5. I feel as though I have tried to be helpful in marshaling our resources. The only resources our group had that I can think of are time and ideas. I did my best, particularly in the fishbowls but also in the group projects, to make sure we used our time efficiently as possible. However, Steph was the one who dictated what we did when (with a few exceptions). As for ideas, I think I came up with some good contributions, both in my blog and in class.

7. Everyone in the class is using this class to fulfill an individual and group irrelevant, as that is the need of 3 credits and possibly the fulfillment of an interpersonal requirement (as in my case). Possibly, there may be some here who don’t need anymore credits and just want to educate themselves. This is an obvious need, and has nothing to do with whatever basis it is that I deserve a passing grade. I deserve a passing grade because I’ve done all the work asked of me and more, and I’ve been actively participating in our group. If I didn’t pass this class I’d probably have a conniption.

10. We obviously don’t have optimum configuaration as it took our class about two months to refine a concept that doesn’t even work. We definitely could have used more “iniatator-contributors” as we really only mustered one concrete idea. I’m sure these ideas were there, maybe it would have taken some “opinion seekers” to draw them out. I think could have used more input from an orienter at times. A stronger “evaluator-critic” could have pointed out the flaws in our plan. “Harmonizers” and “compromisers” probably could have worked out something between those who wanted to explore other options and those bent on a guide, but instead we bickered for few weeks. We may have had an “ego ideal,” however, I don’t think there was much of a “standard setter.” We certainly had enough followers.

11. I think that at the beginning, most people were acting as followers. However, once we realized the structure of the class, members started assuming different roles. I don’t think at the time we realized we were missing certain roles, for example a “gate-keeper and expediter,” it was more that people stepped up to the plate.

12. What chart?

15. In small group assignments especially, I feel as though often I have been an elaborator, explaining the content to the rest of my group. Also, especially in small groups, I often try to take charge and be a “iniatator-contributor” and propose ideas. However, at the same time I want to be respectful of other’s opinions, so I play the opinion seeker role.

16. I think that I most often play the elaborator, orienter, and evaluator-critic. I don’t think I so much switch as I do play multiple roles at the same time. I decide how to act when based on others actions. If no one is stepping up, or I feel like people aren’t performing as well as I think I could, I take action. For example, I recall raises criticisms about the relevance of certain discussions because they were unnecessarily hanging us up but we continued to debate.

18. I think that my resistance probably causes me to take more negative roles, such as the critic. Being without direction and even goal but forced to function in a group causes me to be irritable. I typically don’t like working in groups anyways. Because of this I probably withdraw a bit and point out the occassional flaw in someone elses argument instead of formulating my own.

I think I got it all.

Our group plans on utilizing this opportunity and writing about it. We’ll bring a camera with us and will take lots of pictures. If possible, we’ll shoot a few short video clips. Also, we plan on asking the manager there to let us interview him.

This article could probably be linked somehow with the “night life” page. Maybe there should be an overarching page titled “things to do,” or something like that. At any rate, its an activity we plan on sharing.

Time permitting, we would also like to showcase the other breweries in the area. We might not be able to visit these places, but we could write about which ones have tours, etc.

The subtitle of the book reads “my life with asperger’s.” Knowledge over what exactly Asperger’s is would give a reader a certain frame for interpretation. For example, the following was written in a frame influenced by that understanding: “I imagined someone telling an autistic person to look them in the eye…I was already aware that its difficult.” This writer knew that Asperger’s was a form in the autism continuum and that avoidance of eye contact was a trait and made this connection to the context of the memoir’s title. This writer’s frame led him or her to interpret this title as a command given to an “Aspergian.”

Someone who is not familiar with Asperger’s would be interpreting the title under a different frame and therefore not able to reach the same conclusion. This is evident here: “I thought I was being told to look the author in the eye…” This response seems to be the product of a very literal frame of reference. In addition to this writers lack of knowledge about Asperger’s, he or she could be writing under a frame of disinterest either in respect to the memoir, the class, or the tests that Steph gives us from time to time. Or, perhaps the excerpt was taken too far from its context.

