Ethnograherssss

Ethnographers have multiple moral dilemmas to face when embarking on research journeys. The definition alone says their observations are scientific not personal. As an ethnographer you must observe people in their own territory, therefore befriending or dating a person in that territory is their way in. The only reason they are establishing a relationship with that person is to discover or uncover the facts and information hidden within the people that make up a certain territory. We've seen this many times in movies and books but that's fantasy and usually always ends up okay in the end. But this is real life, real peoples lives that these ethnographers are intruding on. Most of the time an ethnographer will have a buddy, or informant to help answer questions and set up personal interviews. I think being an ethnographer who is preforming an overt roll as opposed to covert is more beneficial for making real friends and avoiding hurting people. But I do understand the covert role as well to truly observe others in a natural state. When people know they are being watched they act and say different things. In order to resolve some of these issues on a moral level, I would put others before me. Let them know I am observing and become apart of their territory in a positive and aware manner, instead of sneaking in and possibly hurting others around me.

Research Methods

 Which of the research methods listed in Table 13.3 seem the most interesting? Assume you want to study some aspect of deception. Frame a research question. Which method would you choose to answer the question. Why?

Ethnography would be my top choice for a research method. I think the idea of going undercover would be exciting. Fully experiencing the events and taking in others (you are observing) in a natural state in my opinion would be a great way to discover deception, create new hypothesis and see the raw emotions from people.

How is it that some long distance relationships are successful and others are not, and what is the secret to making the relationship work.

I research method I would use to answer this question would be Mixed Methods. I didn't choose Ethnography because that wouldn't be right to just have a long distance relationship to see if it worked. But, mixed methods I can take a survey, dig deeper into people thoughts with the conversation analysis method or subjective performance methods and visually digest the relationships of others. All research methods are very helpful I think it's important to choose the right one that runs parallel to the topic of your research question. There are no limits to the amount of information available to use and it's important to utilize all of our resources.

Earned not Given

Trust is an expectation that others will act in consistent and dependable ways.  Trust is synonymous to certainty, belief and confidence.  When communicating, it is imperative to have trust.  Whether it is trust in an employee, peer, friend, partner effective communication can only exist if there is mutual trust.  Many studies have shown that trust in association with group or organizational performances is enhanced and effective when attempting to achieve an overall satisfaction or a group of individuals.  In my personal opinion trust has many levels and holds higher meaning in different situations.  For example, in a group project I am counting on my peers (trusting them) to complete their part of the assignment-small amount of trust because it is required not by me but the professor to complete the assignment.  An example where trust is much more valuable would be between me and my boyfriend or my sisters.  There are certain people you will meet in life that are worth trusting and then there are those that will betray you.  It's important to learn who you can trust and then to think about yourself, what makes you a trustworthy human and why others should put trust in you.  I think there are too many people who forget simple values and get lost along their way through life.  Like respect, trust is earned not given.  Once that trust is broken, it's almost impossible to gain it back.

E.T. Phone Home

Yes, to an extent I feel that Marshall McLuhan does a detailed job of stating television is a cool medium because it demands full attention to detail by the viewers.  Also the person on TV delivering the message represents the cool factor engaging the audience holding the medium.  To be on TV in our society means to be very successful, outrageously sexy and talented.  People who watch TV hold on to these values and want to watch these people's lives and follow them through the cameras.  McLuhan compares TV and radio in a cool-hot distinction.  Meaning, radio personalities are people undesirable for television.  Their voice is more appealing than their physical appearance.  Which is harsh, but the media and television interest is in the best of the best.  We watch, admire, look up to idols with flawless skin, a tight physic and unique talents.  We don't want to watch average people doing day-to-day busy work.  The medium of television holds excitement and a reality we want to believe is real.
The way viewers interpret the messages from TV vary drastically.  Depending on what shows and programs you are fascinated by depicts the type of cool medium you absorb.  I do enjoy watching TV: The Discovery Channel, A&E, FOX, etc and I will indulge in some reality TV like Big Brother and Survivor.  However, I do not find The Jersey Shore or Real World to be entertaining at all.  Those messages are lost on me.  But I know hundreds of people love that type of TV so they are reached through their own medium.  I don't think it really matters what message is being transmitted, it matters who is absorbing it and what is actually meant to be absorbed.

Friendship

Yes, I have made a friendship the existed exclusively online until last September when we actually met in person. Both my parents got in to online poker a while ago and at one table my Mom kept playing with the same guy. They ended up talking and then playing together for a very long time.
His name is Mike and he lives in Chicago, a film student, twenty-four years old and wants to come to Southern California to start a career. I became very sick my senior year of high school and was in the hospital for a little and to keep me distracted my Mom got me playing poker too. So Mike and I would play together and he would teach me strategy and then we just became friends. Started talking about our lives and what's going on day-to-day stuff, what we want to be when we grow up, etc.
It's different from a face-to-face relationship in the sense that your friendship consists of only communication. There is no physical response or feeling because when you do talk- you talk to a computer screen. Until Skype was invented; but even then you see the person on a screen, you cannot touch them, smell them or connect on a physical level. Not that I wanted that with him. I actually had a boyfriend a the time and for the next five years.
I never developed romantic feelings for Mike, he is an attractive young man and I do know a lot about him. We still talk to this day and I care about him very much, I wish him nothing but the best! But I prefer face-to-face relationships instead of a computer relationship.
I think depending on the person, a lot of people like cyber relationships because it is easier for them to express themselves online than it is in person. It's not like that for me. But I'm not against it, Mike is a great person and I never would have met or became friends with him if it wasn't for technology and cyberspace! Haha

