A sex scandal in Phillipines between a cosmetic surgeon, Dr. Hayden Kho, and a few of his celebrity patients, has recently emerged. Sex videos of the doctor and his patients have been leaked out onto the Internet. The only identified woman involved in the scandal as one of his sex partners is up-and-coming actress, Katrina Halili. When asked about it, she said, “I fully gave my heart and soul to a man who is doing his own movie.”
This is an example of how a Qualitative approach of Interpersonal communication went totally wrong.
Before Ms. Halili went to Dr. Kho for his surgery services, they shared an impersonal relationship as doctor and patient. But as Halili and Kho drew closer to each other, and Halili eventually got seduced by Kho, their relationship became interpersonal. From her statement above, we can tell that Halili adopted a mindset during their interaction, that perhaps Kho was a man she could trust and love.
One reason they even hooked up together in the first place was because they were both similar to each other in certain ways, one example being they are both celebrity figures, rich, and good looking. This is an example of stimulus generalization.
Another reason they hooked up was because each was also rather special in their own ways. Kho is well known for having an ideal well-toned body for a man. Not only that, he is also an educated doctor. Halili is Philippine’s sex symbol, voted FHM 2006’s sexiest woman, and has graced the covers of such magazines over and over. This is an example of stimulus discrimination.
Using non-verbal communication, particularly objectics, the Philippines media communicated their disdain towards Halili by pulling her posters and advertising billboards down from all over Philippines. Film and modeling companies have also retracted jobs they have previously offered her.
I feel that stimulus generalization plays a bigger part in attracting one to another in an interpersonal communication. This is because both parties need to be similar to a decent extent in order for them to take an interest in each other. If both parties were too different from each other, they probably would not even take notice of each other in the first place, just like how a basketball jock would probably never notice a punk rock musician, if we put superficial interests aside. Stimulus generalization emphasizes the proverb, “Birds of a feather flock together.” So one will often notice that couples almost always have many things in common, whether they are similarities in terms of status, wealth, career, mindsets, or interests.
I feel that the drive behind finding a partner that is similar to yourself is more of self-validation. Everyone is an egoist and everyone loves themselves more than anything else. So, they try to find another version of themselves to love.
ReplyDeletethis is especially so in physical appearances. I would like to cite an example of an ongoing argument between me and my brother. We have VERY different perceptions of what a beautiful woman is. My brother, as I have noticed, likes toned bodies, high cheekbones, and sharp features. I, on the other hand, prefer softer, rounder features and 'healthier' physiques. Looking at ourselves, we realize that our different tastes in women is congruent to the difference in our own physical features.
We always look for opportunities to feed our egos. We do it both consciously and unconsciously.
I sort of agree with longlong and sort of disagree. yes we are egoists but i find that i am attracted to women similar to your tastes with a pinch of your brothers. So i would disagree in the part of finding another version of oneself rather that i look for qualities that i lack or admire. in such completing a puzzle of sorts.
ReplyDeleteWe are hard to satfisfy.
ReplyDeleteSimiliar statuses make it easier for individuals to hook up, partly because of the same social circles they run in.
So what about opposites attracting? Is that generally true in our society?