KIMBER BRADY DANGEROUS LIASIONS UNIT 1 PORTFOLIO

Lecture Notes 1 From Bright to Dark

Communication Process is the ongoing flow of communication behaviors, even beyond awareness, this process is beyond words. It can be actions, eye movement, social cues, although I would this indirect communication is harder to deceiver.

Communication is human, collective, creative and regulatory. Competence in Communication is the ability to communicate in a socially competent manner. Socially competent are implications of reality-control-context-cooperation. The end result in studying communication and its implications is to become competent social beings. Communication Competence is the key to healthy relationships. Interpersonal interactions creates relationships, thus relationships are interpersonal.

Reality-control-context-cooperation in relationships Control: in a relationship there are three entities: the two individuals and the relationship. Each individual influences the other, the relationship also influences individual behavior. A great example to express this is the floating finger perception trick. This is why people in a relationship turmoil will state we need to fix our relationship or our relationship is beyond repair acknowledging the relationship as a separate entry from the individuals themselves. In this idea relationships are separate and could be thought of as their own culture. Relationships require interpersonal interactions. Once a couple, friends, mother-daughter, spend more time and interaction together their behavior becomes intermeshed. Because they have established a relationship where all three entities are influences the other two entities (interpersonal relationships can influence separate interpersonal relationship as well). Through interpersonal relations, joint behavior where the cognitive process become similar a mini-culture or shared understanding has been established between the two individuals.
Joint Behavior- Cognitive Construct-Mini Culture

Two people in a mini-culture share common ideas and perceptions about the world. They share their own world-view and agree to play by the roles and obligations that govern their miniculture. The act of communicating about a relationship is meta-communication. Personal Reflection In todays lecture I realized the importance of communication in my relationships. To even establish a relationship communication is needed. But what I realized was that to have a healthy, functioning relationship the individuals involved need to have proficient communication skills. Although, when in a close relationship a mini-culture can be established, in which

individual perceptions and understanding are aligned, relationships are an ongoing process and continued communication is need to keep understandings inline. I think that my relationship with my brothers have become strained over the years because we have failed to efficiently continue communication with each other. It has been a slow process, but when I think about them now I almost do not know who they are anymore. I mean we are family and I will always love and support them, but I do not share common understanding and perceptions of the world with them. In fact I feel as though they do not understand me and I assume about what they understand. Until today I really, but the blame on them for us going apart, but it is equally my fault because relationships are interpersonal thus require two individuals. During family dinners I do not use my communication skills to try and interline our understanding, or even just get an accurate idea of what their direct perspective is. So as we have changed personally throughout the years and have not continued to communicate our relationship has almost become non-existent. Now, we both have the choice to sit down and become familiar with each other again, or disperse our relationship. The idea of relationships fizzling because the interpersonal understanding is not there is an idea that I feel almost doesnt apply to family. I dont know if a family relationship can ever really completely disperse. Even if we were on different sides of the planet, we still are connected by that bother-sister tie. Interpersonal relationships within family structures are very interesting. There is almost an implied relationship as bother-sister even though we do not have common understanding. Or maybe that is idea is the common understanding between us? But its almost like family is the exception to the rules of communication. In family relationships you can fight and commit every other relationship taboo, but still be in that connected relationship. Like a magnet force drawing you in. I have even told family members that our

relationship is over, but within a week I am back over to their house eating dinner. Without using communication skills our relationship may not be healthy though. Maybe because as a family unit when we were younger we developed a mini-culture so strong that all the misgivings and mistreatment can not break that bond? Its almost like a miniculture that you can not free yourself from, not because you cant but because something wired deep within you will not let you? Maybe its not that the mini-culture still exists, but we have common history or memories? But when I describe past memories that include old friends, teachers, coaches, etc. the description of the relationship is past tense as well. When I speak about memories that include my bothers, the memory may be described in past tense, but the relationship is still described in present tense. At the end of the following clip from Parks and Recreation character April describes the relationship with her sister that describes the family bond. http://youtu.be/bXxQnYfh2LA So reflecting on todays lecture, I see the importance of reestablishing an interpersonal relationships with my brothers. Because we are siblings we are hardwired together by blood. This means it is all the more important that we actually understand and communicate with each other, so that this predestined relationship is a healthy and proactive relationship that we all can benefit from. Adults continue to require a source of stabilization outside themselves. Stability means finding people who regulate you well and staying near them. Thomas Lewis, Fair Amini, and Richard Lannon. A General Theory of Love New York: Random House, 2000. What better people to accomplish this with than those who you already have common gene pool with, thus somewhat of a common understanding. If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance. George Bernard Shaw, Immaturity.

