I'm just going to simply state what I thought about the text. Some of it was a bit hard to understand, for example, about what Rogers was talking about in the beginning of his essay, "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation." I didn't really understand the task of the psychotherapists. But, once we got to a couple examples, such as, the one about leaving the meeting and about what your response would be to, "I didn't like that man's talk." I think Rogers is trying to help us develop the knowledge about arguments. So when it's your turn to respond to your opponents opinion you can either disagree or agree. But first you must always listen and evaluate what exactly your opponent is saying.
I agreed with most everything Rogers had to say in his essay; Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilation. He made several interesting points when he was talking about the obstacles one must overcome in having good communication in an arguement. One obstacle Rogers pointed out was the aspect of emotion. I personally understand what he's talking about when he says, "..it is no longer necessary to maintain the attitude, "I am 100 percent right and you are 100 percent wrong."." I also found the experiment he suggested to try very interesting; that you have to tell the other person how they feel before you can state your own feelings. I think some of the things he pointed out could effeciently help in an arguement and in communicatio in general.
I agree with what Rogers has to say in his essay, “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation”. For example, “I didn’t like that man’s talk.” You would either respond “I didn’t like it either. I thought it was terrible” or else you would say “Oh, I thought it was really good.” It is nature that everybody would have their own personal reaction or feeling about anything they have witnessed, such as a talk, movie, sports game, etc. As Rogers said in the essay, “In other words, your primary reaction is to evaluate what has just been said to you, to evaluate it from your point of view, your own frame of reference.” Another good example would be, “I didn’t like the movie we saw.” You would either respond “I didn’t like it either. I thought it was terrible” or else you would say “Oh, I thought it was really good.” It is conversation and it is only right to have your own thoughts or response to another person’s reaction.
I could give two points for Rogers to give us examples on the communication, like for one is "Real communication occurs, and this evaluative tendency is avoided, when we listen with understand. What does that mean? It means to see the expressed idea and attitude from the other person's point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about," on page 457. He also said that they did research on "empathic understanding" and discovered that understanding with a person, not about him is such an effective approach that it can bring about major change in personality. He seemed that he tried to tell us that we feel that we listen well to people but do not see such results. Maybe if we listen very carefully to people, we might be discover their tone or some failure in communication. We have judged them before we understand them many times as I estimated. At the end, I agree with him with this "this is a possibility and a challenge which we should explore" as there is always ones for us on this world or our lives are worthless if there's none of these. I can tell that Rogers is saying that there is more in communication than we can see or listen.
In Carl Rogers' essay "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation,” he discusses the issue of communication is the “tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the person, or the other group. (Paragraph 3)” When discussing this general issue he gives examples that many people can relate to, having been caught saying those exact words (or a variation there of). But the entire time the reader wonders what the solution would be, and Rogers does not disappoint the reader’s anticipation by giving the answer of “listen with understanding. (Paragraph 6)” Rogers does offer his understanding of the difficulty of the situation and the obstacles that would have to be taken care of before his solution can be completed correctly and its effectiveness known. Rogers gives a proposition of how to test his solution to the deficiency of communication. In the middle of the debate a rule should be instituted that the person’s argument can be stated only after the speaker restates the other’s ideas and feelings to their satisfaction. There is only one problem with this make shift experiment: how will the debaters know if they are correctly fulfilling the demands of that rule. It would seem that an unmediated situation that is attempting this solution would lead to more arguments rather than resolutions. I appreciated his solution, and his examples of effectiveness in small groups, and even though he is not positive that his solution would be effective in larger groups he still desires to test his theory. However, he does not address if his solution to the lack of communication works in unmediated surroundings. In that aspect, for his essay to be truly effect in the psychological segment of academia he did not cover nearly enough research. It was an interesting read that I agree on many aspects, but it is hard to completely support his argument because of the sections that were not well-supported with facts and only hypothetical situations.
In the essay Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation by Carl R. Rogers, he brings up many points about conversation and understanding. I completely agree with him when he says “real communication occurs…when we listen with understanding.” I really think if you are going to try to change someone’s opinion knowing or trying to understand why they might think that would be helpful. However, while I agree it is necessary to have understanding, I don’t think it’s necessary to change someone’s opinion. The beauty of conversation is to be able to freely communicate what you think. Having understanding only adds to the conversation and makes it more meaningful. It’s one thing to hear a person, but to be able to understand and accept that person’s view point it a totally different one. If you are changing someone’s opinion are you really understanding it all? It seems to me, that if you understand why someone believes what they believe, then you should be able to respect that belief and reply accordingly.
