When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers

When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers

In partial fulfillment of the course requirements in
Communication Arts 101
(Introduction to Communication Theories)


by Jessa Loreta C. Billano
COMA101-B



Prof. Antonino Salvador S. de Veyra
COMA 101 (Introduction to Communication Theories) Instructor





March 27, 2008






When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers


About 2000 years ago, at the birth of the abacus, a wooden rack holding two horizontal wires with beads strung on them, the history of computers starts out. Blaise Pascal is usually credited for building the first digital computer in 1642.
A lot of improvements have been made since then. One of these is the coming of the Internet.
Nowadays, computers and the Internet play a vital role in our lives. These give us a lot of possibilities. Generally, our works become easier and quicker. We are able to see the world without actually traveling but by just surfing the net. We are also able to communicate conveniently with other people anywhere in the world. Not just that, while we are conversing, we see them through computer cameras.
The Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate. E-mail has been the most rapidly adopted form of communication ever known. Less than two decades ago, not many people had heard of it. Now, many of us e-mail instead of writing letters or even calling people on the phone (http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm).
However, sometimes even e-mail isn't fast enough. You might not know if a person you want to e-mail is online at that moment. Also, if you're e-mailing back and forth with someone, you usually have to click through a few steps. This is why instant messaging (IM) has become so popular (http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm).

One of the most popular features of instant messaging is chat. The communication act below is a good example of it. This is a part (end part) of the conversation of my sister (codename: Loujan_02) and a man (Bee27) she just met online. Their conversation was done with Yahoo Messenger last March 17, 2008 at around 6:00 in the evening.

Bee27: you shuld not always go out with your girl friends
Loujan_02: but y? dey are my friends…and you don’t know dem
Bee27: juz do wat don’t said. You shud learn to be independent already
Loujan_02: i wont consider that
Bee27: you must
Loujan_02: no, i musnt….
Loujan_02: i don’t know you
Bee27: you know, if you kip on going out with them, you will be like my sister
Loujan_02: whats with your sister?
Bee27: Every Saturday morning, she goes out with her friends, they go shopping and watch movies
Bee27: then she goes home late in the evening and you know what happens to her face?
Loujan_02: what?
BUZZ!
Bee27: sum up all her friends faces
Bee27: she looks like them already! Scary! Haha!
Loujan_02: ur kidding? It is not funny.=l
Bee27: no im not
Loujan_02: i don’t want to argue with you
Loujan_02: bye…….
BUZZ!
Bee27: im not done yet

The medium used by the communication act above was a computer. It was a computer-mediated communication (CMC). Therefore, Social Information Processing Theory of Joseph Walther can be used as a tool for the analysis of this communication act. Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles and Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm was also used since it was a conversation between a man and a woman, and there was a narration or story told by one of the persons in the communication act.
According to Walther (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “the human need for affiliation is just as active when people communicate online as when they are with each other face-to-face.”
He also said that, “nonverbal cues are filtered out of the interpersonal information that we send and receive through CMC.”
Thus, in the communication act between Bee27 and Loujan_02, physical context, facial expression, tone of voice, interpersonal distance, body position, appearance, gestures, touch, and smell were all missing. However, these nonverbal cues that were filtered out were not essentially critical to a well-defined impression of the other or the relational development that it triggers in the communication act. Rather, the two features of CMC, verbal cues and extended time, presented by Walther, which were foundations of Social Information Processing Theory, were the ones that were necessary and crucial in the relationship development of Bee27 and Loujan_02.

The abstract of the Social Information Processing Theory (Griffin, 2006) states that:

Based solely on the linguistic content of computer-mediated communication (CMC), parties who meet online can develop relationships just as close as those formed face-to-face – though it takes longer. Because online senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedback enhances favourable impressions, CMC may create hyperpersonal relationships.