Lecture Notes 2 9-13-13 Dangerous Liaisons

Misunderstandings increase with the closer the relationship gets. Understanding: congruence between one persons meta-perspective and the other persons direct-perspective. Misunderstand: a difference between those direct-perspective and ones meta-perspective Meta-perspective one estimate of the partners direct perspective Direct-perspective: what the person actually thinks

Innocent vs Motivated Misunderstanding Innocent misunderstandings are according to The Dark Side of Close Relationships are the result of innocent assumptions, a lack of information, or a failure to communicate explicitly. Misunderstandings of this nature are mostly easy to correct and are not taken personally. Motivated misunderstandings are driven by emotions, goals driven by the self motivations or affected by motives outside of the relationship. A misunderstanding that is viewed as motivated can be very hurtful to the receiver.

Most of us do not understand our own direct perspective, thus making it hard to see when we are driving a motivated misunderstanding. We must check and recheck both perspectives (meta/direct) constantly or suffer misunderstanding.

Interpersonal Properties of Perception o Familiarity/Bias- ironically, familiarity leads to bias not understanding. o Ambiguity- strategic ambiguity complicates interactive ambiguity. o Certainty- without clarifying perceptions we increase uncertainty. o Narrative and Rhetorical- our stories and arguments become one-sided and self-serving Extreme motivated misunderstanding become conflict. Solutions o Awareness of when misunderstanding becomes motivated o Realize that we rarely know what the other is thinking o We need to make perspective checking a major interpersonal behavior

This lesson really taught me something that I never knew: that I rarely (if not never) know what others are thinking. I realize now that I do a lot of assuming. I also understand now why fights with my boyfriend can get so intense sometimes. I thought that we had a relationship where we did know what the other was thinking. More importantly I thought he know what I was thinking. Now I realize that he could never know what I am truly thinking. Now our past fights seem silly to me because I was childish and romantically thinking that if he really loved me then he would truly and completely understand me. How could I think this?! I barely understand myself, how could he know more than me? A skill that I will improve on from now on within my relationship with my boyfriend as well as everyone else in my life, is perspective taking. When a conversation is heating up I need to step back and analyze the situation. I need to repeat back to him what I think his direct-perspective is and try to align our meta and direct perspectives so that we are not misunderstanding. I need to really reflect on my intentions so as the

misunderstanding is not a result of motivation on my part. I need to take responsibility for the fact that if I feel like he is misunderstanding me then it is a direct result of my lack of communication towards him. Now that I understand this I realize I am guilty of fighting in the same way Julia Roberts character does in the following clip from The Mexican http://youtu.be/AgLQ3qTL-t0 She is constantly forcing her direct perspective upon him, but her communication style is forceful and not competent. She is not trying to understand the perspective of her boyfriends, played by Brad Pitt. Instead she is intentionally misunderstanding him for her own self-motivation and intense emotional purposes. By misunderstanding him she is committing what the article says hostile reframing of anothers direct perspective, whereby the partner comes to appear simplistic, nave, or ridged. In such cases, any overlap between direct perspectives and metaperspectives is superficial and masks a deeper discrepancy.

Lecture Notes 3 9-5-13 Dangerous Liaisons

Relationships are dangerous liaisons because they are so complex. What makes it dangerous is not being aware of the complexity and making the appropriate steps.

Healthy

Dark Side

Perspective Taking o Motivated misunderstanding is the culprit o Persistence of misunderstanding = lack of perspective taking

Q: Why dont we do more perspective taking?

