Lecture 4. Receiver’s efficiency
4.1. Receiver’s characteristics
4.2. Characteristics of the environment
4.3. The feeling of belonging
4.4. The community whole
· Knowing the person / persons we speak to
· Understanding several points of view and developing the respect for other opinions than the personal ones.
· Making the habit of judging the opinion and not the person uttering it.
· Form groups of 5-6 participants interested in listening
· Each of them has to relate to the others by asking questions with the purpose of knowing them best.
· Compare the results: who got the most information and what was the method used.
· Discuss about how important it is to let the interlocutor speak.
In the main, for an ideal communication to take place, the qualities of the receiver cannot be essentially different from those of the sender. A pleasant conversation cannot take place but between persons that resemble in mentality, conception, interest, cultural environment etc. This does not mean that we have nothing to learn from the persons that are different from us, on the contrary, but the ideal communication is that between … gentlemen, ladies, young ladies, friends and lovers. As regards the old age, nobody is able to talk and really understand the other when talking about the old age but two aged persons, and similarly, with regard to the troubles of the puberty only two adolescent persons are able to complain and understand each other. Besides, in order to have an ideal communication, the interlocutors do not need to agree, or to contradict each other, the necessary thing is to have the same interest in approaching the subject and in searching for a solution, as well as the belief that both use the same language of heart and soul. The literary critic and historian, Şerban Cioculescu, talking about the qualities of a dialogue, mentioned the following possibilities reduced to essence. The first one: the sender communicates a piece of information equal to the yes-affirmative, and the receiver agrees and also replies with “yes”. In this situation, communication took place, but was reduced to minimum, and thus we have a closed communication. Second situation: the sender transmits a piece of information, communicates a truth reduced to a “yes”, and the receiver, receiving it, replies with “no”. In this situation communication is also closed, being impossible to carry on a dialogue. The third possibility, the ideal one, is the only chance: the sender communicates “yes”, the receiver replies “yes”, but also brings arguments to its partial agreement and to its partial negation, qualifying what he likes and what he would have to add. I. L. Caragiale, with his appreciated humour, grasped the essence of communication. It is said that, during a conversation with his friend, Eminescu, he was caught by this one making an affirmation contrary to the one asserted a day before.
- But yesterday you agreed with me, it is said that Mihai Eminescu would have said, exasperated, now why don’t you agree, it is about the same matter.
- Well, that’s a good one, answered Iancu Caragiale, how would we be able to have a conversation if we both had the same opinions?
- objectives, attitude and motivation for the receiving of the message.
Even if he is not always aware of this, when entering a conversation, the receiver of the message has a purpose. Even if this purpose arises out of noblesse, or even if it is just out of habit, the receiver aims at something, has a purpose, although, probably, he may not be able to explain it, at the first signal. When turning on the radio or the TV, when buying his favourite newspaper, even if this means routine, he still wants to be informed, although, sometimes, if questioned, he might answer that he knew what he was to hear or to read. If the attitude of the beneficiary of a message is positive, then he really has something to gain, and the contrary: if he turns on the TV only for the background noise, he will not remember much. The same thing happens if he reads a book but he dreams about an exposition. This means that we need a welcoming, educational attitude, that we have to establish a purpose, and this purpose has to be perseveringly followed. We need to be aware of the advantages arising from the reception of a message.
A similar attitude is necessary when listening to somebody complaining. If we do this only out of professional obligation or out of politeness, our lack of interest will be easily noticed. But if we start from the assumption that we may be useful, that the message once received requires involvement, and the person sending it finds itself in a special situation, its words are not indifferent to us any more, but they turn into a real S.O.S. For the teacher, the social worker, the clergyman, the journalist, this attitude of continuous connection with the receiver is mandatory.
- the difference in social training, education and culture between the sender and the receiver.
There is nothing more normal than the existence of differences between the sender and the receiver, indifferently of the domain they arise from. If there were no level differences, the circuit of the values would not work. Similar to the principle of the communicating recipients: if the liquid were at the same level, it would not be able to circulate through the recipients. The same thing also happens in nature: without level differences, water would not be able to run downstream, air would not be able to refresh, and we would not be able to enjoy the sea breeze, the gentle breeze of zephyr, the clouds and the sun. Not even the hills and the mountains with their valleys would not justify their emergence and existence. Cultural differences or those of temperament, although, initially, an obstacle in communication, may be transformed into the best binding element of understanding. The cultures proving their receptivity are the most vivid ones, while those locking themselves up, out of the fear or out of the incapacity of receiving, run the risk of disappearing. Cultural interference, multicultural character, the interest in the person that not entirely resembles you, receptiveness, the answer to other’s needs, are only a few of the characteristic features that make the message easier, conferring it reason and efficiency.
