Report 2:

My Understanding of the Unity Model of Marriage

By: Naomi Mitake

Instructions for this report are at:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/409b-g21-report2.htm

Introduction

In this report, I will answer five out of thirteen given questions from the report 2 instructions, which was given to the class by our professor, Dr. Leon James. In these questions, I will relate the topics to the unity model of marriage, which was discussed in class and in our lecture notes.

---

Question 1

It is sometimes wrongly asserted that men have less feelings than women. Show that this is not true by discussing the threefold self and the role of the affective in relation to the cognitive and sensorimotor. Illustrate your argument with examples that come from (a) your personal life and (b) from the media. Do men and women have the same awareness of (a) their own feelings and (b) their partner’s feelings—how do they differ? How does this difference affect the dynamics and progress of the relationship?

In a relationship between a man and woman, whether in a dating or marital relationship, it is at times wrongly asserted that men have fewer feelings than women. I believe that this is not entirely a true statement that has concrete evidence to back it up. To prove the statement false, I begin by discussing the threefold self with its three domains.

The threefold self is responsible for our gender behavior we display in relationships. It contains three domains that interact with one other, which include: affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor.

The affective is the deepest and most determinative out of the three. It is considered the most determinative because the affective selects and guides the other two domains (cognitive and sensorimotor). The affective takes a role in guiding and influencing the direction of operation in the cognitive, so that what we think and how we justify our actions, is selective and responsive to the affective motives. The affective also operates our feelings and motivations that we maintain in our gender relationships. Or to be more precise, it maintains a selected amount of motivations and desires in harmony with our primary needs and satisfactions. The cognitive operates the thinking and reasoning we do in gender relationships. What it does is it basically adjusts itself to support the affective. The cognitive and affective, in turn, work together to select and determine the evident sensorimotor behavior of our obvious actions, appearance, words, and styles. The idea of this is that “Our actions, is the result of our thinking, which in turn, is the result of our feelings.” The sensorimotor is what operates our sensations, perceptions, and motor acts that we perform in our relationships.

From my personal experiences in a couple of relationships, I can tell you that every individual differs and is unique. Men and women may overall have approximately the same amount of feelings, but that only applies to the general population and is subject to scrutiny. In one of my previous relationships, I can tell you for a fact that both my ex and I had about the same amount of feelings and emotions, but in the end, it seemed that mines was stronger. I loved him and was always happy when I was with him, and would always speak my mind, whether I was angry, sad, or happy. When we went our separate ways, I still had feelings for him, while at the same time I resented and hated him. I may have thought that I had more feelings, but I did not necessarily know at that time if that was true or not because I had no way of looking into his heart. Upon looking at this in a different perspective, I have realized that I might have had fewer feelings in the relationship than he had. He was in more distraught after the breakup than I was. It seems that he let other people influence his decision to end our relationship, and after he had actually gone through with it, he regretted it deeply and he was depressed for a long time. He resented his friend for talking him into the breakup, and most of all, he was furious with himself. All of these emotions and feelings (of anger, resentment, love, etc.) illustrate the fact that men do not have fewer feelings than women. It only may appear that way because we want to believe it to be true.

Another example would be the current relationship I am in. My boyfriend and I have about the same amount of feelings, although he tries to hide his soft side and feelings by putting up a stereotypical “macho” or male front. For example, my boyfriend usually tries to make me jealous, which never works because I know better, but when I in turn, say a comment to make him jealous (because he did it before), he hides his jealousy with anger towards me. Or last Christmas, when I hand-made or sewed a blanket and pillow for his present, he gives me a big smile and tells me the compliments his mom and aunty gave me rather than his own. So what I am trying to say is that perhaps we get the notion that “men have less feelings” because they tend to hide their feelings since society today does not find an emotional man acceptable versus a macho, manly man.

From the media, like this one Japanese TV drama show called “Love Revolution” that I used to watch, I believe that the main character (a female doctor) had more feelings that were evident to the viewers than the other character (a male news anchorman). But in another relationship in the drama, the man (a government candidate’s assistant) had more feelings than the woman (government candidate’s daughter). But that man, in the beginning, was portrayed as somewhat of a weakling versus the news anchorman character.

In another example from a Korean TV drama called “Full House”, Han-Jien (female) seemed to have more feelings than Young-Jae (male). However, if you were the viewer, that did not seem to be the case because Young-jae also had about the equal amount of feelings. I think Young-Jae just kept those feelings to himself, part of it probably due to sheer stubbornness and the other due to the ruining of his self-image An example of this would be if Han-Jien was late coming home from seeing Min-Hyuk (male friend who also liked Han-Jien). Young-Jae would pretend that he doesn’t notice her coming home and pretends not to care or be jealous. He hides that with anger pointed towards her coming home late and failing to cook his meal. I’m not sure if the Asian culture is similar in the relationship aspect, but it seems that men and women are portrayed as having almost the same amount of feelings, only the man hides it and denies having as deep feelings as the woman. This is probably because society, even the Asian ones, give each gender a set of socially acceptable norms to follow, one being that men should not show as much feelings and emotions as women.

In relationships, women tend to be more aware of their own feelings and motivations than men. This is partly due to the fact that women are more motivated to spending time to figure out how they really feel and/or what they really want in a relationship and out of life itself. Women also tend to be more aware of the man’s feelings and motivations than they; themselves are of their own feelings and motivations. The differences between men and women as to how conscious they are of their own feelings and emotions, or of their partner’s is that women “specialize” in becoming more aware of the men’s feelings and emotions. They are motivated to practice more the men. These differences creates a clear active gender dynamic in the relationship where the woman has the motivation to nag the man in becoming more aware of both his and her feelings/motivations and strives to conjoin. The man resists the woman’s nagging and finds it unpleasant and objectionable, which in turn, creates a constant strain on the relationship. The constant strain could lead to a breakup or divorce. Either way, it will be a totally unsatisfying experience for the woman.

In conclusion, although women may be more aware of their own feelings and motivations, including the man’s, it does not mean that men have fewer feelings than women. Both men and women have the same amount of feelings and emotions. This concept/principle was discussed and examined through the individual’s threefold self that contains the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor domains. There were also given examples from my personal life and the media to prove that point. Society, in that nature, is what triggers the gender stereotype thinking that men have fewer feelings the women.