A: Low awareness of process, we dont have skills, we get one-sided and lose
perspective of perspective

Perspective = interpersonal interpretation = individual

Difficult Conversation A difficult conversation (or misunderstanding) has three simultaneous conversations occurring at once. The three simultaneous conversations are: what happened, identity, feelings conversation. o What happened Conversation: disagreement between the two individuals about what actually happened or what should have happened. o The Feelings Conversation: every difficult conversation asks and answers questions about feelings. o The Identity Conversation: intrapersonal conversation about what the situation means to us. The ability to operate each conversation effectively will help negotiate through a difficult conversation more easily.

What to do o Begin from the 3rd story. Both individuals stories are not perfect but the middle is closer to the truth. o Make it safe- do perspective taking. Step out of content- make it safe- step back in

I found the three conversations concept we talked about in class interesting. By deciphering a movie scene; I found this to be beneficial in understanding the underlying structure and complexity of difficult conversations. I know understand why I, like others, take extreme lengths to avoid having these conversations. It is more than just the uncomfortable characteristic of conflict. Difficult conversations are surrounded with a great amount of complexity like personal issues, assumptions and miscommunication to list a few.

In the following scene from the film The Royal Tenenbaums, written and directed by Wes Anderson, Ben Stillers character initiates a difficult conversation with his estranged father, Gene Hackman. Stillers character does not understand the underlying structure of the difficult conversation (the three conversations) he is about to embark on. Thus, the conversation plays out negatively and nothing is accomplished. Stiller yells at his dad, becomes defensive and storms off. http://youtu.be/aH9c0vmuGAI 1. What Happened: this conversation involves the mysterious adventure Grandfather and Grandchildren have been entertaining themselves with all day. Stiller had previously in the movie told the Grandfather to stay away from Stillers children, which leads Stiller to have the what should have happened assumption. The intention invention, described in the article Difficult Conversation: How to Discuss What Matters Most, is also occurring. Stiller assumes the Hackman took the children to hurt his feelings. Hackman is clearly unaware Stiller feels this way; he had only good intentions, to be more involved in his familys lives. 2. The Feelings: Stiller also has a lot of feelings involved with this conversation. Earlier in the film the audience learns that Stillers wife has recently died in an airplane crash. This crash also involved his two sons and their dog, they survived. Stiller also is dealing with abandonment issues because this father has been estranged most of his life. It is only recently Stillers Father has come back into the Tenenbaums lifes. Stiller may feel jealously that his father is paying attention to his sons in ways Stiller has always longed for. 3. The Identity: Stillers character is very meticulous and self-reliant. These characteristics are reinforced heavily throughout out the film. During this scene we have the first acknowledgement that perhaps Stiller does not have it all together and may need some

help from his family. I think youre having a nervous breakdown! I dont think youve recovered from Rachels (Stillers wife) death, Hackman screams back at Stiller during their difficult conversation. At this remark Stiller quickly leaves and ends the conversation. I believe Stillers character did this because the remark from his Father was a direct attack at Stillers identity. This attack may have caused Stillers character to do an internal evaluation of his self and determine he was incompetent. Thus the comment damaged Stillers self-image and self-esteem. This reflection has shown me how easy it is to have quick conversations that are actually quite complex. If I want to conduct a difficult conversation, perspective taking is a must! Otherwise I can see now how much bullshit gets in the way of what is actually happening. I have often overreacted during a conversation and felt very silly about it later. I can reflect back and see that I was guilty of the letting the other three conversations integrate into the difficult conversation I was engaging in. If I had done more perspective taking during the conversation I may have been able to see more clearly what has actually taking place vs. the underlying structure of the conversation. In the next scene from The Royal Tenenbaums father and son have reflected on what the other has said. They are able to acknowledge one anothers feelings and start to have an open conversation in attempts to fix their relationship http://youtu.be/KtiowtWMHxI

Lecture Notes 4 9-10-13 Motivational Interviewing: perspective taking focused on the other person Core Skills: reflecting o Helps the other clarify their direct perspective o Clarifies meta-perspective

Relationships are dynamic- constantly evolve Transitions = Turbulence

Turbulence creates pressure on the relational system. Relational turbulence is similar to individuals on an airplane that experience stress, anxiety, uncertainness, instability during turbulence.

