Reply to comment

 I'm sorry to be so late to post in here. I've been reading, just not writing.

The most interesting dynamic (for me) in the forum this week has been the language that people are using to describe the different cultures of the two classes. Loaded adjectives have been presented, and often followed by qualifiers. For example, P/A's group was more/less "x" than our group -- not too say that's worse/better, just different. Yet "x" has usually had a qualitative value associated with it. To say that Anne's group is more polite is to say that Paul's group is more rude; to say that Paul's group is closer than Anne's group is to say that Anne's group doesn't have as strong of a bond. As a few have pointed out, it seems that each of us thought that our group was in some way "better" or at the very least, we bristled at the notion that our group might somehow be "worse."

I think Jordan made a great point about the nature of group integration and "showing off," or wanting to put one's best-foot forward and how that creates hyperbolic situations. Perhaps if we had all met in the cafeteria or Campus Center, by chance, there wouldn't have been as strong of a framework of judgement in place. Instead, there might have simply been curiosity and allowances for differences without qualitative analysis.

On the other hand, we all have different preferences which in some way makes us individuals, and also allows for subcultures. Music is a great example of this. What some listen to for relaxation might be nails-on-a-chalk-board for another. I'm not ready to say that each of our classes evolved because all of the individuals in the class prefer a certain form of discussion, nor that Paul and Anne are entirely responsible (although Paul and Anne, have you noticed consistent patterns throughout the years in differences between your ESem/CSem groups?), but it does seem as if the members of each group evolved harmoniously within those groups. That is to say, I didn't hear anybody wishing to be in the other group.