Week of April 29-May 2 Question 1

I have not made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace. I do keep in contact with people on facebook, myspace, and email but the people I communicate with online I also talk to them on the phone. The Internet is different in that I have a small idea with what is going on with people' lives because of their status on these social networks.

I have not formed cyber relationships because I am lucky enough to have a core group of friends that I do not have to communicate through the Internet. I do not want to sound conceded or lazy but I feel I have enough close friends I feel I do not wish to put the effort into having a cyber relationship. After seeing the movie You Got Mail, they had to talk all the time to proceed with their friendship. I feel meeting people face to face and spending 20 minutes with a person would equal five or six messages back and forth. Why go through such a methodical means of communication when a phone call or face to face meeting can advance one further in the relationship. I believe that too often people look for compatibility in our friends through people's profiles. I believe too often people today look for compatibility by examining people's Internet profiles. Most of my great friendships come from personal experiences and social events. If I looked at some of my friends profiles on the Internet I would not have chosen to communicate with some of my good friends. It is important for our society to not get too wrapped up in cyberspace relationships. Good old fashioned face to face interaction can give us the best indication of compatibility.

Week of April 12-18 Question #3

Organizational communication is interesting to examine. The book talks about tight and lose coupling. Organizations are very different in how they are set up and the flow of communication is affected by the segments of each department. I have been a part of organizations where information was passed along freely but unorganized. Sometimes this had the telephone game affect and information would turn into misinformation. Other organizations would have little clusters of people working in groups. When multiple clusters or multiple departments of an organization came together communication was lost or not transferred from one department to another.
It is important that the lines of communication are set up and organized for people and departments to filter appropriate information. In today's organizations typically this communication is passed by email and instant messaging. It is important that an organization goes over appropriate communication standards and procedures when using these communication tools.
I find that organizations that go over specifics in who, what, where, when, why, and how different departments and people should communicate have a clear understanding of how to interact and work within the organization. The book went into some detail about the differences of employees roles such as isolates, liaison, bridge, etc. but, I found the book to be too matter a fact and absolute in characterizing peoples roles. Organizations do have an hierarchy of status but, people go through different roles during projects and on multiple projects. I felt the book tried to put people into categories instead of focusing on how organizations can maneuver and adjust to communication and role changes that constantly occur.

Week of April 19-25 Question #2

The etiquette of the cell phone is most commonly involved in my everyday life. I actually do not mind when people interrupt a current conversation if the phone call is important and needs to be answered at that particular moment. What is frustrating is when the phone call is irrelevant and ruins the momentum of the conversation. I really dislike when people text in dark places. They feel that since they are texting they are not distracting others. When I go to a movie or indoor concert and the lights are off the bright screen is distracting. Just because someone is not talking on the phone the bright screen is distracting in a dark and quiet environment.
My pet peeve with answering machines is when people do not leave their name. There are basically two three people in my life that don't have to leave their name my girlfriend, Mom, and Dad. I have many other close friends I keep in touch with and I would recognize their voices. But, it is ridiculous to assume the person on with the message knows who is calling by your voice. Even if they have a cell phone or caller ID. It is rude and I feel a little arrogant.
I never have any problems with beepers any more. Most of the time it is people with next tells that have alter sounds when they are at work. It does not really bother me much. The only time it bothers me is when people are definitely off work or not answering their phone and fail to turn off their alerts. For example, there are people who get an alert but are in a situation where they are not going to answer their phone. Instead of turning off their alerts they just ignore all their alerts one after another! If your not going to answer your phone then turn off your beeper after the first alert.
I have never had to be on a conference call in my life. The example of the book seems to go hand in hand with my pet peeve of people not giving their name with their messages. It would be frustrating if you are on a conference call and spend more time guessing who is talking than listening to what the person is saying.
I do not really have a problem with call waiting as long as people use it responsibly. Just because someone gets a call on another line does not mean that person must respond. Call waiting should be used if really necessary. I will typically answer call waiting if I get the same person calling multiple times during a conversation. Then I usually know that it is probably appropriate to put a person on hold. Yet, call waiting should not be done within the middle of a thought or topic that will kill the momentum of a conversation.
I enjoy having the option of call waiting, email, fax, etc. With new technology and new ways to communicate should come basic etiquette that is acceptable to the specific means of one is communicating. Just as talking in people different social settings have different types of etiquette and language. Each technology has their own set of ethical standards that should be upheld.