Class activity: with partner I discussed my experience as a student at the University of Utah. During this activity we practiced perspective taking.

During lecture today, the metaphor used to describe relational turbulence via passengers in a bumpy airplane ride immediately brought a scene from Curb Your Enthusiasm to mind. In the scene Cheryl experiences real life turbulence while on a flight. She is so scared she call her husband Larry David in hopes of comfort. Instead, of comfort she experiences more turbulence: http://youtu.be/Fi9V8M6Zg_Y Cheryl tries to communicate her worry over Larrys constant chatter. Larrys behavior can be seen as interference and irritating behavior. Todays reading says that increased interference from a partner has been linked to appraisals of irritating behaviors as more severe and relationally threateningpeople interpret hurtful messages as more intentional and more damaging to the relationship when their partner has been interfering in daily routines. Thus, the end of the episode ends as following:

http://youtu.be/O06mWLxxjKQ These scenes are a funny example of the seriousness of relationship turbulence. I like that we were given a solution to relationship turbulence through motivational interviewing. Although, this technique is used by in the professional sphere, it is a technique that shows how to align your meta-perspective with the speakers direct-perspective. A good example of motivational interviewing is shown below in the clip from The Office: I liked todays lesson, because although I know my interpersonal relationships will never be without the dark side, I would like there to be less of it. I also feel that sometimes when the dark side does occur I do not turn them bright and use it as a chance to build on my communication skills and do perspective taking. Before taking this course I thought that I was communicating perfectly and that it was my partner who was flawed. Now I can see that I

was the one committing almost treason in the relationship for my extremely flawed thinking. I am happy that I have taken this course when I did. Some of my relationships have begun to really sink into the dark side. Before this course I felt at a lost of what to do to fix them. There wasnt one part of me that wanted the relationship to end, but I didnt know how to prevent that. I didnt know that really my lack (or lack of self-awareness during these interpersonal interactions) of communication skills was the reason it was slipping so far into the dark side. Now I have some ideas of what I can do in order to fix my interpersonal relationships.

Lecture Notes 5 9-12-13 Transgressions

Transgressions: a violation of norm rules, hurtful events, partner feels victimized and vulnerable, infidelity is the most common form of transgression. o Transgressions are relational, require an interpersonal relationship, interaction has to occur o Transgressions are co-created: act + response Infidelity is the pro-typical example of transgression. There is a difference between emotional and physical infidelity. When both emotional and physical infidelity occur the relationship usually dissolves. Forgiveness transgressions flood the victim with emotions; any possibility of forgiveness follows the initial emotional response. o Going from negative emotions to positive in relation to the perpetrator. This is also described as a transformation and is the essential element of forgiveness. o Forgiveness is hard medicine o Victim is who has to forgive. Thus forgiveness is more about the victim o Is forgiveness possible without reconciliation? If the victim decides to end the relationship does real forgiveness occur?

During todays lesson I thought the determinants of forgiveness where interesting. Reflecting on these determinants I thought about the apology given by the Catholic Church in response to the allegations of child abuse and cover up. http://youtu.be/SPeGI99A21E Comments on YouTube reflect an overwhelming consensus that the apology given by the Church did not seem genuine: Keven Koya posts: The most respectful thing that Pope Benedict XVI could do for the many, many victims is to stand down from being the Pope, only when he has done this can he really show the people his true remorse for the wrong that has been done and his strong yearn for forgiveness. Once he has resigned from being the Pope, maybe in time the people can forgive him for turning his back on this sustained atrocity. The seemly lack of remorse could be one of the reasons people have still not forgiven the Catholic Church. Also, the apology came after everyone found out about the crimes instead of the Church approaching the public about their wrongdoings. However, I think the main reason true forgiveness has not been given is because the crimes committed were such a horrible transgression. The transgressions affected not only the direct victims, but their families and individual members of the church. The relationship individuals have with their Bishop is one of great trust, admiration, and deity which is way the act was so offensive. The cover-up was also seen as a selfish, motivated act to save the reputation of the Church.