“A Psychologist’s View: Rogerian Argument” was I very complicated and confusing article for me. After reading that text I honestly could not even explain what I had just read. The author of this, Carl R. Rogers, is a well-established psychotherapist that influenced teachers through his writings. Rogers dissects the different types of arguments. One point his addresses is that person A may be arguing with person B, but the reason this is occurring is because person A is trying to get person C to understand the issue being addressed. Rogers made a point saying, “if we feel our integrity or our identity is threatened we will stiffen our position.” This accusation is very true, because if an individual is cornered with something they did wrong then the normal human nature would be to become distant and defensive. Rogers makes the point that in these cases someone would defend themselves instead of the argument. Roger gives suggestions for approaching someone with a problem in a fashion that is not too threatening; therefore you will get the answer you need. Psychotherapy is then suggested with a good therapist that will help you find strategies and was to communicate with another individual.
I don't understand some of the things Rogers is trying to explain to his audience. I think he is trying to help us become better arguers. The title of his essay was confusing because I really didn't understand what it meant. It gets very confusing when "the treaty with Japan is a war plot on the part of the United States" He was talking about the republicans at the beginning of the paragraph now Japan. I do understand some of the text but than don't understand as much.
I really liked Rogers' outlook on communication and agreed with basically every aspect of it. The section I have chosen to comment on is Rogers' hypothesis that "the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the person or the other group." This particular quote really stood out to me because it is extremly true. In today's society people don't try to put themselves in someone else's shoes to better understand their argument, typically they just make their own assumptions and don't even consider the other person's point of view. I think the the Rogerian way to go about an argument would be beneficial in almost all situations and is a good way to come to compromise. Understanding what the other person involved has to say may help you to see if your argument is correct or not and also help you and the other person to find common ground and maybe be able to terminate the argument all together.
This was one of those readings that I read because it was required and didn't understand hardly any of it. The only part of the essay that stood out to me was on page 457 and that is what I’m going to write my blog on. I will say that I didn’t understand the essay and that when I read it, it went in one ear and out the other. I know that the essay was about real communication and how the author felt that it could be achieved. On page 457 it says, "Real communication occurs....when we listen with understanding. What does that mean? It means to see the expressed idea and attitude form the other person's point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about." I agree with him and I do believe that a lot of arguments could and would be avoided if this idea were practiced by people in our society. Most people are quick to judge another’s opinion as right or wrong when an opinion can’t be either. Everyone has a different point of view and if people would listen to another’s then maybe they might learn something new; or maybe they are afraid to.
Personally, I agreed with most of what Rogers said in his essay "Communication: its Blocking and Itsd Facilitation." It was a little hard to grasp at first but after you think about it, it makes more since. I agree with his statement when he said, "I would like to propose as an hypothesis for consideration, that the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disprove, the statement of the person, or the other group (page 456, second paragraph)." I believe that a lot of our psycological health can be altered by the thoughts and barriers we put up against other races or politcal speakers and so on. I think that this is what Rogers is trying to explain to his audience. He says that if a person or a therapist can empathize with a person and understand his feelings, thoughts and why he feels that way, it can allow the therapist help the client with personality alterations (page 456). Rogers also feels that this is a good was to solve a lot of problems with communication barriers (page 460).
Roger's essay on communication is admirable. I have never thought to even begin thinking/arguing in the way he suggests for mutual communication. This essay is potent information for all readers, especially those who love to write, like myself. Understanding, and actually listening to a person when they speak instead of evaluating and judging what they are saying opens up a whole new world of communication. Taking what one says, and placing yourself in their opinionated position helps to not only write and argue more effectivley, but makes for prospering relationships. I loved this essay, and I plan to implement its suggestions to my lifestyle and writings.
