respond to discussions 1 and 2 in 1-2 paragraphs. questions are from chapters 9-12 in reflect and relate an introduction to interpersonal communication fifth edition (2018). 1. One part of this weeks readings that I was questioning was the idea of accommodation and domination. In the reading it states that accommodation is when "one person abandons his or her own goals and acquiesces to the desires of the other person" (McCornack, 2018). Then the reading states that domination is when "one person gets his or her way by influencing the other to engage in accommodation and abandon goals" (McCornack, 2018). As I was reading the meaning of both of these words I got the idea that they have a closely related definition especially because they both mention the idea of abandonment which made it confusing as I was taking the quiz and a question regarding these words came up. In both definitions it states that power is involved when either accommodating or dominating in a relationship, whether it be for good or bad. When I was reading about accommodation is stated " If you are like most people, you probably accommodate those who have more power than you", and domination states " The strongest predictor of domination is the power imbalance in the relationship" (McCornack, 2018). Although power is dispersed differently in each, both definitions are very similar which could cause confusion when determining which word is correct for a certain situation. Overall, when is it the correct time to use domination or accommodation? Are they as closely related as they seem? Although there are times when the use of one word is more appropriate than the other, what about the times when a certain scenario is given where both words could be used just as equally? 2. In chapter 11, Relationships with Romantic Partners, it talks about passionate love. This love "changes our brains" (kindle version pg. 833). While also having people "view their loved ones and relationships in a excessively idealistic light" (kindle version pg. 833). This love might not last forever, and can turn into a companionate love instead, this is defined as "an intense form of liking defined by emotional investment and deeply intertwined lives" (kindle version pg. 836). The book also states "many long-term romantic relationships evolve into companionate love" (kindle version pg. 836). Does every love go from passionate to companionate love? Is saying if passionate love dies down with a partner and it doesn't turn into companionate love then it is doomed to end? What really marks the time when passionate turns into companionate? Continuing on with the chapter, it talks about romantic love types. The types are, Storge (friendly lovers), Agape (forgiving lovers), Mania (obsessive lovers), Pragma (practical lovers), Ludus (game-playing lovers), and Eros (romantic lovers). Finding someone the same romantic love type as you is very important and might be the main reason why you are attracted or thinking about a future with that person. You feel like you "get along" with them really well, which might be due to the love type they are. If you don't have the same love type the passionate love might not last long and the relationship might not even last to companionate love. I do feel like there are some people who can grow and shape into a different love type depending on how open they are to change. All these factor revolves around people's perspectives of their relationship, do they have the same, or do they differ? In the chapter under perception they talked about if "one person feels romantic and the other does not- they do not have a romantic relationship" (kindle version 839). All these concepts tie together to create a long lasting healthy relationship. which raises the question, do you think couples can last the long haul with different romantic types and different perspectives of the relationship? If so, do you think they have to work on their relationship more than others who have the same romantic love type? Will it last enough to get to companionate love?