Hooking up

Hooking up. Like the book says, it is a very broad term. Some people still use it meaning, get together. My old boss used to say, "You guys hook up and work on this project together." Mostly, today though, it is talking about something sexual. Even then, it is still broad. It is a very easy way to give someone a little information without giving any detail away, because hooking up can mean anything from kissing to sex. 

The book talks about hooking up and how it is so much more prevalent for people to hook up without commitment or a relationship than ever before. Are we more promiscuous than before? Are we more experimental? Do we not value relationships as much as we used to? 

I know for me, I am in this boat right now, because I am seeing someone who I have no interest in dating. I feel like I am young and I am just having fun. And if a serious relationship came along, I would love to take it, but this is just taking up my time while I am waiting for the real thing to come. I don't know how this helps explain this hook up craze, but I think a lot of people hook up for the same reason I just said. 

Equivocation

Equivocation was not mentioned in the book, but Prof Coopman talked about it in the lecture. I liked reading that part because it resinated with me very strongly. It was funny to read because I used to use equivocation very purposefully when I was a hostess at the restaurant I work in. 

When people ask how long their wait will be, its impossible to have the right answer. If I gave a real answer, it would only be a guess. Because I did not want to give people the wrong answer, (like saying 15 mins and their wait ending up being 25 mins) I always gave ambiguous answers that would not really tell them anything, but it satisfied most people and I would not have to give them a real answer. 

"How long is the wait?"

And I would give answers like, 

"Oh, well you're third on the list." or 

"There's a big party ahead of you, but they should be seated soon and you will be next." or

"There are 2 tables with their checks, so they might be getting up soon."

There were people once in a while who would say, "Yea, but how long is the wait." But like I said, I got away with that most of the time :)

Social Penetration Theory

I rememeber the social penetration theory from Comm 101. It talked about how a person's personality is like an onion, going deeper and deeper with each layer. The book also says that a part of this theory is the concept of rewards and costs, how a person will stay in a relationship if the rewards are higher than the costs, and will not stay if the costs are greater. If they stay with higher costs, it will not be a negative relationship and the participants will most likely not be happy. This is like a woman who gets beat up, but stays because she is scared to do something about it, or whatever the reason.

In Comm 101 though, we talked about that being a different theory, the social exchange theory.
Maybe social exchange theory is a bullet under social penetration theory.

Presenting the Self

This chapter, I hate to say, was the first that I did not enjoy. As I was reading it, none of it seemed interesting to me because it was all common sense. It talked about how people present themselves in a good light. Well, of course they do. If I was about to put up a new picture on my blog, and I had a good picture and a bad one of me, why would I put up the bad one? I mean, I have a picture on this blog, and although I could have put up some really impressive pictures of what I do, I chose to put up a picture of a simple skill because I like the mountain background. But nevertheless, I chose to put up a picture of my sport (knowing it is impressive) because I want people to know what I do. I am proud of what I do and I want others to be proud and impressed also.

There are two phenomenons in this chapter that were interesting though. One is when people lie to present themselves better than they are. This would be an interesting study to figure out why people feel they have to lie. Are they not confident enough in what they are to make up more? Where is that line and when does it get crossed? When does someone decide to embelish their story more than they been to?

The other thing I did find interesting is at the end of the chapter, the book talked about how Asian cultures present themselves versus our culture. We are ALL about ourselves.
"Tell me about yourself"
"Well, I am 22, I am Russian, I am a SJSU student, I am fun, I am friendly, etc.."
ME ME ME, right? It seems normal to answer with those answers, until I saw what the book said about Asian cultures, "My parents are the best, My friends and I like to party, My father is stern but supports me." In each of those, the person is still talking about themselves, but in a very different way than we do in the US. It is not self focused. I like this way better.

Drama for your Mama

Chapter 6 starts off with one of its first concepts, dramaturgical perspective. This concept is about how all of our public behaviors are based on 6 elements of theatre: actor, audience, stage, script, performance and audience reaction. This is interesting, because it reminds me of how predetermined we let our lives be. 

The new Bob Dylan movie just came out recently. Its called "I'm Not There". I've only watched half of it, but the part that sticks out to me is a quote from the trailer,

"People are always talking about freedom, freedom to live a certain way. 

Of course, the more you live a certain way, the less it feels like freedom."

This section really made me think about this quote because although it is just an analogy, it seems to me that we do live our lives like actors on stage. This varies from culture to culture, but it is very prominent in ours. How important is it that we have to dress a certain way to a funeral? To work? etc.  I mean, these are good things too, like dressing in black, nice clothes at a funeral shows respect for the deceased, and work clothes show professionalism. So most of our scripts and performances are not out of the blue, they make sense. But it also makes me think of how we act for other people, so other people are also acting for us. And I'm thinking that some people are so good at it, that how do we ever know if we are talking to them, or to their stage presence? 

I guess it does not really matter. If I am talking to someone who is really funny or interesting or captivating, it is still a good conversation, whether they really are those things, or if they just want me to think they are. 

This analogy made me think very liberally for a few minutes there, and I thought I'd write about that because it is interesting to think about. Anyone have anything to say about that?

Sweet Sixteen

This was the last chapter of the book, and I liked how it connected all the other chapters at the end when it ties its concept into each chapter.

The concept I liked most in this chapter is adaptability. I used to work for a drug prevention and leadership training organization for teens and thats one thing we talked about all the time, is flexibility. When leading a small group in discussion, when communicating with anyone really, its important to let the conversation take its desired course, unless it is going somewhere where it should not. We always told our teens to learn to adapt. If they were planning on playing a certain game that involves dice in their meeting, but they forgot the dice, don't go looking for dice, play something else!  I think it is very important to be spontaneous and creative, which I think goes hand in hand with adaptability, because life is just more fun that way.

-Aleks

Self and Society

This chapter, along with the non-verbal comm one, I have really enjoyed the most. I really liked this chapter because it was very interesting to apply all the concepts to myself and to people I know and see on a daily basis as I was reading. 

The ones that were easiest to see were the negative behaviors. For example, the whole time I was reading the Machiavellian Behavior part, I kept thinking over and over again how everything they are saying fits perfectly with someone I know. The part about an argumentative person versus a verbally aggressive person, I thought about how my mom fits very strongly into the verbally aggressive person and that it is such a strong barrier between us because I think I am a logical argumentative person. 

When I thought about myself and these categories, with some of these, I found myself fitting into both sides. For example, under self-monitoring behavior, I found myself scoring high in some aspects and scoring low in others. I guess that would make me a moderate self-monitor? Or maybe I am high in certain times and contexts and low in others. Or maybe these tests are made to be generic and do not work for each person who takes them. Who knows. 

But I really enjoyed this chapter, except for how it seemed to talk mostly about negative characteristics of people, and not very much about positive. 

-Aleks