Week #13 Question #3

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

I found the section on Increased Surveillance as a characteristic of new media to be very interesting. Technology does allow us to perform more tasks and essentially make life easier. Technology is, hence the name, very technical and hard to understand. This is demonstrated whitin the section when they speak of internet monitoring devices such as cookies. The average internet user would be very unlikely to know what a cookie actually was, thus allowing those in control of technology to continue their monitoring tactics. For any company whose interest is to make money, it is obviously within their best interest to monitor customers and potential customers to ensure the efficiency of the whole working system. This is also true for governments. Keeping and eye on the people and being a step ahead is a governmental must. The ethics behind these practices, however, are what is to question. While the methods may be proven, do the ends justify the means?

Week #13 Question #2

· 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 do believe that the medium in which a message is presented is very important to the audience it is intended for. Each medium, however, has its pros and cons in use. Print media allows an infinite amount of time and space to present ideas and views to an audience. The problem here is that if the print media is too lengthy, or written in a way that cannot be understood by the masses, the audience is more likely to ignore or reject such media. Television media has the advantage of presenting a visual image to its audience which allows its message to be collected and analyzed by the audience within a mere seconds glance. The downfall to television media, however, is that time is strickly regulated and all the facts or the whole story can often times not be told. Forcing whole statements and events into a set time frame often leaves the audience ill informed. McLuhan's idea about television being a "cool medium" is one which definately applied to the Kennedy v. Nixon debate. Today, however, there would be those who would argue that cool collectiveness and hot headedness are both welcomed in media as they portray "real life". Just look at the last 10 years of "reality TV" with various casts at each others throats for whatever reason. 50 years ago it would be hard to imagine an American audience accepting a bunch of people on an island who want to kill each other for a million dollars...instead they got Gilligan. The coolness and hotness of the medium has changed along with that of the American culture. Around the world these attitudes toward the television medium and its relative hotness or collness depend on the cultures using the medium.

Week #13 Question #1

· 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?

Yes, I have made friendships that exist solely in cyberspace. I have also made face to face friendships which have then moved into cyberspace due to a separation of great distance. When it comes to cyberspace friendships that revolve around a massive multiplayer game (such as World of WarCraft [WoW] for example) your interactions are much more limited than in a face to face relationship. Now, this is not to say that you and your friends you met on WoW are doomed to only interact on WoW...you're just more likely to interact within the realm of a game. Cyberspace relationships that revolve around blogging and personal pages (MySpace, FaceBook) are still lacking when compared to face to face relationships but, I believe, have more room for adaptation and growth than in a cyberspace gaming relationship. The lack of face to face communication, participating in varrying physical and mental activities, and physical proximity are the main factors which separate face to face relationships from cyber relationships.

Week #12 Question #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 agree with the cell phone etiquette rules listed in the text. I have experienced many times people who do not care to follow these rules (at the movies, in the library, even in the middle of class) and have found that often the conversations that ensue are absolutely trivial. People should use their phones only during emergencies when stuck in a public situation. When it comes to answering machines I agree to a point. If you have a non-private line that you use for business purposes then yes, you should use discretion when making your message. If you do not then it is at your discretion. When leaving messages I do agree that a short message that gets to the point is best when ever possible. In my work experience conference calls are always tricky. Having 15+ people on one call can lead to confusion. It is very important to announce yourself before speaking. Fax etiquette is also important since no one wants to receive unsolicited faxes. Also, whenever possible, info should be sent via e-mail to save paper (money) resources. The time one picks for communication is also very important since calling at the wrong or inappropriate time can start the conversation off on the wrong note. Screen name and ring tone discretion are only valid when used in the public. If you are going to announce your screen name at your business or for business purposes then having a Politically Correct screen name would be wise. Ring tones again are at one's own discretion but I believe that while at work phones should be on vibrate or silent. I have been bothered by cell phones, beepers, and answering machines in the past and have found that I dislike communicating through those mediums. I believe call waiting should only be used when receiving and emergency phone call as it is very rude to leave someone hanging on the line (especially when air minutes are translated into cold hard cash).

Week #12 Question #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 tied to the environment in many ways. They are tied to a social environment because they are composed of people who live unique lives and interact within society. Organizations are also tied to political environments as many times an organization's motivations may be politically based. Organizations are also tied to the natural environment (local and global ecosystem) because any means and mode of production produces some sort of waste by product which in turn effects the stability of the natural environment. Organizations must realize that they are not only effected by environmental factors but also may have a hand in the cause. The relationship between SJSU and the city and people of San Jose is a good one I believe. SJSU provides numerous services to the citizens of San Jose and is also a well respected university. Members of SJSU are also known to take action within the local San Jose community. SJSU is also the site of many city/community events held for the citizens of San Jose. I also believe that as SJSU grows larger and its alumni pool continues to grow the relationship between SJSU and San Jose can only grow stronger. I believe that a university has the ethical obligation to attempt to conduct research and community action within the community in which the university is situated. It is one thing for a school to focus on graduating its students, but for a school to focus on building the community which it is a part of is, I believe, a keystone of academia.

