cases in life, we decide who we like or dislike for no good reason.  It is truly an unfair decision based on little or no evidence.  But, if we waited until we knew everything about someone before we made up our mind, we would spend much of our time with no commitments to anyone—in relationship limbo.  Not only do we not have access to the kind of information we need to make up our minds, but even when we think we have gathered sufficient evidence to confirm a decision, the person behaves in such a way as to counter our judgment—totally repudiating not just our evidence but our ability to root out the essential information we need. 

In a class I once taught I had a female student, I’ll call her Samantha, who was talkative, aggressive, and dominating.  When I entered the classroom, Samantha was always talking, showing off, and grandstanding.  When I asked for volunteers, her hand was always the first to be raised, and I had to be careful to give other students a chance to answer questions, or she would have answered them all.  Samantha’s classmates did not particularly like her, but they tolerated her because, it seemed to them, it was better to stay on her good side than offend her in any way.  After the first examination in the course, I realized that Samantha could be the smartest student in class.  Other quizzes and examinations confirmed the first one, and her final paper for the course was one of the best I had ever read.  For all of her “negative” characteristics, Samantha loved the class, thought my approach to it was outstanding, and was the top scholastic student. 

We are all faced with this same dilemma about character.  For all of Samantha’s aggression and dominance, she was the brightest and most capable student in the class.  In another instance, I had what appeared to me to be a bright, capable, charming student who often came up after lecture to discuss something I said, a controversial issue, or a point of view he wanted to share.  It was precisely this student who a graduate teaching assistant discovered submitting the paper of a previous student in class as his own, proving that affability does not relate to one’s moral standards.  It’s the old aphorism that, “You can’t judge a book by its cover.”  My contention is that you can’t even necessarily judge a book by the book itself—the book doesn’t always contain enough information or the right information.  Even if it is the “right” information, it may not even hold true in all circumstances.  After all, presidents Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy had secrets which would not have increased their popularity if the facts had been made public. 

Perhaps the issue comes down to the judgments we make of others.  Maybe the best idea is to judge them only on the one, single area of their life that we are able to see or hear, and make certain that our communication of that judgment reflects our limitations.  We can’t judge people based on the sum totals of their personality because not only do we not have those totals, but we will never have them. 

----- 

At the website The Well, the very brief (five paragraph) essay, “On the foolishness of judging others,” puts everything in perspective—quickly! 

At The Splintered Mind website, there is an essay by guest blogger, Hagop Sarkissian , entitled “Judging others: When it’s bad, it’s worse than you think,” that will really make you think.  The comments that follow the essay are, too, profound, interesting, and even challenging. 

----- 

Copyright November, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.
    
    
   

Day #221 - Listen well.

SMOERs: Words of Wisdom

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." --Robert McCloskey

Day #221 - Listen well.

SMOERs: Self-Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules! - Daily Reminders for Outstanding Living
An everyday guide full of quotations to uplift your spirits.
Free 30-Day sample: smoers.com

S'Mores and Essay Preview | In judging others, we need to be aware of our limitations

And Then Some Publishing News

Do you need some motivation, encouragement, and/or inspiration? Sometimes an inspiring quote is just the ticket. Our words of wisdom blog, SMOERs, has tons of quotes and we guarantee you will find a quote that will spark your inner being. 

The SMOERS quotes on our blog are derived from the compilation quotes in our book of the same name. SMOERs is based on the delicious snack S'Mores... just spelled funny. The quotes are based upon the title, Self-Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules. The book is broken into 365 days with an average of 4 quotes a day. Pick any day and read some great quotes!

Visit our SMOERs blog or go to SMOERs.com and get a taste of our book with 30-days of quotes.

Thursday's And Then Some Essay preview:

Thursday’s essay is called, "In judging others, we need to be aware of our limitations."  You cannot make accurate predictions about how even top-rated individuals might behave in specific circumstances---even though you have judged their character positively in other instances. The point is simply that it is not easy to assess the character of a person. 

In judging others, we need to be aware of our limitations
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:
In most cases in life, we decide who we like or dislike for no good reason.  It is truly an unfair decision based on little or no evidence.  But, if we waited until we knew everything about someone before we made up our mind, we would spend much of our time with no commitments to anyone—in relationship limbo.  Not only do we not have access to the kind of information we need to make up our minds, but even when we think we have gathered sufficient evidence to confirm a decision, the person behaves in such a way as to counter our judgment—totally repudiating not just our evidence but our ability to root out the essential information we need.

And Then Some Works!

It’s not rocket science and other irritating modern cliches

Book Club... And Then Some!

It’s not rocket science and other irritating modern cliches


by Clive Whichelow and Hugh Murray


Book Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
 
This is a 5-inch by 7 1/4th-inch, 194-page book full of cliches and their explanations.