Question 2

Contrast the three views of gender relationships expressed by Deborah Tannen in Gender Issues, Laura Schlessinger in The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, and Leon James in The Doctrine of the Wife. Give a summary of your analysis by creating a chart or table that shows the differences between them in a systematic way. Give your opinion on the elements or entries in your chart. How do your own views compare to what’s in the chart? How are your ideas influenced by these three different perspectives on marriage?

The three views of gender relationships that are expressed by three out of the four authors discussed in class: Dr. Laura Schlessinger (The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands), Deborah Tannen (Gender and Discourse), and Dr. Leon James (The Doctrine of the Wife) are quite different in many aspects and similar in a few. The table below shows several characteristics in which the three models differ from one another.

Different Characteristics of Gender Relationships	Dominance Model: Dr. Laura Schlessinger	Equity Model: Deborah Tannen	Unity Model: Dr. Leon James
Allowing each other privacy and engagement in separate activities	Yes	Yes	No
Belief of both partners being equals	No	Yes	No
Rewards and punishments are used	Yes	Yes	No
Caring about each other	Yes	Yes	Yes
Roles of dominant and submissive are played within the couple	Yes	No	No
Each freely expresses themselves without hesitation	No	Yes	Yes
Disagreements are common and okay among each other	Yes	Yes	No
Sex comes first beyond anything else in the relationship	Yes	No	No

In my opinion, the three different models of gender relationships tend to overlap a little, especially the dominance and equity model. The dominance model focuses on changing the woman, and the woman being submissive to the man. The equity model sees man and woman as equals and requires neither to change. The unity model focuses on the man to change for the better of the relationship and become “enlightened”.

Compared to the chart above, my view of relationships is not just one of the models. It is more like a combination of all three models, but leaning more towards the equity model at this point in life. However, I do not agree with Dr. Laura’s remarks about how the wife should be held accountable for the husband and his happiness and/or actions (e.g., affair). The dominance model is based on the focus being on the self (in this case, the man). I do not or rather, cannot agree with having to satisfy the every need of a man and being submissive. I would feel deprived and suffocated in a relationship that lies within the dominance model, which Dr. Laura finds ideal.

Deborah Tannen, and her views of the equity model are leaning towards my view on relationships. I like the fact that in this model neither partners have more power over the other, both partners are free to express themselves equally, nor is any change is required on both halves. But I do not like the fact that the model is focused on intellect, and is very similar to how politics operates itself in America, a masculinized society. So even if the couple separates their power and responsibilities amongst the two of them, it will somehow, when convenient, lean more towards the man’s words. He, in the end, will stand with more power in the relationship, although it claims to be equal.

Dr. Leon James’s unity model is the most ideal out of the three. I like this model because it contradicts almost everything that Dr. Laura says in her book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. In this model, the man has to give up his affective independence and be willing to change or become enlightened to become one with his wife (conjoint self). However, seeing as this is time-consuming and requires a tremendous amount of commitment on both halves of the relationship, I do not feel that I am ready at this point in life just yet. Although someday, I hope to become “unified” with my husband as Dr. James is with his wife.

Question 4

Select one or more techniques explained in the Lecture Notes in the last section called Making Field Observations. Do a mini-experiment in which you use the techniques to analyze interactions between couples – either yourself in a couple relationship, or some other couples you know. Describe what you did, what you found, and how you explain it. Be sure to use the unity model in your explanations, but you can also give alternative explanations, in addition to your explanations with the unity model.

Questions	Yes	No
Does the man contradict what the woman says?	X
Does the man interrupt while the woman is talking?		X
Does he embarrass her in front of others?		X
Does he get frustrated when she does not get “right to the point”?	X
Is there conflict between them?	X
Does he give in to her way of thinking upon a disagreement?		X
Does he get mad and yell or pout?	X
Does he walk away to cool off and stays away out of anger?		X
Is there an ability to come together at cognitive & affective level?	X
Does he insist on his own prerogatives as a man?	X
Does he leave her to do his own thing with his friends?	X
Does he insist or put pressure on her to do something she doesn’t want to?		X
If he does not get what he wants, does he sulk or give the silent treatment?	X
Does he try to make her jealous on purpose?	X
Is he more physically intimate with her?	X
Does he verbally show his affections?		X

In a dating relationship, the interaction between couples is not usually internal, but rather external. We do not think to go further beyond that point until after we settle down and marry. The reason for that, I am uncertain. But as a couple, we can situate ourselves with our significant other in three different models: dominance, equity, and unity. For those who are unfamiliar with the terms, the dominance model assigns the more dominant/powerful role to the man and a submissive role to the woman in the areas defined by the given culture they reside in. The equity model assigns equal power and responsibility to both man and woman. The unity model assigns the lead role to the woman, but she does not take part in a dominant role as the man in the dominance model, but rather operates through the man’s voluntary submission to her. Through these three different models, I have conducted a mini-experiment, where I analyzed my own relationship with my boyfriend.

To analyze my own relationship, I basically observed how my boyfriend and I interacted while together. I held my experiment based on a whole afternoon spent at my house studying, taking a nap together, and shopping with his mother and brother at Ala Moana Center the day after Thanksgiving. I concentrated on the questions above located in the table for this question. In addition to this mini-experiment, I input my knowledge of what I already know about my relationship with as little bias on my part as possible.

While analyzing the way my boyfriend and I had a conversation, I found out that while he does respect me as his girlfriend and friend, he will disagree with my opinions if he feels strongly that he is right or if I have no proof to back up my opinion. For example, when discussing the topic of same-sex marriage, I told him that there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and they should be able to marry the ones they love. He, on the other hand, feels strongly that all countries should ban same-sex marriage. He said clearly that God created man and woman to be together, and not for people of the same sex to be together. We argued about this topic for quite awhile until I made my point strongly and he gave up. However, we did not reach a compromise or agreement on the topic of disagreement. If we were in the unity, we would not be having this kind of heavy argument because we are supposed to hold the same opinions/views regarding various topics, and if not, the man should be willing to give in to the woman’s way of thinking. The way my boyfriend and I acted throughout the conversation demonstrates our position in the equity/dominance model.