I, generally, don't have trouble figuring out where people are coming from and understanding how they feel because I listen to the people around me. Even if I'm not being spoken to, I'm still listening and learning. As far as being able to change someones personality or guide their decisions, I think that's a little more difficult than how Rogers states it. I think it would be harder to change someones personality just by understanding why they feel the way they do. It's their own personal belief and most people are very quick to defend their feelings. I think we should listen to learn from the person not to try and change them
13 comments:
I'm just going to simply state what I thought about the text. Some of it was a bit hard to understand, for example, about what Rogers was talking about in the beginning of his essay, "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation." I didn't really understand the task of the psychotherapists. But, once we got to a couple examples, such as, the one about leaving the meeting and about what your response would be to, "I didn't like that man's talk." I think Rogers is trying to help us develop the knowledge about arguments. So when it's your turn to respond to your opponents opinion you can either disagree or agree. But first you must always listen and evaluate what exactly your opponent is saying.
I agreed with most everything Rogers had to say in his essay; Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilation. He made several interesting points when he was talking about the obstacles one must overcome in having good communication in an arguement. One obstacle Rogers pointed out was the aspect of emotion. I personally understand what he's talking about when he says, "..it is no longer necessary to maintain the attitude, "I am 100 percent right and you are 100 percent wrong."." I also found the experiment he suggested to try very interesting; that you have to tell the other person how they feel before you can state your own feelings. I think some of the things he pointed out could effeciently help in an arguement and in communicatio in general.
I agree with what Rogers has to say in his essay, “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation”. For example, “I didn’t like that man’s talk.” You would either respond “I didn’t like it either. I thought it was terrible” or else you would say “Oh, I thought it was really good.” It is nature that everybody would have their own personal reaction or feeling about anything they have witnessed, such as a talk, movie, sports game, etc. As Rogers said in the essay, “In other words, your primary reaction is to evaluate what has just been said to you, to evaluate it from your point of view, your own frame of reference.” Another good example would be, “I didn’t like the movie we saw.” You would either respond “I didn’t like it either. I thought it was terrible” or else you would say “Oh, I thought it was really good.” It is conversation and it is only right to have your own thoughts or response to another person’s reaction.
I could give two points for Rogers to give us examples on the communication, like for one is "Real communication occurs, and this evaluative tendency is avoided, when we listen with understand. What does that mean? It means to see the expressed idea and attitude from the other person's point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about," on page 457.
He also said that they did research on "empathic understanding" and discovered that understanding with a person, not about him is such an effective approach that it can bring about major change in personality. He seemed that he tried to tell us that we feel that we listen well to people but do not see such results. Maybe if we listen very carefully to people, we might be discover their tone or some failure in communication. We have judged them before we understand them many times as I estimated. At the end, I agree with him with this "this is a possibility and a challenge which we should explore" as there is always ones for us on this world or our lives are worthless if there's none of these. I can tell that Rogers is saying that there is more in communication than we can see or listen.
In Carl Rogers' essay "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation,” he discusses the issue of communication is the “tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the person, or the other group. (Paragraph 3)” When discussing this general issue he gives examples that many people can relate to, having been caught saying those exact words (or a variation there of). But the entire time the reader wonders what the solution would be, and Rogers does not disappoint the reader’s anticipation by giving the answer of “listen with understanding. (Paragraph 6)” Rogers does offer his understanding of the difficulty of the situation and the obstacles that would have to be taken care of before his solution can be completed correctly and its effectiveness known. Rogers gives a proposition of how to test his solution to the deficiency of communication. In the middle of the debate a rule should be instituted that the person’s argument can be stated only after the speaker restates the other’s ideas and feelings to their satisfaction. There is only one problem with this make shift experiment: how will the debaters know if they are correctly fulfilling the demands of that rule. It would seem that an unmediated situation that is attempting this solution would lead to more arguments rather than resolutions. I appreciated his solution, and his examples of effectiveness in small groups, and even though he is not positive that his solution would be effective in larger groups he still desires to test his theory. However, he does not address if his solution to the lack of communication works in unmediated surroundings. In that aspect, for his essay to be truly effect in the psychological segment of academia he did not cover nearly enough research. It was an interesting read that I agree on many aspects, but it is hard to completely support his argument because of the sections that were not well-supported with facts and only hypothetical situations.
In the essay Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation by Carl R. Rogers, he brings up many points about conversation and understanding. I completely agree with him when he says “real communication occurs…when we listen with understanding.” I really think if you are going to try to change someone’s opinion knowing or trying to understand why they might think that would be helpful. However, while I agree it is necessary to have understanding, I don’t think it’s necessary to change someone’s opinion. The beauty of conversation is to be able to freely communicate what you think. Having understanding only adds to the conversation and makes it more meaningful. It’s one thing to hear a person, but to be able to understand and accept that person’s view point it a totally different one. If you are changing someone’s opinion are you really understanding it all? It seems to me, that if you understand why someone believes what they believe, then you should be able to respect that belief and reply accordingly.