There are general cliches as well as cliches from the arenas of the media, entertainment, commercial, and business, and those in the political, and social areas, too.

I loved Whichelow and Murray’s first two sentences of the introduction to the book: “Over 50 years ago the film producer Samuel Goldwyn said, ‘Let’s have some new cliches!’  Well we’ve got shedloads of new cliches—and then some!”  Do you see why I like the first two sentences so much?  No, it’s not the substitution of “shedloads” for a much racier way of saying the same thing.  It’s the last three words: “and then some”
—the name of my publishing company!

Do you want to know what I find most fascinating about this collection?  Being a writer, I am 1) amazed at how many of these cliches I recognize, and 2) how many of these cliches I have used (or continue using), and 3) how many cliches I have never heard.  Now, it must be understood that this book was produced in England; thus, there would be some that are particular to Great Britain.

I have never heard of “gobsmacked” which means surprised, “but perhaps to about the power of ten” (p. 28), “(I nearly) choked on my cornflakes” (p. 14), “going pear-shaped” (p. 29), “schadenfreude” which means “delight in other people’s misfortunes” (p. 86), “z-list celebrities” (p. 100), “shoot the puppy” which means “to consider the most extreme and controversial course of action” (pp. 136-137), “beggars belief” which is “often used by opposition politicians to express their complete astonishment at some piece of government incompetence” (p. 149), and “ring-fence” the building of “dirty great, probably electric, fences around [money] . . . to stop themselves [from getting to it]” (p. 161).

Here is what’s interesting about the list in the previous paragraph: it consists of very few words out of hundreds listed in the book.  In other words, the authors have, indeed, selected highly recognizable, common (by definition) cliches that most readers will recognize.  That makes the book fun, entertaining, and (at least a little bit) informative.

This is an enjoyable, short read.  
----- 
This book is available from Amazon.com: It’s not rocket science and other irritating modern cliches.

Friday's Laugh . . . And Then Some!

Barry took a girl out on her first date.  When they pulled off into a secluded area around midnight, the girl said, "My mother told me to say no to everything."

"Well," Barry said, "do you mind if I put my arm around you?"

"No," the girl replied.

"Do you mind if I put my other hand on your leg?"

"N-n-no," the girl replied.

"You know," Barry said, "We're going to have a lotta fun if you're on the level about this."

Laugh Like There's No Tomorrow: Over 2,000 jokes from the Internet

From our upcoming book compiled by Richard L. Weaver II
Laugh is setup with just over 4 jokes a day, all 365 days, and can be read in any order!
Expected Release Date: Fall 2010

Communication competence builds on competence

Having taught speech communication for thirty years, one question students raised on a continuing basis was “What is communication competence?”  A related question was “How do I know if I am a competent communicator?”  You see, most people already think they are competent communicators; thus, the underlying purpose of such questions is “What’s wrong with me?” or “Why don’t I measure up?” 

The most important reason that competent communication is important is because it has been proven to aid in gaining success in a wide range of social and occupational situations.  It is a process through which interpersonal impressions are shaped and satisfactory outcomes are derived from an interaction.  So, the real question becomes, how often do you offer others the impression you intend and derive the outcome you want? 

In this essay, I will define the characteristics perceived to comprise competent communication.  There are five. 

Low anxiety is the first one.  To be competent, communicators should not reveal excessive perspiration, shakiness, a rigid posture, vocal tremors, or a minimal response to others.  Being fearful, scared, or excessively worried about a job interview, a speech, or a forthcoming confrontation can produce anxiety.  Some anxiety is expected, of course.  As-a-matter-of-fact, some anxiety is valuable because it can drive an animated, passionate, vibrancy that may not occur otherwise.  In my experience I have found the tingle of anxiety both energizing and motivational. 

The second characteristic of competent communicators is immediacy.  Those who practice immediacy show interest in other people.  They are attentive and engage in the positive reinforcement of others and their ideas. 

You have probably been in the presence of another person who gives you their full and undivided attention when you talk with them.  When my wife and I were shopping for a foyer ceiling fan, we visited a store that specialized in them.  Upon entering, I noticed the sales clerk approach and stand before my wife, asking her if there was anything she could do for her.  The signs of immediacy were obvious.  She stood physically close to her.  She had an open and direct body posture.  She revealed positive reinforcers such as smiling, nodding, and eye contact.  And when my wife explained what she was looking for, all the sales clerk’s gestures were strong, effective, and animated. 

The third area of competent behaviors is expressiveness.  People who reveal expressiveness are perceived to be involved and animated in both their use of words and in their nonverbal behaviors.  Ask yourself, what is it about a communicator that holds your attention, that embeds the essential message in your consciousness, and that causes you to be convinced by the message?  Often, it is expressiveness. 