Week #11 Question #3

*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 believe the hardest pattern to change would be that of competitive symetry. To attempt to change two overly competative people who are constantly in a struggle to prove something over the other would be extremely difficult I believe. I also believe this to be harder to change because it is natural human instinct to be competitive and society as a whole condons and sanctions such competition. I believe the most damaging pattern to a relationship would be that of rigid complementarity because that leads to resentment held by one or both memebers of the relationship toward the other partner. It is hard seeing a relationship continue when the role one plays is hated. I believe that the submisive symetry pattern would be most damaging to a persons self esteem because a person caught in this pattern does not view their opinions or desires as having worth. It may also be that even being able to make a decision is to much for a person in the submissive symetry pattern.

Week #11 Question #2

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

I found the section in the text on self-disclosure to be very interesting. I am aware of the concept of self-disclosure and have often heard of it used in business terms (especially in the case of a whistle blower). In personal matters, however, self-disclosure is a very rare thing to come across in a culture which promotes to growth of the individual over all else. I also found the following sub-section of rules for disclosing information to be quite interesting as well. When I first read the section title I must admit I thought the only step to self-disclosure was honesty in one's statement but I soon came to the realization that there are many spheres of interaction involved in self disclosure which may effect others and situations in different ways. The section on responding to self-disclosure was also informative as often times self-disclosed information can be very private or shocking in nature.

Week #11 Question #1

*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?

The characteristics or behaviors that I, and most other American males, use to judge others as unattractive may varry based upon the sex of who is being judged. For example, I believe that most American males, when observing the characteristics and behaviors of a woman, will first observe and rate based on physical characteristics. This may noyt ring true in every case as people are motivated by different factors, but I guarantee you'd be hard pressed to find a heterosexual male who will state he was attracted to his current (or previous) partner based on..lets say...her Gucci purse. Now, this is not to say that any interest needs to be sparked off of first contact, rather, if interest of an American male is sparked on first contact it is usally based on the perceptions of physical characteristics. On the American female side (and as I male I am making obserevations based upon my experiences with the opposite sex [family, friends, co-workers, etc,]) I believe the initial observations of characteristics and behaviors do not follow the usual model as with American males. Material and behavior defined as "machismo" have been what I have found to be two of the characteristics/behaviors which highly motivate women when it comes to attraction to men (I have encountered this here in the Bay Area...though I will admit that cultural trait is not as prevailant as it was in my previous home city of Miami, FL. Lets put it this way...in Miami..if you don't have the latest whip, threads, bling bling, and a phat roll to use to treat that significant other to a good time...don't even bother...and the funny thing is that a girl over there will look you up and down in 10 seconds and then tell you "Get away from me becuase of A, B, C, D." Club/material culture at its "best"). Now, again, this is not to force all women into the same box when it comes to how one rates or initially becomes aware of attractiveness. Rather, that at this point in time in our culture as my generation searches for physical partners, motivations have change quite drastically or simply evolved with technology and time. It was never a secret in the past that men looked for beautiful women and women looked for wealthy men who could take care of them and their future family. I find that today, however, it is easier to create the illusion of attractiveness or success.
Duck's theory does indeed make sense to me and I have been guilty in the past of judging someone based on sociological models, only to find myself to be completely wrong based on the time and interactions spent with that individual. On the same end, I have accepted someone based on sociological models and the wants and desires of the community in which I lived in, only to later realize that the person was in no way deserving of anything from me let alone my acceptance. I believe the present election may be a perfect example for this. On both ends of the parties there were those who, without any real or valid information, demonized the opposing candidate in the news media. This characterization in the news media then fed false information to the public which, due to the high level of political ignorance in this contry, motivated certain individuals to vote a certain way. For example, just the other day I was speaking with a friend who has been an adminany Republican his entire life. When we were speaking of Obama's child hood all I heard were 3 things: 1) Obama has the middle name Hussein...he must be a radical Muslim 2) Obama's father was a radical muslim and possibly a member of the Black Panther party and 3) based on these previous statements, Obama is himself a Muslim. Now, I sat and listened to this from my friend and then asked him where he got his information. I was in no way surprised when he said "Fox News...ofcourse". When I heard this I laughed and I told my friend just how wrong he was and how he had fallen into the great Republican propoganda trap. I explained to him that Hussein is a VERY common name in the Middle East and there are countless Americans (muslim and not) with the name Hussein. To make that correlation would also mean that any current living German by the name of Adolf has an uncontrollable need to commit genocide against Jews...simpley not true and more BS that ignorant Repubs try to pass off as scientific fact. Second, yes, Obamas father was a Muslim and may have infact been a memeber of the Black Panther party...but the most important part of that statement was so purposefully left out of the statement in order to sway Fox News viewers: Obama's father left and abandoned his family when he was only 2 years old thus never playing any type of major role in his education or upbrining (one could even easily imagine Obama striving to be the complete opposite of his father based on his abandonment thus negating the claim "Like father, like son". And finally, after stating these past 2 truths, the third statement, "Obama is a Muslim" fell apart without me having to say a word. My friend openly admited that he was wrong and had been fed missinformation...but that was still not enough for him to feel that he voted for the wrong candidate. Regardlesss, my friends image of Obama changed drastically after I told him of the lies he had been told and, despite claiming his allegiance to the Republican party, he admitted that he felt more secure in the fact that Obama was our President-elect (and he didn't have to worry about all the terrorist/Muslim theories) and that he would lead the country in a new and better direction.