Using Media More Responsibly

The concept I thought would be tremendously useful is the concept on “Using Media More Responsibly” (Trenholm, 2008). I believe these tips in becoming a conscientious and more considerate media user will help people out a great deal. The first tip that Trenholm suggests is to know and understand that the media does affect us. We need to recognize how big of an impact that the media has on us and be able to judge what is true and fair. Secondly, most of the time when the media gives us facts, we tend to believe them right away, which often become to lazy to process what they are telling us, and instead just believe them. We need to understand what is going on around us and question what they are telling us. This will help us become more aware and knowledgeable, which will ultimately cause us to demand more truthful facts. Another tip is that most of us have issues with talk shows and other forms of media, however we never do anything about it, which causes more distasteful talk shows. We need to start to raise our standards, being aware and doing something about these unpleasant forms of media, will help us become more responsible media consumers. Lastly, by understand the distasteful form of media and rejecting it from our daily lives will cause us to want to find out other resources to use instead, more tasteful entertainment, perhaps. Being able to use these tips will help us become a more responsible and caring media user. I believe that these tips can help us out in a sense we might top watching and wasting our time with the junk on television.

Medium is the Message

I do agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message in a sense that it’s just as important as the content of the message. I believe that it determines whether or not someone will receive the message in the correct way or at all. For example, sending content through text messages, sometimes people never get them or get them to late because of the phone companies or sometimes people misinterpret what the message actually says. I know for me I sometimes forget I get a text message and never even respond back. However, if someone were to call me I’d answer back right away most of the time and in person of course I’d answer back. It just depends on the medium in which the message is sent. When it comes to his idea that television is a cool medium I think McLuhan has the right idea. For some people sending a message through television works for them, while others the radio might be a better way. I also, believe with McLuhan that people are getting extremely use to how television sends out information in a short and simple manner, which for most people works for them because there isn’t enough hours in the day. I think that they want abstracts in the newspapers, books, and magazines because of this same reason. That they are used to it on the television as well as it works for them in their everyday life. People also like to have a visual of what is going on, which television provides. When the newscasters show us clips of what may be happening or where something did happen we can put the story and the picture together. It changes the way we think.

Cyberspace Friendship

Surprisingly, I just recently met a friend exclusively through cyberspace. However, I am almost always against it, it’s a little different because this friend, is actually one of my best friends cousins. I’ve never met him because he is currently in Florida going to school. We met over Facebook, he requested me because I had the same last name as one of his friends, and he thought it was cool because if you know my last name it isn’t common. Well, we got to talking a great deal and now were extremely close friends. It’s different from a f2f relationship because of the fact that he can’t judge me. He has never seen me in person and doesn’t necessary know how I act around other people. He can’t judge me by the way I dress or how I am with other people. I’ve opened up to him in such a sort amount of time and I never do that, not even with my very closest friends. I feel like I can tell him anything and he honestly feels the same way. He is extremely honest and gives me great advice and there is no judgment. He is supposed to move back to the bay area and I am a little nervous because I don’t want to lose this great relationship. I would never have considered having a cyberspace friendship because of all the wacky people out there, but it’s nice to know that he is my best friends cousin and that’s why I believe I’ve let this friendship get to the extent in which it is in.

Managing Interpersonal Conflict

I chose the concept managing interpersonal conflict because I found it very interesting. The reason for this is because I, myself do not handle conflict well. I am the type that hates to fight and rather drop the conflict then working on it because I don’t like confrontation. I don’t like arguing and most of the time I feel as though the problem isn’t that important to even bring up. My mother says I get it from my father, which I believe is true. Whenever my father and I have an argument, we usually drop it. We don’t talk about it and we go about our day. My mother hates this, she believes that you need to talk each problem out, whereas my father and I don’t like to deal with it or waste our time. This is why I believe I am more of a person that withdraws. This is basically when conflict arises, I change subjects or just let it be and try not to focus or do anything about it. This is not the best approach sense usually, all my anger builds up and I tend to explode on the wrong moment. The book makes interesting points, where some people will accommodate to a situation, which I have done. It’s basically when the person gives in because they don’t feel like its important and they rather make the other person happy. This can be okay in certain situations, but not important ones. Compromising is something I do need to work on, it will probably help me not to explode less as well as work on communicating to the other person what I feel and listening to what they feel. There is also problem solving, which is discussing a new solution to the problem at stake. I felt as though these concepts can help me a great deal when it different relationships, which is why I choose it.

Filters- Duck’s theory

Honestly, I have to be physically attracted to someone, before even talking to them. Once, I am physically attracted, their personality has to be attracting as well. I’m not going to be able to be romantically into someone, without being physically attracted to them first. Duck’s theory makes complete sense, some filters I use more than others, when considering if they can be potential romantic partners, but I do and have used all of them before, it just depends on the situation. I’ve eliminated different men using different filters it just depends on the situation I am in. However, I usually use interaction cues and preinteraction cues the most. If I can’t hold a conversation or feel comfortable being myself around that person, then I will eliminate that person. I’ve connected with someone the first time I’ve talked to them, you feel a sense of comfort and you learn you can be yourself. Preinteraction cues are also important to me when deciding. If there nonverbal messages come off as they are better than me, they don’t take care of themselves then I usually won’t waste my time. I know what I like when looking at a person. If they look like they haven’t shaved in a couple weeks, it shows me they don’t care about themselves, which tells me they probably don’t care about working and having a successful life or goals. It may seem harsh, but I’ve been hurt way too many times, not to judge someone or eliminate them because of this. Of course sociological cues have an effect on a relationship; I don’t want to get involved with someone they won’t ever be around. It’s just pointless to me. There are a great deal of reasons why we eliminate people, most of the time we know what we want, so why waste time.

1) Rigid Complementarity, Competitive Symmetry, & Submissive Symmetry

I think the most difficult one to change is submissive symmetry. I am an extremely submissive person; I rarely like to make the decisions when it comes to being in a relationship with a significant other, or just in a friendly friendship. I need the other person to be the opposite of me and help me make the discussions rather than setting there, going back in forth trying to force one another to decided something. I don’t think anything ever gets done that way. I believe that most relationships are rigid, which is okay because most of the time each person takes a turn being dominate. Competitive can be a difficult one as well, but I am an athlete and I can easily change my competiveness on and off, especially if it might hinder a relationship. However, I do think that competitive symmetry is the most damaging. Unlike the submissive symmetry where the partners are trying to make one another happy, usually in a competitive symmetry relationship the people in it are only focusing on themselves. They don’t realize that it’s taking a toll on each other because they are so caught up in “winning”. When the realization happens, it’s usually too late to fix. I think rigid complementarity is extremely damaging to an individual’s self-esteem, especially if you aren’t the dominate one in the relationship. If you’re in a relationship, which I myself have been in where the other person takes control and basically tells you what you need to do, you’re always wrong, you start to believe it as well as start to think badly about yourself because you seem to be doing nothing right. There are ups and downs to all three patterns and it depends on the type of relationship to realize which one is damaging to the relationship, oneself and which one is difficult to change.