In class we talked about how the act forgiveness is almost liken to a spiritual journey the victim partakes in. Forgiveness is almost like an enlightenment process; the individual gets to step outside of themselves (their emotions) and function on a higher level. The act of forgiveness is also very complex and interesting. Catholic teachings, as well as many, many other religions, stress the act of forgiveness. Colossians 3:13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. (You would think then, that they would be highly skilled at asking for forgiveness as well!) In fact, the Bible tells of God giving his son so as humans can be forgiven by him. Even the high-and-mighty reaps the rewards of forgiveness, according to the Bible. Ancient texts that speak of forgiveness suggest humans had an awareness of the complexity and benefits of forgiveness early on. Religious texts even outline the steps perpetrators should take to ask for forgiveness, far before the study of communication did. Thus, possibly forgiveness is instinctual and a means of survival? If we turned away from everyone that committed transgressions against us we may end up all alone.

But, as the article, The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication, states: the fundamental irony of forgiveness is that it cannot exist in the absence of a transgression. It is unique among emotions in this regard. Because it literally transforms the negative emotions and vengeful motivations evoked by the transgression, it is a meta-emotional state that has no equivalent in the emotion domain. It is, in a very real sense, the light that replaces the darkness and illuminates a space that did not previously exist.

Lecture Notes 7 9-19-13 Reflecting on Unit 1

Relationships result from Interaction Interaction is content + process Both Dark and Bright processes influence the relationship Both Dark and Bright are always present within a relationship

Q: Should the approach to studying interpersonal relationships focus on the bright side? A: Both sides should be studied so as a full evaluation of interpersonal communication
and relationships.

Theories

Dialectical: opposing tendencies exist to some degree, individuals simultaneously flow between them

There are three primary relational dialectics:

I. Connectedness and Separateness Although it is only natural to desire a close and permanent bond in our interpersonal relationships, no relationship can endure unless the involved individuals spend some time alone. Too much connection results in the loss of individual identity.

II. Certainty and Uncertainty Relational partners need predictability along with a sense of assurance in their interpersonal relationships. However, without the spice of variety that comes from novelty, mystery, and spontaneity in relationships (featuring too much predictability), they become bland and monotonous. III. Openness and Closedness In an interpersonal relationship, communication partners feel the pressure to be transparent and reveal extensive personal information. However, this pull counters a natural individual desire for privacy. This dynamic struggle demonstrates that intimacy in relationships is not a straightline path.
(Source: Baxter, L.A. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships, 257-273.)

Presumptively/Normatively Productive Functionally Productive BRIGHT BRIGHT NOW DARK Functionally Destructive

DARK
Gangs

NOW BRIGHT

EVIL

Domestic Violence: Terrorism

Presumptively/Normatively Destructive Explanations of Dark and Bright o Bad is stronger than good o Negative interactions are more impactful then good interactions o Although negative interactions are more impactful, positive interactions are more numerous.

It is comforting to know that positive interactions occur more often, but I wonder if the reason the distortion between how often negative interactions occur compared to positive is because negative interactions are more impactful. If negative interactions are more impactful its easier to draw upon the emotions and context that occurred during those negative times. I often wonder why my boyfriend sometimes says I do not appreciate him. Although, he acknowledges that I daily tell him thank you, text him thanks and so on. I can admit, however; that when we fight I can be nasty and definitely so unappreciative behaviors and actions. I think that he may feel the way he does because of those negative interactions even though they are not as frequent as our positive interactions.

Reading Note 1 Building Interpersonal Relationships

Communication is the act of creating and sharing information, according to the article, no matter how simple or complex the communication is. Interpersonal communication (dyadic communication) is technically all communication, but is used mainly to define communication between two individuals or face-to-face communication. This communication differs from intrapersonal communication, small-group communication, organizational communication and mass communication. However, many types of communication can be occurring at the same time, for example daydreaming during a public lecture. Some argue that face-to-face communication is not enough to qualify as interpersonal communication. There must be a relationship between the two individuals otherwise the communication taking place is dyadic or impersonal communication. There are three factors, according to the article, required to communicate interpersonally: 1. Cultural level data 2. Sociological level data and 3. Psychological level data (this is the only real interpersonal according to Miller and Steinberg) I agree with Miller and Steinberg in their claim that many conversations or relationships never get to the interpersonal level according to their definition, which is based on the developmental approach rather than the situational approach. It is important to distinguish communication

