Etiquette

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?

In this day and age I feel it is next to impossible to survive without a cell phone. I have many friends who don't even have a land line because the easiest way to reach the is through their cell. However, I do feel that there are proper and respectful ways to use a cell phone. I just went to see the new James Bond movie tonight and I love the preview where a loud annoying cell phone is going off and interrupting a really important part of the actors conversation, there is an awkward pause and then a voice that says "Please don't add your own sound effects to the movie turn off your cell phones." When you are in a meeting or at a movie it is rude to have your cell phone on and even more rude to answer it during a movie.

Answering machines and or voice mails services are vital in order to receive important messages. Some people are email people and other are cell phone people. I myself am more attached to my cell so it is never wise to only shoot me an email I will need a voicemail too. In terms of etiquette I really despise voice mails that is loud music playing, or the worst is when people pretend they are there and say hello and they make you think you have reached the person when you really haven't.

I personally don't like call waiting because when I am talking to someone especially a good friend I haven't seen in awhile I hate hearing the annoying beep in my ear. The beep causes me to put my friend on hold in order to click over and tel the other person I will call them back. I don't think it is rude to put people on hold it can just be inconvenient sometimes.

The environments connection to organizations

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?

In the reading this week on pg 215 we see that there is a definite linkage between organizations and the environment in which they happen in. Now, organizations can be good and beneficial for an environment but they can also be detrimental. It is important to know that an organization is not so strictly defined as a place or group but rather a human behavior. Keeping this definition in mind when thinking about organizations we see that some organizations can be harmful to its environment.

For example organizations thrive off of the environment in which it exists resources. Let's imagine if you will a small farming community. The people within this environments make their living off of their livestock and the crops they produce. Now what if a large building organization wanted to come in and strip acres of the land to build an amusement park. Wouldn't the people in this small town suffer a great deal if their way of making an income was demolished by a bigger wealthier organization?

Looking at San Jose State I can definitely see a tie to my environment by the diversity of the students. People of all age and race attend San Jose which matches the environment. San Jose is also a commuter college many people who got to SJSU live somewhere in the bay area so they not only go to school but they work too.

I do believe if a school or university is built then it does owe things to its community. One good example of this is, I just performed in a play on campus called "Puss in Boots." This play is a part of a new company called Magic Carpet theatre and it is sponsored by the King Library. The goal of this new theatre company is to reach out into the community and encourage kids to take part in theatre. I was very excited to be a part of this production and I am also overjoyed to see how this theatre company make a difference in down town San Jose.

Judging potential dating partners

*Think about the filters you use to eliminate people from consideration as potential romantic partners. What characteristics or behaviors 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?

Once reading about Duck's theory on attraction I learned that I am guilty of using pre-interaction cues. I know that when I check out a guy I look at his physical appearance, the way they are dressed and so on. For example if I saw some skater guy with big baggy clothes and long greasy hair wearing a beanie I probably wouldn't turn my head twice. (And yes I realize that I just made a big stereotype, but it is for the sake of my example.) However, if I saw a tall guy dressed in a polo and fitted jeans with short hair and a clean shaved face I would give him a double take; these are all examples of pre-interaction cues that I use.

I know this sounds cliche but I definitely measure attractiveness by the heart. I am engaged and in order to get to this step Brad my fiance had to fit the mold of the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. Yes, on the surface he is good looking but it is his heart that really made me fall in love with him. He has such a passion for life, he does everything full out. He loves the Lord with all of his heart and this is a number one priority in finding a spouse for me, because I am a christian. He also is very kind a respectful and has a soul of integrity and he is very loyal.

Brad isn't the world's idea of perfect he has one leg and to many girls who are using Duck pre-interaction cues this would be a red flag telling them they are not interested. I got to know Brad as Brad and I don't care that he is missing a limb because he is more complete then any other man I have ever met. Sometimes we miss out on the amazing relationships when we use pre-interaction cues. I am very glad that I didn't judge Brad by his physical appearance or else I might not be getting married.

What I found Interesting this week...

