Talk:Interpersonal communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is the noise? My battle throughout interpersonal communication is the noise factor--and the art of filtering. Where are they in this illustration or entry? It seems these two factors are the real rough spots in the communication model and should not be negleted here. Any feedback?

I think it's fair to say that this article was put together by someone who'd maybe completed one undergraduate course. There's nothing here about such central interpersonal ideas as Schutz' needs theory, Hart's (and others) ideas of the stages of formation and dissolution of relationships, interpersonal perceptual biases, styles of interpersonal conflict and relational repair, immediacy, rhetorical sensitivity, coordinated management of meaning, symbolic interaction, gender in communication. It wrongly equates interpersonal with group communication and public address!!! We're stuck with a bad sketch of a communication process model and the tired old Johari Window (yes, I know it's in all the texts, but it's mired in the objectivist viewpoint that was already dying in the 1960s when Joe and Harry created it). I'd jump right in and edit, but I haven't the time to hunt down the right citations. Truddick 16:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I believe the link to the Social Interaction Dynamics and Social Skills Wiki which is at www.sidwiki.com should be added to the external links of this page. The aspect of interpersonal communication covers many aspect such as body language, interpersonal relationships, social dynamics, conflict resolution and language patters. The SID wiki covers there topics. It provides resources that is more relevant and practical than a lot of institutional source or regular websites. Visitors can add to and edit the wiki to make it more usable and realistic based on real life experiences. There are other links which lead the reader to a research study or a psychology paper which have a lot of statistical and scientific language, but don't provide the average reader much insight in terms of easy to understand and follow techniques. Studies often say that results are inconclusive and spend a lot of their focus talking about the mechanics of research.

The SID wiki just give straight forward down to earth advice to what the implications of a certain principle mean for the reader in a practical sense without going into all the technical jargon. There are, off course, materials which will teach interpersonal communication to the reader, sadly a lot of it is commercial based, especially the most easy to follow, ie: Tony Robbins, Dale Carnegie. Even Dale Carnegie's famous courses run in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars range and require attending a class room. SID wiki provides a resource where users can view, discus and contribute to personal improvement and communication resources with minimal cost and time commitment. SID wiki is not meant to be commercial and there is minimal advertising.

Here is what someone working on Wikia, Jimmy Wales's new project said about it:

"Really nice work building this. I don't know if you're aiming for social good or to own your own wiki, but I work for Jimmy Wales's new wiki project wikia.com - we'd be thrilled to host you and advertise your wiki to our users if you wanted to come over and let us host you. If not, sorry for the spam and best wishes with your project!" Gil [1]

What I like most about it is that it's free, non commercial and flexible so that it can adopt and evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seductionreport.com (talk • contribs)

The problem with it is that it appears presently to be the work of a single author, and thus lacks the robustness of a mature wiki project. Give it some time to grow a bit, then re-add it. I know, you probably want the exposure here to help it draw more input. Unfortunately, that's just exactly what is meant by "spam"; see WP:EL and WP:Spam. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

the diagram on this page looks sloppy and unprofessional. somebody should try to find a better one on wikicommons or add one to it for use in this article. the current one does get the point acorss but, at the same time, it looks like a three year old boy made it in MS Paint. poj21

I like it. It's got character. Redleaf 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)