Contraduction within relationships (Ch. 12)

Baxter and Montgomery came up with a brilliant theory when it comes to the "tug of war" theory. I'm sure it is something no one every really realized, but relationships need some form of balance. They cannot survive without it. For a relationship to work, there has to be some form of contradiction. A couple needs both interdependence and independence from each other. If a couple is too dependent on each other, they will not be able to survive very well when they are away from each other. They may develop some anxiety or what some of us like to call "needy tendencies" without their partner. I know for me, it makes me go back and wonder what happened to all of my relationships. Was I the one that couldn't be independent enough, or was it my partner who couldn't be interdependent enough? Did it really not work because there was no balance within the relationship? It really makes me wonder. It also makes me think that if I had taken this class any many years ago, I think I would have been able to avoid a lot of breakups.

CMC and online dating ( Ch. 11)

After reading about CMC and how it affects relationships when it comes to online dating, I decided to kind of compare the theory to my friend's online dating experience. With face-to-face communication, it gives a relationship a chance to develop vivid interpretations of each party and form a more personal connection. One reason why Walther may feel that face-to-face relationships build faster is because these people have the ability to form these personal relationships with each other. With online communication it makes sense why someone would be able to develop a relationship at a because all of the nonverbal cues are missing. People have to wait to form their personal relationship because they are waiting on e-mail or instant messaging communication. They cannot develop interpersonal impressions until they have all of the information they need. One of my girlfriends recently tried out e-Harmony to find a romantic connection with someone, she agreed with Walther's theory. She found that when she would go on actual dates with men, it was a lot easier to communicate with them and form a certain impression of them after long conversation. Information was passed a lot easier and quicker. However, when she would communciate with men through e-Harmony, she found that it was a lot harder to form a cerain impression about these men just based on the information they gave her. She had to continually communicate with them in order to get the information she needed in order to form an impression and decide if she wanted to continue in the relationship or not. I do not feel that either form of communication is better. It does seem that they both help relationships develop, just at different rates.

Theory of depth and breadth of self-disclosure

I particularly found this theory interesting because it discussed many of the communication patterns that happens within different kinds of relationships. It was interesting to see how people in different relationships use different levels of communications to exchange information. Obviously, in the beginning of a relationship it is very impersonal, and not much important information is exchanged. However, once the relationships builds, the level of communication increases, making the relationship more personal because of the exchange of personal information. I like how you can apply this theory to different kinds of relationships, whether they are friendship or romantic. I think I understood it more when it was applied to a friendship relationship, because I know I have personally been in friendships where communication was lost because one of us stopped sharing certain things with each other, stopped inviting each other to certain places, or whatever.

I know that when people start to develop a relationship, it is both exciting and difficult because you want to be able to have open communication with this other person, however, it is difficult because you do not want to share too much too soon. What was interesting to find out, was how natural the development of the relationship is. Eventually both people will reach a certain openness without much effort from either person in the relationship. The only problem, is that eventually the relationship will lose its steam and communication becomes a little harder.

Theory of Community and its effect on others' expectations

The idea of the generalized other within the sense of community was interesting because it made me realize how much all people really care about what others think of them. Sometimes, certain decisions are made only to maintain a certain image in other people's eyes or because someone else made the same choice. It makes it almost seem as if people do not make their own decisions like we always thought they did. Mead's argument said it best because he explained that those within the community do make their own choices, however, depending on what others are doing within this community, people will make their choices that are aligned with the other individuals within this community. This can be true whether it's buying a new pair of shoes, what classes to pick for the semester, or simply what movie you want to go see. We all tend to make our own choices, but sometimes they are shaped based on what everyone else is thinking, what they're expectations are of us. I found this theory particularly interesting because even though we all partake in this form of communication and decision making, I don't think we realize that we are doing it. I think that even though we make some of our decisions based on what others will think of us, or to fulfill a certain expectation, we are exercising our independent thinking by making that choice to do so. We do not have to make our decisions to maintain a certain image in other people's eyes, or based on what the latest fashions are. I think with a lot of the theories that we are learning so far, it seems like it would be common sense, but it is amazing to think that we all actually behave the way that these scientists have been watching us behave.

Concept #2: The idea of language as a source of meaning

I know it is a pretty obvious concept, but using language as a way to convey meaning is very important. Certain things don't really mean anything until we interact with others and develop our own meanings. After reading the Language: The source of meaning section of chapter 5, I was able to get a much better understanding for how we use language as a way to create meaning of the things we have frequent interaction with. How we use language to create names for things because by creating names automatically creates meaning for us. That is something I did not even realize prior to reading this section. It makes a lot of sense. When you walk on campus, or if you are just out somewhere, and you see a person, you don't really register anything about that person mainly because you do not know who they are. However, once you meet that person, or once you recognize that person, your brain triggers the emotion for knowing this person, and knowing that some how this person has meaning to you.

Concept #1: Communication as an Art form

As I was reading chapter 4, one of the concepts that jumped out at me was the idea of having communication serve as an artful way of speaking with people. Perhaps this appealed to me simply because it made me think of the theater, and how actors use their characters in a play as a way to communicate whatever theme the play is based on. So far within this class, what I found interesting is how rhetoric is described as being more of an art form rather than an actual science because of its emphasis on the beauty of language. Language itself is a very powerful tool when it comes to public speaking. In my opinion, a good public speaker has the ability to stir the emotions of his/her audience, since we are guided mostly by our emotions. It makes me think of powerful speakers such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and even Senator Obama with the current election. The reason why they got such a huge following was because of how they were able to capture the hearts of their audiences through their speeches.

When I think of public speakers I don't imagine someone who can read what is on a piece of paper. I think of someone who is poised, audible, and can get me to think about something I may not have thought about before, or to start thinking more about something I already felt passionate about to begin with. Someone who stirs my emotions and makes me feel like I matter. I think of public speaking more as a performance than anything else because when you think about it, that's what public speaking is. You're using every form of communication, whether it's your words or your body language (which can also be a form of communication) to engage people. I know when I have to give presentations at my internship or in class, I kind of like to pretend that I'm a performer and I'm excited about the information I am presenting. It just helps me to get people to engage more, and it also helps me be more comfortable in front of them. :)