between a typical (dyadic) face-to-face conversation and a deep face-to-face connection, because they are extremely different. An interpersonal relationship means more than a dyadic relationship such as an ongoing relationship or a deep connection with an individual. These types of relationships help establish a sense of self more than day-to-day dyadic interactions with people, although such interactions help define the self as well. I think interpersonal relationships help individuals understand their id whereas dyadic communications help individuals understand their ego. The effectiveness and proficiently of communication depends greatly on the relationship between the two in an interpersonal relationship. The article defines four different definitions of the word relationship. However different the definitions are they actually all overlap and help explain what a relationship is in a more complete-complex manner. The relationship between communicators in an interpersonal communication is more influential on the communication than a relationship between two individuals whom are participating in a small-group communication, although; groups are psychological more difficult to handle than dyads for most people, according to the article. Thus, group leaders usually emerge to help the difficultly of groups. Communication becomes more formalized the larger the communication group is. For example, successful organizational communication requires individual knowledge of specific individual roles and rules of behavior according to the organization. It is important to look at the differences in communication structures, because although conversations may incorporate a similar topic, the communication structure may be completely different from another conversation. In example, the article provides the difference between a presidential address and an argument between friends both are communicating about the same

topic, but the structure between these two conversations are completely different. Thus, the way we choose to communicate an issue or topic would vary extremely depending on what type of communication we plan to engage in. Understanding our relationship is important in overall communication. An understanding can help us determine: where we stand in the relationship, closeness, understanding between both parties, biases, outside influences, environmental factors, crossovers, other relationships, expectations, cultural norms and many other factors that expand or limit interpersonal communication. This also helps connect the strong influence outside factors have on interpersonal relationships, bringing into questions if there is ever a true interpersonal connection unbiased of outside factors and/or people. All of these factors greatly impact ones communication style and interpersonal relationships. Thus, these factors should always be considered because it is affecting daily interactions. Hence, understanding what type of relationship we are in helps us determine the different skills and sensitivities or communication needed to maintain different relationships. Therefore, communications does not exist without a relationship and relationships do not exist without communication, which is why successful communication is so important.

Reading Note 2
Sometimes we do not know our significant other as well as we thought we did. The article The Dark Side of Close Relationships suggests that individuals in close relationships increases the tendency to view potential sources of information selectively and make new inferences fit existing relationships theories. This goes against the basic understanding that the longer you have been in a relationships with someone the greater understanding you have of that individual. However, no differences between younger and older couples in understanding is prevalent according to the article. The article then explains the main factors that lead to misunderstanding which are: familiarity and bias, ambiguity and certainty. I have been in a relationship with my boyfriend for over six years. If I were to describe our relationship I would say its very close. We are each others best friend and spend all of our free time together. But we have a relationship dark side, for sure. Our fights might be about something little, but they escalate when one of us (me) feels like our point isnt being understood by the other. I may have said you dont understand me loudly, multiple times during an argument. Feeling misunderstood by the individual with whom you are in a close relationship with can be distressing. Because there is a greater degree of conflict and emotionality associated with intimate relationships we act with a greater degree of emotion which damages our communication effectiveness during conflicts. Understanding is most problematic in that context of emotional conflicts. Through our relationship we have become experts of one another. Becoming another persons expert allows one to make sophisticated and organized inferences, it also increases the tendency to view potential sources of information selectively and to make new inferences fit

existing relationship theories. If we allow ourselves to make inferences we limit the growth of the relationship and our partner. Individual believes, hobbies, skills, knowledge grow and change daily. A quick inference is made then we discredit the possibility our partner has developed, thus forcing ourselves to modify the existing relationship theory. I like the idea of my relationship with my partner as being ever evolving. Never completely understanding him, because like yourself, he is ever changing. Its almost like being in a relationship with a new person everyday which defiantly will keep things fresh.

