April 18-25 (question #2)

2). Review the etiquette rules suggested in the text. Respond to each one. Have you ever been bothered by cell phone, answering machines, or beepers? What do you feel about call waiting? Is it rude to put people on hold to take another call?

I have to agree that using your phone in a public place can be rude and distracting to others that might be near you. The rule about cellular phones and not talking while at a restaurant or public sphere should be practiced or at least considered by everyone. I hate when people are using their cell phones in a movie theatre. Even if your quietly texting you can still see the bright distracting light in front of you. The rule about answering machines is also true. I must admit, I was one of those people (in high school) that left recorded songs on my answering machine. I came to understand that it is annoying and felt embarrassed when co-workers or family member called my phone. I’m not to familiar with the rules of conference calls and faxes. I don’t do much of both but they sound pretty reasonable. Timing your communications is a must. I worked at a sports camp for kids and had to call parents at a certain time of day so that we wouldn’t bother the recipient. Although I don’t agree with not being able to use our phones while driving. Finally, the rules against choosing a correct screen name and ringtones are completely true. You don’t want to give your boss a derogatory screen name nor have a ringtone called “baby got back.” I don’t believe it’s rude for someone to put someone on hold. I guess it all depends on who your putting on hold.

April 18-25 (question #1)

1). How are organizations tied to the environment? What is the relationship between the school you attend and the city or town in which it is situated? What, if any, ethical obligations does an organization like a college or university have to the local community?

Organizations are everywhere, from the school or work you attend, to the soccer team someone might play in. Organizations are also linked to the environment. As it states in Chapter 8, organizations are linked to their environment because they depend on their surroundings for resources and energy (215). Just like creatures, organizations cannot survive without their environment. An example of an organization that is dependent on its environment is San Jose State University. San Jose State needs people from its environment to attend their organization and ultimately survive. San Jose State also mirrors its city in which it is situated in by mirroring the city’s rich diversity. There are some ethical obligations that San Jose State has to the local community like mirroring its students with the diversity it’s city has. Also, celebrating and being involved with certain holidays and festivals such as Cezar Chavez day.

April 8-14 (question 2)

2). Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviours lead you to judge others as unattractive? Does Duck's theory make sense to you? Have you ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cues?

I do agree with Steve Duck’s theory. I guess it makes sense that there are a series of filters that help us judge how close to others we want to become. There are a lot of characteristics that lead me to eliminate people as potential partners. I must say that there are more behaviors then characteristics that help me determine who I find attractive or who I might want to date. For example: I feel that being intelligent (characteristic) and being productive (behavior) are some of the many “standards” I have. Someone who is smart and shows ambitious actions are qualities that I look for when considering someone to date. Obviously, physical attraction is extremely important also. I think I use pre-interaction cues the most when trying to interact with others. If there is someone who I and find attractive, but when approaching them I find that there non-verbal communication shows they want nothing to do with me; then I stop persisting. I also use pre-interaction cues to non-verbally let someone know “Im not interested.” I don’t recall ever eliminating someone because of their physical characteristics but then reconsidering them because I found that we had many similar beliefs and values.  

April 8-14 (question 1)

1). Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?

Out of rigid complementary, competitive symmetry, and submissive symmetry, competitive symmetry would probably be the most difficult for a person to change. According to the book, competitive symmetry is when both members of a relationship fight for the one-up position. I feel that if a person is naturally competitive, its kind of difficult to change that. I think that the most damaging to a relationship would be  rigid complementary. The book states that rigid complementary is when the submissive partner begins to resent always giving in. I feel that resentment can cause major problems to a relationship. One person can do damage both to themselves and their relationship through resentment. Finally, I feel that submissive symmetry would do the most damage to the self esteem and to the individuals involved. This pattern is paradoxical and makes both partners avoid control.

April 12-18 (question 3)

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.

Interpersonal communication is one of my favorite subfields of communication. One of the concepts I found interesting was the many characteristics of Dyadic communication. According to the book, Dyadic communication when compared to other subfields of communication, is direct, personal, spontaneous and informal (141). There is no escaping from Dyadic’s characteristics such as its directness. Also, Dyad communication is much more immediate. I have a boss who can talk forever! I sometimes look dazed and confused because his conversations go off on strange tangents. He immediately can sense my confusion because of Dyadic communication and because the quality of feedback is high. Dyadic communication is also described as spontaneous. Compared to public speakers, Dyadic communicator aren’t reading off a prompter or from a piece of paper. Members of dyads very rarely outline or rehears what they say to one another. I enjoyed reading chapter 6 and learning about the many characteristics of Dyadic communication.

M

March 30- April 4 ( question 2 )

2). Do you believe in the rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises? What social institutions and practices are based on these beliefs?

I do believe that most Americans agree that humans hold three basic beliefs about human nature. The book defines rationality premise as people being capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis. I think that most people have the potential to use rational judgment to make logical decisions. I believe that most people are capable of making rational decisions although there are cases where perfectly healthy individuals chose not to take the “logical” approach. The rationality premise is seen in the Judicial branch of the U.S. Democracy. The perfectibility premise is an interesting concept the book argues to be another belief that most Americans have. I think the perfectibility premise hold true in the minds of most American’s due partly because of Christianity. I don’t believe fully in the mutability premise. Not ALL human behavior is shaped from environmental factors.  Finally, I do believe that Individualism is seen throughout American society. The United States is an Individualistic society where Americans are encouraged to make their own decisions and opinions as opposed to other collectivistic societies.

March 30- April 4 2009 ( question #1 )

1). Do you agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture" and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture? If so, how can we break through the limits of our cultures?

I do agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict and that we are all “ creatures of our culture.” I also agree how Anthropologist Ruth benedict states that, “By the time someone is able to talk, he or she is a creature of his culture.” I also have some doubts on what she also states regarding how even from the time we are first born, the customs into which we are born in shape our behavior. The reason why I might disagree is mostly because babies aren’t able to store long term memory into their brains let alone have any kind of understanding of the question..who are we? But, as we get older and the child begins to speak, they become “part of the environment” made by humans or in the child’s case, made by its parents. The child becomes a mirror image of its parent’s culture identity. The way we break through the limits of our culture can be through assimilation, acculturation, and even intercultural communication.