“A Psychologist’s View: Rogerian Argument” was I very complicated and confusing article for me. After reading that text I honestly could not even explain what I had just read. The author of this, Carl R. Rogers, is a well-established psychotherapist that influenced teachers through his writings. Rogers dissects the different types of arguments. One point his addresses is that person A may be arguing with person B, but the reason this is occurring is because person A is trying to get person C to understand the issue being addressed. Rogers made a point saying, “if we feel our integrity or our identity is threatened we will stiffen our position.” This accusation is very true, because if an individual is cornered with something they did wrong then the normal human nature would be to become distant and defensive. Rogers makes the point that in these cases someone would defend themselves instead of the argument. Roger gives suggestions for approaching someone with a problem in a fashion that is not too threatening; therefore you will get the answer you need. Psychotherapy is then suggested with a good therapist that will help you find strategies and was to communicate with another individual.
I don't understand some of the things Rogers is trying to explain to his audience. I think he is trying to help us become better arguers. The title of his essay was confusing because I really didn't understand what it meant. It gets very confusing when "the treaty with Japan is a war plot on the part of the United States" He was talking about the republicans at the beginning of the paragraph now Japan. I do understand some of the text but than don't understand as much.
I really liked Rogers' outlook on communication and agreed with basically every aspect of it. The section I have chosen to comment on is Rogers' hypothesis that "the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the person or the other group." This particular quote really stood out to me because it is extremly true. In today's society people don't try to put themselves in someone else's shoes to better understand their argument, typically they just make their own assumptions and don't even consider the other person's point of view. I think the the Rogerian way to go about an argument would be beneficial in almost all situations and is a good way to come to compromise. Understanding what the other person involved has to say may help you to see if your argument is correct or not and also help you and the other person to find common ground and maybe be able to terminate the argument all together.
This was one of those readings that I read because it was required and didn't understand hardly any of it. The only part of the essay that stood out to me was on page 457 and that is what I’m going to write my blog on. I will say that I didn’t understand the essay and that when I read it, it went in one ear and out the other.
I know that the essay was about real communication and how the author felt that it could be achieved. On page 457 it says, "Real communication occurs....when we listen with understanding. What does that mean? It means to see the expressed idea and attitude form the other person's point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about."
I agree with him and I do believe that a lot of arguments could and would be avoided if this idea were practiced by people in our society. Most people are quick to judge another’s opinion as right or wrong when an opinion can’t be either. Everyone has a different point of view and if people would listen to another’s then maybe they might learn something new; or maybe they are afraid to.
Personally, I agreed with most of what Rogers said in his essay "Communication: its Blocking and Itsd Facilitation." It was a little hard to grasp at first but after you think about it, it makes more since. I agree with his statement when he said, "I would like to propose as an hypothesis for consideration, that the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disprove, the statement of the person, or the other group (page 456, second paragraph)." I believe that a lot of our psycological health can be altered by the thoughts and barriers we put up against other races or politcal speakers and so on. I think that this is what Rogers is trying to explain to his audience. He says that if a person or a therapist can empathize with a person and understand his feelings, thoughts and why he feels that way, it can allow the therapist help the client with personality alterations (page 456). Rogers also feels that this is a good was to solve a lot of problems with communication barriers (page 460).
Roger's essay on communication is admirable. I have never thought to even begin thinking/arguing in the way he suggests for mutual communication. This essay is potent information for all readers, especially those who love to write, like myself. Understanding, and actually listening to a person when they speak instead of evaluating and judging what they are saying opens up a whole new world of communication. Taking what one says, and placing yourself in their opinionated position helps to not only write and argue more effectivley, but makes for prospering relationships. I loved this essay, and I plan to implement its suggestions to my lifestyle and writings.
I, generally, don't have trouble figuring out where people are coming from and understanding how they feel because I listen to the people around me. Even if I'm not being spoken to, I'm still listening and learning. As far as being able to change someones personality or guide their decisions, I think that's a little more difficult than how Rogers states it. I think it would be harder to change someones personality just by understanding why they feel the way they do. It's their own personal belief and most people are very quick to defend their feelings. I think we should listen to learn from the person not to try and change them
Post a Comment