Week 13: Post #3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

One concept that I found particularly amazing in this chapter was the Television portion.  I could not believe that the book said that the average American household tuned in to watch about eight hours of television a day.  Not only that, but the typical individual viewing a little less than four and half hours of programming daily.  This completely shocked me when I read it.  I am a student, who also works 30 hours a week, so I might be a little biased, but I can not imagine having eight hours a day dedicated to watching television.  I do not have that kind of time.  I also cannot even begin to imagine why watching eight hours of television a day would do to/for me.  As the book stated, it is a way to provide news, companionship, teaching and socialization, relaxation and escapist entertainment.  But there are so many other ways to achieve all of those things, that it it hard to imagine wanting to receive it all from television.  

Week 13: Post #2

2). Do you agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, i.e. that the format or logic of a medium is as important as its content and, in fact, determines what content will be broadcast through that channel? Evaluate his idea that television is a cool medium.

I completely and absolutely agree with Marshal McLuhan's idea that the medium is the message.  I believe that not only does the format matter as far as what is received and what is ignored, but I also believe that it also reveals more about the meaning of the message and the message sender.  For example, If I want to wish my best friend a happy birthday, I would call her, give her a present, take her out to dinner, or something else equally kind.  If I were to just send her a message on facebook, it wouldn't really seem very sufficient.  If I were to wish a distant acquaintance a happy birthday of facebook, it might seem like a nice gesture.  I believe that the format and the content of the message are equally as important as the relationship between the communicators.  I am not sure that I follow the idea of the cool medium vs. the hot medium, but as the book says, it is not embraced by everyone.  

Week 13: Post #1

1). Have you made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace? If so, how are they different from f2f relationships? If you have not formed cyber relationships, why not?

After reading this question, I was a little bit surprised with myself.  I have grown up in a generation that is surrounded by constant communication, most of which is online.  I have known of websites, chat rooms, and instant messaging as second nature.  As one of the children in this generation, I have never formed a relationship online.  I am kind of surprised.  Not that this is new information to me, but it is interesting that for something to be so common of people my age, I had no part in it.  I was never really interested in chat rooms or surfing the internet.  I haven't ever really gotten into the instant messaging thing or the social networking sites.  I don't think that it is for any particular reason other than I just don't enjoy sitting at a computer that much.  I have always had very accessible access to computers and the internet, but it just isn't really my thing.  I use computers for school and work and that is pretty much it.  

Week 11: Post #3

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.

I found the idea of the “looking-glass self” as an interesting concept within this chapter.  As our textbook says, Charles Horton Cooley’s metaphor describes the looking-glass self as a product of our own sense of self based on the approval and disapproval of those around us.  It is formed by the ones closest to us and shapes the way we see ourselves according to how we fit in and how we are viewed with others.  The book also explains that this view of self is a cycle that is regular and happens without any initiation of the person themselves.  “Someone we care about responds to us.  Our perception of this response affects our sense of who we are, and we behave in ways consistent with that self.  This behavior then draws forth additional responses, and the cycle repeats itself,” (p. 144).  When considering myself with this idea, I can completely relate to this kind of cycle.  I like to have the approval of my friends and family, even if I am attempting to get it unknowingly.

Week 11: Post #2

2). Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviours lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?

When thinking about potential romantic partners, I think that I have a tendency to use all of the provided filters.  I think that my difference is maybe the order in which I apply my filters.  I would like to think that I do not necessarily base my appeal in people based on Preinteraction Cues (physical beauty, artifacts, nonverbal behavior, etc) before the Interaction Cues (social rewards, conversational management, etc.)  I would also like to think that I would consider the Cognitive Cues (attitude similarity, need complementarity, shared values, etc.)  before the Preinteraction Cues.  I know that the names of these Cues obviously signify when they take place, but I would like to think that the Preinteraction Cues do not cause me to write someone off right away. 

When thinking about how I have judged people in the past, I used Cognitive Cues to based how I believe I will interact with that person.  If these kind of Cues do not match up with my own, I have a hard time imagining that I would be able to find myself attracted to them or a relationship with them, be that romantic or just friends.  My boyfriend now was a person that I was not initially attracted to, but after understanding their Cognitive Cues, I found myself more attracted to him.

Week 11: Post #1

1). Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?

Speaking from my own experience, I would say that rigid complementarity pattern is the most difficult to change.  I speak from experience when I say that it is so hard to change peoples roles in a relationship between two people if they have been established already.  These roles are often even destructive useless and can be very hard on the people within and surrounding the relationship.  The problem is that people get comfortable with a routine, even if this routine is not a healthy routine.  People overlook a lot, or put up with a lot, because that is how they have gotten used to dealing with the other person.  Even when people can recognize that the pattern might be unhealthy or may need some altering, it can become almost impossible to break the habits that have been formed.  I would like to think that people are always aware of their roles in a given situation, but the rigid complementarity pattern often allows people to have a skewed image of themselves and the situation.