the plan...

...ehem..
"Hann, kahit di ka mukhang approachable, kelangan mong mag mukhang approachable..mei PLANS ka pa..."
--trying to encourage myself to smile and be approachable.
Starting to make a move....

[Afternoon, A.T.U.]
. . .while walking towards my destination, I can view my target...[hehehe]
. . .smiling. . .

hannah: "Excuse me, naa si Carlo?"
eric: "hala, bag-o lng bya nilakaw."
hannah: "ayy...unsaon man ni uy...?"
eric: "hmm..ngano diay?unsa imong kinahanglan?"
hannah: "aw, nagsabot man gud mi na magkita mi dari kay magpasabay ko..."
eric: "aw, tama diay. ikaw si hannah?kay nagingon bitaw to sya sakua na mulakaw sa daw sya kadali human pag naa daw muabot kay pahulaton human ientertain sa daw naq...hehe"
hannah: "aw, nagingon diay xa?hehe..sige, maghulat nlng q saiya."
eric: "kadali lng man pud daw to sya, ingon niya."
hannah: "aw, sige...

----silent---

hannah: "unsa gani imu name?"[kunwari walang alam]
eric: "eric diay q..ikaw?"
hannah: "ah...hannah.."
eric: "tga asa diay ka?"
hannah: "green meadows po..ikaw?"
eric: "green meadows ka? ulas lng baya q.."
hannah: "ngeehh..duol2 ra sad diay..hehe"
eric: "aw, mao..unsa diay imu nimu si carlo?"
hannah: "uhmm..barkada po.."

---a moment of silent---

hannah: "aw, crip qa po??"{crip--blue scarfed gang}
eric: "dleh, black sheep ko..."{black sheep-black scarfed gang}
hannah: "ah...abi nako..."

. . . after the short conversation, Carlo arrived. . .

hannah: "ah, naa na c carlo..."
eric: "aw, o tura.."
hannah: "sige, pasi sa mi.."
eric: "aw, pasi na mo?dalia pu due..hehe...ay, tama diay, pwede pangayuon imong number?" [sabay abot sa fone] pki save nlng..."
hannah: "aw, ambi..."

. . .typed the number and saved it. . .

hannah: "nara o.."
eric: "aw, salamat"
hannah: "sigeh, text lng saq, human paila-ila lng na ikaw.."
eric: "sige, lamat..."
hannah: "aw, pasi sa mi.."
eric: "sige, amping mo"

. . .that night he texted me and exchanged some messages. . .

. . .and up to now, we still text each other. . .

. . .and we're getting to know each other. . .

. . . . . . .. . . .i thought it's hard to get to know someone whose kinda aloof, but when i did try those strategies that i planned..it did work=)

INTERPERSONAL DECEPTION THEORY or IDT

· Have you ever been in a situation where you had to say something not completely true “to avoid hurting or offending another person, to emphasize their best qualities, to avoid getting into a conflict, or to speed up or slow down a relationship”? How did that experience affect your relationship with the other person?

Absolutely, I encountered situations in which I have to tell someone a lie. Most of the times that I tell a fallacy are because I don’t want to be scolded by my grandmother when I come home late. For instance, I went to MTS with my friends but I just tell my grandmother that I went to MTS with my classmate not with my guy friends for the reason that she might get angry. So, for us not to argue for how many days I would tell her things that are half truths or white lies.

• Do you find yourself making such statements in all your interpersonal relationships or only in some? Which interpersonal relationship do you find yourself making such statements often? What kind of statements: falsifications, concealments, or equivocations? And what kind of message characteristics: uncertainty and vagueness; nonimmediacy, reticence, and withdrawal; disassociation; and image- and relationship-protecting behavior?

Oh! I may lie but not all the time I do that. Just in some instances that I need to, to avoid conflicts. I have used the three kinds of statements but most of the time that I tell a lie, I usually find myself using the concealment type of deception statement which only tells half the truth or just telling a part of the truth with the image- and relationship- protecting behavior so that I may look like telling the truth. I do act as normal as I could so that I could deceive people for reasons.

