Media and communication

Broadcast media, such has television, generally uses one-way communication. With the Internet, new technologies are providing increased interactivity and participation in broadcast media including television. For example, YouTube allows users to post videos and recently announced a feature where a user’s videos can be linked right into blogs and news article. It will be interesting to see what effect interactivity and participation will have on traditional broadcast media. With everyone participating, there is more opportunity for different points of view. On the other hand, this broad participation may undermine trust in the content, similar to what has happened with blogs. This kind of media seems to promote advocacy where the facts may be twisted rather than objective reporting. There are so many choices for sources of information, and it becomes harder and harder to determine what sources to trust. Instead everyone seems to cite whatever “facts” fit their argument the best.

Is medium the message?

I believe that the medium is not as important as its content. The Internet illustrates how different media and formats can lead to very different types of messages and communication. For instance, Twitter limits messages to 140 characters, but provides a quick way to send a message to a group of people (called followers). It allows followers to feel connected to the sender of the message. Even though the content is short and often seems trivial, Twitter is extremely popular because it allows short, convenient messages to be exchanged. This leads to a different kind of content and communications.

Traditionally, I think television is a cool medium in that people want to relax when they watch. It is not interactive and people often want a passive experience. It is already visually rich and full of information, so people don’t need to be as aggressive in communicating (for example, compared to talk radio). However, it seems to be changing. With so many other choices for communication and entertainment (cable, satellite, Internet – email, videos, social networking etc., cell phone/text messaging), it seems that many television channels are becoming more provocative. Reality television is often designed to shock the viewer. Also, talk shows on cable news seem are becoming more provocative like talk radio.

Friendships in cyberspace

I have developed friendships that exist today exclusively online. However, they are generally with people who I knew in person in the past, such as people that I went to school with as a child. I have not really developed friendships online with people I have never met in person. I communicate with online friends through social web sites and email. These relationships are different than face to face relationships, because there is more control over the information and experiences that are shared and there is more control about when I participate in communication. We share photos and exchange messages about our families, but it is hard to get a sense of what the other person is really feeling and how they are doing. The nonverbal cues such as tone, facial expression and appearance are missing. However, it is more convenient. I can write an email or post information when I want to and can control what information I share more easily than in face to face relationships. I have not really developed online friendships with people I have never met in person. I think this is, in part, because there is a lack of trust about who the person really is, and I think it is impossible to develop a personal bond online than in face to face relationships.

Online communication

Online communication has had a major impact on the way teenagers communicate, form relationships and break up. I have two nieces that are teenagers and they are constantly either online, sending text messages or talking on the cell phone. During family events, they will be checking in on their friends and gossiping. They will even talk on the cell phone about what message to send to someone else online. This type of communication was not widely used when I was a teenager.

They seem to have far more casual friends. They share pictures, links, music and other online experiences with their friends. However, they seem detached in person and are always tethered to their online activity.

This takes away a lot from a real friendship. A new friend is only a mouse click away. The anonymity also makes them more bold. It is easier to break the ice online than to approach someone at a crowded dance, football game or other school activity for the first time (which was the main way of socializing when I was in high school).

The online communication also seems to breaking friendships easier. When something goes bad, it may be posted in a very public way that cannot be undone. In my younger niece’s junior high class, some people break up online or ridicule people on their Facebook page. Teasing and bullying is no longer limited to a small group. Everyone in the school learns about it, and it even becomes a form of entertainment and way to spread gossip.

Patterns

I think that submissive symmetry would be the most difficult to change, even though I do not think it is the most damaging pattern. When people are submissive by nature, it is often difficult to get them to change. Their personality may not lend itself to assertiveness. I think it is easier to teach assertive people to use some self control, although it may be frustrating for them. It seems pretty common in our society to teach self-control, such as not interrupting others, taking turns, and sharing, but I think it is very hard to teach passive people to become more dominant. Also, it is probably hard to get people to acknowledge that there is a problem (as opposed to an abusive relationship where one person is dominant and the other is submissive).

I think the most damaging to a relationship would be competitive symmetry, at least from a day to day perspective. There would be constant conflict and competition. This would likely lead to arguments and anger. In the long run, I think rigid complementary might be worse, such as in abusive relationships where the husband physically and mentally dominates the wife. I think these rigid complementary relationships would be most damaging to self-esteem. The submissive partner always gives in and does not have a role in the relationship to provide self-esteem. I think this is worse for a submissive stay at home parent who may judge her self worth based on the family and relationship. A submissive person who works may build self-esteem outside the house and may be willing to play a secondary role at home.

Filters and Duck's theory

In the past, I have used a number of filters to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners.

I have used sociologic and incidental cues, both when considering people initially as well as determining whether to continue a relationship. I would typically date someone from the same school or social circle. If someone was visiting or lived in another city, I would be less likely to consider them. In one newer relationship, when the other person moved, it was not worth continuing a long distance relationship.

Preinteration cues can also be important. If someone dresses in a manner that shows no care at all or that identifies them with a group that I do not respect, I am less likely to consider them. For example, the manner someone dresses may make them come across as sloppy or irresponsible. On the other hand, if someone dresses very fancy and drives a showy car, they may come across as arrogant or self-centered.

Interaction cues are very important. I may filter people out if they don’t seem engaged or interested, seem arrogant or are not considerate of others. Examples are if someone puts others down to make themselves look better, or doesn’t seem interested in what I say. Even something as simple as aggressive driving may tend to show that someone is inconsiderate of others. However, it is the overall set of interactions rather than a single behavior that create that impression.

Of course, cognitive cues are most important, if someone is still being considered. However, sometimes people will try to seem interested in the same things or seem to share common values, but they are just trying to make you like them. I find that the cognitive cues need to be judged over a period of time.

I do think Duck’s theory makes sense to a degree, although I don’t think there are strict filters at each stage of a relationship. Every person is different as is every relationship. There is no room for strict filters, the filters overlap, change, develop over time and disappear. I may not initially be interested based on early cues, but through familiarity, I may find the person to be interesting. In one case, I thought someone was arrogant, because of the way he dressed and the fancy sports car he drove. However, I learned later that it was more out of insecurity than arrogance and the person was very nice. Other times, I have gotten into a relationship and found strong common interests (cognitive cues), but did not continue the relationship because of changes in sociological and incidental cues. For instance, in one case, I ended a relationship with a very nice person when they moved away, but I did not feel strongly enough to try a long distance relationship.