After we were done looking around at Ala Moana, we were all tired. My boyfriend’s mother and I went to grab some coffee and pastries at the Pineapple Room in Macy’s. We were both enjoying our coffee and talking when my boyfriend joins us. He was already tired and in quite an irritable mood. I guess I knew this and was just staring at him to make eye contact. I suppose he found that irritating and gave me a “What!?” and was somewhat pouting because he wanted to go, but couldn’t, since we were waiting for his brother. He continued to stay in an angry/irritable mood so I just let him be until he fell asleep in the car and his mood lifted. When we got back to my house, he didn’t remember snapping at me, and just told me that he felt “tired” and that I should understand. I left it at that. This incident in the Pineapple Room demonstrates an act from the dominance model. Unlike the unity model, the man is entitled to feel this way after the woman “tortured” him by going shopping the day after Thanksgiving, knowing it would be packed everywhere.

At my place, he insisted on taking a nap and cuddling in my bed, when I did not want to. He ended up saying, “Fine, I understand” and gave me the silent treatment until I sighed and gave in to his childish demands. You can see here that although he does have good intentions, when he does not get his way, he resorts to acting like a child throwing a tantrum to get the toy he wants. It’s a clever tactic, and it works too because I hate the silent treatment. It’s like a punishment given to me, which I don’t deserve. In the unity model, punishment would never occur and the husband/man would understand the woman’s needs and look at things from her perspective. A woman/wife is not there to please the man/husband.

At the end of the afternoon, he was picked up by his friend to go to hang out with the “guys”. He left me to go night surfing at Waikiki and crash at his friend’s house. He never invited me, but I was not expecting him to because he knows that I do not like swimming or surfing in deep water, especially at night. I left him to have his guys’ night out with his friends so I could have time to myself to relax to do homework at home. Deriving from the equity model, we each respect each other’s need for privacy and the need to hang out with our friends. Both of us trust each other. In the unity model, this would not happen. This is natural because a couple in a unity model insists on exclusivity so that neither can form close friendships.

In conclusion to the results that I have found from this mini-experiment, I have come to understand that my relationship is far from being in what is known as the unity model. Although I do not believe that we completely reside in the dominance model, I know that our current relationship lies someplace between the equity and dominance model. My boyfriend attempts to listen to my advice to not swear, control his anger, be more courteous, eat with his mouth closed, and more. He listens, but forgets. Thus, I repeatedly have to tell him again, which grows quite tiresome. Reaching the unity model will take work on both ends of the relationship. Both have to want to turn their relationship around for the better and to make the other happier and satisfied. My boyfriend would have to willingly come to me and want to be enlightened. So if you are in a relationship and want to see for yourself where you stand, perhaps you could examine for yourself what goes on in your relationship to find a way to enlighten yourselves to become united as one with everlasting conjugial love and heavenly love. It will be quite an experience itself to be connected in such an intimate way.

Question 5

Select six student reports on marriage from Generation 20, as listed in the Readings section of the Lecture Notes. You must select any two students from Report 1, any two from Report 2, and any two from Report 3. Summarize each of the six reports. Be sure to put a link to the students' reports. Add a General Conclusion Section in which you discuss your reactions to what they did – (a) their ideas, (b) their method, (c) their explanations. What did they gain from doing their reports? How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

Report 1 – Gender Unity: Annotated Bibliography, by Brigitlynn Duclos

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/duclos/report1.htm

Summary: In the beginning, Brigitlynn briefly summarizes three reports she read from earlier generations (generations 15, 16, and 19). The first two reports were based on the Emotional Spin Cycle by Kristin Ching and Nicole Reaves, and the third was based on Coping with New Information Behaviors by Bellew. She then had 4 different categories under the Annotated Bibliography on Gender Unity section, which was followed by a conclusion and advice to future generations.

Category one is titled Articles on Gender Relationships and contains five different articles with a discussion of the main points for each. Leon James and Diane Nahl title the first article, Rage-Depression Survey Results—Gender. Duclos basically expresses her ideas on the article, giving explanations on tables 1, 2, and 18. She relates herself to the third point she made, which was regarding gender differences on feeling out of control. George H. Woodard titles the second article, Masculine and Feminine. She mainly focuses on reciprocity within a marriage between couples. Duclos mentions each gender having its own proper functioning and duties, which they cannot abandon. She also mentions that the man has more understanding, while the woman has more will. Sarah Headsten titles the third article, The Difference Between the Sexes from Divine Revelation and from Experience. This article discusses similar concepts of what we discussed in class. Women, being the so-called carrier of conjugial love, are lovers of their husband’s wisdom, and constantly strive to become united with them. There is a stereotypical portrait of a man and woman. Duclos mentions, “Men are goal oriented and find fulfillment in accomplishments. They value power, and achievements and are motivated when they feel needed.  The woman are people oriented and find fulfillment in helping others and value relationships.” Leon James titles the third article, Doctrine of the Wife for Husbands-A Spiritual Practice for Achieving Unity--Part 1. We discussed this concept in class, but what Duclos emphasizes here is the unity model and how the husband must give in to the wife’s wisdom and inner perceptions to become regenerated, to later become conjoined. Leon James, also titles the last article, The Doctrine of the Wife (shorter article). The main focus of this article is the man’s perspective on conjugial love. Duclos highlights the difference of the man and woman in regards to creating an internal union. She also briefly mentions the conjugial commandments.

Category two is titled, General Curriculum: Student Reports on Gender and Driving and contains two articles that also contains discussions for each. Sheri Lieberman titles the first article, Gender Differences in Driving Norms: Are Men More Aggressive Drivers than Women? Duclos mentions the biological cause for gender differences in aggression, being testosterone. She also mentions how the article stated frustration being a major factor in causing aggression and gives statistics to prove male aggression levels are higher compared to females. Jason Thompson titles the second article, Gender Differences in Driving: Subjective or Concrete? Duclos points out some stereotypical comments that were made in the article about men being less likely to ask for directions and women are more likely to. She also makes a comparison to how society was back then versus now. Firmly stating, “about 50% of motorist in the United States are women.”

Category three is titled, Articles on Analyzing Talk by Leon James and again, contains two articles with discussions included. The first article is titled, Instructions for Studying Discourse in Talk Topic, Argument, Setting and Relationship. Duclos mentions the five elements of discourse being topic, argument, sequence, relationship, and setting. She briefly mentions the concepts of “why we talk” and “analysis of topic” in points two and three. The second article is titled, The Behavioral Technology of Discourse Analysis. For this article, Duclos mentions discourse being the visible organization of the invisible mental and affective feelings. Then in contrast, she talks about language and how it is a way to express ourselves by giving clues and such.

