In a recent group discussion, the varied contact styles and the strategies to manage them played a key role in maintaining focus and achieving our target objectives and desired level of study. With no formal work to deal with and the organization informal, the discussion opened up an opportunity for me to examine desensitization, projection/stereotyping , swallowing whole, confluence, deflection and keeping it all inside. Based on my own experiences and observation, I concluded that the concepts styles affect individual and group mentality. The involuntary trigger is suddenly appalling when juxtaposed to the contact styles induced in the knowledge and appreciation of the person. To an extent, the contact styles can be appreciated by an individual as part of the mental state and awareness, but in the event of digression in the conversation extrapolates the kind of contact style one is experiencing especially towards information; new and old.
To begin with, desensitization and deflection characterized our night. Having a scientific session that involved lots of data, information and research, everyone tended to resort to desensitization, ignoring the laboratory setting we were in and even ignoring new sets of knowledge being dispersed from the few who were able to concentrate. In addition, not all appreciated the new data, most choosing to let it by-pass them, probably an indicator of how tired they were or a self imposed decision not to take in new facts. Indeed, the end of the discussion justified the high prevalence of deflection as most members, I included, did not seem to quite understand the concept that provided the solution which revolved on the voltage required to fire up a rocket in terms of electrical voltage.
Most of the discussion partners were not interested in the topic. Indeed, it was only for examinations purposes that they were so much focused to learning these voltage concepts. The initial stereotype was a wrong assertion that the topical orientation would provide complicated. The ensuing projection of the topic as high-tech science meant most of the discussion shies away from sharing their points, in fact giving precedence to raw data collected from books and lack of faith in their ability to come up with their own data. Surprisingly, argument rose over an unconfirmed idea that the voltage was beyond calculation. Everyone was fast taken in; a possible case of swallowing whole and even suggested that we need not research or experiment more. Unfazed by this assertion, I carried on and indeed realized that a rocket can generate its own heat through friction once set in motion; thus the amount of energy required is dependent on the start-up energies. The rest it does generate by itself thus we needed not concern ourselves on it.
Through confluence, our patience held and we successfully unraveled the mystery behind us. This was not until five hours had elapsed, time in which most was not spent objectively but was spent in informal discussions. However, buoyed by the group mentality enshrined in the confluence contact style, the eventual aim was achieved and efforts to ensure that everyone understands this concept were made with a hotly contested encapsulating which between electricity and fuel would be the better, under the understanding that the engine was bound to get really hot.
To conclude, it is imperative to understand the contact styles and above all strategically seek to apply them beneficially. Each has a positive in either filtering the information, ensuring a person gets prepared and eventually awareness to new information which encompasses the learning atmosphere. However, swallowing it whole has been identified as the most dangerous for practical careers but the best for philosophical conditions. And how the contact styles mingle is just another mystery that might need philosophers to be unraveled. Their operation is not restricted to the one-at-a-time mode but to an intercessory occurrence, albeit their occurrences informality.