I really enjoyed reading about the cause of conflict and interpersonal conflict on pg 164. I liked the way conflict was defined as "whenever two people have incompatible goals." Here is a silly example from my own life. The other night my fiance really want to be close to me and kiss me, however, I was exhausted and wanted to sleep. My desire to sleep and his desire to be intimate are definitely incompatible goals.

I also enjoyed reading up on the way people express conflict. Some people are the withdrawers and others are the forcers. I am definitely a withdrawer as for my fiance tends to use more of the forceful tactic or a compromiser. I hate dealing with problems and will often avoid them if I can, which isn't healthy because then the problem usually only gets worse. Either I withdraw or I accommodate, meaning I give in to what the other person wants right away which is another way of giving up or not really dealing with the way I feel about a problem. It was good for me to realize where I need some work in expressing conflict in a productive way. Conflicts have to occur for growth to occur and this is a lesson that I am continually learning.

Week 11 Post 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?

I think that the competitive symmetry may be the most difficult pattern to break or change. In this pattern both people experience the one-up syndrome where they have to be the best. It is frustrating for both people in the relationship because neither one is willing to back down. This pattern can be seen a lot in athletes because athletes are trained to be very competitive and they have to win. In relationships there has to be give and take, not one person can always be the winner.
I think that rigid complementary would be the most damaging to a relationship because one person is feeling resentful and the other is feeling dissatisfied. If one person in the relationship is always dominant over the other then there is obviously a lack of communication. It is never good for a relationship for one person to always be in control. I know that if my fiance was always dominant then i would feel unappreciated and resentful and we probably wouldn't be getting married.
I also think that the rigid complementary pattern would be the most damaging to someone's self-esteem. In the rigid pattern there is someone who fills the submissive role. When someone is always submissive then they aren't ever getting what they want but they are doing what the other person wants. Not getting what you want can definitely be damaging to your self-worth because the relationship is making you feel like your wants and needs aren't important, therefore you aren't important.
I didn't feel that submissive symmetry pattern really fit any of the questions that is why I used the rigid pattern twice.

Week 9 Post 3

The key concept that stood out to me in chapter 12 was that intercultural communication couldn’t be avoided. I believe that as Americans we follow the Burger King slogan to a T and that is " Have it your way." We want life to be convenient and easy. But when it comes to intercultural communication life can't be simple. We don't live in a world anymore where all of your neighbors are the same race as you nor speak the same language. Frankly I think we are better off living in diversity, but it does force us to become more patient and better communicators.

My grandma gets really frustrated shopping at Wall Mart because many of the workers are Hispanic and don't speak English. She has this backwards mind set that everyone in America has to speak English in order to live here, however; this just isn't the way our world is anymore.

I personally think it is great that we live in a country that has so many different cultures and ethnicities present. Just look at SJSU we are wonderfully diverse which isn't the case for most college campuses. I believe communication between different cultures can be difficult but it is more rewarding. Learning how to work with all different kinds of people, male, female, black, white rich or poor, makes us better of I individuals.

Week 9 Post 2

Do I believe in rationality, perfectibility, and mutability premises? What are the social institutions based off these beliefs?

I thought that the three premises were very interesting and different from one another. I personally believe in the perfectibility premise that we are born to sin but we can strive to achieve goodness. An important part of this premise that is left out is that we can't achieve perfection on our own it is only with God's help that we can come anywhere near perfection. We have to accept Christ in order to reach our full potential. An important institution that is based off of this premise are churches. We have to admit we are sinners and from that we can move forward into becoming a better person.

I personally don't really follow the rationality premise very much and that is the belief that most people are capable of discovering the truth through logical analysis. pg 353. Some of the most important decisions we make in life are made with our hearts and not with our heads, therefore; we are not always logical. I think that because the heart can be so illogical that is why so many cases in court are hard to judge. The court is one example of an institution that follows the rationality premise.

Last is the mutability premise. This premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors, and that in order to improve humans we need to improve the physical and psychological circumstances. This premise makes me think of helping the poor and the homeless. In order for people to become better their most basic needs have to be met. These needs include clothing, food water etc. One institution that really stresses this is the Sacred Heart. This foundation wants to get people off the street but in order for this to happen they serve the homeless by providing for them their most basic needs.