Bee27 and Loujan_02 were not able to develop a hyperpersonal relationship, which was Walther’s term (as cited by Griffin, 2006), to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that can develop relational intimacy that surpasses what’s available through face-to-face communication. Time was an important factor to explain this. Relationship development through CMC requires a longer time frame since information exchange is much slower than that of face-to-face. In CMC, impressions are formed at a reduced rate. Bee27 and Loujan_02 chatted only for a very short time and that made the relationship development fail.
Another feature of CMC is verbal cues. “When motivated to form impressions and develop relationships, communicators employ any cue system that’s available” (Griffin, 2006).
In the communication act, the use of an “emoticon” is visible. Loujan_02 used a sad face to convey her disappointment to Bee27. She used an emoticon given that it was the only cue system that was available for her to express what she felt.
As stated earlier, “online senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedbach enhances favourable impressions” (Grifffin, 2006). In CMC, senders choose what they send, receivers interpret the messages sent by the sender by creating an impression, and the channel makes the communication possible by letting the users express themselves the way they want and when they want.
“BUZZ!” was used in the communication act. It is a button in the chat window and a verbal cue that is used when you want to get the attention of your chat mate. Loujan_02 used “BUZZ!’ after she asked Bee27 if what the matter with his sister’s face was. Bee27 took a long time before responding to the question that is why Loujan_02 became impatient and wanted a response immediately. We can see the act of selecting what the sender wants to reveal and the receiver’s magnification of the situation.
Bee27 and Loujan_02's verbal cues also reflect the cross-cultural communication between men and women.
As presented in the Abstract of Communication Theories (Griffin, 2006), Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles states that:

Male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication. Masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking. Men’s report talk focuses on status and independence; women’s rapport talk seeks human connection.