Reading Note 3
From the your style under stress test I found that I turn to violence tendencies of communication. Reading through the forms of violence I can find correlations. I tend to use attacking verbal statements to win the argument instead of discussing the actual content of the misunderstanding or crucial conversations. There has been a correlation between this article and past readings in regards to the selective monitoring of communication during an argument. The article The Dark Side of Close Relationships described two different ways individuals monitor the content of an argument as selective monitoring of content and relationship meaning which they suggest is gender related. Such as males tend to think solely on the issue whereas women are more sensitized to relationship-level meaning. In the most current reading, Crucial Conversations the two sides are listed as content and conditions. The skill of perceiving both is described as dual-processing and is optimal in correctional response. Difficult Conversations authors take the two sides of ways individuals monitor a relationship on step further. Not only do they recognize the what happened structure of a conversation or the content and the feelings conversation or conditions, but they include the identity conversation. They do not associate these as gender biased, but as the underlying structure of all conversations .

Reading Note 4 Relational Turbulence: What Doesnt Kill Us Makes Us Stronger

This article furthers on the idea that within a close, personal relationship, then, partners are cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally enmeshed, that has been a prevalent argument in past reading for this class. Although, this concept is correct it doesnt take into account the fact that all things are ever changing. Change in close relationships can stem from a variety of sources, including individual growth, relationship development, or external circumstances, according to the article. Thus, individuals in a close relationship need to re-examine previous thinking patterns and behavior. Changes in circumstances decrease the effectiveness of the cognitive and behavioral connections between partners because those meshed systems are not longer attuned with the individual, relational, or eternal context for the relationship. The argument that one can never really completely understand or know their partner is both negative and positive. It is frightening to think that I dont truly know the man whom I spend almost every minute with. The idea reminisces scenes from Who the (bleep) Did I Marry?! on the Investigative Discovery channel, where one partner is left in shock over discovering the real person they married after all these years! But, the idea that my partner is continually growing and changing is a pleasurable idea as well. We have been together since we were 18 and its hard to think about spending the rest of your life since such a young age with the same person. Yet, he wont be the same person, neither will I. After ten or twenty years we

both will have experienced so much more life that will indubitably influence our cognitive patterns, emotion and behaviors. The three causes of ambiguity according the relational turbulence model are: self uncertainty, partner uncertainty and relationship uncertainty. The use of uncertainty in this article can be linked to the word unsafe in the last reading Learn to Look: How to Notice When Safety is at Risk. Understanding with yourself for a partner is approaching a interpersonal conversation with uncertainty is important because people experiencing doubts about their relationship have difficulty communicating with their partner, according to this weeks reading. Reflecting on past arguments with my boyfriend, I can see now how I experience partner and relationship uncertainty. I constantly question his thoughts about me and our relationship. I think I experience this uncertainty because when our relationships have experienced transitions I have thought so exclusively that I totally understood him and vice versa. I didnt give our relationship a chance to grow with our individual growth, I just fought it because the new transitions made me questions his motives and our relationship instead of opening up a chance for discussion and understanding. Not only did I cut off communication during those opportunities, but future communication was damaged. Relational uncertainty appears to darken a persons relational worldview, while it also exacerbates negative emotions and complicates communication between partners. Its a slippery slope, relationship uncertainty. To prevent relationship turbulence I must keep. . . bonds ambiguous so that they can be open to alternatives.

Reading Notes 5 Reponses to Relational transgressions: Hurt, Anger, and Sometimes Forgiveness
I related to this article not as the victim, but as the perpetrator. I dont like admitting to others that I have committed a relational transgression in the approach of Infidelity. I think on some extend every couple and interpersonal relationships have faced some sort of hurtful events or rule violations, the other two approaches to relational transgressions. The extent to how severe the act was is the difference. But as mentioned in the article the act of infidelity is in its own category of harshness, disrespect, hurt and pain. I know it is the last thing I would want my partner to do. I also wonder if he committed the same indiscretion if I would be able to forgive him, as I believe he has totally forgiven me. This article helped me understand how he did forgive me for an act I feel is almost unforgivable. The article distinguishes between emotional infidelity from sexual infidelity. When studies account for gender it is found that both men and women reported focusing more on the emotional aspects of their partners infidelity relative to the sexual aspects. I believe my partner understood my direct perspective of the infidelity as sexual only and not emotional, which may contribute to the event of forgiveness. Another determinant of his forgiveness is his forgiving personality. I believe the following statement describes his personality: A forgiving person is one who tends to be aware of anger-mitigating circumstances and to have highly developed emotion-management skills that

