We tend to cling to first impression even when they are wrong. Lately, i've been struck by this, but at a point i was actually able to let that go and change my perception of people.

This happen back in august, as i enter class i sat right in front like i would normally do. And person A sat behind me. When A started speaking, my friend turn to me and we both had the same thought, which was, "OMG! A is so freaking annoying!, Why does A speak that way!" For quite awhile we never liked A, A is always annoying and quite a kiss up, in our point of view. No matter how friendly A might try to be with us, we just give a fake smile and walk away as quick as possible. I know it sounds mean, but hey, anyone would do it too when they don't like a person. Just lately, we were proven wrong. A is actually quite a nice person, despite the fact sometimes A can be 'over the top'. So now, we have totally change our perception of A, and we have no negative feelings towards A. Now we actually acknowlegde A when we see A around. It all good.

Now, first impression aren't always negative. Sometimes they are all too good that it makes it hard to believe that, the same person can have a 'bad' side too.

Now, person B have quite a personality. Everyone that know person B would say B is a very nice person and i defnitely do agree, but man! was i taken back by what happen lately. How can someone who is so nice, caring and just Good in general be so ... (a negative trait i wont mention). Whenever i vent out about the situation, and they dont know who im talking about, they would start guessing. They will start throwing out names, and i would say 'yes' or 'no', but when it comes to B's name, before i could say anything they would be like, "Oh, it cant be B, B's not that kind of person. " I usually just comment back that they should never be too sure about how anyone is, and they will never know who im talking about. It is not in my nature to purposely make another person seem bad, especially if it is someone i care about. So let's just leave this as it is.

This is just to prove a point that, your perception of one person may not always be right. And when it is proven to be wrong, one should try to comprehend and accept it. And not stick to only what you want to believe in, as one day you might just be blind sighted by everything and get hurt in the process.

The day i have my Psychology presentation is also the day we studied bout speech and presentation.

According to what we studied, it is important to choose a topic of interest to you. Thus, from a list given my group and I choose the topic The Art and Science of Flirting. Why we choose it? It is because from the very beginning we found the topic to be really interesting and it's something we're quite familiar with.

The type of audience we had was 'volunteers' so to say, as psych is an elective subject and people chose to take it therefor, staying through the presentations that came with it too.

Time! Well since our psych class is the last class slot of the day, unless people have LAN subjects to course, we could tell that some people was already really tired and couldn't care less of what we have to say. Thus, it was a little harder to maintain their attention, but overall i think we did quite well. Actually, there was even this one guy who was actually sleeping throughout the presentation after mine. Our audience were also our classmate, thus the expectation they had of us wasn't too high, which made the presentation a bit easier on us. Well for me at least.

Even with all that I learnt, I didn't actually think and relate my presentation back to human commm during the presentation, only after that when i came home and actually i thought of it.

lie lie lie lie....
do not lie we shall.

The fine art of lying is older than the human race itself.
After all, many animals are quite skillful at lying.
Just think of hunting predators, hiding from their prey, pretending they're not there; and of their pray pretending they are not there either or playing dead when that might help.

For as long as there was lying, there were ways to detect deceit. Some effective, some ineffective, some gentle, some quite barbaric.
The eagerness to know for sure, to tell if someone is lying or telling the truth is understandable. Nobody likes to feel taken advantage of, fooled, cheated.

Nobody likes insults to their intelligence or the pain of heartbreak. So, is there a bulletproof sure-thing method to detect a lie?

I have two pieces of news for you - one is good and another one is bad.

Which one would you like to hear first?
Well, I'll start with the bad one.
There's no bulletproof method that would work in all situations with all people a 100% of time. Even the most sophisticated, technologically or scientifically advanced methods aren't foolproof. That's why the results of a lie-detector test are not admissible in a court of law. It's not a 100% accurate. Nothing is.