Men’s desire for status and women’s desire for connection was very evident in the communication act. Bee27 told Loujan_02 to stop going out with her friends and learn to be independent.
This simple statement strongly showed that Bee27 do not want connection or a bond with other people. Life for him was maintaining your status – your position above others.
Loujan_02 on the other hand refused and said the she will not obey him since those were her friends. She needs the connection, which she has already developed with her friends. And in the first place, Loujan_02 said that they do not know each other.
However, Tannen does not believe that men and women seek only status and connection,
respectively, but these are their primary goals.
The following types of talk which shows that women value rapport talk, and men value report talk were also apparent in the communication act: public speaking versus private speaking, listening, asking questions, telling a story and conflict.
According to Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “men seek to establish a one-up position.” This was typical on Bee27’s lecture style of telling Loujan_02 not to go out with her friends and learn to be independent. “Tannen finds that men use talk as a weapon. The function of the long explanations they use is to command attention, convey information, and insist on agreement” (Griffin, 2006).
The communication act was done in public; we can clearly see that Bee27 said more things than Loujan_02. Loujan_02’s ideas were not thriving to let him know her opinion because he keeps on talking without listening.
Men speak more in public because they feel the need to defend themselves against others to maintain their status. They are silenced in private conversations because they feel that they already do not have to talk to protect that status. On the other hand, women’s rapport style of relating, according to Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “doesn’t transfer well to the public arena, where men vie for ascendancy and speak much more than women do.”
However, Loujan_02 carefully listened to what Bee27 had to say. This was evident because she responded with her questions “what?” and, “what’s with your sister?” and so on. This also implies that women ask more questions than men because it is their way of establishing connection with others.
Bee27 seemed to be so indifferent with listening because he wanted to be just the one who must be talking. He tried to control the conversation and did not want to be interrupted. As what Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) explains, “men regard any interruption as a power move to take control of the conversation.”
When Loujan_02 refused to obey his advice to stop going out with her friends and learn to be independent, she reasoned that she does not know him. Bee27 thought of that statement as a sign of taking control of the conversation that is why he tried to go back to the topic they were talking about. He made use of telling a humorous story about his sister to do this. For him, a humorous story could persuade Loujan_02 to do what he wanted her to do.
Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) recognizes that, “the stories people tell reveal a great deal about their hopes, needs, and values…men tell more stories than women – especially jokes. Telling jokes is a masculine way to negotiate status. Men’s humorous stories have a can-you-top this? flavor that holds attention and elevates the storyteller above his audience.”
However, Loujan_02 was not convinced by Bee27’s story. She seemed to be irritated and she didn’t find the joke and story of Bee27 funny and realistic. Instead of staying in the conversation and argue with Bee27, she chose to say goodbye to avoid getting into conflict with him.
It is because, “to most women, conflict is a threat to connection – to be avoided at all costs” (Ibid, p.150).
Yet Bee27 still wanted to continue their conversation even though it seemed that they could not really understand each other. His desire to continue their conversation and more likely to persist their argument was seen when he said, “I am not done yet.”
Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) believes that, “since they [men] see life as a contest, many men are more comfortable with conflict and therefore less likely to hold themselves in check.”
In addition, according to surveys and laboratory experiments, men admit to more aggression than women do. For example, by administering what they believe are hurtful electric shocks (Eagly & Stephen, 1986; Hyde, 1986). Psychologists refer to aggression, not to assertiveness but to the physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone (Myers, 1990).
Bee27 may not be too aggressive but he became sarcastic with his words, “I am not done yet,” words that may lead to hurtful words for Loujan_02.
As said earlier, Bee27 told Loujan_02 a story about her sister. Walter Fisher (1978, 1984, 1987) believes that humans are natural storytellers. We express our stories through the narration of the things happened in sequence. In his theory, The Narrative Paradigm, he defined narration as “symbolic actions – words and/or deeds – that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create , or interpret them” (1987, p.58).
Bee27 used that to persuade Loujan_02 not to go out with her friends and learn to be independent. For him, “telling a compelling story is more persuasive than scads of statistics, expert testimony, and logical deduction” (Fisher, 1978) (as cited by Wood, 1997).
Yet, Bee27's story was not able to convince Loujan_02. That is because his story was not persuasive.
Fisher (as cited by Wood, 1997) stated that, “not all stories are equally compelling; that is, not all stories have the same power to gain or belief.” He then presented the concept of narrative rationality for judging the quality of various stories.
Two standards for assessing narrative rationality were identified by Fisher: coherence and fidelity.
The coherence criterion asks whether a story makes sense. For Loujan_02, Bee27’s story was nonsense. It had no internal coherence which means that it lacked important details for it to be believable. Bee27 also distorted the parts of the story for it to be funny which made it again violate coherence. Loujan_02 didn’t think of it as an effective story rather, it was just a joke that was not even funny.
The second standard for narrative rationality is fidelity which Fisher (1987) defined as “the extent to which a story resonates with listener’s personal experiences, values, beliefs, and self-concepts.”
According to narrative theorists (as cited by Wood, 1997), “we find stories believable when they are consistent with their experiences in our lives, and we find characters believable when they act as we do or else we would like to see ourselves acting.”
Loujan_02 found the story of Bee27 implausible since it did not fit her experiences and present knowledge. She used to go out with her friends but never did they change faces with each other or never did she get her friends’ faces. She also thought that those things were really impossible.
To sum up all that were discussed, Social Information Processing Theory explains the inherent differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and fac-to-face communication. Likewise, it pointed out that both of the two could develop a hyperpersonal relationship which was Walther’s term (as cited by Griffin, 2006), to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that can develop relational intimacy that surpasses what’s available through face-to-face communication.
The advancement of technology, specifically the advancement of computers and the Internet, makes the people do many things that were once seem to be impossible. Now, with these developments, we can already see a lot of communication theories which were, in the past, just present in face-to-face conversation. An example is the Genderlect Styles of Deborah Tannen, which sates that men and women’s styles of discourse are not viewed as superior, or inferior ways of speaking rather, these are best viewed as two distinct dialects making it a cross-cultural communication. Another example would be the Narrative Paradigm of Walter Fisher which tells us that human beings are natural storytellers and we use compelling stories to persuade other people.
In conclusion, time was a very important factor in the communication of Loujan_02 and Bee27. Relationship development through CMC requires a longer time frame since information exchange is much slower than that of face-to-face. However, they only chatted for a very short time.
Moreover, they were not able to agree on things they talked about since they have different views, opinions and desires. They, being a girl and a boy, have different cultures. Men’s report talk focuses on status and independence; women’s rapport talk seeks human connection.
Furthermore, Bee27 was not able to persuade loujan_02 with his story since he did not observe coherence and fidelity, the standards for narrative rationality.
Therefore, in the communication act of Bee27 and Loujan_02 hyperpersonal relationship development is a failure.




