The widely-known definition for interpersonal communication is the process by which people exchange information, feelings, and meaning through verbal and non-verbal messages. In addition, the textbook adds to the definition by incorporating the aspects of intrinsic rewards, disclosure, interdependence, irreplaceability, and uniqueness. While our encounter assimilates these characteristics, the one that was mainly covered was disclosure as my objectives were to divulge to Kristen why I had been keeping my personal family life cloistered from my immediate family. My objective through this encounter was initially met in a straightforward fashion as Kristen and I developed an efficient way of communicating with one another as found in the observer
…show more content…
In terms of mutual reciprocity or in Latin terms, quid pro quo, I believe the interaction between Kristen and I led to an amicable solution so that we both could feel our objectives had been accomplished, as an observer noted, “both people were quick to honesty and self-disclosure, which helped facilitate a win-win solution.” This encounter represented a problem that is increasingly growing, as more people do not feel ashamed to announce their sexuality. Pertaining to the illustration of the intricacy of the problem I believe we obtained a sound understanding through each other’s perspective of disclosing self. Through the meticulous lies adapted over the years to both Kristen and my parents, it is apparent that at first, I resorted to the solution of avoidance, while this was shown to be only a temporary solution to the problem, if not just adding on to the problem itself through denial of acceptance. Throughout the life of my character my parents were maladaptive to the idea of same-sex relationships, therefore it was instilled in my mind that I should hide my sexuality and due to this, I believe the design of the characters was adequate to represent the situation …show more content…
Al, conflict is defined as an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals (20). In retrospect, to analyze the situation as an interpersonal communication expert, I find that this particular encounter lacked various qualities pertaining to the textbook definition. While it is apparent of the expressed struggle originating from my tactic of avoidance, my perception is that the goals from both Kristen and I were not mutually contradictory imputable to us sharing the same goal of striving to uncover the truth of my parents, whilst it was not a problem which family we attended the holidays with but the fact my parents were unknown to my spouse for three years. Our conflict contained scare resources because of my son Maxwell, Kristen’s’ adopted son, was near our conversation. This gave the adverse opportunity for Max to overhear our conversation, due to this we postponed it and sent him to a more distal place in the house. An additional aspect the conflict lacked is the interference from the other party. This was nonexistent because Kristen matched my compliance of disclosure with decency and an accepting, positive predisposition despite her disagreeing with the duration in which I held onto the
In terms of mutual reciprocity or in Latin terms, quid pro quo, I believe the interaction between Kristen and I led to an amicable solution so that we both could feel our objectives had been accomplished, as an observer noted, “both people were quick to honesty and self-disclosure, which helped facilitate a win-win solution.” This encounter represented a problem that is increasingly growing, as more people do not feel ashamed to announce their sexuality. Pertaining to the illustration of the intricacy of the problem I believe we obtained a sound understanding through each other’s perspective of disclosing self. Through the meticulous lies adapted over the years to both Kristen and my parents, it is apparent that at first, I resorted to the solution of avoidance, while this was shown to be only a temporary solution to the problem, if not just adding on to the problem itself through denial of acceptance. Throughout the life of my character my parents were maladaptive to the idea of same-sex relationships, therefore it was instilled in my mind that I should hide my sexuality and due to this, I believe the design of the characters was adequate to represent the situation …show more content…
Al, conflict is defined as an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals (20). In retrospect, to analyze the situation as an interpersonal communication expert, I find that this particular encounter lacked various qualities pertaining to the textbook definition. While it is apparent of the expressed struggle originating from my tactic of avoidance, my perception is that the goals from both Kristen and I were not mutually contradictory imputable to us sharing the same goal of striving to uncover the truth of my parents, whilst it was not a problem which family we attended the holidays with but the fact my parents were unknown to my spouse for three years. Our conflict contained scare resources because of my son Maxwell, Kristen’s’ adopted son, was near our conversation. This gave the adverse opportunity for Max to overhear our conversation, due to this we postponed it and sent him to a more distal place in the house. An additional aspect the conflict lacked is the interference from the other party. This was nonexistent because Kristen matched my compliance of disclosure with decency and an accepting, positive predisposition despite her disagreeing with the duration in which I held onto the