Category four is titled, Generational Curriculim: Student Reports on Analysis of Talk, which contains just one article titled, Daily Round Archives. Duclos mentions daily round archives being past thoughts and feelings of UHM psychology students, which is quite similar to what a time capsule is. Past students used to talk differently from current classes, with more forms of pidgin language used and overlap/interruption.

General Conclusion:

(a) Ideas – Her ideas were overall good. From what she presented in this report, I felt as though she related more to the dominance and equity models rather than the unity model.

(b) Method – Her method for this report were clear, simple, and well organized. She basically input three or four ideas for each article, in each category. I liked it when she could relate herself and her experiences to one of her ideas. It gave me the sense that she really was able to grasp the material.

(c) Explanation – She did not really give any explanations of her own for this report. Rather, I think she just jotted down some of the important facts from the article and put it in the report. It’s a shame the links for the articles on her page do not work. That would have provided more insight to what she was referencing in the report.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

I believe that she was able to learn the vast difference between man and woman in many aspects (biological, cognitive, behavioral, etc.). I’m sure that after completing this report, she was able to grasp the idea of conjugial love in correspondence to the unity model. She now should know how to get to that level of heavenly love and be more aware and “in tune” with her own feelings.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

Her ideas, for the most part do not affect the way I think, particularly about the issues that she was able to point out. But I can say that I agree with most of her presented material. I do believe that men and women are entirely different beings and require different things to satisfy their needs. Although, to some extent, we could be more similar than we would hate to admit. I do not agree with the fact that men are more goal-oriented than women. I think women can be just as goal-oriented. We can find fulfillment in other places besides in people relationships. I believe that like men, some women (although not all) value power. I suppose it really matters from what perspective you take a look at these concepts.

Report 1 – Gender Unity: Annotated Bibliography, by M. Liwai

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/liwai/report1.htm

Summary: Like Duclos, Liwai starts off first, by summarizing three articles written previously by three different generations. The first report by Krista Guiteras-Duncan, focused on the difference of men and women from their way of problem solving, to the way they communicated with other individuals. The second report by Bridget Antonio focused on the Emotional Spin Cycle and took a look at relationships through the threefold self. The third report by Ryan Higa on fight pessimism and depression, which was basically like a journal that contained weekly reports of what happened and his frustration towards learning new computer programs. Following the brief summary of these three reports was her introduction and third section labeled Annotated Bibliography on Gender Unity, which contained four separate categories with articles beneath each of them.

Category one has five separate articles: Teacher's Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently, The Doctrine of the Wife, The enjoyment of sexist humor, rape attitudes, and relationship aggression in college students, The Essential Feminine, The Difference between the Sexes from Divine Revelation and from Experience. The first article, Teacher’s Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently, is based on communication and its effects in the classroom (learning ability and academic skills). In article two, The Doctrine of the Wife, Liwai pinpoints the notion of how men often reject conjugial love and what it has to offer. They think of it in terms of being “whipped” or losing their freedom. Liwai also points out a vital point of how conjugial love can only be attained if the husband is willing to submit to his wife. This concept was reviewed many times over class discussions. The third article, The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression in College Students is the same article Duclos mentioned. Liwai makes reference to how gender differences in regards to sexual topics affect an individuals view on what is and is not offensive. Liwai mentions that there are two forms of humor: non-tendentious and tendentious. Liwai also goes on to mentioning how men tend to “blend sexual and aggressive themes” with the target of those jokes being either women or homosexuals. It’s basically a “no-win” situation for women. Reverend Dandridge Pendleton wrote the fourth article, The Essential Feminine. Liwai mentions how the Rev. Pendelton points out the different qualities each gender possesses that the other does not have. It is because of these different qualities that men and women, when conjoined, can attain conjugial love. The fifth article, The Difference Between the Sexes from Divine Revelation and from Experience, was also mentioned in Duclos’s report. For this article, Liwai mentions the vast differences between men and women. There are several aspects in which the two genders are different, which is as follows: problem solving techniques and/or strategies, needs, method of communication, reactions, level of comprehension/understanding. Liwai briefly goes over those differences.

Category two has two separate articles: Gender Differences in Driving Norms. Are Men More Aggressive Drivers Than Women? and Gender Differences in Driving. Sheri Lieberman (G-11) wrote the first article, Gender Differences in Driving Norms.  Are Men More Aggressive Drivers Than Women?. The article is about what the title gives. Liwai highlights the differences between the two genders when it comes to driving and how aggression plays a role. Liwai points out that there are three main explanations for aggression. One, being testosterone (biological cause), and the second, deriving from the “frustration aggression theory”, where if an individual is prevented from reaching a goal, frustration arises, which lead to aggressive responses. Third, being that men have the innate need to reciprocate the action, which was at the root of the aggression. Inkyung Yang wrote the second article of this category, titled Gender Differences in Driving. Liwai points out from the article that men and women are different in quite a number of aspects, a few being: cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally. Liwai also mentions that aggressive driving behaviors can be attributed to an individual’s attitude, but at the same time, social norms/expectations, as well as stereotype, must be taken into consideration.

Category three also has two separate articles: Instructions for Studying Discourse in Talk Topic, Argument, Setting and Relationship and The Empirical Investigation of Conversation: The Closing Problem. In the first article, Instructions for Studying Discourse in Talk Topic, Argument, Setting and Relationship, the primary focus was on the topic of talking/conversation and language. Liwai mentions that there are five elements of a conversation: topic, argument, sequence, relationship, and setting. With the knowledge of the five elements, a conversation can be carried out effortlessly, automatically, and spontaneously. The second article of this section, The Empirical Investigation of Conversation: The Closing Problem focuses on the problems faced when engaging in a conversation, such as letting the conversation come to a halt when someone desires. Liwai brought up three vital points. One, being that the conversers must coordinate the close within a conversation carefully so that the conversation itself can come to a halt smoothly and comfortably. Second, being that each of the conversers need to signal their willingness to end the exchange of conversation. Third, being that if one of the party members signal a STOP and the other still has more to say, they can say so in a nice, polite manner.