When I conducted an informal survey of students, I found out that teachers who demonstrated appropriate emotion and volume, who laughed and smiled, who used appropriate gestures, postures, and facial expressions, but did not know their subject well, were more desired as instructors, than those who knew their subject extremely well but could not (or did not) deliver the material as effectively.  These informal results revealed to me that students preferred expressiveness (effectiveness in delivery) over competence in subject matter.   

These informal results make sense when you consider that students cannot really judge subject competence, but they are not only effective judges of expressiveness, they require strong and effective expressiveness to hold their attention and to make a subject interesting.     

The fourth characteristic of competent communicators is interaction management.  The effective management of communication requires order.  The obvious question is, “What do two individuals who are trying to create order in their interactions do?”  Each is trying to gain the desired response from the other person; thus, each needs to solicit the cooperation of the other person in obtaining the goal—a goal that cannot be attained alone. 

Those who manage their interactions are interested in maintaining some control over their communication.  First, they see the relationship between communication and rewards (getting what they want).  Second, they monitor their communication in relation to the goals they seek.  Third, as they gain new information about how the other person responds to what they say and do, they adjust their communication.  At the same time interaction managers are respectful of others and enable them to achieve their goals, too, where possible, and allow room for their expressive behavior. 

Sometimes interaction management is easy.  Conversing is comfortable, interruptions feel natural, there are few awkward pauses, and the indications of when to speak are clear.  Sometimes, however, it is difficult; conversing is uncomfortable, there are unnatural interruptions, numerous awkward pauses, and you find yourself stepping on the other’s lines. 

The final characteristic of communication competence is other orientation.  Other orientation is the complete antithesis of a “me orientation” where everything revolves entirely around the communicator alone.  When you are in the presence of people who possess a strong other orientation, they will adapt to your needs, express empathy and concern for your feelings, listen well, and provide relevant feedback to you during the conversation. 

These five characteristics provide a fairly broad foundation; however, if you consider them overall goals to be achieved, you will find the important perception, listening, feedback, language, and nonverbal skills necessary for moving closer to achieving them on a regular basis.  The nice thing is that awareness of these five characteristics that can establish a solid and inter-personally competent foundation and as you gain more experience — especially positive, supportive, and rewarding results — you will have constructive, practical, and productive personal examples that you can use to build an even more competent future.  That is why it can be said that competence helps build greater competence. 

----- 

The title on the page reads, “Communication Competence: The Essence of Aligning Action,” and in the short essay there by Richard D. Rowley,  you will find five characteristics discussed: 1) commitment and good faith, 2) empathy, 3) flexibility, 4) sensitivity to consequences, and 5) adeptness.  It is an informative little essay with a useful chart explaining the interrelationship of the parts. 

At the NCLRC (The National Capital Language Resource Center), there is an essay entitled, “Teaching Goals and Methods — Goal: Communicative Competence.”  It is a short essay that discusses: “Communicative competence [as] made up of four competence areas: linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic.” 

----- 

Copyright October, 2010, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC
    

Day #219 - Always choose joy.

SMOERs: Words of Wisdom

"I've grown to realize the joy that comes from little victories is preferable to the fun that comes from ease and the pursuit of pleasure."  ---Lawana Blackwell

Day #219 - Always choose joy.

SMOERs: Self-Motivation, Optimism, Encouragement Rules! - Daily Reminders for Outstanding Living
An everyday guide full of quotations to uplift your spirits.
Free 30-Day sample: smoers.com

S'Mores, Campfires, and Communication

And Then Some Publishing News

The leaves are changing colors, campfires are cooking up S'Mores, and friends to help keep you warm. It's Fall. The smells, sensations, and of course the gooey warmth of melted chocolate, marshmallows, with a graham cracker crust rushes memories of times well spent with friends. 


When sharing S'Mores with friends invariably quotes come up from famous and not so famous people. Some quotes you remember far into next week, the next month, and in the end become a staple of your conversations retold numerous times. It's that S'More and your friends that fire those memories and keep that time alive.


This is what SMOERs is all about. Quotes that inspire the mind. Find out what SMOERs stands for and delicious examples. Find your quote... find inspiration. SMOERs offers more... and then some!

Thursday's And Then Some Essay preview:

Thursday’s essay is called, "Communication competence builds on competence."  The most important reason that competent communication is important is because it has been proven to aid in gaining success in a wide range of social and occupational situations.  It is a process through which interpersonal impressions are shaped and satisfactory outcomes are derived from an interaction.  So, the real question becomes, how often do you offer others the impression you intend and derive the outcome you want?  In this essay, I will define the characteristics perceived to comprise competent communication.