-personal relationship with the sender
Maybe the most important thing in communication is represented by the correct evaluation of the interlocutor, by the science of knowing the position held as against the others, and also knowing the position held by us as against the interlocutor. The ideal thing would be to deal only with friends, but this thing, as any ideal, cannot be reached, as we cannot become friends with every person we talked to, we are talking to, or we will talk to, in the future. And, maybe, it would not be good to have so many friends, because it is well known that who has many friends, in fact, has none. But a personal relationship may exist between the sender and the receiver. And in order to have a long lasting relationship, they have to get to know each other. This is also applicable in the case of the sender – receiver represented by persons (two people), but also when we deal with two institutions collaborating and mutually sending messages. This is applicable, of course, when referring to mass media. The listener of a radio station, the subscriber of a television have the feeling that they belong to a special sender: they prefer certain channels, certain shows, certain show producers. And even certain broadcasting hours.
An ideal personal relationship is also required from the sender: he has to consider his receiver a living, present and active being. A being that has needs and pretensions, rights and almost no obligation, because we all wish to receive and to have our requirements observed, even if they are not uttered. This truth is more valid in mass media, where the receiver is the most exigent with the favourite sender.
- psychophysical characteristics
The receiver has characteristics that make him an individuality. The better we know to show him that we consider him a person, an individual, a special case, the more we will succeed in getting to know him, to collaborate with him, to help him and to change him, if these represent our goals. If he has eye problems, it goes without saying that he will not watch TV for hours. If he has a locomotion deficiency, he will not enjoy having a conversation with us, by taking a walk on an alley in a park and all the more reason, we will not invite him to a mountain trip. If the receiver of our message lost somebody dear from his family, we will not tell him about the happiness of our home, safe from misfortunes for many years. It is necessary for us to know in what stage of personality development finds our interlocutor. We cannot get into his soul if we do not know anything about his past, about his worries, if we are have no patience in listening his sorrow. To the extent we consider that we deserve a special attention – and we do! – in the same extent (at least!) we must be aware of the fact that the person next to us also considers himself unique and that there is nothing more valuable for him than his own existence, in which his biography, the biography of the beloved ones, his present and the future prospects are included.
- Previous experience in similar situations
The receiver shall judge any message, by relating to something that once happened to him in a similar situation. It is wrong to believe that the receiver possesses a bad memory and may be fooled or that we may catch his attention each time we appeal to him. The preference somebody has for another person is not every time subjective, but on the contrary, it is the result of a good communication that once took place. The same happens in the case of mass media: the receivers choose the shows and the channels based on the satisfactions once obtained and not hazardously. The previous experience also helps the sender to avoid making mistakes. For example, if he once used a language that was too academic and he could not make himself understood, on another occasion, he would do his best to express himself in an unaffected manner, preparing other examples, an the contrary: one would not appear in front of an elevated audience telling jokes heard during the entertainment shows.
- the difference of information between the sender and the receiver
When there are cultural and informational differences between the sender and the receiver - and these differences are present almost all the time, this being a normal thing – the sender must undertake the active part. This is the reason why he is the sender: he has something to transmit to the addressee, he offers him something that misses, or he believes that it misses. But if it is normal for the sender to have plenty of information and gifts, it is wrong for him to show it to the receiver. The latter does not find any pleasure in being humiliated, in being shown that he is poorer, even if this poverty is of material, intellectual or moral nature. The receiver wants to receive, but he is not a recipient indifferent to the content poured into him. He is a living, sensible, suspicious and patient being. Usually he dealt with many benevolent persons that disappointed him. He is always on watch, conquering a receiver is not an easy task and it is not at anybody’s hand. We need to be modest, real modest, and not to shock by our clothing, not to be hypocritical declaring that we suffer beside the others while our face beams with happiness. Without falling into vulgarity or into banality, it is necessary to get to the lower level of the receiver. This one, instead, needs to be discreetly and concomitantly suggested the need for him to make an effort in order to get to an upper level, to exceed his actual level.
4.2. Characteristics of the environment
a) political and social-economic environment.
