Week 11/15-11/21 question 3

The most interesting concept that I came across in this week's reading was the idea of hegemonic messages, or rather media messages that keep powerless groups from making their ideas known. I'm not going to lie, I'm a slight conspiracy theorist. I tend to think that the man keeps down the little guy, as ridiculous as it might sound. We always see, especially on TV, the idea that the man is keeping the little guy down, and there is usually some struggle to overcome this: the jock being beaten in his sport and getting the girl, the employee uncovering a scandal and fighting to make it known, etc. Let's face it, we as a race want to succeed and be powerful. The media pretty much has complete control over what we see, hear, watch, read, etc. Unless we go outside the box and search for something a little less unknown, a little less popular, a little less commercialized, we get the same thing washed and painted a shiny new color; but the little guy still goes unknown. The media vies for attention based on its sponsors, and rather than sharing the spotlight with those groups that might now be the biggest, the best, or the most popular, they hog all the attention for those who pay the most.

Week 11/15-11/21 question 2

I absolutely believe that the medium of a message is as important as the message itself. I think that dependent on the format, the person receiving the message will take it in a certain way. I'll use an instant messaging program for example. You send someone a message, and it can be inferred completely differently than you intend it to because you can't really tell tone over the internet. You can suggest something, and I will respond "oh, yeah, that sounds like a GREAT idea." Who is to say whether I am being sarcastic, or whether I actually think that what you suggested is a good idea?

I agree with McLuhan's idea that television is a cool medium. It's pretty easy to interpret what you see on the television, without trying too hard. I rarely, if ever, watch TV, but I can tell when actors on a show are trying way too hard to play their part. It doesn't seem natural, and it turns me off to it. I like having things left to my imagination, and when actors are too "hot" it just ruins it for me.

Week 11/15-11/21, question 1

I'm a geek. I spend way too much time on the internet, and for a long time a good portion of that was involved playing World of Warcraft (WOW). WOW is an MMORPG, or massive multiplayer online role playing game. Basically you are playing this game online with thousands of other players all over the world. Within the game there are guilds, and these guilds are basically your online family. Through my guild I made several friendships that existed strictly online. The closest that we got to f2f contact was talking through Ventrilo (a program where you actually talk to one another, kind of similar to using the telephone). The friendships that I developed were very similar, and very not similar, to those that I have in real life. They were similar because I became close with several people; I found myself confiding in them, talking to them more than I talked to some people I knew in person, and they were easy to talk to; they had similar interests to mine, and we were able to get along. It was also very different because I never saw them face to face; I was never able to give them a hug; and never able to physically interact with them as I would my real life friends. In all honesty, I enjoy having internet friends. Yet, I prefer the interactions that happen when I'm physically with someone.

Question 3

I think that it would be most difficult to change the competitive symmetry. In this instance you have two people who want to be in control, however in most cases there can be only one (highlander! Ok just kidding). I think that it would be very difficult to go from a position of being in charge and in control, making the decisions, to a position of letting another person choosing what happens (or whatever the situation might be). Obviously, someone who is dominant plays the role of the leader, and it could be hard for them to relinquish control, for reasons such as they don't think the other person will make the right decision, the other person won't do it as well, so on and so forth.

I think it would be most damaging to go from a submissive symmetry to a competitive symmetry. I think that a pairing of submissives would have a very hard time becoming dominant because, in my experience, submissives tend to second guess themselves when it comes to decisions. I can picture it being very difficult for a historically submissive person to find courage to make decisions and become a leader, without questioning whether they are doing everything right.

Question 2

My friends and I have a set of rules for those we choose to date: you don't date someone who's mean, you don't date someone who's stupid, and you don't date a what-what (definition of a "what-what" is as follows: someone who wears baggy cloths, lots of "bling", walks with a "limp", and acts like a wannabe gangster; in it's natural environment known to say "what-WHAT?!"). These are just some basic rules for who I choose to not date, because inevitably, all three would breed true. You gotta think about the future in these matters!

But in all seriousness, the qualities that I look for in other people are the same that I hope are shown in me: loyal, friendly, trustworthy, funny, someone who isn't afraid to be themselves.

There actually was one time that I reconsidered a preconceived notion for a romantic partner. His name was Griffin, and he was the typical "dork." I immediately discounted him for any thought of a romantic future. However, after getting to know him quite well, we did develop a relationship over time. It didn't work out in the end, but I was proven wrong about him though social interaction.

week 11/1-11/7 question one

One of the interesting was the expressive-protective dialectic. Finding a balance between what to share and what not to share is something that I can struggle with.

I like to think of myself as a non-judgmental person. I've been through and seen a lot in my life that lets me see how both sides of the coin can be. I find myself not judging people for whatever actions they do in their life. For this reason I have no problem with people confiding in me or telling me things that they would not normally tell others. I do the same, and sometimes I cross the line with people who I have just met or do not know very well. There have been several occasions where I find myself divulging information that you would think one would only tell their best friend of several years. My problem is not finding it awkward to talk to people or share experiences/ideas/whatever because I expect people to not judge me for my actions (unless I robbed a bank or something really morally wrong). This has backfired on my several times, however, and I notice that I tend to....scare people off by my openess. Just one more thing that I have to learn how to balance.