Category four only has one article titled Transcript. This article is a transcript of a conversation, which took place during dinner. Liwai mentions how at this time, food, can be a topic of conversation or “filler” when another conversation is not taking place to cover the uncomfortable silence.

General Conclusions:

(a) Ideas – Liwai’s ideas were straightforward and overall good. Most of all, I found them to be in a format/language that was easy to comprehend.

(b) Method – Liwai’s report was very well organized and easy to follow. The format of her report made everything easier for me. However, perhaps she could have added some examples and relate her own experiences to a few of the ideas.

(c) Explanation – Her explanations for each point was good and easy to understand. Her answers are brief, but at the same time, easy to understand and clear. She gets right to the point that needs to be discussed.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

Liwai should have gained a better understanding of the changing dynamics present in relationships between both genders. She also should have gained a better sense of what it takes for a man and a woman to truly be happy and satisfied in their marital relationship (and stay that way). I think she also gained a good insight to conversation and its closing problem. She must know what NOT to do when trying to end a conversation and to not drag on the conversation even after signals are sent to end the conversation.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

It was very interesting how she mentioned that in comparison to the dominance and equity models, she does not imagine the possibility of the unity model becoming a widely known and accepted concept between both genders, particularly men. I agree with Liwai that the unity model has a lot of opposition to overcome in order for it to have an impact on relationships across the globe. Like her, I also am uncertain if this model is for me. While it would be nice to reach this level of conjoining, it would be hard to find someone at this age and time that would be willing to submit to me.

Report 2 – Applied Project: Mapping the Threefold Self in Gender Relationships, by shortcake

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/shortcake/report2.htm

Summary: Shortcake begins her second report by talking about what she did in her previous report and her plans for this report.  She also gives readers some background information on her previous marriage to a husband who had a drinking problem. She mentions she knew that he was not the one for her. She also shares some information on her husband in her present marriage, the basis of her report.

The next section was titled, Introduction: Self Witnessing and the Threefold Self.  Shortcake goes on to give a definition, which is as follows: “self witnessing is taking a very close look into yourself, the way you think, act, and react to everything and everyone around you.”  She then proceeds to giving examples of the Threefold Self by showing two charts and suggests three of her classmates report 1 that are related to the threefold self topic.

In the Experiment section, there are three subsections, which are, the experiment design, the data, and the analysis and discussion.  She begins with the experimental design section where she explains how she would go about conducting an in-depth study of her and her husband’s thoughts and feelings of their relationship, why they act and how they act and react to each other. 

The Data section states the questions she was asked and then gave responses for each question in correspondence to her data collection.  The questions fell under one of three categories, which were: sensorimotor self, cognitive self, and affective self.

In the Analysis and Discussion section, she reviews her findings about her relationship with her husband.  She mentions how the observations she made helped her see the reciprocity within their marriage. She also mentions how the observations showed her a way to strengthen their bond even further than what they already have to strive to be at the unity level together.

In her Conclusion she wraps things up and explains how the relationship was a big leap of faith she had to take.  She is happy that she can see they are on the right track for reaching the unity model of marriage with her husband. 

In the Future Generations Section, she gives the advice to others to prepare early and to look through other generational reports.  She also mentions how there are different ways to write a report, and that there are different subjects that could spark an interest you.

General Conclusion:

(a) Ideas – I loved her ideas because I could relate to them with my own relationship. Shortcake’s ideas were cleverly portrayed by her personal experience with her husband.  She seemed to have clearly presented her report in an appealing manner.

(b) Method - Her method of report was very good. I liked that fact that she was able to apply the report to her interactions with her husband in a daily-married life situation.

(c) Explanation - Her explanations were clear and straightforward. It was easier to understand concepts such as the threefold self and its three components when she applied it to her personal experience and gave detailed, but brief responses.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

By completing this report, shortcake should have been able to gain a better insight towards her relationship with her husband.  She has probably also gained more confidence in assurance to the fact that she and her husband are on the right track for working towards the unity level and attaining conjugial love. She can now work harder to strengthen their bond to help them reach that level with the findings of this observation.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

It seems like she has a great husband as well as a great marriage (as compared to her previous marriage). I suppose I should look at my own relationship while answering questions such as these and see at what level we are located in (dominance, equity, unity). Unlike shortcake, however, I don’t really agree with the concept of husbands/partner coming before your children. It may be because I was raised in a traditional Asian family, which values family and children more. However, I believe that we each are entitled to our own opinions of what is right and wrong for ourselves.

Report 2 – Applied Project: Mapping the Threefold Self in Gender Relationships, by Jennifer Combs

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/combs/report%202.htm

Summary: Jennifer Combs begins her report with a preface (section one), which gives an overview of the report itself. Then she moves on to the Introduction: Self-Witnessing the Threefold Self (section two), where she defines the term “self-witnessing: and very briefly summarizes four reports done by the previous generations. The first one by Alan Arimoto (G-15), focused on the Emotional Spin Cycle. This report was a data analysis based on his observation during a week, which he related to the threefold self. The second one by Lisa Naka (G-19), demonstrated self-witnessing in aspect to actions performed on WebCT, Exploring the General Curriculum, and registering/emailing the instructor. She applied those to the threefold self and its three domains: sensorimotor self, cognitive self, and affective self. The third is by Jujubee (G-16), who also like Alan, focuses on the Emtional Spin Cycle and its four options, which are linked together by two bridges. One bridge links the negative views of others to the positive view of others. Meanwhile, the second bridge links the negative views of ourselves to the positive views of ourselves. The last report of this section was by Shawn Naito (G-19). This report was similar to what we had to do for our report 1. He analyzed the separate steps he took to complete each task regarding “self-efficacy on daily behaviors” and related those to the threefold self and two of its components: affective and cognitive information behaviors.

In the third part of the report titled, My Experiment, Combs explains what she did in order to analyze her marriage with her husband (design). Her method of research was asking questions and discussing them with her husband who was more dominant in that area (data). She did that for three sections, which were as follows: dominant or control areas (sensorimotor), negotiation areas (cognitive), and the area of trust & mutual dependence (affective). For both the dominant or control area and negotiation area, Combs and her husband are for the most part, on equal ground. Neither sees the other as dominating, leading to the belief that they lie in the equity model. She also mentions how she finds that they both influence each other when it comes to behavior and actions. As for the trust and mutual dependence area, they both take into consideration the other’s feelings. She mentions towards the end, “totally changing yourself of what you feel and believe for the sake of the other is a more difficult area”. In the Analysis and Discussion area, she writes about what she gained doing the experiment. She says how it helped her assess the level of her marital relationship with her husband.