Any communication must take into account the context. The context is the one that determines the usefulness of information, its value, its chances of being efficient. Let’s take the most banal example: one and one is two. Without this truth that is at everybody’s hand, even if this person is learned or not, the biggest catastrophes would happen, moreover, it is very difficult to imagine that anything would run normally. Computers would not be useful, clocks would go wrong, trains would stop. And all the rest. And yet, what would we have to gain if, when meeting a person, known or unknown to us, we started trying to persuade it that the truth one and one is two is of a major importance? At best, the receiver would shake his head and would leave.
The social environment is, in his turn, the catalyst of communication. We generally talk about subjects people are interested in, ordinary subject matters: weather, price, economic stability, political problems, pollution. We talk about children and aged persons, about pupils and students, about unemployed persons. We talk about unmarried persons and orphans, about sex and love. As a philosopher would say, humans we are, and everything is human touches us. And man is, above anything, an individuality caught in a social context.
For a social worker, for a teacher, social environment is the main element in which he integrates his message. Nobody is willing to listen to some information that has nothing to do with its interest. It is the human nature to ask what is the use of a word, of an object, of a piece of information, even of a gift for which, obviously he did not lift a finger and on which he may anytime give up.
b) where is the sender and where is the receiver
For an individual, there is no generally useful information, regardless its importance. There are, indeed, situations in history in which exceptional individuals died for an idea, or even because of the fact that they refused to utter a single word they did not believe in. The case of Galileo Galilei is the first that comes to our minds, but it is not the only one. The first Christians let themselves crucified, thrown to killing animals in Roman amphitheatres; others, in the Middle Age, were burnt at the stake. History does not only hold in honour their names, but it also cherishes their memory every time it has the opportunity. There are examples we always give when wanting to offer the dimension of mankind characters. These people are our virtuous parents or brothers, we live through them, they represent the glory of humanity. And yet …They cannot be taken outside the context. They have spoken violent truths in a given context. Asserting now in front of the papal authority or of any other kind of authority that earth is not the centre of the universe does not represent an act of bravery, but, at the most, a naïve thing. Asserting that Jesus Christ died and rose again from the dead cannot be dangerous but in a Muslim environment dominated by Talibans.
In order to be able to communicate, you have to give up the conviction that it would be sufficient to talk, as well as the illusion that you already got into the other’s soul only by simply talking or by listening. A real communication cannot take place if you do not really know the interlocutor. To know the interlocutor means to know something more about him than his name and the way he looks. It is necessary for you to know, if not everything, at least the cultural environment he comes from and that influenced the development of his system of values. It was noticed that the understanding of life derives mainly from the membership of a group. To be human means to belong to a community. This truth is also caught in the Kiswahili phrase, wa kwetu, meaning “somebody from my house, my family and my tribe”. The Dangomba Tribe of
example, uses the term mabia „my
mother’s child”, in order to introduce themselves to the others, in their
society. An Igbo saying says that kinship is a force. In the West, people say
that blood is thicker than water. Romanians have the saying blood does not turn into water,
suggesting that nothing belonging to the family can be diminished or diluted.
In most part of the world, people could not say cogito ergo sum, „I believe, therefore I exist”, but cognatus ergo sum, „I belong, therefore
I exist”. In a community constituted under normal conditions, no misfortune can
happen to someone so that that person should be estranged from the community or
treated like a stranger or a nothing. The way this unity reflects in language
is, therefore, a matter of communication. ”Racial unity cannot be, in itself,
but a secondary factor and it does not involve in any way a language community,
but there is another unity, far more important, the only essential unity, the
one made up of the social relation: we shall call it ethnic relation. By ethnic
relation we mean a unity based on multiple religious, civilisation, mutual
defence relations that may be established even between different peoples and
races in the absence of any political relation”.
This relation is established between the ethnic group and the language. Ghana
It is natural for any individual to ask himself, as soon as he is aware of his personality, the following questions: where does he come from, what is he and where does he go. In this case, the first contacts are with the ones around him: he has parents, brothers, grandparents, on short, a family. But his family, in its turn, is part of a community: village, commune, department, province, country, continent. The most striking characteristic features are those belonging to the immediate group and to the direct relations system established by the individual, characteristics that confer him the feeling of belonging. In many societies, people do not see themselves as isolated autonomous individualities, but as bonds intimately interconnected in the vast kinship branches. The same blood (the same life, because we must not forget that in the Semitic vision and in the entire Scripture, blood means life) was inherited by them from the first ancestor and runs through everybody’s veins. The individuals are important only for the reason that they form families, clans and tribes with other individuals. Their welfare depends on the welfare of the group and their life has significance only insofar as it is shared with the others. The most important obligations of people and especially of leaders, are those of protecting and feeding this life. The feeling of common identity is present among all members of Yoruba tribe in
This entitles Lowery Palmer to write: Man
is not made to be alone. He is made to have a relationship. Nigeria
The entire existence, from birth to death, is organically included in a series of associations, and life has full value only within these close relations. But they are not randomly established. These close relations include members of the extended family, the clan and the village, various community societies and organisations to which forefathers and ancestors are added, as well as gods interested in the daily life of the human being. We should not draw the conclusion that community life would have as purpose isolation and introversion. On the contrary, there is a permanent urge for communication. For this reason, the main need of the Yoruba individual is to become attached to human beings, to communicate, and also to meet other persons in order to integrate himself in the general.