The good news is, though, there are very effective methods. How's a 90-95% accuracy sound to you? If you can tell lying from the truth 90 times out of a 100, wouldn't you call it a success?
There are several modern methods of detecting a lie:

- Intimidation.
Unfortunately, it's an old-as-the-world widely used method. Probably because it's such an easy one - no finesse required. The tactic of scaring an opponent in order to make them spill the beans is often used by individuals and organizations in a position of power over someone else. I am not a fan of this method, and if you're looking for tips on how to successfully intimidate someone into telling the truth, you came to the wrong place.

- Physiology.
When a person is lying, his/hers body goes through subtle changes that can be detected most of the time by a lie detector machine which measures a person's pulse, blood pressure, temperature, etc. Obviously, it's not very practical tactic for an everyday situation. You wouldn't drag you child, spouse, employee or a business partner to a lie detector specialist every time you suspect them of lying, would you? I am not even sure it's legal. Probably, not.
There're also people who claim they can tell if someone is lying simply by observing the changes in their skin tone, frequency of breezing, pupil contraction, etc.. Personally, I have my doubts about accuracy of such an observation, but it's up to you to judge.

- Behavioral changes:
body language, facial expressions, changes in voice and speech pattern, general behavior. There're many methods based on observation of behavioral changes.

- Investigation.
Sure, in your quest for truth you can hire a private detective if you have money to spare or pressing enough need. Or you can do some investigation yourself. Somehow it always worked for Sherlock Holmes and Miss Maple. But if you remember neither Holmes nor Miss Maple spent most of their investigation time running around hunting for clues. Instead, they often used their kin observation and deduction skills to cut through all the lies and get to the truth.

In certain situations some basic investigation is not only appropriate - it's a requirement of a common sense. For example, when hiring a nanny for your child or investing your life savings, you'd want to make sure that people whom you entrusted really deserve it, that they are not lying and misrepresenting themselves, their skills and their character.

As for me, I prefer paying attention to people over any other method. If you simply pay attention and know what to look for, rather sooner than later people will tell you pretty much everything you need to know without even realizing it.

So, how to tell if someone is lying to you? Use one or several of the methods listed above (hopefully, not the intimidation, though) and you'll get to the truth. But can you handle it?

reference:
http://ezinearticles.com/

-marcia-

While sitting in DSA on Wednesday waiting for meeting to start, i overheard some people playing taboo. Then this thought to relate it to human communication strike me.

Taboo is a game where the objective of the game is for a player to have their partner(s)/teammates guess the word on their card without using the word itself or five additional 'taboo' (forbidden) words listed on the card. The giver may only use speech to prompt his or her teammates; any sort gestures, sounds, facial expressions or drawings are not allowed.

Last semester, during class break my friends and I were hanging out in DSA and they decided to play taboo. Angeline and Ivana were really good at it! Dila and I were just starting out so we were quite blur when it came to actually playing it. Surprisingly, the next day! in intermediate english tutorial class, mr.murali came in with a Taboo box set! and so the class was split into 2 groups and we played!

In Taboo using words (verbal communication) to describe another word without using certain words is the whole point. But we have learn that language are symbolic and meaning are in people not in words, so for a person to say a word to relate it back to another word that may seem so obvious to him/her MAY NOT be obvious to another person. This is because people make a mistake in assuming that others use the word the same way they do.

The pragmatic rules of language also may cause a word/sentence/phrase to be differently viewed.

Besides that, "history" between a group of people may influence the way a word may be understood and is related to, as different people will have varying history with other people.
For example, take Dila and I, since we are around each other a lot, there are just certain words that we relate to random people, that others may not necessarily know. If i say josh's name, Dila would think of camera, mac or Fart! or grandmother stories! but other people may not!
p/s: I know Dila will laugh reading this, some may know why camera and mac is related to josh, while others will be wondering what the other words mean!