General Conclusion:

(a) Ideas – Combs ideas was fairly good. I thought she could have elaborated further with some of her concepts though.

(b) Method – I do not understand why she chose that method of research. Instead of asking her husbands the questions directly, she should have first observed their interaction together, and if she still wanted to, ask questions pertaining to the experiment later.

(c) Explanation – Her explanations were all clear, well organized and most importantly, easy to understand. I liked the fact that she put her data in form of a table and included her discussions, rather than writing the explanation and data out in paragraph.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

Like shortcake, I think that Combs has gained better insight towards her marital relationship with her husband. She could apply what she learned from this experience to her marriage, and perhaps strive towards the unity model of marriage.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

I could relate to her ideas and found her marriage with her husband similar to my own relationship. I think like them, my boyfriend and I are on the equity model above anything else. However, I do not think that any of her ideas will particularly be of influence because my relationship, as mentioned earlier, is already similar to hers. So there really is not much left to influence.

Report 3 – My Proposal for TV Rating on Anti-Unity Values (AUV), by Suzanne Howard

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/howard/report3.htm

Summary: Howard begins this report with a preface (section 1), by highlighting the main points of her previous report, what she did in order to complete the report, and what she was able to learn from the experience. Then she proceeds to give a brief overview of this report.

The second section, labeled Introduction, Howard describes each of the three models of gender relationships and the roles of each gender. Then, she relates the three models to the threefold self. She provides a table that she illustrates what threefold self is involved in each model. The dominance model involves the sensorimotor (external), equity model involves the cognitive (internal), and unity model involves the affective (inmost). Lastly, she provides a short paragraph summarizing three different reports done by students in the same class: Chris M, Jennifer Combs, and Joshua Kent.

The third section was labeled Class Oral Presentations and Lecture Discussions. In this section, she reviews three oral presentations done by different students in her class. The first oral presentation she reviewed was Ryan Lau’s. His topic was on Dr. Leon James’s The Doctrine of the Wife: The Surrendered Wife vs. the Surrendered Husband. For Lau’s report she makes a comment about men and women not being completely at opposite ends. Secondly, she mentions a quote from Lau’s presentation, “Unity is the conjoint operation of two things together so that the result is a new conjoint object that is superior to the composing parts.  When they unite, their unity will be more perfect.” I think Howard misinterprets this quote and what the unity model is really about. For another quote from Lau’s presentation, “Women are intelligent and wise from within; from heaven, from the Lord.  They will not do anything that is contrary to conjugial love.” She strongly disagrees with it. Howard also seems to be misinterpreting the third quote, “Only through religion can the New Church husband obtain sufficient power to overcome himself.” It says that the husband will obtain enough power that will help him overcome himself. By all means, it does not say that only through religion can a man overcome himself. The second oral presentation Howard reviewed was Sayaka Kitamura’s. Her topic was on Dr. James & Diane Nahl’s Rage Depression Survey Results – Gender. Kitamura’s presentation was based on statistics and results regarding percentages of emotions (anger, rage, compassion, etc.) that each gender is able to feel. Howard reviews those that Kitamura discusses and gives her own input towards those results. I think for the most part, Howard agrees with Kitamura, but questions some of the data. The third (and final) oral presentation Howard reviewed was Jocelyn Hostetler’s. Her topic was on Erik Sandstrvm’s Feminine Wisdom. Howard focuses on four quotes given from Hostetler’s presentation. Two of the four quotes refer to differences between males and females. The first one being, “Masculine wisdom and feminine wisdom are equal, and that they are at the same time by creation forever different.” The second being, “A male is born intellect-orientated, with an affection for knowing, understanding, and becoming wise.  A female is born will-orientated, with love for joining herself to that affection in the male.” One of the other four quotes refers to the gift that God has given mankind, which is as follows: “Inherent wisdom does not exist, but is given to each by god through his word and teachings of the truth.” The last quote is from Sandstrvm that says. “Prejudices arise from the complexities of modern living.” Then he says, “Equity leads to accidental childbirths, unloved and insecure children, and single parent families.” Howard does not understand this quote. But in my opinion, what it means is that all the prejudice that is within this world surfaces from the what society, such as the media teaches us. I agree with what Sandstrvm is saying here. As for the second quote, it is harder to understand, but I think what it means is basically that equity leads to nothing unhappiness. I could be wrong, but if this is what it means, I do not necessarily agree. Equity does have its disadvantages, but it also has its advantages for everyone.

The fourth section was labeled My Proposal for AUV Ratings on TV (Anti-Unity Values), which contains five different subsections. The five sections are: What Are AUV Ratings?, What Procedures I Followed, The Data I Gathered, The AUV Scale, and Testing Out the AUV Scale. In the first subsection, Howard provides a list of AUV ratings that Dr. James compiled after watching a how called One Life to Live in 2003. (AUV ratings are values that do not promote unity within a gender relationship). For the second subsection, Howard discusses the procedures that she followed to gather data. She watched the third season of Sex and the City (which already ended) that stars Sarah Jessica Parker (Carrie), Kim Catrall (Samantha), Kristin Davis (Charlotte), and Cynthia Nixon (Miranda). For the third subsection, Howard discusses her data in thirteen Anti-Unity Value (AUV) terms. They are as follows: Going to a Strip Club, Having Sex With Someone That You Are Not Married to, Thinking You Need a Guy to Save You. Dating More Than One Person At A Time, Paying For Sex, Bisexuality and Homosexuality, Leaving Their Boyfriends Without Saying Goodbye, Wearing Revealing Clothing in Public, Living With Someone Whom You Are Not Married to, Putting Work Before Your Relationship, Going Out With Friends Without Your Significant Other, Prenuptial Agreements, and Having An Affair With A Married Man. For the fourth subsection, Howard rates the thirteen AUVs on a scale of 1 – 5, with 5 being strongly anti-unity. In the last subsection, Howard simply gives her input on how she was able to be more objective and says that this type of scale can be used to rate other shows.