An example of this relational feeling may be found in Yoruba tribe in
, that we talked about
above, that believes that all persons and things are part of an immense network
of relations that represent the manifestations of a fundamental strength
unifying the entire creation. A form of this strength is the human thought. It
is believed that the thought may influence other persons by means of the wishes
and emotions stirred by it. As a consequence, individuals are concerned in what
the others think about them. Prosperity does not depend only on the way the
others relate to you, but it also depends on what they think about you.
Moreover, as the entire life is the expression of the same strength, people,
plants, animals and spirits are seen as a continuity of beings, and they differ
only in relation with the value given by their especial strength. Nigeria
In the centre of this community system of life is the concept of relations or connections. Life is not seen as a division into several discreet units. It is an endless river flowing from parent to child and from one generation to another. The relation between parent and child is seen beyond the strictly biological level. First of all, it is a relation of a social and spiritual nature. Children do not receive only the bodies from their parents. They also take over their personalities, their social identity and the spirits transmitted from parent to child by means of this life cycle. As a consequence, parents’ purity brings blesses to children, and their sins bring the punishment of their children and of their children’s children, as in the Semite vision in the Book of Exodus, Chapter 20: 5-6).
This vision may seem to some persons not only simple, but also natural and general. But this is not true. Upon Enlightenment thinking, with the emphasis laid on the right of individual autonomy, each person and generation experiments an existential cycle and each person might be judged by its own deeds. But in the most of the societies, especially in the ancient ones or in those relating to the patriarchal values, this does not happen, as good and evil are characteristic features of life or of blood running through the veins of all families and clans.
4.3. The feeling of belonging
The connection system can be found with the group of people that found again their origin in a common ancestor. They believe that the life or the blood of this ancestor runs through everybody’s veins. Many of them are sure that life is transferred from parent to child. The result: paternal genealogy and the clans – people that originate in the same ancestor on the male side. Others attribute life to mother and, implicitly, to maternal clans and genealogies. There is no essential difference from the point of view of our debates. Both visions consider the river of life as being larger than life conceived at the individual level. Let us imagine for a moment that all people that bear the name Ionescu believe that they share the same life and that the important thing is not the life of each individual, but the continuity and the increase in number of Ionescu clan for the future. In this case, each Ionescu may ask for another Ionescu’s help, and he expects to get this help even if those two Ionescu never met. Moreover, each Ionescu may be required to die for the prosperity of the community that represents life at the Ionescu level. This is the quintessence of the vision about the community, in which nobody is alone any more and does not represent only himself.
The relation system arises between kindred communities made up of ancestors, the living, the unborn – connected by means of biological, psychological, social and spiritual relations. People cannot separate from their children, grandsons and great-grandsons, alive or unborn, or from their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, alive or dead. The entire family has to stay always together. As children grow, they eat, live and play, work together with their fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, grandsons and granddaughters, neighbours and friends. They have many parents, as every uncle and every aunt is a parent. They have many brothers and sisters, because the cousins with the same blood are also included in this category. Each person has a common responsibility in relation with the behaviour of each member. Nobody can imagine a happy life away from the family. A woman, Riana, from the Luo tribe of
said, „a beautiful life is with and among
people, your own people”. Inclusion of the ancestors confers a feeling of
stability and continuity, and the conscientiousness of the unborn strengthens the fact that family - all
its former, present and future members – shall perpetuate. Kenya
f). foreseeable changes of the environment.
