week 11 post 1

Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?　　

I think rigid complementarity is the most difficult to change. This is because the roles we are given based on our characteristics are hard to change. I think this pattern is the least damaging to a relationship because if the roles fit to partners’ characteristics, their relationships can be balanced out.

On the other hand, I think competitive symmetry is the most damaging to a relationship. In this pattern, “both members fight for the one-up position” (148). Thus, their characteristics tend to be both aggressive so it is hard to negotiate or understand each other. For example, I have an experience being stressed out by my friend. I didn’t like her idea where to go eat, but she didn’t like my place either. I followed her decision because I rather become patient than fight back to her. However, I was very stressed out because she didn’t even consider my idea or feeling. After this, we hung out few more times, but couldn’t keep the friendship because she was the person who wanted be the one-up position, but I wasn’t the person who can allow it.

Finally, I think submissive symmetry is damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because one might feel the other is being careless to her/him. I think the best way is not to say, “You decide,” but to ask, “Do you have any idea where to go eat?”

In either pattern, I believe “to think as if I am in the other’s position” is the most efficient way to solve dysfunctional patterns in interpersonal communication.