· Do you agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, i.e. that the format or logic of a medium is as important as its content and, in fact, determines what content will be broadcast through that channel? Evaluate his idea that television is a cool medium.

I agree that with McLuhan that the medium is the message. Medium is exremely important to it's message. The meaning of many messages often do come from their delivery.
Television is definitely a "cool medium". It forces us to use more than our minds as we are decoding a message. Involving more than one our our senses in decoding is something that stimulates us in ways more than just thought. We generate impulses as our eyes follow messages and as the data changes so rapidly in front of our eyes that we have to pay close attention. The message is not necessarily fixed as it would be in more traditional forms of media like print. As McLuhan points out, "mosaic logic" forces us to "cognitively reassemble bits of information."

· Have you made friendships that exist exclusively in cyberspace? If so, how are they different from f2f relationships? If you have not formed cyber relationships, why not?

I have made many cyber relationships in the last 12 months. Recently I was hired by a company with 14,000 employees. Of the 14,000 employees about half work from a virtual office. So, as I was starting my new job I realized that I was working with people over email exchanges and the phone. I began to build visualizations of the people and what I thought they may look like based on the tone of their voices or the way that they articulated themselves through email. I found myself guessing age, sexual orientation, and geographic location based on how I perceived their writing styles and voices. This is much different than a face to face relationship where we can instantly determine many things about a person based on the way they dress, body type, how in shape (or out of shape), age, etc.. that are visual cues to how we may perceive this person.

· 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?

There are times when cell phones have really bothered me. Specifically I have a good friend that constantly uses his phone for text messaging. He will text at all times, even when at lunch or out enjoying ourselves at the beach. It makes it seem as though you are with yourself and is somewhat insulting. I think the etiquette around this type of use should be to give the person you are currently with your undivided attention. There is nothing wrong with taking a phone call or excusing yourself from the table to place a call. I do feel though that it can get extrememly excessive when someone will carry on a conversation while you are in a one on one setting. I would prefer to be free to do my work or schedule my time differently.

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 tied to the environment in many ways. Every organization has an impact on it surroundings as it consumes resources, disposes of waste, or creates a culture within a community. There are many economic factors that arise from organizations. They may create jobs within a community, create stores and services that would otherwise not be needed. For example, in Las Vegas, the middle of the desert there are now many jobs related to the casino and hospitality organizations.

The school that one attends has a direct relationship to the city or town that it is situated in. Many economies are built around schools as they provide a lot of jobs, clubs, cultural events, and infrastructure requirements. Schools make up a large part of a city and often cities are known for the schools that are in them. For example, when someone says the went to Berkeley they are referring to UC Berkeley.

I feel that organizations have a big ethical obligation to their communities. Campus environments can make or break the safety of an area. They can create traffic headaches, congestion and overcrowding. I beleive that each organization should be responsible for giving back to the community and excercising care in how it treats the environment.

*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 competitive symmetry would be the most difficult type of role relation to change between individuals. Competitive nature in humans seems to continually escalate. However, I think that competitive nature is healthy in individuals. Once a competition has started it is human nature to continue the fight. I think the most damaging type of role relation is submissive symmetry. Indecision leads to lack of results. When no one is willing to take a stand I think a relationship has a way of fizzling out. Usually opposites attract. Or at least in my case they do. In relationships where neither person is willing to take a stand or make a decision it usually results in neither person truly getting what they want.

*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?

I find it interesting that we can actually classify interpersonal attraction filters by sociological or incidental, preinteraction, interaction, and cognitive cues. I think as we are filtering relationships we become so accustomed to the way in which we filter that we don't even realize that we are applying a filter. I think for many people pre interaction cues play the biggest role in how we filter. Society has placed a lot of pressure on physical beauty, dress, and body type. We can tell from a distance whether or not we have something in common with people or not based on how their appearance fits into our stereotypes or our learned culture.

*Do you believe in the rationality, perfectability, and mutability premises? What social institutions and practices are based on these beliefs?

I do beleive the rationality, perfectablity, and mutability premises. Social institutions such as our justice system follow the rationality premise. Where one can find truth and logically analyzing a situation to discover a conclusion. I especially beleive in the mutability premis that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors. If someone is raised in a terrible neighborhood where crime and poverty flourish it takes great restraint to follow the correct path. People that are born in affluent neighborhoods to educated families have a much easier time. By improving our surroundings we can add to our productivity. For example, if we work in an office we tend to be much more productive if the office is clean and organized. Or, if our house and neighborhood are clean we tend to be more productive.

Answer one in each of your three posts, at least 24 hours apart:
*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 culture?

I agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that our habits, beleifs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture. To break through the limits of our culture we need to remain very open minded and make sure that we do not limit our environment to things that we are comfortable with and used to. By giving other cultures a chance we are able to expand our horizons and expand our place in the world. The only way to expand the limits of our culture is to learn about other cultures. For many people it is important to travel to absorb as much of other cultures as possible.

3). Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

I chose Non-Verbal communication as my interesting topic. I attended a global sales conference in Washington DC over the last week. During the conference I attended a seminar taught by someone that is extremely sarcastic in how they present. It came up later in a discussion with a peer that this person also provided a webinar. The message delivered live vs. the message delivered in the webinar were the same messages but interpreted differently. In the live presentation the sarcasm came across as humor. However, in the webinar conducted over the phone and internet the sarcasm seemed to sound condescending.

1). Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make more fair?

I think that it is difficult to differentiate perception from the way we judge others. If we have a preconceived notion of someone or the message they are delivering we tend to pre judge so that the message we want to beleive becomes dominant in our minds. Often we will hear one portion of a message and from that point on we will classify the rest of the message and judge the person delivering it. For example, if someone walks onto a stage with long hair and dresses like a hippie we tend to stereotype and perceive their message in that fashion. It may turn out that the person was merely dressed in a disguise but it still tends to cloud our perception and interpretation.

2). Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is this speaker's strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?

Ronald Regan is, in my opinion, one of the greatest speakers of this century. Second only to Martin Luther Kink, Jr. The ability to captivate an audience through ethos by displaying great perception of power, wealth, and attractiveness were among Regan's best qualities. Not only did Regan display power but he also built great credibility. Ultimately his credibility is what made the nation love him so much. Not only did Regan practice great Rhetoric but he also exhibited and fostered a wealth of trust amongst his followers. If only we had someone today with Regan's characteristics in this trying time that our nation faces. Now, more than ever before, we have a house so divided that it is becoming impossible to collectively solve problems without strict underlying political agendas.

1). Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard. What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?

I was influenced by a speaker within my professional organization. She is a Vice President for a large Fortune 300 company. I attended this speach in New Jersey where she lived and where my business is based. K had the perfect blend of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. What I remember most about her speach was her unbelievable confidence in herself. At the beginning of the speach the audience did not truly understand the position that K held within the company. Throughout the presentation it became evident that her stature was more than initially met the eye. In a nut shell it was her confidence and delivery that made the speach truly memorable.

I have also seen some very bad speakers. One memorable speaker that comes to mind as compeletly ineffective I will refer to as B. B got up in front of a group of high lever company officers to deliver a sales presentation. As visual effects and aides have become a necessity to spice up a presentation they had the opposite effect for B. Instead of playing off the visuals, in this case a power point presentation, B read from the slides facing away from the customer. Speaking in front of your customer in an effective manner gives the buyer confidence that you know what you are delivering and can make good on your promise. B's lack of ability to discuss and deliver value hindered and ultimately lost the sale. Perception is very important!

· Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.

The Psychological model of communication is particularly interesting to me. When the messages sent by a source are interpreted by a receiver differently than the source intended it creates unsuccessful communication. I find that people interpret messaged differently than intended all the time. This can be seen when people agree on a particular point but yet they are still arguing. Neither person really knows that they have the same opinion because the message is either not being interpreted correctly or is not being coded correctly. By altering a senders point of view to see the perspective of the recipient we can often improve our abiity to effectively communicate.

*Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it:

I find the five canons of Rhetoric particularly useful in delivering a persuasive message. Arrangement is particulary important. When delivering a message or persuading an audience, the order in which the message is delivered is extremely important. To get the desired results a speaker must build up to his or her proposition. It must be arranged is such a fashion that some type of emotion or interest is evoked while at the same time allowing the orator to remain organized. Organization of thought is crucial to how a message is delivered and how an audience will interepret that message.

*The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?

I think that to be an effective orator one does not need to be morally good. In fact, some of the most famous and influential speakers have been morally corrupt or devoid of all moral value completely. There is a difference between being an effective deliverer of messages and actually following through with promises made throughout the delivery. However, as time goes on and promises go undelivered and actions promised do not happen the orator will lose their effectiveness. This is similar to what has happened to some of our politicians. During the election they promise the world even though it is obvious that one man or one woman can not make as big an impact as what they are promising. I think that goodness, truth, and public communication are closely coupled. Part of being an effective orator for the long term is to gain the trust of one's audience.

*Think of a speaker you admire. Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle’s classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?

There are many speakers I admire. One in particular that comes to mind is Ronald Reagan. His power to persuade, even through hard times, was exceptional. Reagan's power was a true mixture of ethos, pathos, and logos. Reagan could address a message, word it properly, and then find a logical way to deliver the message. All this while at the same time be able to exhibit great personal character. It was Reagan's personal character that the masses flocked to. It was not always the message he was delivering but rather the way in which he delivered it. Only when a speaker can harness ethos, pathos, and logos can they be truly successful at rhetoric.