The sender has the obligation to consider the present and the future effects of his message. He does not speak just for the art of it (regardless of the fact that he is a teacher, a journalist or just a simple traveller in a train compartment). When communicating, the individual expects a reaction,: of approval, of awareness and of admission. He hopes to establish a profound long lasting communication. A friendship, a linking channel for a future business, a future friendship, a future love affair. If he works in mass media he will have as purpose for the receiver to memorise his voice and his name, to remember the title of the show and the broadcasting hour. The public worker that gave a competent information hopes to be appreciated, the lawyer that did his job well hopes to be recommended to other friends and acquaintances of his client. The social worker transmits and receives information hoping that, if returning in the same environment he is received with trust, he finds the door of the house and of the heart always open for other projects. But any of these senders need premonition, a little gift of prophecy: they must know how tomorrow looks like, they must feel it, think it, plan it. If we are not happy with today, if the reality of today does not satisfy us, then tomorrow has to be planned by taking into account every co-ordinate of the environment. Contemporary society is no longer at the disposal of the institution. It lets itself studied, it has developed its study instruments and now the development and the future do not belong to hazard any more but for those that are not trained. The messages, both for the sender and for the receiver, are filtered and related to statistics and have to be verified by practise.
Nobody can create anymore the illusion of the senior in the Middle Age, of the owner that encloses his domain and lifts the bridge of the castle, after considering himself satisfied of the fact that he has all. Contemporary world is a world of communication, of specialisation and exchanges. All these need messages and information flow. Thus, communication became the work place for many enough individuals. And we do not refer now to those working in telephony services or in mass media. Bernard Miege, teacher of communication sciences at Stendhal Grenoble 3 University, notices that, once with the telephone and the new communication networks, the cultural and informational consumption leaves the paths it had previously followed, for decades, and that led to a profound, although progressive restructuring: ”cultural practices and communication are related to each other from now on”; and yet, as he demonstrates on another occasion, it is „an abuse to confound them and the more to include those first in this vague ensemble created by communication.” Moreover, Bernard Miege notices, due to the new communication instruments, the borders between work and entertainment became almost invisible, tending to disappear, because many persons started using the computer for games and recreation and afterwards it became indispensable to them in their daily activity concerning the work responsibilities. And as much time as somebody would spend in front of the computer, that person cannot be persuaded of the fact that the computer does not make easier his work, even if this means only drawing a table or consulting a bibliography
Perception and perception process are among the most weird components of human personality, as we hardly can find elements that are able to demonstrate why we perceive in this way and not differently. Both the philosophers and the psychologists were intrigued for a long period of time by the nature of the human perceptual process. One of the explanations for their interest is that man is curious by nature and in his relation with the outside world he asks himself which are the causes of his experiences and to what extent do they accurately reflect the world.
Besides this general curiosity, the reason of his interest in the perceptual process comes from an apparent paradox, based on the difference between the nature of our experiences and of our knowledge, resulting from the way in which those experiences were produced. Thus, the world appears to be given to us by means of experience. And besides all these, a causal analysis of all these events show a totally different situation.
This is an example given by the study The issues in person perception: you open your eyes and see a blue vase of about 20 cm, placed on a table. The vase appears in a certain distance – its shape and colour are well defined. Let us think for a moment of the causal elements involved. Light, with waves of a certain length, is reflected on the surface of the vase. Some of these waves impress the retina of your eye, and if enough retina cells are irritated, several visual nerves shall transmit to the sensorial apparatus, including to sub-cortical centres, a series of electric impulses that finally reach the cortex. This description offers the image of a more than indirect contact with the world: light waves, retina events, sensorial nerves events, sub-cortical events, cortical events, and afterwards, merely in the end, visual experience results. What is important here is the fact that this causal experience offers us an image totally different from the one that we would have naively described as an experience. This is the reason why conflicts arise between the experiences in our daily life, related to the objects and their properties, and the analysis of the way in which these objects come to exist.
For this reason the following question was raised: How does the human being succeed in creating a coherent perceptual world out of these chaotic invasions of psychic?
Our world of experiences has a structure. Our experiences of the world have a structure. Let us start with the reality of the experience and explore the way in which structure may be obtained. First of all, we know that in the end, our experiences are dependent on our sensorial apparatus, which, for visual experiences, includes both the retina and the neuronal sensors, connecting the retina with the visual areas of the cortex. This apparatus plays the part of a translator. Light waves impress the eye and we experience the colour. Some sound waves impress the ear and we experience the sound. Without the sensorial apparatus we would not have any contact with the outside world. In spite of this reality demonstrated by science, the question related to the nature of this “translation” still stands.
Some philosophers and psychologists agreed on the fact that the translation process is, in its essence, a passive one, determined by the psychological properties of the stimulus, by the structure of the receivers and the sensors of the nervous system. In a way, they saw our sensorial apparatus working as a high speed translation device …This view led to disputes about how much of this “dictionary” is given by birth and how much is the product of our learning process.
