Blog #6 (9/26)

The idea that a simple phrase such as "I don't know" can hold an array of meanings is interesting, especially when that additional meaning can be determined in print. I feel more confident analyzing what I hear a person say compared to what I read that they have said or written. I think the best way to illustrate my struggle is by comparing phone and face-to-face conversations with e-mail, text, instant messages, and other forms of typed communication.  In person, I feel confident I understand the additional meanings because I have body language and expression to support what I think I'm hearing. With typed communications, I find myself trying to picture the person in front of me saying this in multiple ways. While there is the benefit of hearing inflection and tone in audiorecordings, I still lack confidence that I'm missing something. None of the authors we have read seem to have these same fears--of course, they have extensive experience with this while I have none, but, still, I envy their confidence, their ability to say that when the speaker in this transcript says, "I don't know," she is also insisting that she not be held accountable for remembering exactly what transpired. 

Perspective-display sequence reminds of someone I know who tends to struggle with delivering her opinion in a 'hospitable environment.' She understands the concept of meeting a new person and asking them questions, such as, "Do you like music?" Unfortunately, she has unique and narrow interests, so after both agree that they like music and the other person then naming his/her favorite genre, band, or musician, she responds in a way that indicates she does not like that genre, band, or musician, and that she thinks not so highly of them for liking it.  This typically ends the conversation--abruptly and awkwardly.

Possibly because it uses the court case example, but I've wondered throughout this book if CA is part of law school requirements. It seems like it would train lawyers to quickly analyze what information is being communicated to them both that isn't readily obvious to some people (like me).

Chapter 7 was pretty straightforward. I think it was easier for me to relate to because I took a lot of literature courses in undergrad, so I'm used to analyzing documents and expect to find a lot of additional information from documents. It makes sense that to have a comprehensive analysis of a topic, we need both documents and conversation.

Chapters 9 and 10 were by far my favorite chapters in the book. Chapter 10 clearly explains how the process should be done, while Chapter 9 provides a well-organized, detailed illustration. I would have liked for the these two chapters to be at the beginning of the book. I think it would have helped me understand the purpose of the other 8 chapters better.