*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.