Organization Communication

This week I found the whole chapter of communication within organizations really helpful and interesting. I did not notice that that much work and effort went in to communication with in a group of people. The tips for communicating via telephone and teleconference were helpful for the future. Learning now when to call people and how to make a successful conference call will defiantly come handy with future jobs. I also like learning about the open and closed systems in organizations. Having an open system allows new ideas to come in when they are needed. Being an open system organization benefits them a lot because they can reform or come up with new ways to do something without becoming bankrupt or forced to shut down. The last topic in the chapter I found interesting was, the relationship between team leaders and team members. Having recently gotten a new job this has helped me be a better team member and communicate efficiently with other members and even my leader. 

Inductive Argument in Real Life

Picking an example to use for the inductive argument I used this week was difficult to pick. I almost always use inductive arguments. The one I choose was deciding what to wear to school. I knew that on Monday it had rained and was cold outside, and I only wore a sweatshirt and that Tuesday it was not going to rain but it was going to be windy and cold so I wore a long sleeve shirt. So I figured on Wednesday it would also be cold but I should wear a warm jacket. This is an example of an inductive argument because I did not know that it would be cold on Wednesday, I just assumed it would because of the weather from the two earlier days. More specifically this example is a generalization because I used the two earlier days as an example of what the weather would be like for one specific day.  Even with my generalization I was able to dress comfortably for the day and was not cold! 

Joe Camel and Smoking

Dr. Novello used cause and effect inductive reasoning in this argument because she related the cause of young people smoking with the ads. The tobacco companies used a character that would attract children and teens to start smoking so they would have more customers. Dr. Novello noticed this and decided to do something. Dr. Novello saw a positive correlation with the number of young smokers and how often Joe Camel was shown. This is part of the cause and effect argument because correlation of the two events are looked at. After looking at the statistics of children and teens smoking before and after the introduction of Joe Camel, a character in Camel cigarettes she noticed more and more young people started smoking. This is a cause and effect because Dr. Novello noticed since the introduction of Joe Camel more young people were smoking. She did not know for a fact that was the reason why children and teens had started smoking but she noticed a strong relationship. 

Leaders

I did not know that there was that many types of leaders, I thought that all leaders were the same or very similar. The book discusses four types of leaders: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire.  An authoritarian leader makes the decisions for the group without communicating with them or hearing what they want to do. A consultative leader makes the decisions for the group based on what the group members want.  Participative leaders work with their group members to make the group decisions. Lastly laissez-faire leaders have little leadership within the group.  All types of leaders have a benefit for their style of leadership, some may be beneficial for the type of group they lead or the situation they are presented. Learning the different types of leaders and the characteristics of their leadership style helped me know how I can lead people when I need to in the best way. 

Death Penalty

Sister Helen Prejean says the death penalty is a violation of human dignity and is inconsistent to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I feel that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which states,” who taught us to no to return hate for hate and evil for evil” do not support the death penalty. I believe that this passage does not allow the death penalty because we are returning an ‘evil’ deed for something that is also ‘evil’. Killing somebody because they killed somebody makes us just as bad. All of the people who are on death row deserve to be punished for what they have done but killing somebody will not solve the problem, it will only make killing seem like an okay thing to do. Allowing the death penalty to be the capital punishment certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth because he stated that we should not return evil with evil, and that is what the death penalty is doing. 

Sherlock Holmes

In the story Silver Blaze I think when Sherlock Holmes said, “When it comes to the art of reasoning, many people rely on opinion and unsupported assumptions. The difficulty, he maintains, is to detach the framework of undeniable fact from the embellishments or hearsay and reporters”, he meant that many people do not always rely of proven facts, and they believe what they want to believe. I think that people want to be right when arguing with somebody so they will use information to prove their point, even if that information may be flawed.  Holmes statement is proven when one of my friends’ boyfriends blamed her of cheating. My friend hadn’t cheated; she had just made a new friend at school. Her boyfriend however said the new friend liked his girlfriend and would make her cheat. Her boyfriend did not know this new friend but assumed the friend was going to be bad, when in fact the friend really just wanted to be friends. Her boyfriend had assumed the worst and used flawed information to make his conclusion.  

Group Roles

The concepts I found interesting from this week’s reading was, the types of group roles and the problems with group roles. The book explains that a group member has two roles: task and personal. The task role includes: information giver, information seeker, elaborator, initiator, and administrator, while the personal roles include a harmonizer, gatekeeper, and sensor. I found this interesting because I did not know that there was so much that actually goes on within a group setting. I also found it helpful for when I am working in a group whether in school or work. This is because I will be able to understand what my role is and how I will be able to be the best at that role. I found the problems with creating group roles interesting because I did not know that some people are against group roles. This was also helpful to be able to identify those people and to make sure that I do not become one when I work in a group. 

Critical Thinking in Real Life

There was at least one time that I can remember when I stood my ground regardless of losing my friends. One of my friends was being bullied by some of my other friends and I stood up for her. I used critical thinking skills by first recognizing the issue. I knew it was wrong to bully people so I knew I had to do something to help. Some other critical thinking skills I used was Rhetoric, I used this because I tried to persuade them that what they were doing was wrong and that they would not like it if somebody was doing the same thing to them.  I also used analogical premise to try to show them how it would feel if somebody was doing the same things to them and how they would not like it. If I had not used critical thinking skills I would probably had allowed them to continue bullying other people because I would not have known how to get my point across or how to illustrate that they were causing a problem to others. 

Obama and Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama’s position on same sex marriage is not consistent with his belief on equal rights for everybody. I feel that if he was being consistent then he would allow same sex couples to be married regardless of federal or state levels. However by allowing gay couples to get married on the state level does show he is considerate of their right and ‘feelings’ and wants to give them equal rights, but the fact that he does not allow their marriage to be recognized on a federal level shows how he is inconsistent with equality for everybody. I feel that President Obama would respond to Nava and Dawidoff’s argument by stating that he cannot simply do whatever he wants on the federal level, he needs to be supports by congress and that allowing state level marriages or civil unions is the best he can do to give same sex couples the chance of having equal rights as heterosexual marriages.