all about the stages?

What makes up a relationship? Do you believe that relationships are all about following stages of progression? Be they for the building up or breaking down of one? Mark Knapp certainly thinks so. The relationship model that he came up with consists of 10 stages, 5 each for coming together and coming apart.

Stages 1-5 (Coming together)
1. Initiating
2. Experimenting
3. Intensifying
4. Integrating
5. Bonding

Stages 6-10 (Coming apart)
6. Differentiating
7. Circumscribing
8. Stagnating
9. Avoiding
10. Terminating

For the purpose of this entry, I will only be looking at the stages of coming together. I recently watched a show on DVD and realised that definitely not all relationships follow the above model.

taken from MyCine

What Happens in Vegas is basically a good example of that. Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) and Joy (Cameron Diaz) travelled to Las Vegas in search of a getaway due to their personal problems. They met by chance and ended up getting married overnight (Stage 5). They woke up the next morning ready to break up the relationship when Jack hits the jackpot in the casino. In order to keep their own share of the windfall, the court orders them to attempt to live their marriage for 6 months.

With money in mind, they presented themselves as a couple (Stage 4). It is only as time went by that they went through the motions of Stages 1-3. Needless to say, as all Hollywood flicks go, they eventually ended up together in the end.

Certainly, the show is made for entertainment. However, real relationships do not follow the stages and may not be as lucky too. Speed dating that ends up with marriage in a short time frame for example, shows disregard for the middle stages of coming together in Knapp's Model. And very often, intense differentiation leading to a termination of the relationship may take place due to the relationship developing too fast (Stage 6).

Thus, is there any way where we can improve on this model? Is Knapp's Model in any way flawed for our contemporary lives? Did your own relationship follow the stages? Do share with me your views.

with shades and charms

photos by runtcake

Poker is a fascinating game. Mostly dependent on luck but very much on skill as well, it calls for a great deal of thorough thinking and processing the chances that one has to win the game. What makes a good poker player, is his/her ability to read the game well. How can you read the game, is by simply observing other players' body cues.

What then easily gives a person away, when he/she bluffs is the movement of the eyes, otherwise known as oculesics. Our eyes are often the most telling when we are lying and they will tend to blink or dart when we lie. As such, many poker players wear shades to conceal their eyes, as shown in on the left in the picture above.

Another interesting fact about poker players, is that many have small little lucky charms which they place on top of the chips pile or their cards. Picture on the top right shows such an example (click on the picture for a larger view). This is known as objectics or artifacts. By using these lucky charms, which are basically personal objects, you show people that you believe in certain associations of luck and that particular object.

photo of Phil Ivey, by pokerwire

Phil Ivey, 5 times World Series of Poker champion, is well known for his composure. Even if the pot has in excess of over a million dollars, his eyes will just be staring blankly in front as shown by the picture. Opponents can hardly read him and that makes him a truly great player.

So, in times of nervousness, do you exhibit affect displays, tensing up and all, or remain calm no matter the circumstances? Do you have any special objects that you place on the table or wear special garments when you play games of chance? You may not realise it, but all these certainly say a lot about you!

brainwashed as we read?

The Straits Times September 13 2008
Headline : Bus and MRT fares to go up from Oct 1
Click on the picture for a bigger view!

To delve deeper into a side issue that I brought up last week with regard to the existence of biased reporting in the mass media, here's a report from The Straits Times announcing the fare hikes for public transport.

We have all learnt that one of the influences of selection is the mass media, and sure enough, the mass media (television, newspapers, radio talkshows et cetera) is all around us and play an important role in our daily lives.

Coming back to the article, (it is quite unfortunate that the online edition of The Straits Times requires a subscription and thus I do not have a link, but you can click on the picture for a bigger size to read though) there exists an interesting phenomenon. To quote a few lines from the article;

"It saves time, saves money. Sounds like a good plan," said Bill Yeo, an university undergraduate.

"Minimal negative impact, if any," said NUS transport researcher Lee Der-Horng.

"It is the first time that an adjustment exercise has resulted in fare reduction for many," said MP Seah Kian Peng.

What do you notice here? Well, they are all positive statements about this recent fare adjustment, whatever happened to the disgruntled voices? Why must those who take a direct route pay more than before while those who transfer buses pay less? There was no place for them on the article.

With such frequency of the mention of merits in this article, will readers be brainwashed into thinking that it is really that good? Keep in mind too that this is only one article, with the smorgasbord of reports that we read everyday, do you think that it is easy to be influenced and swayed by the mass media?

It is inevitable that a national newspaper tries to shed a good light on national policies and such, but do you think that they are overdoing it, especially when there are not even alternate newspapers to read from? My advice then, will be to read more widely from the other sources, gain more insight from different perspectives, and to of course, keep an open mind for all things. And most importantly of all, do not succumb to being brainwashed!

brawl of the browsers

As some of you may be aware, Google has launched a new browser earlier this week named Google Chrome (GC). Built with open source code, and having borrowed from other open source projects like Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, GC aims for the internet community to provide their inputs in order to achieve a more pleasant web surfing experience for all. Extremely minimalistic, clean and pleasing to the eye, Google Chrome provides yet another option for those who spend much of their time on the interwebs.

Now, what is one of the first things that you do after switching on your computer? That will be the launching of the internet browser. As such, most of the time that we spend online is done inside the browser. We surf the pages for news, look for information, send emails, do banking transactions, and connect with friends, all inside the browser. Thus, that brings about the issue, the rise of the electronic media.

It may not dawn on you, but the fact is that we absorb much information from the internet. Be they from entertainment blogs, personal accounts of events written in personal blogs or online editions of newspapers and magazines, these myriad choices often present to us an overload of information. Question is, how much of those information do you take in? Do you visit sites purely because of their entertainment value? Because of their status and are known as a credible source, and thus appealing to ethos? All of us have our own reasons, but one thing to keep in mind is that, there are no governing body to edit the information that is found online and thus we should always be skeptical and take information with a pinch of salt, especially dubious ones that you may come across.

Now, can you imagine yourself to live without the electronic media? And just getting information from newspapers for example?

photo by birdfarm

As you can see, the media scene has changed quite drastically and we now have to be very discerned readers to order to obtain accurate information online. Then again, newspapers often have their own perspective and are often biased as well. So readers, what do you think? Are you a subscriber of online/offline media, and which one do you prefer?

P.s. A little bit of trivia, US Senator John McCain (who is running for the president by the way) is an internet newbie!
Read about the article here.

Sourced from : Time.com