Now, as for gestures (non-verbal communication), we all know while playing taboo it is NOT allowed, YET! we still sometimes do it unconsciously we will just move our hands to symbolise something. Non-verbal communication: emblems - are deliberate nonverbal behaviour that have precise meanings known to everyone, in this case is use to repeat or substitute words. Those who have played taboo will agree that consciously knowing that hand gestures arent allowed sometimes you hand will just fly out with them! and under pressure sometimes you may caved in and deliberately make hand gestures!

So, Mr.Murali here's another game you can use to relate to human communication! :P

Just got off the line. The conversation started off okay. Ended up a wreck.

It is amazing how a misunderstanding can just occur all of a sudden. I don't even know how this whole crapzoid (sorry Megan, use your word) came up.
Maybe I misinterpreted whatever he was saying. But, how is one not to misinterpret and actually have empathy in such a situation?

He was talking about making the right choice and all that jazz and it was rather clear, to me, that it was a huge ass hint that whatever he's saying is not a good thing!
I was upset,duhh. Wondering. Why is he saying all these? How could he?

I concluded that it's bad. Everything he's trying to say, in a nutshell, is just plain bad.
So, being a typical teenage girl, I just stay silent. Thinking that maybe the silent treatment would work on him. He would just scrap everything he said. Hinting to him, silently, that I'm unhappy. I'm unhappy because he's saying such negative things to me.

Being a typical male, he just went on and on. Even mentioned that things would be a lot easier if we were to talk face to face. So I said, "Hmm. K." Yes, being the typical teenage girl again.

Suddenly my silent treatment tactic like kicked him in his groin or something.
He lets out a long and loud sigh. He turns the whole thing around and I think to myself,
"Finally lah!"
He changed the tone of his voice. Less formal, more intimate(?). He used less ginormous words. More casual and short and easy-to-understand words. He restructured his sentences.

Well, 'Finally lah' not exactly... All that change just did not cut it. I was still...
dazed and confused.
In fact, I think I hit the end of the road. I just gave up trying to figure out whatever he was trying to say. I gave up trying to feel empathic. I just said, as a typical teenage girl would,
"Fine. I'm FINE. I'll be fine."
And, poor him: "I'm sorry. Just forget I said all that. Please? I'll pick you up tomorrow and I'll talk to you about this then. I'm sorry."

Now I am thinking...
That's all he could do. That's all he could do on the phone. God knows how many kilometers we are away from each other. That was the most he could do: change the tone of his voice, use common words, and restructure his sentences.

I feel so bad now. :(
I'm sorry I was being such a !@#$%^&*

Communication isn't exactly bliss. Not on the phone at least. Pfft.
Gender does influence one's character. Hence, in this case, causing severe misunderstandings in a simple conversation.

Signing off,
JcqV.

Noise by social scientist is describe as any forces that can interfere with effective communication.

Physiological noise involves biological factors like illness that can interfere with accurate reception.

Psychological noise refers to the forces within the communicator that interfere with the ability to express and understand a message accurately.

Because of these 2 factors, today I have communicate ineffectively and follow too much of my heart than head in expressing my thoughts. Well I'm not going to blame it all on the 2 factors, I personally think that I was being too judgemental today.

As everyone know, lately a lot of people seem to be sick and I'm one of them. Today was my worst day in college compared to all the days I've spent in college. Not only that the stress of overload of work got to me but I was also having really high fever, flu and cough with that today was the day where some people decided to create problems.

Now I'm going to tell you 2 incidents that happen today.

I confronted a person today on how he/she is acting/behaving towards something. As i was really sick and tired and at the same time was facing some problems and having to do so much thing at one moment, I just blurted out everything I felt and thought. Now that I think back of it, I knew I could have handle it better and put my thoughts and feelings in a more effective way that wouldn't have probably upset him/her. At the same time, because of the history we had, it probably had lead me to express myelf in a more exaggerated way than I would normally had with another person.

So, to you, you know who you are and if your reading, I'm really sorry.

