*Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?
Once reading about Duck's theory on attraction I learned that I am guilty of using pre-interaction cues. I know that when I check out a guy I look at his physical appearance, the way they are dressed and so on. For example if I saw some skater guy with big baggy clothes and long greasy hair wearing a beanie I probably wouldn't turn my head twice. (And yes I realize that I just made a big stereotype, but it is for the sake of my example.) However, if I saw a tall guy dressed in a polo and fitted jeans with short hair and a clean shaved face I would give him a double take; these are all examples of pre-interaction cues that I use.
I know this sounds cliche but I definitely measure attractiveness by the heart. I am engaged and in order to get to this step Brad my fiance had to fit the mold of the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. Yes, on the surface he is good looking but it is his heart that really made me fall in love with him. He has such a passion for life, he does everything full out. He loves the Lord with all of his heart and this is a number one priority in finding a spouse for me, because I am a christian. He also is very kind a respectful and has a soul of integrity and he is very loyal.
Brad isn't the world's idea of perfect he has one leg and to many girls who are using Duck pre-interaction cues this would be a red flag telling them they are not interested. I got to know Brad as Brad and I don't care that he is missing a limb because he is more complete then any other man I have ever met. Sometimes we miss out on the amazing relationships when we use pre-interaction cues. I am very glad that I didn't judge Brad by his physical appearance or else I might not be getting married.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
What I found Interesting this week...
I really enjoyed reading about the cause of conflict and interpersonal conflict on pg 164. I liked the way conflict was defined as "whenever two people have incompatible goals." Here is a silly example from my own life. The other night my fiance really want to be close to me and kiss me, however, I was exhausted and wanted to sleep. My desire to sleep and his desire to be intimate are definitely incompatible goals.
I also enjoyed reading up on the way people express conflict. Some people are the withdrawers and others are the forcers. I am definitely a withdrawer as for my fiance tends to use more of the forceful tactic or a compromiser. I hate dealing with problems and will often avoid them if I can, which isn't healthy because then the problem usually only gets worse. Either I withdraw or I accommodate, meaning I give in to what the other person wants right away which is another way of giving up or not really dealing with the way I feel about a problem. It was good for me to realize where I need some work in expressing conflict in a productive way. Conflicts have to occur for growth to occur and this is a lesson that I am continually learning.
I also enjoyed reading up on the way people express conflict. Some people are the withdrawers and others are the forcers. I am definitely a withdrawer as for my fiance tends to use more of the forceful tactic or a compromiser. I hate dealing with problems and will often avoid them if I can, which isn't healthy because then the problem usually only gets worse. Either I withdraw or I accommodate, meaning I give in to what the other person wants right away which is another way of giving up or not really dealing with the way I feel about a problem. It was good for me to realize where I need some work in expressing conflict in a productive way. Conflicts have to occur for growth to occur and this is a lesson that I am continually learning.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Week 11 Post 1
*Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?
I think that the competitive symmetry may be the most difficult pattern to break or change. In this pattern both people experience the one-up syndrome where they have to be the best. It is frustrating for both people in the relationship because neither one is willing to back down. This pattern can be seen a lot in athletes because athletes are trained to be very competitive and they have to win. In relationships there has to be give and take, not one person can always be the winner.
I think that rigid complementary would be the most damaging to a relationship because one person is feeling resentful and the other is feeling dissatisfied. If one person in the relationship is always dominant over the other then there is obviously a lack of communication. It is never good for a relationship for one person to always be in control. I know that if my fiance was always dominant then i would feel unappreciated and resentful and we probably wouldn't be getting married.
I also think that the rigid complementary pattern would be the most damaging to someone's self-esteem. In the rigid pattern there is someone who fills the submissive role. When someone is always submissive then they aren't ever getting what they want but they are doing what the other person wants. Not getting what you want can definitely be damaging to your self-worth because the relationship is making you feel like your wants and needs aren't important, therefore you aren't important.
I didn't feel that submissive symmetry pattern really fit any of the questions that is why I used the rigid pattern twice.
I think that the competitive symmetry may be the most difficult pattern to break or change. In this pattern both people experience the one-up syndrome where they have to be the best. It is frustrating for both people in the relationship because neither one is willing to back down. This pattern can be seen a lot in athletes because athletes are trained to be very competitive and they have to win. In relationships there has to be give and take, not one person can always be the winner.
I think that rigid complementary would be the most damaging to a relationship because one person is feeling resentful and the other is feeling dissatisfied. If one person in the relationship is always dominant over the other then there is obviously a lack of communication. It is never good for a relationship for one person to always be in control. I know that if my fiance was always dominant then i would feel unappreciated and resentful and we probably wouldn't be getting married.
I also think that the rigid complementary pattern would be the most damaging to someone's self-esteem. In the rigid pattern there is someone who fills the submissive role. When someone is always submissive then they aren't ever getting what they want but they are doing what the other person wants. Not getting what you want can definitely be damaging to your self-worth because the relationship is making you feel like your wants and needs aren't important, therefore you aren't important.
I didn't feel that submissive symmetry pattern really fit any of the questions that is why I used the rigid pattern twice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)