Week 7:1 cyberspace friendships

I personally am not one to build a friendship solely off online interactions. I definately have friends which I maintain our friendships through online interactions, but all have originated as face to face relationships. Online relationships have the nice advantage of being anonymous. I find that in cyberspace there is the opportunity to be anything you want to be. You don't have to reveal what you look like, where you live, or what you do in real life. Which is the reason I do not have friendships which exist exclusively in cyberspace. I like knowing who I am friends with. If I am going to open up to someone or share personal information, it will be with someone I know f2f. I am nervous to be open with an online contact if I have never met them in person, because I am unsure of what their true intentions are in communicating with me. In the age of social networks it is difficult to avoid new cyberspace relationships. Fortunately, all social networks allow you to filter who is allowed to contact you or see your information. I have in the past added people who I don't know to my Myspace or Facebook accounts only to delete them after realizing I am not interested in continuing communications. I have noticed that friendships which exist exclusively in cyberspace lack the feeling of really connecting with the other person. There is something about physical contact to me that makes the friendship or relationship with another person real. I like being able to look into another person's eyes and to read their body language. Face to face relationships have that connection which could never be possible in cyberspace.

Week 6:3 Poole's Multiple-Sequence Model

In Chapter 7 we learn about group communication. In studying how groups communicate and develop experts try to map the life of groups through phase models. In my personal experience of working in groups in many different types of classes and under different circumstances, I feel that researchers Marshall Scott Poole and Jonelle Roth are right in the fact the life of groups are messier than Fisher's model. In Poole's multiple-sequence model the phases of group development are divided into task, topic, and relation tracks which all occur simultaneously. Whether a group is formed to work on a research project for a science class or an art group to work on a huge mural project, identifying the task at hand is essentially going to lead to varying development of group duties. Groups which have multiple tasks to accomplish must approach their problem solving differently than groups with only one job or duty. Groups must be capable of developing on different tracks. Multitasking occurs when working in groups. It is only natural with multiple people working together for one goal, though tasks are divided they are also being dealt with simultaneously as members of the group are interacting and relaying information and ideas.

Week6:2 Filtering Theory

Attraction to another person is usually provoked by an interest in either physical or personality traits. I am attracted to someone with a good personality, who I can hold an interesting conversation with. Looks are not of the up most importance. As the old saying goes, You can't judge a book by its cover. Many times in the past when I felt interest in someone because of the way they looked, once I met them I found there was no connection and the attraction died. In Trenholm we learn of Steve Duck's theory on an attraction filtering theory, "Duck identifies four filters: sociological or incidental, preinteraction, interaction, and cognitive cues" (158). Duck's theory does make sense in many ways. Sociological and incidental cues can certainly influence who you may build relationships. If you frequently are in the presence of another person it is only natural to interact. Depending on preinteraction cues, you can observe how someone may act and if you find interest in them interaction is the next step. I have found in the past that preinteraction cues can be misleading. Though the first impression is very important, it can also be completely sabotaged due to setting or out of control circumstances. If your interaction cues lead to comfort in the presence of the other person, continued relationships should develop. I am about to celebrate three years married. I would have never thought when I first met my husband that we would now be married. I was first associated with him through a fast food job I had in high school. I ended up dating a friend of his for over four years. When that relationship ended I still remained friends with my husband. We then just began spending more time together. Eventually taking out of town trips with other friends, then just the two of us. A friendship when I wasn't looking for love or a romantic partner, has developed into one of the best relationships due to our cognitive cues. I share many beliefs with my husband and feel comfortable in communicating how I feel even if we don't entirely agree about something. Physical attraction can develop from more than looks. When judging someone on their physical attributes there may be an initial intense attraction, but once other personality traits, beliefs or values, come more transparent your attraction can dissolve and relationships can end. I find that Duck's theory can be good in applying attraction filters you can evaluate others in becoming potential friends or romantic partners, but your intuition about another is what really matters.

