Great Debates lead to the Greatest Ideas

This is a roll call of who is currently on my team, and its a frank and honest synopsis of what I think of each. Granted, these determinations are being made on flash judgments, so please don’t hold anything against me for what I am about to say…

DeliverMeSummer is going to be the de facto leader and impartial moderator of the group. Based on what she has written about nexting and exhaling, one can see that she puts the “group dynamic” in the forefront of all her topics -

• “Achieving this balance [between passivity and aggression to promote equality]“
• “Consensual validation”
• “An environment that allows for mutual respect”

These are just some tidbits of what she discussed when waxing about the articles from the textbook. Delivermesummer, while an idealist, is also a realist. She understands the human nature undlying group work, especially when it comes to a graded assignment as significant as a midterm. She sees the underbelly of cooperation to be the turmoil of conflict. She anticipates the darkness and spearheads it with the suggestion to “be honest about how different reactions or comments make us feel (especially in areas of conflict).” Furthermore, she assumes the role of counselor when she advises that “our reactions to each other should remain respectful and constructive.”

Topothemorn is another “third-person ominicient” in this talented group, but I like to think of Top as more of a savant than an innocent by-stander. I have a sneaking suspicion that Top is going to be the big-thinker who can connect everything (and everyone) back to ground zero.

Top has overarching ideas and commentaries that can make us, as a group, stop focussing on the minutia and begin to concentrate on the long-term goals. If you read his comment, it’s plain to see where he stands in a conversation -

Listening can be more important than throwing out your own ideas…

He is directly above the middle of the conversation. What I mean by that, is that Top is indirectly involved in the communication process through inhalation. While two or three of us may exhale an equal amount that we inhale, Top will inhale two or three times as much as he exhales – thus creating more profound and outward-looking ideas.

At this point, I am sure that you are thinking, why is this blog titled regarding debates? Well up until this point we have only been covering the third parties. Now enters the pro/antagonist…

Commsyr09 is going to be my argumentative counterpart in the grand scheme of this group project. Bear in mind, these are going to be constructive assertions made by each of us, but I feel that this is the channel where the most debate and “conflict” might come from. I say “conflict” with the quotation marks because it won’t be conflict in the sense that we are going to be attacking each other, but rather clashing of ideas in a manner that, with the help of other “moderators,” will create a perfect harmony that can be agreed upon by all.

Commsyr says that she is “very empathetic but [she is] always extremely bothered when others pretend to exude emotions they do not feel.” My response to her comment? – “To be honest, I find it very hard to be artificially empathetic. I really only express TRUE emotions. The hardest time that I have is when someone that I barely know tells me something that I should be empathetic about (marriage, death, disease etc).” I think that each of us, both as strong-minded thinkers, is going to create thought-provoking proposals that the other is going to have strong feelings about. That is the basis behind my depiction of Commsyr09.

Beaver32, being the basketball player that he is, is the point guard of our team. Beaver is the Chris Paul of the group project think-tank. Looking at Beaver’s comment on the nexting blog gives each of us insight into his team-building skills, probably solidified by his years as a member of a sports team. He knows that openness and comfort (in terms of self-disclosure) are valued aspects to teamwork, and he wants to exploit these attributes and strengthen out team mentality. “As a group we all could talk about what our thoughts on [Johnson's] definition about openness are because that’s what the article [“Being open with and to other people”] is mostly about. Everything else Johnson talks about in the article ties in with openness so we all need to have a true meaning on what openness really is.” It’s quite poignant that a basketball team has five players on the court, and our team has five members, each with his own role.

Finally, me, Mr johnniedrama. Well to be honest, I am an amalgamation of my partners. I like to have some sort of balance and harmony in the group – that is the part of me like DeliverMeSummer. I am usually an “ideas man” that likes to make his point known, and likes to contribute to group thoughts and undertakings – can somebody say Commsyr09? However, I know that I am not always going to be right, or even heard, and I know that in those situations that I need to be an avid listener/inhaler – my inner Topothemorn still might shine through it all… And I always like to open up the floor to all members so that everyone’s voice can be heard – if you want, I can come off the bench to substitute the playmaking for Beaver32.

Now as I said, all of these flash judgments are just that, flashes. Obviously these might not be the correct assumptions about each of my colleagues, but its what I can best decipher from the links that I have provided.