enable him or her to regulate anger and related forgiveness-inhabiting emotions. The article mentions three more determinants of forgiveness in addition to the personality variables: characteristics of the relationship between the offended and offending partners prior to the transgression, features surrounding the offense and social-cognitive determinants of forgiveness. I believe the situations surrounding each determinant that lead to successful forgiveness also applied to our relationship. Forgiveness based on social-cognitive determinants relate back to the previous article we read Relational Turbulence: What Doesnt Kill Us Makes Us Stronger in regards to the authors idea of relational uncertainty. The writings in Relational Turbulence say that if uncertainty exists in a relationship than acts by ones partner can seem more spiteful and directed towards the victim. In fact, relational uncertainty appears to darken a persons relational worldview, while it also exacerbates negative emotions and complicates communication between partners. The act of infidelity could (and probably did) invoke relational and partner uncertainty in my boyfriend. Thus, he could have taken my transgression as intentional, blameworthy, and selfishly motivated and damaged our communication with each other and the relationship. Really he had the right to terminate our relationship completely. I do feel, however; that we where both able to communicate our direct perspectives to one another and thus able to solve our relational turbulence. I say we, but really it was him that allowed the door of communication to stay open between us.

Reading Note 6 Manipulation of Self in Cyberspace

I have always avoided portraying myself online. The idea has always seemed unreal or fake to me. I felt like the ability to manipulate what people see and read about you would lead to create to misleading and believing a false self. The article Manipulation of Self in Cyberspace actually introduced me to a new concept about creating an identity online as a game or playful experience by which we gain a more in-depth understanding of the self. Into this play area the [self] gathers objects or phenomena from external reality and uses these in the services of . . . inner or personal reality. It is in this space that meanings and self are continually being created and re-created. It is only in being creative that the individual discovers the self. According to the authors manipulation of oneself online is not really a misrepresentation, but a creative means of understanding the self more completely. However, just like I had once thought manipulation of the self online can have negative effects. It can cause relationship turbulence, harm to others or an over saturation of too many identities and begin to sense the self as a strategic manipulator. Caught in often contradictory or incoherent activities, one grows anguished over the violation of ones sense of identity. When ones online activity is hurtful or harmful to others it is usually in the context of misleading someone or engaging in activities online that are viewed as hurtful to ones partner. MTV has capitalized on individuals experience with online dating in their sitcom CatFish. Each show begins with a individual who fills they have meet their soul mate via cyberspace, even though they have never physically meet or even talked over the phone in some cases. Through

exhaustive investigative efforts, the crew of CatFish is able to track down the cybermate and bring the two lovers together. But, 99.99% of the time the cybermate has mislead their lover, by either being of a different gender, far older or younger in age, fatter, inferior etc. This act is felt as a betrayal by the individual and everyone in the audience. Spitzberg and Cupach argue that is not a betrayal but that individuals are electing to present the most attractive self-online not an inauthentic self as the online daters describe. Thus, although the self-individuals construct online is not the complete self it is not an inauthentic self. Flattering online selfpresentations are not the issue, the authors say, but that the other engaging in this online self was taking it seriously and not informed of the game being played. Playing with identities online and engaging in playful experiences at love can be a health experience for many. However, what happens when an individual is being playful with construction of self and the audiences are taking this persona seriously? Online activities can also cause relational turbulence. Thence, the real world is negatively affected by the game or potential space the cyber world creates. According to the article these activities include: meeting someone in a hotel room to have sex, interacting in a adult chat rooms, having cybersex, having telephone sex, becoming a member of an adult Web site, engaging in cybersex at various times. They then went into the reason these online activities can be so seductive is because it allows one to protect their ego through the defense mechanism of splitting. Given that the interactions that take place in cyberspace can be seen as separate from the outside world, it is potentially easier to split an online affair off from the rest of the individual world.