A reason for the popularity of the passive perceiving of the images is that of getting close to our experiences and the fact that they permanently offer us something. Our experiences are immediate and they are directly felt. What we feel leads us to the belief that the translation process has to be automatic and inside built.
A first argument against this view is that derived from the fact that our experience of the outside world is very selective. If we passively perceived the stimulus, our world would be a chaos of experiences. For example: when reading a book, you would be aware in the same time of the pressure of your clothes on your body and of all the sounds around you. In fact, from an infinite of stimulus coming towards us, we are aware only of certain objects and certain attributes of these objects. Anybody asking two different persons to describe the same scene is surprised of the fact that, in most of the cases, they describe the image differently; each of them selects the different events and characteristics. Considering this phenomenon, we are recommended to be more than passive translators. In fact, we have to be active processors of information. World is not happily revealed to us, we rather play an active part in creating our feelings.
We state this again: our experiences of the world are important not just because they offer us knowledge, but because they form the objective we shall later film with. Their importance derives form the belief that the structured and established events are not isolated one form another, but they are connected in a certain manner in time … It is normal that our experiences of the world should have a meaning, and the best way to reveal the importance of the event is to imagine a meaningless world, a world in which the events succeed one after another without any apparent connection. A world in which each event is a surprise. Nothing seems to be familiar. The general sensation is that of chaos. Such a situation is so much different from the daily life that it is very difficult to imagine. Our experiences are important, usually, by what they have structured and stable; by the fact that they are familiar to us, but especially by the existence of a connection between them…
As a conclusion, our past experiences and perceptions play a part that is absolutely necessary in enriching the knowledge we have of the surrounding environment, of the world that has structure, stability and importance. Without these, events would not have any meaning. With them, our perceptions define a predictable world, an ordered stage on which we may play our part. The important thing is to analyse stage by stage a certain process and to read the meanings behind an event.
Make the habit of reserving five minutes every evening for one of the most important meetings: the meeting with yourself! Keep at hand a sheet of paper or even a pocket book, or a special notebook in order to write down your impressions. The day before an activity:
· Think of a person you admire and who inspires you a special trust and whom you would like to be your mentor or you would like to be like that person (from teacher to a book hero).
· Notice the way in which that person talks, the gestures he makes, the way in which he is dressed, his way of encouraging people, of listening them. Identify if his encouraging words are formal or specific, if they contain general, magical formulas, or if he talks to every person in a certain way. Find out his encouraging gesture.
· Write down the differences between the way in which he behaves towards people and the way in which you behave towards them. Which are the gestures or the expressions you would copy from him.
· Use the first occasion to meet an unknown person. Chase away any critical thought and any temptation to make evaluations. Notice the way in which he walks and talks. Show him that you accept him as he is. Make the first step in confiding in him and notice his reaction. When you are alone, try to be aware of the taste the meeting left you.
· Choose a “difficult” meeting that inspires you fear.
· Visualise the scene. Look at the office door you will open. Try not to look the imaginary scene from somewhere outside you. You see your clothes, feel your body and even hear the beat of your heart. Open the door, step forward, reach out your hand and salute him. Remember all “contact keys”.
· Visualise yourself during the conversation. Take over the postural attitude while you listen to the words uttered by both of you as if they belong to a single person.
· Listen with all your being. Relax and be concerned only with understanding the message.
· You do not lose anything, on the contrary, if you consider, at least for a moment, that the person beside you means more than yourself.
· Accept the idea that your value lies in the capacity to devote yourself.
· Do not accept the idea that you have nothing to offer: you can offer a smile, a word, a caress.
 Şerban Cioculescu ( 1902 - 1988 ) literary critic and historian, teacher at the
. Author, among others, of the
following works: Aspecte lirice
contemporare - 1940, Introducere în poezia lui Tudor Arghezi - 1946, Viaţa lui I.L.
Caragiale -1940, Caragialiana- 1974, Portrete franceze - 1971, Amintiri etc. Bucharest University
 Ferdinand de Saussure, Op. cit., pag. 227.
 Bernard Miege, Societatea cucerită de comunicare, Translation by Adrian Staii, preface by Mihai Coman,
, Editura Polirom, 2000, pag. 27. Iaşi
 Albert H. Hastorf, David J. Schneider, and Judith Polefka, Communicate! A workbook for interpersonal communication, p. 83-84.
 Albert H. Hastorf, David J. Schneider, and Judith Polefka, op. cit., p. 85.