Week 6:1 Rigid Role Relations

In learning about rigid role relations in Chapter 6 on Interpersonal Communications, I started to think of my own relationships and how the patterns apply. Out of a rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, and submissive symmetry, I think the competitive symmetry would be the most difficult to change. Competition is natural in some people and it is very unlikely you will be able to adjust a personality of that sort. If someone is determined they are right, it doesn't matter what argument you may bring up they will win. Now put two of those personalities together and a competitive symmetry will exist. Sometimes these relationships result in support and motivation, but usually they end in a fight and/or hurt feelings.
I feel the pattern of rigid complementarity is the most damaging to a relationship. When one person always belittles or insults the other, resentment builds to hate or other strong emotions. To feel insignificant to a dominant partner can be very damaging the partnership. Submissive partners will eventually loose interest in trying to impress the dominant partner. It is also possible the dominant partner will get tired of pushing around the submissive partner if they aren't getting the response they want. Abusive relationships can come in verbal and physical forms, and submissive partners are usually the loser in the relationship in the long run. Extended rigid complementarity can strain relationships as partners should share the roles they play in order to feel equally important.
I think submissive symmetry could be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved, since submissive individuals are usually looking for approval. They want their associates to feel comfortable around them by not being demanding or bringing conflict into the relationship. When two submissive individuals are caught in submissive symmetry self-doubt and irritation can arise. As each person tries not to be pushy, they can in turn be thinking very negative thoughts about the behavior they are trapped by. Why do I have to decide? What if I choose the wrong thing? Am I making them mad? I have been stuck in one of those arguments of where to eat with a friend. I usually take the submissive role since she is a dominant personality, but this particular time she didn't want to decide. While we finally did come to a decision, I felt our conversation and comfort level completely change from our submissive symmetry. Relationships form because partners feel comfortable around each other, as time goes on patterns can form which can be negative to the relationship or the self-esteem of the individuals involved. It is important to have open communication and equal treatment in a relationship in order for it to survive long term.

Week 4:3 Anxiety and Withdrawal

In Chapter 12 with the discussion of Intercultural Communication, the barrier created by anxiety and withdrawal is something I found interesting. Since we are creatures of habit and we develop behavior through learning accepted behaviors of our culture. When we are exposed to other cultures we can be victims of anxiety which creates barrier to how much we experience of another culture. If we are too fearful or have too much tension to allow extended social interaction in another culture, we may actually experience illness that is related to "culture shock." I know someone who recently visited Paris and Europe, after the initial excitement of new experiences, she started to deeply miss America and common luxuries we have in the states. Before you know it, she was extremely ill and ended up spending a couple of days in bed trying to regroup. The new culture experience was too much for her to completely grasp when all of our native culture was inaccessible for sometime.

Week 4:2 Rationality, Perfectibility, and Mutability

Humans are affected by their culture. It is argued by Larry Samovar, Richard Porter, and Nemi Jain that most Americans hold three basic beliefs about human nature. Humans are rational, perfectible, and influenced by social environment and culture. It is hard to say if most people are in fact rational, since decisions made through emotion can be very unrational. Road rage is a perfect example. I hope that most people do take time for rational evaluation and analysis of situations to make the best decisions. The rationality premise is especially important in our judiciary system, since an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have jurors determine the fate of a criminal in a court of law. Their belief is in the good of people, to use rationality.
The Perfectibility Premise is the idea humans can change, and achieve goodness even after committing sin. This premise seems to stand strong in religion. That with forgiveness, dedication, and a strong heart, any person is capable of being good. Especially when surrounded by a community of moral support and spiritual guidance. I believe the mutability premise which assumes behavior is shaped through environment, since your physical and psychological perception is impacted by your surroundings. An individual that is a student, surrounded with education and inspiration, will be a better rounded person than someone who just works a minimum wage dead end job. Without inspiration and goals your psychological and emotional circumstances may dwindle and leave you feeling down.

Week 4:1 "Creatures of our Culture"

In Chapter 12 we are exploring Intercultural communication and the impact of our culture on our communication. I do not believe I could argue with anthropologist Ruth Benedict. We are certainly "creatures of our culture," since we learn behaviors, practices, and skills as we grow up from our culture. Each culture will have its own customs which are reflected in beliefs and habits. Communication between individuals and in social settings also varies in different cultures. In order to break away from learned cultural habits, you must expose yourself to other cultures and behaviors.
If all we surround ourselves with is one culture, we will be deprived from learning about other people and other places in the world. The point in life is to not only know the familiar, but to also see as much cool stuff as possible. Now sometimes opportunities to be exposed to other places in the world are not always transparent, but every day you go outside there are other cultures all around. America is for all people. California has so many different types of cultures in one state it is impossible to not be exposed in one way or another. By learning about other cultures you can communicate better with others, and feel more confident in your behavior around someone of another culture.