Communication competence builds on competence
by Richard L. Weaver II

Excerpt:
These five characteristics provide a fairly broad foundation; however, if you consider them overall goals to be achieved, you will find the important perception, listening, feedback, language, and nonverbal skills necessary for moving closer to achieving them on a regular basis.  The nice thing is that awareness of these five characteristics that can establish a solid and interpersonally competent foundation and as you gain more experience — especially positive, supportive, and rewarding results — you will have constructive, practical, and productive personal examples that you can use to build an even more competent future.  That is why it can be said that competence helps build greater competence.

And Then Some Works!

Intellectuals and Society

Book Club... And Then Some!

Intellectuals and Society
 

by Thomas Sowell




Book Review by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.

This is a 398-page book with 50-pages of notes.

I found this book repetitive, deep, verbose, complex, and extremely difficult in holding my attention.  To provide readers of my reviews a fair shake, I quote here from reviews provided at Amazon.com.

The following are the ideas Sowell covers in this book:
    1: Intellect and Intellectuals
    2: Knowledge and Notions
    3: Intellectuals and Economics
    4: Intellectuals and Social Visions
    5: Optional Reality in the Media and Academia
    6: Intellectuals and the Law
    7: Intellectuals and War
    8: Intellectuals and War: Repeating History
    9: Intellectuals and Society

Robert Kirk of Rancho Cucamonga, CA), wrote the following review of Sowell’s book at Amazon.com, and I’d like to say that it perfectly reflects my feelings about the book: “. . . It's by far his [Sowell's] most difficult book to read because it's subject matter is a bit scattered. However, Mr. Sowell does what many can't do, he makes you think and question ‘conventional wisdom.’ Be prepared to slow down a bit while reading this one since it is a bit more dense than his other books.  It is well worth the effort.”

Callidus Asinus, at Amazon.com, writes this about Sowell’s book: “In his book, Sowell examines the influence intelligentsia (which he defines as all persons who make their living off the production of ideas). Within the class of intelligentsia, Sowell includes such people as university faculty and the media. He excludes people with mentally demanding jobs such as doctors, lawyers and engineers because these people, unlike intellectuals rely on the empirical verifiability of their ideas and practices to survive economically.

Sowell asserts that intellectuals generally have a negative effect on society because their ideas are not subject to the same empirical verification as doctors, lawyers and engineers. Because of this, they can make claims or sweeping judgments on society which they lack the qualifications to make (he cites examples of people such as literature professors making condemnations of the capitalist system without any prior training in economics). Furthermore, he shows that when the ideas of intellectuals are shown to be verifiably wrong, they loose no credibility, and usually use their verbal skills to avoid admitting their errors.”

This lack of accountability among intellectuals causes problems when they begin to sway public opinion in favor of their policies (which are often counterproductive). He cites examples such as the pacifist sentiment in pre-WWII Britain and France which prevented them from taking any aggressive action on Hitler until he had already built up his military. And now we get to the central theme of Sowell's book, which is to have a healthy suspicion of the ideas propagated by intellectuals to mitigate their sway over public opinion. In a democratic nation such as ours, this is an essential quality for the citizens to have so that they can cast their votes more wisely.”

Mindy Rader, at Amazon.com, writes, “Thomas Sowell is a strong critic of intellectuals, traditional and modern, European and American. He specifically discusses definitions of intellectuals and gives us a better understanding of those intellectuals who have for better or worse, had a major influence on society in United States history. He talks about philosophers, government leaders, progressives and intellectual activists. We can learn from the ideas of all those highly respected intellectuals who throughout history have positioned themselves politically on the right or left. The ideas of these scholars, including those of Sowell, are important as they have shaped culture and society. All in all, Sowell's book is interesting and understandable.”

Several reviewers took Sowell to task for concentrating so heavily on liberal intellectuals with whom he disagreed, and if you already know (before reading him) his politics, then you will have some idea of what to expect.  One reviewer even suggested that Sowell should have titled his book, “Liberal Intellectuals and Society.”  I tend to agree. 

----- 
This book is available from Amazon.com: Intellectuals and Society

Friday's Laugh . . . And Then Some!

ATTORNEY:  This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?

WITNESS:  Yes.

ATTORNEY:  And in what ways does it affect your memory?

WITNESS:  I forget.

ATTORNEY:  You forget?  Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

Laugh Like There's No Tomorrow: Over 2,000 jokes from the Internet

From our upcoming book compiled by Richard L. Weaver II
Laugh is setup with just over 4 jokes a day, all 365 days, and can be read in any order!
Expected Release Date: Fall 2010