Literature Cited


Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2006.

Meyers, Jeremy, “A Short History of the Computer” [Online] Available (March 21, 2008)

Myers, David G. Social Psychology. 3rd ed. New york: McGraw Hill, 1990.

Wood, Julia T. Communication Theories in Action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

(http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm)

coma101........=)

Topic:

THE PERCEPTION ON THE INTERNAL DIALECTIC OF EXPRESSION/PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS


OBSERVATION

I want to blab my feelings, my wants, fears, apprehensions and all the people and things that trouble me to my considered true and special friend. Just so he’ll know and understand me. Yet, there is in me that suffers to reveal because of the fright of becoming vulnerable by disclosing personal information to someone who, I don’t think already considers me his true friend.

Everytime I experience the tension of my need to be closed and private (that is when my friend asks something about my “ex-crush/love”) I shut up and keep silent even though we are in the middle of our conversation. I know, that silence is the signal that I really want to be closed and private. after my silence, my friend acts strange. i don't know if he's angry or irritated with me because he might think that, that silence shows that i don't trust him or anything, any reason he can think of. i don't know if he understands that there are really times that i need to put up walls around me.



IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

In my study, I would like to know if what my friend thinks of everytime I shut my mouth and keep silent in the middle of our conversation. I would like to know also what other people(those who are involved in friendly relationships) think when their friend or partner does the same thing. Do they understand the Dialectic of Expression/Privacy? Or do they consider it(the silence or any signal that shows that someone doesn't want to talk about a certain thing) as a negative element in their conversation and in their relationship?


this study would focus on the Dialectical Theory of Leslie Baxter and BArbara Montgomery as a primary source to understand the contradicting tensions within relationships. the coordinated management of meaning of W. Pearce BArnett and Vernon Cronen would also be a basis to know how individuals create meanings with nonverbal actions (e.g. silence).



Dialectical Theory is a distinct theory about the dynamics of communication in relationships. Grounded in different assumptions and focused on different relational processes, dialectical theory emphasizes the continuous, inherent tensions that arise from contradictory impulses for autonomy and connection, openness and closedness, and novelty and routine. Viewing dialectics as natural, ongoing, and productive, this theory provides impressive insight into dynamics that are central, continuous, and never fully resolved parts of relational life. Dialectical Theory encourages us to understand and appreciate the contradictions and continuous changes that saturate, complicate and enliven our relationships.

Dialectical theory of Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery

Communication Theories in Action, Julia T. Wood.


the Coordinated management of meaning is concerned with how humans construct meaning for their communication. it emphasizes that we use communication rules to coordinate meanings in interaction with others. it is an interpretive theory that assumes human communication is rule guided and rule following.

Coordinated Management of Meaning of W. Pearce BArnett and Vernon Cronen
Communication Theories in Action, Julia T. Wood

routes...=)

>i read this article on the internet =) <

source: http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/fall_01/adv382j/cmoore/elaboration_likelihood_model.htm

Central route

Persuasive communication

For a message to be effective it must be persuasive. It attempts to steer one’s thinking in a direction that will likely benefit the communicator and/or the receiver. Determining whether the message is indeed persuasive is what this model is all about. If it is a neutral message, it has failed to be persuasive and the receiver can take it or leave it for what it is worth (a waste of the receiver’s time). So, assuming that the message is in some way, at least a little bit persuasive, the receiver becomes involved in the next step. For the purposes of this paper, a persuasive message should be considered to be an advertisement.