Me, Myself & I

Hidden Agenda
A personal goal that lies below the surface and that can get in the way of group performance.
An unfortunate element I'm assuming amidst any group that is formed. I believe we join or create groups in order to feel apart of something. While apart of that something we decide to set personal goals and then use this group to accomplish our own goals. I don't believe it's fair to short side the group and only work for yourself. But I do believe it's important to set goals for yourself and associate yourself with others that want the same thing.
My entire life I have played sports, I have learned how to be a team player and put others before myself but I have definitely experienced others who only put themselves first. Those people are usually the ones that don't make it. You can't forget those who helped you accomplish a goal because a lot of the time you need support from others.
Having or maintaining a hidden agenda is sneaky, unfair and almost malicious in my opinion. I love to help people, it makes me feel good and it makes them feel good too. I don't help people to feel better about myself, it just happens when you work together with others and achieve a goal together. I feel having a hidden agenda would hinder your chances of becoming who you want to be and what you want to accomplish.

Sweet You Rock & Sweet You Roll

While I contemplated my own filters for eliminating potential romantic partners I realized that it's initial attraction that gets me intrigued. But it's also the way I'm feeling about myself and my surroundings. Duck's theory does make sense, when it comes to using the sociological incidental cues because given my environment, it will play a role in choosing a potential partner. If I'm positively responding to my surroundings and I'm comfortable in my element I'm more inclined to entertain a conversation and engage with another person.

I mentioned an initial attraction will capture my attention and I think that's important, if I find you attractive I will invest more into the conversation or be more open to even have a conversation. I think the same goes for a lot of people. If we find someone attractive we will walk up to them and begin a conversation, within that conversation we learn a little bit about that person and make a more educated assessment of the potential partnership we may or may not start together.
The pre interaction characteristics I use to eliminate potential partners is their nonverbal behavior along with their look(s) and the way they carry themselves. If you are sitting alone with a crappy look on your face, dressed down and lazy... I'm probably not going to engage in a conversation with you. One because you are probably having a bad day, two the look on your face is making you appear unapproachable and three, if you look lazy... You probably are. But realistically, that person could be incredibly interesting and a lot of fun to be around... they may just be having a really, really bad day. But my first impression of you wasn't the best, therefore before we even interact I've already made a decision.
Moving forward if I am already participating in a conversation with you the cognitive cues are critical. Does the conversation matter? Yes and no, depending once again (in my opinion) on our environment. In a bar, probably not haha it's hard to have a meaningful conversation in a bar the first time you're meeting someone. I don't feel it's appropriate to have a deep conversation or to disclose specific information to someone you have just met. But I don't think that's a bad thing, it's light-hearted and fun, flirty and endearing. Flirting is important, it shows interest and complements each partner equally. If you are having a good time, and the other person is making you feel good then it's a good thing! Haha Enjoy it, if the romantic relationship doesn't spark then it doesn't matter because you could have made a new friend and I don't think a person can have too many friends.

Pattern Play

I believe that the symmetrical pattern would be one of the most difficult patterns the change given the fact that neither partner continuously makes the decision. The symmetrical pattern seems the most common, and I believe the one I would prefer. Equally deciding what to do and how to do it seems more natural to me. Yes, it can get tricky when neither person gives a definite answer but I would rather participate in that than always making the decisions or never being able to. I think in order for relationships to be successful each partner needs to put in the same amount of effort.

The competitive symmetry I feel would be the most damaging to a relationship. The description alone states one-up and one-down, meaning one partner will always make the decisions while the other just follows along. This can be very detrimental to a relationship if the partner in the one-down position argues or goes against what the other has chosen. This can lead to fights, hurt feelings and other complications within the relationship. Both positions are equally challenging because the one-up is required to make the decision, which some decisions can be very difficult to make. While the one-down has to stand by their partners decision even if it is the wrong one or one they don't agree with. Both roles seem very tiring.


The submissive symmetry pattern I think would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individual who is chosen to be the one-down partner. Always having a dominant and submissive role sounds exhausting. However, always being on the bottom without making a single decision can be very harmful. If you cannot make decisions in your relationship how can you make other decisions about your life? Pretty soon you will have to ask your significant other what you can and can't have for dinner or what shoes to wear. I think that in becoming a submissive you could lose the gift of thinking for yourself. It doesn't matter if the man or woman is in the dominant/submissive position, because I think in order to have a successful relationship each partner needs to hold a piece of their own in both positions.