Readers unfamiliar with Asperger’s could reach any number of conclusions about the meaning of the title of Robinson’s book. It all depends on his or her frame of reference. For example, in the following quote a frame is evident “The image I had was a book about truth and integrity, with looking someone in the eye traditionally being a visual clue of honesty.” In this writer’s frame the eye represents honesty. The writer’s understanding of the cultural significance of an eye has led him or her to infer that Robinson meant for the title to express that his book is one of honesty.

All of this has to do with thought process, something very closely related if not synonymous with the concept of frames. Each person’s thought process brought him or her to a different conclusion about the meaning behind the title. After reading the title I thought “[Robison] meant it figuratively. That is, he meant to say, examine me closely . . . as I read I found there was a double meaning.” I can now see that other people have thought processes different than mine, which can bring them to conclusions equally as valid. Robison’s thought process certainly functions differently than many of us. This was expressed especially well in his explanation of his smile at the news of a death of a stranger. As we have been slowly been learning since the beginning of the semester, Steph too has a thought process somewhat foreign to many of ours. This was quite clear when she started “writing sideways” in an attempt to express herself graphically, leaving us with confused, amused expressions.

References:

Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 6 (Nov., 1975), pp. 599-60.

Steph asks the question “How does all this talking inform us about desirable content for the coursewiki?” Our analysis of words informs me that we each have our understandings, agendas and interests. Everyone presumably chose to “unpack” the word that most interested him or her, and did so with their own unique understanding of that word. From this I infer that we as individuals have specific topics we would like to discuss on our Wiki page.

The projected “guide” would serve this purpose well. As long as we have a general structure, people can adapt their interests to suit our needs. If people have similar interests that is okay. The assignment discussed above demonstrated that two people can each have fresh and different perspectives on the same subject.

Also, I have extensive criticisms of the Communications major here. If no one wants to tackle that, it would be no problem for me. In particular, this is what I would talk about: Most Communications students are interested in a career in Public Relations or Advertising. They should probably be in SOM studying marketing, but like me couldn’t get in. So they are here in the Communications major. The problem is, a lot of Communications classes talk about how these industries are damaging (especially Sut Jhally’s). More than anything, the major is a critique of the media. However, this is not what these students want to study. I feel like this creates animosity and resistance with the students in relation to their classes, limiting the classes greatly. I think we could have all had a more fulfilling education if this was somehow different.

After living in Massachusetts, Anna has found we use the word “wicked” in a different manner. She notes we use it as an adverb that expresses extremity. I found it interesting this usage was first introduced by Fitzgerald. In high school I can almost remember reading “wicked” in The Great Gatsby and thinking it was weird, but I might be making that up. In her final paragraph Anna notes that like “ill” and “sick,” “wicked” has taken a meaning which is far removed from its original definition. Anna makes some suggestions as to why this has occurred. Perhaps our culture has a fascination with danger and depravity? Or perhaps our language simply lacks a word which connotates such extremes?

When thinking about how her article relates to the content of our class, the first concept that came to mind was “frames.” First and most obviously, Anna writes her article from her frame as a Texan native. Under this frame, our native expressions do not make sense. Some of Anna’s comments seem to illude to other frames as well. For example, she comments about how the term “wicked” is more commonly associated with women. This statement is certainly valid, but it seems like a reflection of her frame as a woman, already sensitive to gender injustices. A man might not have been as quick to question why wizards are less frequently described as “wicked.” Anna may have cited the Bible as a student writing under the Christian frame, or she might have just search “wicked” into google.

As for futher connections with our class I’m not too sure what else to write. It seems like the usage of the word “wicked” is the content of her article. In it, she went through the “process” of “unpacking” it. The Schein and Weber articles don’t seem to connect well, as they describe group activity. Anna is writing about her experiences as an individual dealing with foreign vernacular expressions. Maybe she has performed a “task” in relation to the group that is Massachusetts natives by attempting to familiarize herself with our expressions.