Motivation to process

In order for the receiver to have motivation to process the message it must have some relevance to her. It should pertain to something that she already knows about. At least some familiarity with the subject matter of a message will encourage the receiver to process it. People have a lot to do in a day. They don’t have a chance or the desire to think about every little thing that pops up. This is known as low involvement. When a person has little or no tie to a product or message, they have little involvement with it and thus little or no desire to hear much about it.



On the other hand is high involvement. An expert in woodcarving will want to know more about techniques and processes that he can use to refine his craft. A person suffering from asthma will want to know about new breakthroughs in the treatments that will help her breath a little easier. In shopping for a car, a consumer will want to find out about all the features of several different models in order to make an informed and confident decision before spending such a sum of money. When a person has a high degree of personal experience with information conveyed in the persuasive communication, he or she is more likely to pay attention and get deeper into the message.


Ability to process

Now the receiver has been motivated to process but does he have the ability to do so? There may be a multitude of distractions: the kids screaming for dinner, the neighbor is at the door for another cup of sugar, the receiver is thirsty and wants a drink. Other advertisements and outlets of information are also distractors. Competition among persuasive messages is fierce and the receiver’s time is precious. He may simply not have the opportunity to process the message at that particular time.



The information being conveyed may be to complex to comprehend. An asthma sufferer will surely want to know about the new product but if the ad contains a lot of technical and medical jargon, the patient is likely to be turned off because she simply cannot understand the diction. She will not elaborate on the message.



If the receiver can understand the message and there are no distractions, he or she can then go to the next stage in the model.


Nature of arguments in the message

What is the message trying to say? If it is a strong message -- that is, if it is a well-constructed and convincing message, the receiver is more likely to receive it favorably. Persuasion may occur even if the message content is in contrast to the receiver’s initial attitude. If it is in keeping with the receiver’s previous opinions, there is likely to be lasting, positive persuasion. The receiver will have been pulled even more in the direction that he or she was already leaning, thus reinforcing that particular attitude for the future. At this point it is likely that behavior can be predicted as a result of persuasion (Fishbein 1975), i.e. the consumer will purchase the asthma medication because she was persuaded based on the strength and relevance of the message. Successful persuasion has occurred!



If the receiver has become involved with the message this far into the central path but the message does not contain a cogent argument or if it contains false information there is likely to be a boomerang effect. This means that the receiver will reject the message and form negative thoughts and feelings about the message. This is especially true when the receiver is an expert or has a lot of previous knowledge about the subject of the message. She may disagree with the ideas expressed in a well-formed argument and simply reject the message. Or she may see the inadequacies of the message and dismiss it as unreliable information, failing to be persuaded.




Peripheral route

If a message fails to be channeled through the central route, it may find a path to the receiver via the peripheral route. This happens when the receiver is not motivated to think about the message, if he is unable to process it, or if the argument is weak. A message using the peripheral route attempts to persuade by focusing on issues or themes that are not directly related to the subject matter of the message. That is, the message will attempt to grab attention by making the receiver think about something that she is already familiar with and has positive thoughts about, such as sex, money, or a celebrity. An example is the use of Michael Jordan in selling batteries. There is no distinguishable tie between Jordan’s reputation as a basketball player and a battery but a consumer may be persuaded to buy the battery simply because he likes Michael Jordan. In this example Michael Jordan is a peripheral cue.



Robert Cialdini has identified six types of peripheral cues: reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity.



1. Reciprocation is the idea that the receiver is somehow obligated to agree with the message because of some past experience or information.



2. Consistency means relying on thoughts held in the past. (“I felt like this before and I feel like this now”)



3. Social proof is akin to peer pressure. The actions and words of others are likely to influence a receiver of a new message.



4. Liking simply means that the speaker is likeable. They may be physically attractive, charismatic, or charming.



5. Authority is the sense that the speaker has some power over the receiver, be it an expertise in the subject matter or possibly an overbearing attitude.



6. Scarcity is the idea that the message will only be around for a short time and that the receiver should snatch it up before it disappears.



