Monthly Archive for: ‘2 years ago’
The key features regarding these three perspectives concern the process of disclosure: what are its benefits and drawbacks and how does it become engaged.
The dynamics of Quad 3 is the opposite of Quad 2 with regard to the fulfillment of interpersonal needs. A’s task in Quad 3 is to actively express her needs to B (and other people) so that B (and others) might respond in a manner that meets A’s needs.
There is a strong bias toward internal locus of control when it comes to Q3.
As I did in the previous chapters regarding quad one and quad two, I will briefly examine the interaction between Sheila and Kevin from two alternative perspectives.
The third quadrant is all about privacy and disclosure. This is the hidden dimension of interpersonal relationships.
As in the case of Quad One, some rich insights regarding Quad Two can be derived from consideration of the differing perspectives on this quadrant that are offered by the American, British and Continental schools.
Our analysis of Quad Two is concerned with what other people observe in our behavior that leads them to assume (rightly or wrongly) that we have certain needs.
Why don’t we find out more about ourselves from other people? We don’t find out in part because we don’t want to know (Q2-I) (internal locus of control).
Joe Luft is particularly insightful about three Quad Two issues: (1) consensual reliability, (2) interacting alone and (3) forced exposure.
At this point, I will offer two other versions regarding Kevin and Sheila’s second quadrants, using the alternative structures of the original Johari Window that I introduced in an earlier essay (Quad One).