I think the part I'm seeing as important is that there is mutual influence. You take a bit of my point of view, and I take a bit of yours, and we've influenced each other. Therefore we have improved our relationship.
This would be distinct from one side blowing off the other, or overpowering the other, or just letting the other "vent."
I agree that "mutual influence" is significant here. Actually, the only thing I don't like in the original definition is "managing," since people don't always engage in communication in a conscious, calculated way; OTOH, it is much shorter than "establishing, maintaining, or terminating." :P
nietzche_gal, do you see the textbook definition as too businesslike? I don't find your revision quite right, since interpersonal comm can have negative effects (thus isn't always about "strengthening").
Thanks for commenting. I read that on wiki-- but I didn't like the fact the definition split off into other words. I want something easy for them to grasp, so that it stays clearly with them throughout the course.
I see mutual influence more as a back and forth negotiation, not really sharing. It is about coming up or down steps (which are often minute) to reach a mutual conclusion that is satisfactory to both and maintains relationship standards. If such a negotiation cannot be reached, then relationships are altered or terminated...though this seems rare.
Comments 10
I think the part I'm seeing as important is that there is mutual influence. You take a bit of my point of view, and I take a bit of yours, and we've influenced each other. Therefore we have improved our relationship.
This would be distinct from one side blowing off the other, or overpowering the other, or just letting the other "vent."
Reply
Reply
nietzche_gal, do you see the textbook definition as too businesslike? I don't find your revision quite right, since interpersonal comm can have negative effects (thus isn't always about "strengthening").
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment