Category: ENG

Assignment for “The Limits of Friendship,” by Maria Konnikova (pp. 255-261, in Emerging, also linked on syllabus)

1. Read and annotate the Konnikova piece, including the introduction beneath her name on p. 255, up until the “Notes” section. Notice and become familiar with the >TAGS: beneath her introduction. This will help you connect Emerging readings to larger themes for synthesis in your own work. As you read and annotate, consider the impact of social media on your own friendships, and friendships in general/on a more global scale. Mark up the text with your own thoughts, questions, connections, points of confusion, etc.

• Now read the piece a 2nd time. Mark passages where the author defines the Dunbar number and the rule of three. Then explain these two terms in your own words, referencing specific passages from Konnikova to support your response. Write your explanation of these terms as a paragraph or two in a Google Doc, to be shared with me upon completion of the entire assignment.

The Dunbar number is a collection of numbers that outline the cognitive limitations of social relationships that any one person can have. The numbers classify the quality of friendships from intimate to casual, and quantify the degrees of friendship based on physical size. The largest group is in the range of 100-200 people, referred to as ‘casual friends’. This circle of friends are people you could certainly put a name to their face, and you know well enough to see at a party or around other friends in this same circle. Each subsequent group of friends thereafter becomes more intimate, and is roughly a third the size of the previous circle. This is also known as the rule of three. The next group consists of 50 people, and is considered to be ‘close friends’. You would see these friends often, and perhaps be the type of people you would invite to a group dinner. Although they are close, they are not quite intimate friends. The next group down is the circle of fifteen: the close friends you confide in about most things and can turn to for sympathy. The smallest, and most intimate group, is again a third of the size with around five people. This is your best friend group. The people who are dearest to you, and you to them. The companions in this cohort are often family members. While the sizes of all of these groups are commonly stable throughout one’s life, their compositions are fluid and can change. In other words, the friends in a circle may change as do you, and your endeavors.

• What do you think makes a good friend? Write a cohesive paragraph (placed after the paragraph or paragraphs that answer part 2), detailing the qualities of close friendship you most value. Include your thoughts on Konnikova’s statement: “So what happens if you’re raised from a young age to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones?” (p. 259)

The qualities of close friendship that I value most are intangible qualities. Firstly, a good friend is somebody who is non-judgmental, and accepting of you. No matter the circumstances and similarities, a good friend must be accepting of your true self. You must be confident in being yourself around them, true to your genuine interests and hobbies. Similarly, the next quality of a good friend are shared values. Personally, I believe a good friend shares similar moral and ethical conviction. Somebody with a similar definition of respect, and acts similarly towards others. A good friend is also somebody who is trustworthy and dependable, somebody that can be reliable with secrets and sensitive matters. These qualities allow the relationships to grow and become more profound. The amalgamation of accepting and trustworthy is loyalty. In my eyes, loyalty is not constant allegiance and fidelity towards me, but instead somebody who is true to our friendship and has equal devotion to the relationship. Somebody with unwavering support no matter the peaks or troughs of my life. These qualities are in my opinion the most critical and foundational aspects in any good friendship. From these qualities grows love, humor, and the likeness of interpersonal qualities. In the closing paragraphs of the text, Konnikova argues: “early childhood experience is crucial in developing the parts of the brain that are largely dedicated to social interaction, empathy, and other interpersonal concerns”. She continues to write that humans are not born with full social awareness, and our ability to learn right from wrong by observing others and acting on our observations is undermined by too much virtual interaction. I agree, and would continue to argue that the effect on children who are raised to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones may be harmful in the development of their interpersonal and social foundation.

• Write one paragraph in which you argue that your social media and/or online connections will benefit your acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. In a following paragraph, make a case for how social media connections might negatively impact your acclimation. Be specific. Take note of which argument feels most authentic to you.

In today’s world, a strong social media presence and online connection can positively benefit one’s acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. As a Freshman living on a socially distanced campus, it can be especially difficult to meet classmates and feel connected within the UNE community. Social media can act as a stimulus by encouraging students to visually connect with peers and classmates while still adhering to school policy. With platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook etc., one can interact and stay connected with the UNE community. Although I personally do not have an Instagram account, close friends of mine have already detailed people following them and reaching out on social media. For reasons related to academics or otherwise, it also allows students to cast a wider social network in the UNE community which I believe to be an invaluable resource. Throughout orientation we constantly heard UNE’s self-asserted accreditation of being a large family. Being able to connect to our peers is an important aspect of school life that helps students feel a part of this family. I would continue to argue that stronger networking is also valuable for professional relationships as well. The ability to have a personal profile that can be more than words on a page is beyond beneficial, and especially relevant as students gear up for a life in a post-pandemic world. 

There are also many negative impacts a comprehensive social media presence and online connection can have during one’s acclimation to academic and social life at UNE. First and foremost is of course the sensitive moments that are unexpectedly shared with thousands of people that otherwise would have been private. It only takes a few Instagram or Snapchat stories to taint somebody’s reputation. A distant mutual friend of mine was enjoying herself at a bar one evening, when a popular song came on. She sang along and articulated some words that were offensive and inappropriate for her to say. The person who filmed the short clip uploaded it to her Snapchat story and the fallout was swift and harsh. Her actions were of course wrong, but likely a drunken mistake that probably did not have genuinely maleficent derivatives, and one she wished could take back. This bridges to the next arguments that you really have no control over who views the content, and of course the timeless saying “once it’s up there, it’s there forever”. There is such a danger of exposing personal sides of yourself that were only meant to be shared with friends. Whether it’s a picture online, your location, or a personal profile, there really is no control over who views your content. Lastly, in the text Dunbar argues that the amount of social capital anybody has is “pretty fixed”. Those of us who exhaust too much energy scrolling through social media can hinder our ability to form personal relationships with others, and distant ourselves from real people. There is of course so much more to somebody than what meets the eye of an online presence that cannot be explored through a screen.     

Final Thesis Statement:

Although I agree with Chen up to a point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that social media creates lasting and meaningful interpersonal connections. Using the concrete psychological and physiological research of Robin Dunbar, Maria Konnikova convinces me that social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones.  

I think the strengths to this thesis statement is my stating of the opposing piece, and the position that I have on it. I believe I introduce the ‘they say’, and in doing so I introduce and outline the argument that I will be discussing in this paper. I think the thesis is somewhat long, but I do believe it is concise and specific to my topic. So I do like the length, I believe it to be a strength as it clearly outlines the topic of my paper, and the argument I will be making. I think one of the weaknesses of my thesis statement is that although it is specific to my topic, perhaps it is not all too specific to my arguments. By adding “using the concrete psychological and physiological research of Robin Dunbar”, I think I added a bit of a lense to what my arguments will be about, however I’m not sure if it is specific enough.

What I was reminded of about my writing process was how I have an instinct to write a lot. I think I form a lot of really interesting ideas and feel the need to explain them in depth. The issue here, is that some of those interesting ideas about the topic are not really supportive of my thesis. In other words, those arguments may be interesting arguments about social media, but not really about how social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones. I was also reminded of my ability to get stuck on ideas and get jammed into a paragraph, or even a sentence. I’m not going to call it writer’s block, but I think in an academic paper, the writing flow doesn’t come as easy, and I have to be more methodical in forming ideas.

The aspect of global revision that I focused on most during my revision was eliminating arguments that we not directly supportive of my thesis. When I went back and tried to tie everything in to my thesis statement, I found that some the arguments didn’t really fit all that well into what I was trying to argue. In doing so, I eliminated all of the ideas that could be considered confusing to the reader, and shortened my essay. This allowed me to expand on the other ideas that were much stronger and helped support my thesis. Specifically, I eliminated a paragraph that argued that social media can be used as a tool to spread hate. Although I thought parts of this argument helped explain why social media and virtual interactions cannot replicate the importance of physical ones, it certainly didn’t directly connect to that argument. So instead I took the parts that I thought were most strong and added them to another paragraph where I thought they could better support my argument.

I think I will approach Paper #2 differently by looking over the essay prompt before I start reading the pieces. I want to have an idea of what I need to take out of the readings before I begin so I can analyze and annotate with a purpose. Secondly, when forming my arguments, I will make sure they all support my thesis before I begin writing them. As mentioned before, I ended up deleting two full paragraphs because I realized they didn’t really fit into my essay. Writing out these arguments and my thesis beforehand will allow me to make sure everything I’m saying ties back nicely into the thesis statement. Lastly, I’ll be sure to interrogate my sentences and confirm they aren’t wordy. Not only was my rough draft really long, but there were also sentences that almost danced around a subject and were not very direct, and some sentences were useless altogether. Eliminating this ‘fluff’ will allow my writing to be more clear and concise.

At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been inspired by the skeptic in me. He feels that as a young man living in an ever technologically evolving and post-pandemic world, social media can (and perhaps must) be used as an effective tool to broaden one’s network both socially and professionally. While there is truth in this statement, I continue to persist that social media and virtual relationships still lack a level of intimacy that cannot be formed solely through virtual interactions. In other words, social media can unquestionably expand one’s network, but the concern still lies with how valuable and useful these relationships can be. Business is about trust, honesty, and is innately personal, and relying on virtual interaction can actually hinder one’s ability to form fruitful relationships. Furthermore, there is a difference between having an effective online presence with a helpful website to promote yourself and your business, versus having a strong social media presence to try and interpersonally connect with others. Above that, trying to interlink one’s social life with their professional life would actually cause them to censor their content and would suppress one’s attempt of showing an authentic side of themselves on social media.

Different from a basic high school peer-review, my first college-level peer review was certainly more difficult than I had expected it to be. Although it’s common to try and outline claims and ideas in all peer-reviews, it’s more difficult to expand on the identification of these claims and ideas, and try and summarize what their saying to fully understand their arguments. I think this is partly because sometimes you don’t quite know what the author is trying to convey, and when something is written in a style that is foreign to you it can be hard to figure out what they are trying to say. It was also harder to identify a quote sandwich. It is of course visually very easy to outline a quote, but trying to analyze it, and relate it to the argument is much more difficult. Having to ensure that the quote is relevant, in a useful place in the text, and is explained purposefully is a greater responsibility to the peer-reviewer.

I think all peer-reviewers have the given strength of being just another set of eyes. But above that, I think my greatest strength was my ability to outline when a paragraph/argument was missing a connection to a thesis statement. It is often easy to convince yourself that your writing makes sense and proves your arguments when reading it in your own head. But in reality, sometimes when others read those same arguments they have a hard time reading and understanding it the same way you do.

My greatest weakness was trying to ignore my own writing style and remember that somebody else’s writing sounds different than I would put it, but that doesn’t make it wrong. However, you also have to balance that understanding with a purpose of making sure that their claims are still clear to a general audience.

Konnikova Annotations

In this annotation, I extended on Dunbar’s point that through touch we can communicate a deeper bond than through speaking alone. I further extended his point by expressing that a face-to-face is also considered much more personal than a call over the phone, and that is also why body language is a very important aspect of communication.

Personally I have always found it to be most helpful to visualize content that I read. In the case of the Dunbar Number and the Rule of Three I found it easiest to conceptualize the idea by looking at it visually. I categorized the three groups in a drawing and could better understand the meaning of the the terms.

At the end of the text I made an annotation giving some context to the what I had just read, and making a few text to world connections allowing me to relating it to the world we live in today. These included relating the relevance to the text six years later in a current “virtually connected” world, and seeing the growth of social media as a tool of hate and destruction.

Chen Annotations

I pushed the author’s idea a step further by exploring what this statement means in the big picture of the piece. In other words, I consider this a turning-point in the text. A place where we see Megan begin to challenge the values of the Church. This gives the impression to the reader that the seeds of doubt have been planted, thus foreshadowing what may come ahead.

Here I am challenging Chen’s argument that social media was used as a valuable tool for Megan. He clearly outlines in this sentence that the maximum character limit on Twitter prevented Megan from making real arguments and being personal on social media.

Similar to the first Chen annotation mentioned in this post, I am building on the idea that Megan is distancing herself from the Church. Here I am pointing out that this time it is verbal. I also note that she states “I didn’t accept any answer they gave”, showing that she is no longer vulnerable to arguments from her Mother, which as I note is shown on page 6 of the printout article when she asks her Mother for reaffirmation that what they’re doing is the right thing to do.

Before

The qualities of close friendship that I value most are intangible qualities. Firstly, a good friend is somebody who is non-judgmental, and accepting of you. No matter the circumstances and similarities, a good friend must be accepting of your true self. You must be confident in being yourself around them, true to your genuine interests and hobbies. Similarly, the next quality of a good friend are shared values. Personally, I believe a good friend shares similar moral and ethical conviction. Somebody with a similar definition of respect, and acts similarly towards others. A good friend is also somebody who is trustworthy and dependable, somebody that can be reliable with secrets and sensitive matters. These qualities allow the relationships to grow and become more profound. The amalgamation of accepting and trustworthy is loyalty. In my eyes, loyalty is not constant allegiance and fidelity towards me, but instead somebody who is true to our friendship and has equal devotion to the relationship. Somebody with unwavering support no matter the peaks or troughs of my life. These qualities are in my opinion the most critical and foundational aspects in any good friendship. From these qualities grows love, humor, and the likeness of interpersonal qualities. In the closing paragraphs of the text, Konnikova argues: “early childhood experience is crucial in developing the parts of the brain that are largely dedicated to social interaction, empathy, and other interpersonal concerns”. She continues to write that humans are not born with full social awareness, and our ability to learn right from wrong by observing others and acting on our observations is undermined by too much virtual interaction. I agree, and would continue to argue that the effect on children who are raised to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones may be harmful in the development of their interpersonal and social foundation.

After

The qualities of close friendship that I value most are intangible qualities: nonphysical qualities that allow the soul and mind of one another to interpersonally connect. Firstly, a good friend is somebody who is non-judgmental, and accepting of your true self. You must be confident in your ability to be yourself around them, true to your genuine interests and hobbies so that you may find an honest likeness in them. Similarly, the next quality of a good friend are shared values. Personally, I believe a good friend shares similar moral and ethical convictions; somebody with a similar definition of respect; and acts similarly towards others. It is important to find a friend with a similar moral compass as this will guide the both of you through many of the decisions you make throughout your lives, and will either keep you together or grow you apart from one another. A good friend is also somebody who is trustworthy and dependable. It is essential they can be reliable with secrets and sensitive matters that ultimately allow the relationships to grow and become more profound. In my opinion, the amalgamation of accepting and trustworthy is loyalty. To me, loyalty is not constant allegiance and fidelity towards me, but instead somebody who is true to our friendship and has equal devotion to the relationship. It is also important to have a friend with unwavering support no matter the peaks or troughs of my life so I know I can count on them to be there when I’m down and need it most. These qualities are in my opinion the most critical and foundational aspects in any good friendship. From these qualities grows love, humor, and the likeness of interpersonal qualities. In the closing paragraphs of the text, Konnikova argues: “early childhood experience is crucial in developing the parts of the brain that are largely dedicated to social interaction, empathy, and other interpersonal concerns”. She continues to write that humans are not born with full social awareness, and our ability to learn right from wrong by observing others and acting on our observations is undermined by too much virtual interaction. I agree with Konnikova, and would continue to argue that the effect on children who are raised to see virtual interactions as akin to physical ones may be harmful in the development of their interpersonal and social foundation.

Analysis

When first analyzing the paragraph, I knew the first sentenced lacked specificity. I said I valued ‘intangible qualities’ but didn’t say what that mean or why it was important. I decided to add a quick definition of intangible qualities that would act as an overarching idea that each of my qualities of friendship would try to fall under. I also thought the first point was repetitive and was nothing more than unnecessary clutter so I decided to completely delete most of the third sentence. I continued to add just a few words to the end of the following sentence to add some specificity by adding why it was important to find somebody with an honest likeness, which also helped bridge the gap to my next point. The next few sentences felt choppy, and much like a list. In my opinion this hurt the impression of a flow of ideas in the paragraph and made it hard to convey a strong argument. So I decided to make it into a list, allowing the true nature of the text to be expressed in its style. I added a point to explain why this was important with the goal of adding specifics to the friendship quality. The next sentence also felt repetitive. I re-phrased the beginning of the new sentence and combined it with the subsequent phrase which I thought clarified the point better. When noting loyalty, I changed and simplified the beginning of the three sentences to add my own voice, which I thought also clarified the sentences a bit better. In the third sentence about loyalty I added a few parts which I thought better explained the point I was trying to get across, and additionally added my own voice into the text. In all honestly, the ending through my eyes was already specific and concise. I didn’t add much other than re-submitting Konnikova’s name in the last sentence. The length of the overall paragraph remained pretty similar, but I through my eyes become clearer and had had a better impression of flow. 

As a child growing up in Topeka, Kansas, Megan Phelps-Roper was born into a family of devout Protestant Christians. Megan and her large family were notoriously known around the world for their work through Westboro Baptist Church. Established by her grandfather, Greg Phelps, in 1955, Westboro Baptist is most infamously known for its use of inflammatory hate speech, most notably against members of the LGBTQ community and U.S. soldiers killed in duty. From a young age the strong religious beliefs of Westboro Baptist were indoctrinated into her mind by her family. At just five years old, Megan began picketing less than a mile from her home in Gage Park, a park that her grandfather believed had become overrun with gay men cruising for sex. As Chen himself writes, “It was easy for Phelps-Roper to write things on Twitter that made other people cringe. She has been taught the church’s vision of God’s truth since birth”. However, as Megan grew up, she began to stray form the social norms of her friends in the Westboro community. About 18 years later, Megan was in the basement of her house for a church function when she checked her phone and saw that the famous actress Brittney Murphy had died at the age of 32. Instead of “reacting with glee, she felt an unexpected pang – not quite sadness, but something close – over her death.” Chen states. He continues to write, “She couldn’t bring herself to post a tweet thanking God for Murphy’s death”. Megan herself said “I felt like I would be such a jackass to go and post something like that”. Megan was once again stuck in another moral dilemma less than a year later when she found out about her mother’s infidelity. When confronted by the double standard between the treatment of her mother and their treatment towards gays, Megan concluded, “that Westboro was in the wrong. That was the first time I came to a place where I disagreed, I knew I disagreed, and I didn’t accept the answer they gave”. As the years went on Megan noticed that Westboro became more hierarchical and less biblical. Along with the growing seclusion and marginalization of women, Megan first considered leaving the Church on July 4, 2012, and by October had started secretly moving out joined by her sister Grace. As Megan herself explains, “It stopped feeling like this larger than-life-life divine institution ordained and led by God, and more like sniping and sordid activity of men who wanted to be in control”. Less than a month later, Grace and Megan had moved out, and began their difficult transition to a more ‘normal’ life.      

As Megan Phelps-Roper expanded Westboro Baptist’s doctrine from their website to Twitter, their network and viewership grew exponentially. In 2009, after tweeting: “Thank God for AIDS! You won’t repent of your rebellion that brought His wrath on you in this incurable scourge, so expect more & worse! #red” she was met with harsh criticism from the likes of Kevin Smith and Rainn Wilson. She even gained more than a thousand followers on that one day alone, and as Chen writes, “used Twitter to offer a window into life in the church and giving it an air of accessibility.” Megan, who had done hundreds of interviews about Westboro, was exhilarated by the response and was motivated to continue her presence on Twitter. Chen writes, “the reaction on Twitter seemed more real than a quote in a newspaper.” Phelps-Roper agrees when she states, “It’s not just like ‘Yes, all these people are seeing it,’ “its’s proof that people are seeing it and reacting to it.” As Megan’s social media presence increased, so did the amount of interaction she had online with people outside of the Westboro community. And in February 2011, Megan began to have conversations with a user named @F_K_A, a man who five years later she would fall in love with and marry. When they first met online, this user only known as C.G. would constantly ask her questions about life in Westboro, and as Chen writes, “because he was curious instead of condemning, she kept answering them.” This less-aggressive communication style was likely a refreshing change from the hate Megan had become so numb to from her critics, and was perhaps less-aggressive even compared to the communication style within the Westboro community. They continued their dialogue on Twitter and on Words with Friends, and no more than a year later she dreamed of his embrace. As she awoke fighting back tears, she told him they couldn’t talk anymore and deleted him off every form of social media. According to Chen, “when she tried to throw herself back into the Westboro community, the atmosphere had changed while she was distracted by her relationship with C.G.” I believe that Phelps-Roper had been shown what decent people truly existed in the world beyond the Westboro community, and returning to reality gave her some perspective on what her family actually stood for, which ultimately influenced her drastic shift in personal belief. It is a strong example of confronting hate speech with empathy and understanding. Most people who hear about Westboro Baptist Church are quick to judge their beliefs and have no interest in learning more about them. When trying to combat hate speech many believe it is most effective and justified to attack the other person and their beliefs, when in fact, having a discussion where the tone is respectful and not demeaning is more constructive in allowing others to mutually respect and hear the message you are trying to convey to them. Furthermore, understanding that people can learn, and change is a necessary first step in allowing yourself to open your mind for forgiveness and redemption. It is a common prejudice that if somebody acts in a malevolent manner then they are fundamentally flawed, when in actuality people are always open to change and growth, even if it doesn’t seem that way at first.

It wasn’t until the age of twenty when I started to question my upbringing and foundation in faith, something that I thought was very dear to me. I’ve been attending Sunday services almost every week since the day I was born; I was baptized before I could walk; I owned my own bible before I could read. I’m a Christian, right? As I asked myself this central question, I wondered if what I believed in was true to me because I genuinely believed in it, or if it was because that is what I was told when I was young. Religious influence at a young age can be so critical in forming one’s ideological foundation and is a basis of belief that will likely stay with them for the rest of their life. What if I had grown up like Megan? Would the values of Westboro Baptist Church have molded my moral and ethical foundation? and would those ideas seem so innate and true to me still? If ever I was to meet her, I would ask her if she’s raising her daughter with faith in her life. In a tweet from this past March, Megan replied to a comment made about the Westboro congregation being ‘stupid’, saying, “They’re not stupid, though. Intelligence, unfortunately, is not sufficient protection against indoctrination. =(”. And later continued to say, “it’s easy to feel superior to people like Westboro members. Harder to recognize how lucky you are not to have been similarly indoctrinated—or if you’re like me, to have stumbled on a way out of it. It’s luck, not intelligence, that separates us.” In my view there is a misperception that most members of radical religious groups actively choose their belief system, when they’re instead born and raised to understand those decisions as wholly right by their family members. It is clear that Megan regrets having had religion forced upon her at a young age and considers herself to be “lucky” to have found her way out. But for somebody who has also had the opportunity to see religion as a beautiful symbol of peace, love, and overall goodness for humanity in recent years, would she be willing to introduce that side of religion into her daughter’s life? I would be very curious to know as I think her decision would resemble what she believes is the purpose religion has in somebody’s life: an excuse for hate, or a symbol love.