Kerry - Because I recently broke up with my boyfriend, I've received many expressions of concern and care from friends. Most of them comment on the situation, and ask me how I'm doing. I've noticed that some conversations leave me uplifted, and others frustrated or sad. As I read over Delia's Constructivism theory, I realized how message design logic explained the differences in these conversations. A friend had remarked one evening, "Well, I'm sure you feel bad now, but things will be better in the morning. You'll see." Thank you. Could she have empathized any less? I recalled how this same person had bulldozed over my feelings last year when I learned that my parents were selling our house. Basically, she told me that new homes were nice and exciting, and that I'd be over the old one in no time. I don't feel comforted by these interactions. In fact, it's as if she doesn't care enough about how I'm feeling to try to understand me. Her words cannot smooth things over, they merely deny the validity of my emotions. She is using conventional design logic in our conversations. The social norm in these situations is to show concern, and undoubtedly my friend felt like that goal was accomplished by what she said. In contrast, another friend said something along these lines in regard to the break-up, "I'm sorry, sweetie. This just stinks. I wish I could say something to make it better, but nothing will. But I know that if God wants you to be together, nothing can mess that future up." Her more sophisticated message offered me comfort, validated my feelings, and redefined the situation as one in God's hands. Knowing how much better the communication was when feelings, goals, and constructing a social reality were taken into account, I want to be vigilant in using rhetorical design logic in my conversations.