Week of April 19-25 Question #1

Organizations are tied to their environment in that they depend on their surroundings for resources. An organization effects its environment in an economic and cultural way. Economically organizations can bring in other businesses that will fulfill the needs of the organization and it's employees. An example would be coffee shops or fitness centers opening businesses in the same community because new employees in the community have needs for their morning coffee and a place to work out after work. An organization can impact the type of culture when an organization takes the personality of the community. Silicon Valley has a different type of culture than the mining towns of West Virginia. The type of people at the organization does shape attitudes and business culture.
The school I attend does impact the city of San Jose. San Jose State University is a commuter college. In response to the culture of the University San Jose has many forms of public transportation for people to make their way into downtown San Jose and the university. Since parking spaces are a problem the university has build parking garages and has parking lots off campus with buses that transport students to the college. Part of the San Jose State environment is dealing with the parking situation because of the culture of it's students.
I feel a university has an ethical obligation to produce students that can help with the type of jobs that make up the city. I feel San Jose state has a responsibility to have top notch computer programming and technology driven degrees. San Jose is the premier hub to technological businesses and computer programing it is only right for the university to produce students that can get jobs and live in the community they went to college in. The university should interact with the community. It should be an asset instead of a nuisance. Students can work while they go to school, stay in local housing, and intern in local businesses. Both culturally and economically a university has an obligation to improve communities.

Week April 12-18 Question #1

I believe the competitive symmetry would be the most difficult and most damaging type for a relationship. It would be difficult for two people who naturally compete with one another to be able to compromise on most decisions. In this type of relationship the two people involved will compete with each other for the sake of out doing one another. This type of couple would find it hard to admit when they are wrong. When two competitive people are in an argument and one person is wrong the person who is right can rub in their correct decision in the other's face. This out doing each other can be taxing on any relationship. The couples who typically have this dilemma are the one 's who fight all the time.
I think the rigid complementary relationship has the most potential to damaging the self esteem of the people in the relationship. When the people in the relationship resent their status their self esteem can be affected negatively. The person who is dominant will constantly feel like they are the bad guy and the less dominant role feels like they have no say or voice in the relationship. This type of situation doesn't give the freedom for each person in the relationship to have influence and confidence when making decisions.

Week of March 29 - April 4 Question #2

The rationality premise is difficult to believe 100%. That fact that most people are capable of discovering truth through logical analysis is a little to grey for me. When throwing out terms such as truth and logical analysis is circumstantial. We can argue that what is logical and truthful for an American Indian living in Montana is different for a 18 year old that has grown up in New York City their entire life. The environment we are raised in determines so much of what is made up of our idea of logical reasoning. I do agree that most people are capable of using their own individualistic reasoning to come to a truth. But, I think truth or logical analysis are too strong of adjectives. Off the top of my head I would say people are capable to reason or analyze. But, to say that there is truth or logic is too much of a grey area for my taste.
In looking at perfectibility I am not sure about the whole we are all born in sin thing. But, I generally agree that we are all capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. The problem is there are a few of us humans that need a tremendous amount of effort and control to achieve goodness. Even good people can become greedy and selfish. In taking a line out of the Batman movie, "Sometimes there are people that just want to watch the world burn," I guess I am more of an optimist in that I believe we are all possible of goodness. It is up to the people of our society to put forth the extra amount of time and effort to get through to those people that becomes difficult to find goodness.
The mutability premise is the easiest for me to believe. The idea that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and we can improve people's circumstances by improving their psychological and physical circumstances in improving their environment. The other side to this argument is that some of the highest achieving people in our cultures are those who came from difficult environments and motivated them to reach a high level of success based on the difficult environment they grew up in. But, on the whole improving people's psychological and physical circumstances will change a person's images of themselves.