Next, as I reached home my fever was even worse, so I slept off for awhile. An hour into my sleep, I was woken up by an sms. Knowing me, in a normal situation I wouldn't have reacted the way I did, but as I was really sick and tired, I reacted negatively without asking him/her any questions. Later, I learned that there was a good reason as to why he/she has said the thing he/she said in the sms. I felt so bad for reacting the way I did, but I already apologise. So I do hope that will make things fine.

Now, there is a saying that you always here, "You can never take back what you say". So in both this incident, there really isn't any way I could take back what I've said. All I can do is apologise and hope that my relationship between me and these 2 people aren't affected in any way, though people also always say that "Things will never be the same", which I do believe. So in both cases, even if the relationship I have with this 2 people won't exactly be the same, I do hope they won't change in a negative direction. This has definitely taught me a lesson which is, "Think thoroughly before expressing anything!"

Reference:

1) Ronald B. Adler & George Rodman, 2006, Understanding Human Communication, 9th Edition, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York.

Assignments are growing on me like parasites. Presentations are wrecking my body's nervous system. Exams are shortening my hours of sleep.

In advanced, I apologize as I'm about to copy and paste, and edit something I just read off an Australian University Database. Yes, I read it. Over and over again. Ok, well only three times.
It is on effective listening. In detail, it talks about some of the fallacies of listening.

Fallacy #1: Listening Is Not My Problem!

People generally believe they are better listeners than those around them. It is the people they work for, the ones who work with or for them, their family members, and their friends who have a problem in listening effectively—not them.

The people around us believe that we have more of a problem listening effectively than they do. This should tell us something. Listening is not just someone else’s problem—it’s ours.

Fallacy #2: Listening and Hearing
Are the Same

Simply having good hearing does not make one a good listener. In fact, many people who have perfectly good hearing are not good listeners. Having good hearing does facilitate one’s perception of sound; but good listeners don’t simply hear words—they focus on the meaning. We communicate effectively with each other insofar as we share meaning.

If I tell you something and you misunderstand me, effective communication has not occurred. If I tell you something and you understand what I meant—that is, if we have an effective transfer or sharing of meaning—we say that the communication is effective. Effective listening implies that the listener understands what the speaker means.

The difference between hearing and listening can be stated this way: Hearing is the reception of sound, listening is the attachment of meaning to the sound. Hearing is passive, listening is active. Understanding the difference between hearing and listening is an important prerequisite for listening effectively.

Fallacy #3: Good Readers
Are Good Listeners

This statement is often untrue, even though both reading and listening depend on the translation of words into meaning. Because of the shared translation function, there is obviously some kind of relationship between reading and listening; the problem is, many people mistakenly believe that all good readers are necessarily good listeners.

Researchers who administer different standard reading tests to the same individual find a high positive correlation between the two sets of scores; that is, persons who score well on one reading test generally score well on another while persons who score low on one test tend to score low on another.

Similar results are found by researchers who test individuals on standardized listening tests. Those who score high on one test tend to score high on another, and vice versa. Interestingly, however, there is often a surprisingly low correlation between one’s scores on reading tests and that same person’s scores on listening tests. For a demonstration of this result, consider the following experiment.

A teacher divides a class into two sections, randomly assigning students until each section has half the students. Each new “class” is placed in a new, separate classroom. Each student in one class is given a short paper, told to read it once and then place it on the desk, blank side up. Students in the other class listen as the teacher delivers the paper as a speech. Students in both classes are then given identical tests on the material covered.

Experiments like this one consistently result in certain questions being answered correctly more often by those who read the paper while other questions are answered correctly more often by those who heard it delivered as a speech. This result is really not all that surprising. When we read a document, visual cues—margins, illustrations, punctuation—become factors. On the other hand, when we listen, the speaker’s vocal emphasis, reading style, pauses, and the like influence our understanding. There is, then, a difference between processing information from the written word and processing it from the spoken word. The fact that some people are better at one than the other demonstrates the fallacy of believing that good readers are necessarily good listeners.