Each of these peripheral cues has little or nothing to do with the actual content of the message. (http://www.as.udayton.edu/com/FACULTY/Kenny/chap17.htm)



So if the message fails to take the central route at any step in the process (i.e. if the receiver is not motivated, does not have the ability, or if the argument is weak) then the next question is whether there is a peripheral cue present in the message. If there is no cue present, the original attitude will be retained. The attempt at persuasion will fail. If there is a cue, it may produce a positive, but temporary attitude change.



Although the attitude change may be temporary, it could be enough to encourage action. The consumer would then have some more experience with the object of the message. Then, later, when the message is repeated, it may have a better chance of surviving through the central route and change attitudes permanently.



For example: a student needs a new backpack. A Jansport ad happens to come on TV with kids looking cool and having fun with their new packs. The ad touts a few benefits but for the most part the ad is full of appealing visuals. The student is then peripherally motivated to buy a Jansport backpack. The student discovers that the pack is quite a nice and useful one and comes to respect the brand in general. The next time the ad comes on TV the student will have had some practical experience with the brand and will be more motivated to listen to the message and reinforce the positive opinions of Jansport backpacks. Even the very repetition of the message will serve to reinforce the opinions of the student. (Eagly 1993)

***************************************************************************************

we were tasked to choose two TV advertisements — one that we think will be centrally processed, and the other we think will be peripherally processed.




PERIPHERAL ROUTE

Advertisement:

myra-E multivitamins

Motivation to process:

"be blooming."
she says those words perfectly.
I really admire Dawn Zulueta. that is why i always stop every time her myra-e commercial apperas on tv. she is beautiful. she doesn't look like her age.

ability to process:

sometimes i already want to believe that myra-e is effective. but the thought that dawn's beauty was in born and not really because of myra-e makes me realize that it may not be useful for me.

CENTRAL ROUTE

Advertisement:

Nescafe

Motivation to process:

drinking coffee is a part of my college life. i can't stay awake all night and study if not because of this.

ability to process

i was able to process the message. aside from it is calm and light, it shows the bonding within friends who drink the coffee. it keeps them awake and enjoy their moment with each other. it may be funny but what i have in mind now (that also made me captured by that advertisement) is that, i can stay awake all night and enjoy my every moment with my lessons, reviewers, books and notebooks. hahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

"one moment. one nescafe!!!"


=)

don't ya!

don't mess with me...


i'll show you what i've truly got.


hahaha!!!

u'v got mail Jim...

"Shelley and Jim have been dating very seriously for about six months. From the beginning of the relationship, Jim has known that Shelley has kept a private diary that he has never shown anyone. At first, he wasn’t too interested in this activity, but as they have drawn closer, he has become intrigued by her personal writings. Yet he never asks if she would share her prose with him, she responds that she needs secret place to work out her thoughts and emotions. In conversation, she never holds back from him, freely self-disclosing about herself and their relationship, but the diary remains all her own, and Jim is perplexed, even disturbed by this. The more interest he shows in her private writings, the more adamant about her privacy she becomes. What should they do?"


This letter is for Jim. i don't know how to send it to him, i just hope he could read this post of mine.

Dear Jim,

Hi!

maybe you're a little curious why i wrote you this letter. I am just concerned with your situation. (actually,the amin reason is that, this is my assignment..lol!=)

there are no better ways to explain what Shelley is going through right now than telling you about the RELATIONAL DIALECTIC OF EXPRESSION/PRIVACY.

it doesn't mean that if Shelley wouldn't let you read her diary, she doesn't trust you anymore. According to the relational dialectic of expression/privacy,there are really contradicting tensions within individuals. This is the desire to be open and expressive, and the need to be closed and private. she feels the struggle between self-disclosing and keeping personal information.

to tell you honestly, i am experiencing the same thing with a friend. there are times that i want to talk about my feelings, my fears, problems, likes, dislikes and so on. that is so my friend would understand me. yet there are things that must remain to be completely private. they are parts of my self that should be preserved and not shared to anyone.

you could not blame shelley. all of us could feel the same way. you should understand her in the first place.

if you would mind, please read my older posts about it. they would be of great help.

do not ever think that i just go with the side of Shelley because we are both girls.
please deal with my simple advice smartly.

until here. God bless you!

p.s.

