The dilemma of the expresser
The refreshing discussion pertaining to the transition process from predicate inner speech to social communication strongly resonated with my own experience.
I can feel that most of us felt the same, as we are all putting efforts in transforming what in our mind to effective social communication. It is important but challenging to precisely express our own thinking with the aim that others can properly obtain the sense since the same meaning might lead to different understanding due to individual’s various background (e.g., culture, experience, values and beliefs).
I can feel that most of us felt the same, as we are all putting efforts in transforming what in our mind to effective social communication. It is important but challenging to precisely express our own thinking with the aim that others can properly obtain the sense since the same meaning might lead to different understanding due to individual’s various background (e.g., culture, experience, values and beliefs).
Both in-class disclosures or cyberspace blogging, are the process of exposing one’s implicit thoughts to an explicit communication environment. I am struggling with this process when speaking publicly online or drafting my post. Both consciousness of the writer myself and other readers are needed to be taken into consideration. I also frequently examine what I have written with tons of questions or worries. Am I expressing myself appropriately? Is there anything that I haven’t taken into account? What if my words cause disagreement or conflicts? What might others think of me if I said something weird, stupid or naive to them? Am I creating values or making contributions to the whole discussion?
There is some avoidance due to fear and other negatively aroused emotion. It is also another format of self-protection — I do not want to get hurt because of my disclosure thus I refuse to say anything. It can be described as a culture thing, I need to follow the group in my hometown while I am encouraged to show my ideas or social presence here. However, I found out that emotions sometimes hamper the progress of the discussion. The expresser might seal their mouth because of a scare while listeners might reject what they hear because of anger. I wonder if we need to greatly consider the individual emotional factors in this circumstance.
There is some avoidance due to fear and other negatively aroused emotion. It is also another format of self-protection — I do not want to get hurt because of my disclosure thus I refuse to say anything. It can be described as a culture thing, I need to follow the group in my hometown while I am encouraged to show my ideas or social presence here. However, I found out that emotions sometimes hamper the progress of the discussion. The expresser might seal their mouth because of a scare while listeners might reject what they hear because of anger. I wonder if we need to greatly consider the individual emotional factors in this circumstance.
As one of my friends asked me the other day, saying that what do you think is important when writing an academic paper or thesis?
The first point came into my mind was “be precise”.
It is undeniable that there are many aspects to concern for social communication, such as good ideas, writing logically and progressively and so on. But it is vital for the author to clearly recognize whether the words used have the commonly shared meaning to those who read them. In order to get one’s claims or ideas self-justified, academic papers commonly start with their own definition and clarification of the concepts, in order to create a well-rounded context or language environment. To some extent, it is a good thing for discussion among people who cluster in specific realms (e.g., collaboration in computer-supported learning). Scholars can more easily look into the problem with a well-defined formulation. However, it seems to build up a threshold for others who know little about the area, since there are so many explanations are needed to shape one’s thinking. The professional discussion seems not that friendly to people who know the different “sense” or just “meaning”.
I wonder if it is an effective way to promote the development of social communication? Is it necessary to create a barrier? Is the barrier built-up for self-protection or for a better-developed communication?
The first point came into my mind was “be precise”.
It is undeniable that there are many aspects to concern for social communication, such as good ideas, writing logically and progressively and so on. But it is vital for the author to clearly recognize whether the words used have the commonly shared meaning to those who read them. In order to get one’s claims or ideas self-justified, academic papers commonly start with their own definition and clarification of the concepts, in order to create a well-rounded context or language environment. To some extent, it is a good thing for discussion among people who cluster in specific realms (e.g., collaboration in computer-supported learning). Scholars can more easily look into the problem with a well-defined formulation. However, it seems to build up a threshold for others who know little about the area, since there are so many explanations are needed to shape one’s thinking. The professional discussion seems not that friendly to people who know the different “sense” or just “meaning”.
I wonder if it is an effective way to promote the development of social communication? Is it necessary to create a barrier? Is the barrier built-up for self-protection or for a better-developed communication?
Comments
Post a Comment