Glynka - Walztawick's theory really sparked an interest when talking about how we communicate Digitally and Analogically. He says our words are digital and our nonverbal signals are analogical. Analogical [signals] require interpretations and nonverbal language can often be misinterpreted. I have a friend from Norway who went to school here in the U.S. In school students couldn't understand why she wasn't smiling more often or wouldn't get excited about anything to the point where she would express it physically. Students were constantly asking her if she was upset about something if she wasn't smiling. Lise-lil (her name) would explain that she was content and neither sad or overtly happy. Once I got to know her myself, I understood that American students tend to express themselves more openly in nonverbals and to Lise-lil this was a foreign concept. So her nonverbal context changed as I became her friend and got to know her better.

Glynka - In discussing the ways in which couples deal with their various conflicting needs, Baxter overlooked one that has come into play (dare I say) constantly in my romances. I will name it inverse response cyclical alteration (Irca). Irca means that each partner switches from one pole to the other, and their position is inversely correlated to the direction that the other is pulling at that moment. This sounds like it would create unbearable tension, but actually has the effect of balancing out both extremes. When I am being predictable, my boyfriend will do something completely unexpected. Then, when I'm acting completely out of character, he will slow me down with his desire for predictability. And when all I want is too be alone, his desire for interdependence will save us from over-indulgent self-destruction. So I will likely respond with my own surge of independence; but as I pull away, my boyfriend will suddenly seem to take every opportunity for connection. The Irca seems to keep a relationship balanced, ever changing, yet progressing at a slow and steady pace.