I am conducting a research about developing personal relationships through the dialectic of expression/privacy. could you be one of my respondents? thanks in advance.

truly yours,


jessa



"I enjoyed seeing my old high school friends over the winter break, but my parents really got on my nerves. They nagged me to come in early in the evenings, and they saw to it that sleeping-in was impossible. I had to eat on their schedule. My mother’s having a real problem letting go of mothering me — she still treats me like I’m ten. When I protest she says, “You have to understand that you’ll always be my precious little child.” For some reason, that bothers me, and I stomp around and say something like “I’m an adult, so treat me like one!” or “As my mother, you ought to understand that I need my autonomy!” Then she gets huffy and claims that my manner and tone of voice are unpleasant. Or she’ll say, “I don’t like your body language.” I wish she’d focus on what I’m saying instead of getting off on tangents. One time she said to me, “You just hurt my feelings,” but I hadn’t even said anything! My father’s obsessed with my smoking. He claims that the secondhand smoke bothers him, but it really bothers me that he never complains when his buddies smoke in his presence. He’s also been riding me because I changed my major from premed to communication. He says, “I wish you’d go back to being premed-not for me, but for your own future.”

From my first day at home, I tried to be assertive about my needs and values and have done my best not to back down, but they just don’t seem to appreciate my efforts to be my own person. There’s not much giving in around the house. I wish they would let go. And my little sister is acting strange. My parents claim that she was an angel all fall, but when I arrived home I quickly saw that this couldn’t have been the case. The whole time I was there, she was getting into trouble right and left, continually requiring my parents to drop whatever they were doing — especially when it was something with me — to deal with her crises. Just when Dad and I were about to leave to attend a concert I’d been looking forward to for days, she announces that she thinks she’s pregnant. Of course that brings down the house, and the concert is forgotten. And of course she isn’t pregnant.

Later, when I called her on it, she told me that I was the one who was out of line. She complains about my yelling, and the way I talk to her. Can you believe that? I told her, “You ought to take my advice because I’m older than you!” She shoots back, “You ought to leave me alone because you don’t really live here anymore!”

Honestly, I love my family, but they’re nuts, and they drive me crazy. I’m sure glad to be back at school.

Now if I could just get my roommate to listen to reason…"



Dear whoever you are,

greetings!

you also drive me crazy. i think you are the who's going nuts.

haha!!!

just kidding.

by the way, i am jessa. maybe you are thinking that i have no right to mind your own business. oh well, i really do not have it (but i have to have!haha!it is my assignment!)

i just want to ask you this question, do you know the Watzlawick's Interactional View?

that would really help you develop your relationship with your family.
i will tell you a little about it. if you just know the levels of meaning, you would know the difference between the content meaning or the obvious meaning, which is the content of what is said, and the relationship meaning which carries information about your relationship with your family.

you would also understand your mother and father saying all those things to you. they are your parents and nothing in the world could change that. they are still superior and they have the power to say what you must do. yet at some point, they may be wrong, but that doesn't mean you'd lose your respect to them.

have a talk with your family. say what you feel about the things that are going on. try to explain in the most subtle way your side, the one that you think is right.
listen to them also. they have so many things to tell you.

you should be happy, you are with your parents, your family. think of all the sons and daughters that are not with their parents. think of me!!!(emo!haha!)
the time when you will have your own family, you would understand fully what's the real score between you and your family.

until here. God bless you and your family!

truly yours,


Jessa

talo!

lakad.
takbo.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.
nabuwal.

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

nadapa.
nabuwal.
naputikan!

bangon.
lakad.
takbo.

hingal.
buntong-hininga.

pagod.
poot.
galit.

sumuko.

talo.

for us!

FOR IN LOVE


one by one, take time to enjoy...



the mystery,



the beauty,



the sheer wonder of life



that surrounds you

every day.


=)