Howard concludes her report with a Conclusion and Future Generation section. Howard states what she learned from this experience. It has helped her become more aware of what society finds socially acceptable through the media and the negative aspects it brings forth. In one area she says, “I think that the media is used to bring new ideas into our mentality.  Some of these ideas can be very useful, such as self-help shows like Dr. Phil or Oprah.  Other shows can be corruptive, such as Will and Grace, The Sopranos, and Sex and the City.  These shows make people feel that AUVs, such as sex outside of marriage, are commonplace and acceptable.” Towards the end, she states that she feels as though the model of an “ideal” relationship is being put at risk by the media

General Conclusion:

(a) Ideas – Howard’s ideas are reasonable and are backed up by her opinions/explanations. I like the fact that she speaks her mind freely regarding this topic of AUVs portrayal through the media.

(b) Method – Her method throughout this report was simple. She got right to her answers without taking the long way and she gave an illustration of the AUVs and her scale. I like the fact that I could actually see the scale and ratings. It helped me understand what she was trying to do a little better.

(c) Explanation – I thought her explanations were easy to understand. She said everything in simple terms and kept the explanations short, while at the same time, it was thorough enough to get the point across.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

From what Howard has said, I think that she was able to gain useful knowledge about the media and its negative influence it has over people and their gender relationships. The media “corrupts” us and crushes our values of an ideal unity gender relationship. Howard can know be more aware of the media’s intent influence towards her and can prevent it from influencing herself as before.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

Although I do believe that the media brings forth negative influence upon our society, but unlike her, I believe that it is up to our own will to let that influence our behavior whether it may be in life or in relationships. We can choose our own path in which we choose to live.

Report 3 – My Proposal for TV Ratings on Anti-Unity Values (AUV) in Gender Behavior, by Jocelyn Hostetler

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/cheetara/report%203.htm

Summary: Hostetler’s report remains uncompleted. But in the parts that are complete, she summarizes three oral presentations that were made by her classmates. The first oral presentation was by Suzanne Howard on Reference 11 – Doctrine of the Wife for Husbands: A Spiritual Practice for Achieving Unity. Hostetler discusses an important quote about the theory,

Conjugial Love 196, and also the idea that feminizing the church does not mean that men will leave or that superior rights are to be given to women. What Reference 11 says, is basically that a husband must voluntarily put his wife’s judgment above his own in order to achieve conjugial love. She mentions a second quote, “It is instinctive in a wife’s love to unite her husband’s will to her own, for in this way a wife becomes one who belongs to her husband, and the husband one who belongs to his wife. Thus the two become one person.” She thinks this concept is amazing and even gives a powerful “WOW” but remains skeptical about reaching this level of unity herself and even questions the Lord.

The second oral presentation was by Brigitlynn Duclos on Deborah Tannen’s Gender & Discourse: Ethnic Style in Male-Female Conversation. Hostetler discusses two ideas from the presentation that she found worthwhile. One of the ideas was that “repeated interaction might reinforce mistaken judgment of a partners intentions and increase expectations that he or other will behave as before”. The other idea was that “conversational style is both a consequence and indicator of ethnicity, including how and what meaning is expressed during conversation.” Hostetler is in agreement with both of these ideas that Duclos presented.

The third oral presentation was by Joshua Kent on Deborah Tannen’s Gender & Discourse: The Sex-Class Linked Framing of Talk at Work. She discusses two ideas, one she agrees with and another she disagrees with. The topic she was in agreement was the alignment or status and status among people of the same gender. She believes that alignments and status among people of the same gender is related to gender unity and thinks it is an important factor to attain such a unity. The idea in which she disagreed with or was not sure about was the topic of gender related to display, not identity and the idea of ideas. From this, Hostetler believes that both gender and identity is related to gender behavior.

She agrees that this is true.  One would expect the same type of behavior if no one says anything about it.  This leads to repeated occurrence of the behavior, and eventually leads to disagreements and arguments.

General Conclusion:

(a) Ideas – Her report mainly consists of her inputs and ideas about the oral presentations and discussions.  She believes that gender unity is very important in relationships, but at the same time is also skeptical about the idea of uniting into one person. If she had finished her report more thoroughly, I think her ideas would have seemed clearer.

(b) Method – Hostetler’s method for this report was to basically just to give her input and/or opinions regarding some of the ideas that the presenter provided. Her method of report was no effective in trying to get the point across in a clear, effective manner.

(c) Explanation – I do not think her explanations for this report were sufficient enough to get by. She only gave her opinions of agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty that did not give us a view of what the oral presentation was really about. She should have just put a brief section for her opinions at the end of each summary of a report.

What did they gain from doing their reports?

I’m not quite sure what Hostetler has learned from completing this report since she was not exactly able to finish it. But it seems as though it has given her a new way to evaluate the media using AUVs.

How do their ideas influence what you yourself think about these issues?

Hostetler has not been of any influence what-so-ever. If she had gotten more of her points across better, I might have considered some of her ideas and actually understood what she was trying to say.

Question 6

Consider Table 6 in the Lecture Notes, which is in the Section on Making Field Observations. It gives 20 examples of Behavioral Indicators of One's Relationship Model, along with Yes/No specifications for the three models. First explain what this table is trying to show and how it is doing that (give a couple of examples to illustrate concretely). Include brief explanations for what the three models are. Second, create a similar table of 20 new items that you make up yourself, and fill in the Yes/No columns. Calculate the percent overlap. Third, Discuss what your results show and how such an approach could be expanded to help couples be more aware of their interaction pattern.