· Have you ever been on the receiving end of what you think were deceptive messages? Were you able to spot these messages? How accurate were you in spotting these messages? What tipped you off that the other person was not being truthful? How did that affect your relationship with that person, both in the short- and long-term?

Of course, I encountered lots of those deceptive messages from people that surround me. The simplest example that I can think of was when I was once had a relationship with a guy who had an affair with another girl. I didn’t notice it that easy but somehow I can sense he was cheating and at the same time stretching the truth when I noticed that he was already frigid towards the relationship. Well, after that, I already don’t trust him that much thinking that he might or he could do it anytime he wants.

· In your experience, either as the sender and/or receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, would you agree with all or only some of the 18 propositions of David Buller and Judee Burgoon? Explain.

I may agree with some of those 18 propositions of David Buller and Judgee Burgoon. They made a point when they stated that most people believe that they can spot deception but actually they’re not. I agree with that statement because I. myself can relate with that, I always presume that I knew that someone is telling the truth but eventually, I would just discover that he’s deceiving me. Same with the instance that I am the one telling the lie, sometimes they cannot notice that I am not telling the truth.

· Would you agree that, as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, you were an active participant (for receivers, you were not just a passive listener even if you did not harbor any suspicions) in the deception? Why or why not?

· Would you also agree that, as the sender and/or the receiver of interpersonal deceptive messages, you engaged in strategic deception: doing complex mental tasks while simultaneously monitoring nonverbal leakage? Why or why not?

· Would you agree that deception is usually successful because of our ”truth bias,” our uncertainty about nonverbal leakage, and the sender’s constant adjustment to our suspicions? Why or why not?

· Would you suscribe to Buller and Burgoon’s complicated theory or to Steven McCormack’s simple model of deception? Why?

· Do you also agree with Bella DePaulo’s critique that Buller and Burgoon’s theory lacks an “explanatory glue”? Why? If no, what “explanatory glue” would you provide?

· In our study of deception, why do you think are communication scholars relatively silent about its moral implications?

· Which ethical stand would you require of others: Kant’s, Augustine’s, or Bok’s? How about for yourself?

communication--a scientific or interpretive?

There are thousands of definition for communication. I may not know all of those definitions now but i can just simply define communication as this:
COMMUNICATION can exist in different ways, it could be through gestures, words, symbols, and signs. Most importantly, communication cannot be changed nor reversed. Or simply irreversible. Once the message has been expressed, communication does'nt have the power to take it back. Let's take saying offensive words to someone as an example. When you say you're so ugly to someone, of course, you will surely be hurting that person's feelings (unless if she's numb or what...). Well, you cannot take back what you said. Yes, you could always say that it's just a joke but as most people say, the damage has been done. He may forget that instance but it would take time for him to forget that. But, is communication really scientific or interpretive?
Well, honestly, im finding a hard time figuring out if communication really is scientific or on the other hand interpretive(humanistic). After few days of asking that question to myself, i've come up with an answer and that is, communication may be scientific or interpretive(humanistic). It just depends on how you look at communication in different views because if you would look at it scientifically, it absolutely undergoes certain process of sending messages--the SOURCE-->MESSAGE-->CHANNEL-->RECEIVER-->FEEDBACK(effect) and if you would look at it, it is obviously systemic. If you scrutinize it, it is evidently scientific because of the processes that it goes through. On the other hand, it is also interpretive(humanistic). Whatever we do, even raising just an eyebrow, not smiling to your friend when you meet along the hallway and even just looking at someone is communication. Whatever people act is easily interpreted especially if someone has the capacity or knowledge to decipher.
Well, on my opinion, communication is both interpretive(humanistic) and scientific. It comprises both characteristics--SCIENTIFIC and INTERPRETIVE.(peace! =p)