Incidentally, test results also show that most people score higher as readers than as listeners. Being a good reader is no guarantee that you are a good listener.

Fallacy #4: Smarter People
Are Better Listeners

Obviously, intelligence plays a role in a person’s capacity to listen. Persons with limited intelligence will be limited in their capacity to process the information contained in messages they receive. Conversely, those having high intelligence levels will possess a greater processing capacity. Yet, the belief that “smarter people are better listeners” is often false. In fact, evidence suggests that the reverse is often true.

Whatever the reasons, however, the fact remains that smarter people are not necessarily better listeners.

Certainly, the capacity or ability to listen and attach appropriate meaning to messages improves with age and experience—at least in the early years and at least to some point. But although listening ability increases, listening performance generally declines at some point. But this doesn’t have to be the case. The discrepancy between listening ability and listening performance is often due to our having learned bad listening habits. Here are some of the most common bad habits.

1. Learning not to listen. We learn a lot about not listening while growing up. For example, a parent tells us: “Don’t forget to wear your coat to school!” But we don’t want to wear a coat, so we “learn” to not listen. Later, at school, the teacher repeats an assignment several times, hoping to make certain that all the students have heard it. The teacher’s behavior reinforces not listening, since there will be multiple opportunities for us to get the information. Another example is found in the focus given to repetition in radio and television advertising. This repetition further conditions us against listening carefully the first time.

2. Thinking about what we are going to say rather than listening to the speaker. In trying to plan our response, we often miss the point that the other person is making. Then, when we do talk, it sounds as if we weren’t listening—which is exactly what happened.

3. Talking when we should be listening. Our entire culture seems to condition us to talk, not to listen. The silent act of listening seems no match for the messages hurled at us almost incessantly. The way to control things—to have things go our way—seems to be by out-talking others. Some justify this behavior by saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” But the truth of the matter is that we miss a lot by talking when we should be listening. A wise person once observed that since we were created with one mouth and two ears, we should spend twice as much time listening as talking. More of us should heed this advice.

4. Hearing what we expect to hear rather than what is actually said. This habit seems to become an increasingly greater problem as we grow older.

Hearing what we expect rather than what the other person means can pose a big problem. Whether we are listening to learn, evaluate, discriminate, relax, or improve a relationship, it’s important to listen to the other person.

5. Not paying attention. The name of this bad habit says it all. In addition to the bad habits discussed above, there are some other common factors that cause us to not pay attention.

Preoccupation. Sometimes we don’t listen because we are preoccupied. We have so many things to think about. Our mind is full of ideas, facts, worries. We are unable to put them aside while we listen. Nevertheless, good listening demands that we avoid preoccupation when someone is speaking to us.

Prejudice. Attitudes and feelings not tempered by logical thinking can lead to prejudice. Perhaps we don’t like the speaker. Or the subject may be one that we know little about and “don’t want to know.” Maybe we don’t like the method of presentation. In any event, we are prejudiced against the presentation; we have prejudged it. Consequently, we may mentally argue with the speaker. Or we may simply “tune out.” Prejudicial thinking can divert our attention away from what the speaker is saying.

Self-centeredness. Since we live with ourselves all day every day, most of us spend much more time thinking about ourselves than about others. It is therefore not surprising that self-concern interferes with our listening to what another is saying. We must work at transferring our concentration from “I” to “You”—from ourselves to the person doing the talking.

Stereotyping. As thinking and feeling human beings, we hold certain beliefs about a variety of subjects. We have “fixed” judgments or concepts which we believe to be true and correct. If a speaker presents evidence that contradicts our beliefs, we tend to ignore what is being said—either because it is not believable to us or because we don’t want our ideas challenged. Good listeners do not allow themselves to be trapped by stereotypes.

Reference :

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/kline-listen/b10ch2.htm

JcqV.