Table 6

Behavioral Indicators of One’s Relationship Model	1 Dominance Model	2 Equity Model	3 Unity Model
Partners tolerate role differences, either culturally defined or by personal experience	Yes	Yes	Yes
Partners tolerate some disagreements as something normal and inevitable	Yes	Yes	No
Partners tolerate status differences between a man and a woman	Yes	No	No
Partners insist on exclusivity so that neither may carry on close friendships with others	No	No	Yes
Partners allow each other privacy or separate activities that the other is not involved in	Yes	Yes	No
Partners believe themselves to be married in this life and in the afterlife in heaven to eternity	No	No	Yes
Each partner is tolerant of some of the other’s faults and tries to live with them	Yes	Yes	No
The man always cooperates with the woman’s attempts to change him	No	No	Yes
When partners disagree they negotiate to reach a consensus	No	Yes	No
When partners disagree the man gives in to the woman’s way of thinking	No	No	Yes
Partners can’t stand being separated even for a few hours, and get very anxious	No	No	Yes
Partners are mutually interdependent and complementary in all areas	No	No	Yes
Partners have total confidence in each other, feeling free of any criticism ever	No	No	Yes
Partners never try to punish each other or retaliate for anything	No	No	Yes
While making seating choices for guests at a wedding, splitting up the married couples	Yes	Yes	No
Partners assume responsibility for each other’s feelings and emotions	No	No	Yes
Partners try to make each other happy	Yes	Yes	Yes
Partners allow each other to have incompatible opinions about various topics	Yes	Yes	No
Partners never diminish in enthusiasm and admiration for each other	No	No	Yes
The original passion of love decreases as the years go by	Yes	Yes	No
Etc. (add your own here)

This type of contrastive analysis shows that the dominance model has an 84% overlap in answers with the equity model but only 16% overlap with the unity model. Similarly the equity model has only a 16% overlap with the unity model. This shows that the unity model is most different from the other two. It is also the most difficult to achieve unless the husband is spiritually enlightened and has the afterlife in mind regarding their eternal conjunction.

---

The table above illustrates the contrast between elements that differentiate the three phases of marriage. It shows the different characteristics of all three models of gender relationships. It also tries to illustrate how rare and different the unity model is compared to the other two models and shows the difficulty of reaching the unity model to form the conjoint self. It does these things by giving specific situations/roles that come up in gender relationships and providing a yes/no column in correspondence to each of the three models. For example, in the fourth row it states, “Partners insist on exclusivity so that neither may carry on close friendships with others”. Both the dominance and equity model do not insist on exclusivity and show an overlap, while the unity model is the only one that participates in “exclusivity” deal. To better understand the three models of gender relationships, I will include a brief explanation of each.

The dominance model is driven by our masculinized society that places the man at the head of the household and/or relationship. In this model, the man dominates all aspects of the relationship, including the woman. The model focuses on physical sex as the primary need and mental union as secondary. Thus, the woman is expected to suppress her own needs so that his needs are met. The woman in this model is deprived and unsatisfied with their marriage and/or relationship.

The equity model is where power and responsibility is negotiated and split in half, in terms of 50/50, making everything equal. This model of gender relationship derives from our American society that places a great amount of emphasis on equality for all mankind. The woman in this relationship is on a level ground with the man but strives to be joined spiritually and mentally (internally) with him.

The unity model can only be reached after the couple achieves unity in all aspect of the threefold self (affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor) due to the man/husband’s willingness to undergo a lot of mental pain and self-denial. Only after this, can both partners reach the highest level of spiritual union, and attain conjugial love, which will continue later in the afterlife. In this model, the woman is the happiest and most satisfied.

For a more detailed explanation of the three models, see lecture notes.

My Table

Behavioral Indicators of One’s Relationship Model	1 Dominance Model	2 Equity Model	3 Unity Model
Partners disagree on what one’s choice of wardrobe	Yes	Yes	No
Partners make each other jealous on purpose	Yes	Yes	No
Partners accept the idea that it is OK to disagree about some things	Yes	Yes	No
Partners accept each other’s religious differences	Yes	Yes	No
The man understands the woman’s needs and strives to change	No	No	Yes
Partners tolerate differences of what they find funny or sad	Yes	Yes	Yes
Partners tolerate differences in how to raise children	No	Yes	No
Partners separate their power and responsibility 50/50	No	Yes	No
Partners cannot upkeep the spark in the relationship	Yes	Yes	No
The man believes sex to be the number one priority in the relationship	Yes	No	No
The woman’s opinion is held highly in the relationship	No	No	Yes
Partners put family and friends before each other	Yes	Yes	No
The man is the head of the household and/or relationship	Yes	No	No
Partners tolerate each other having friends of the opposite sex.	No	Yes	No
Partners perpetually thinks of each other when not together	No	No	Yes
Partners complain about each other behind backs	Yes	Yes	No
Partners punish each other	Yes	Yes	No
Partners tolerate physical abuse/violence	No	No	No
Partners should always talk in a pleasant manner to each other, even if in a bad mood	No	No	Yes
The man is willing to change and submit to his wife	No	No	Yes
Etc. (add your own here)

The chart shows that the dominance model has a 69% overlap in answers with the equity model, but only a 31% overlap with the unity model. The equity model has only a 23% overlap with the unity model. The results of the chart show the significant difference between the unity model and the other two models.

A chart similar to the two above could be used to help couples become more aware of their patterns of interaction when together. They can make a list of similar characteristics/behavior and record themselves everyday for approximately a week to get a deeper understanding of their interaction patterns. Then they could later set specific characteristics they want to improve and set a goal on their own, so that they can reach the unity model or at least develop into a more satisfying relationship.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have answered questions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 out of thirteen of the given ones. I have proved to you in question one that men do not have less feelings than women, that in fact, they have just about the same amount. In question two, I compared and contrasted the three views based on Dr. Laura’s The Proper Feeding Care and Feeding of Husbands, Deborah Tannen’s Gender & Discourse, and Leon James’s The Doctrine of the Wife. In question four, I conducted a mini-experiment on my own relationship based on the unity model. For question five, I summarized six reports from the previous Generation 20 class. For question six, I made a similar table to Table 6 in the lecture notes. From the completion of this report, I have learned a great deal and can now apply that knowledge to my life and relationship. I hope to someday reach the level of unity with my partner, but for the moment, I am satisfied with being in the dominance/equity model since I do not think that I am ready just yet for such a big commitment to one person for life and the afterlife. But when ready, I will use the knowledge Dr. James has provided and put them to good use.

Advice to Future Generations

In order to pass this course, I highly suggest that you not procrastinate. You should read the lecture notes every week as Dr. Leon James suggests and read the other scheduled materials. Attending class is also a must, because this way, you could listen to oral presentation from assigned reading materials, and perhaps gain more understanding on the subject matter. Also, try to keep an open mind during discussion and you will learn many things that can be applied to your life as well as in relationships. As for completing the assignments, if you follow the given instructions carefully while inputting every detail that Dr. James expects, you should be able to be fine. Good Luck!

Class Home Page:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy21/classhome-g21.htm

My Home Page:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf2004/mitake/home.htm