Week 9 - Premise

For the most part I do believe in all three premises; mutability, perfectibility and rationality but only to certain extents for each.

The rationality premise comes from many American institutions and I do think that the average person is more than capable of making a good decision but that all depends on how this person was raised. If this person grew up in a household where an eye for an eye is the way life should be, then how would this person make a good decision as a judge when deciding if someone should go to jail or die for committing murder? In that example, this particular individual will have a bias for killing the convicted felon because of the way he/she grew up. Not everyone is as open minded as they should be so some decisions might not be as good to make. This premise should focus more on college graduates or college students rather than "any average person."

The prefectibility premise comes from the old Puritan idea that humans are born in sin but are capable of achieving goodness through effort and control. For this premise I do fully believe this. It does not matter who you are or what you have done, if you want to change you can. The only exception is if the individual has some sort of a mental disorder. Other than that extreme circumstance, I feel that people who want to change can change and that there is no such thing as having "no choice."

The mutability premise comes from universal education all around. This premise assumes that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors and in order to improve we must do so to their mental and physical circumstances. I feel that we do not have to change physical and psychological circumstances to improve. There are times when improving someone will only require a mental adjustment or inversely just a physical adjustment. If someone grows up as a farmer but is really overweight, it will be hard for this person to perform his/her job without being too tired, especially with limited mobility. In terms of the mental part, this farmer already knows all there is to know about the job, he/she just might not be able to do it effectively or at all die to his/her limitation in movement. Dropping some weight should do the trick for this farmer. If someone in grade school were to sleep over at a friend's house but the person who is sleeping over is not used to his/her friend's customs in the home, he/she has to make the mental adjustment only.

I do feel that these premise are very interesting to read and to some extent are correct, but in actuality, we all know that what everything comes down to is whether or not the individual has the capability to perform or think at a certain level.

Week 9 - Creatures of our Culture

I agree with Ruth Benedict that we are all "creatures of our culture" but only to a certain extent. In the sense where we look at infants and how their lives are started to be shaped is definitely out of their control. Nobody when they are born can pick and choose his/her family. Therefore, that means the cultural beliefs that are being presented to the infant is how the infant will start out and for a number of years feel that what he/she believe in is what is right and what he/she are told is wrong will also believe that too. Culture is created by humans and we naturally will sometimes push our culture onto others whether that be religion, politics, school, ethics, health and even sex. Where I feel that I had to disagree with Benedict is when I noticed she does not go into detail about what she said. She does not even mention once that individuals through the years tend to sometimes create their own culture with other people and it might not always be something that this individual grew up with. Individuals at times grow up and realize that his/her family beliefs or ways of living is something he/she is not into and does not want to be a part of.

An Example -

I grew up in a very traditional and strict Filipino family. One of the biggest things Filipinos are passionate about is religion. My parents not only pushed religion onto me but put it in my head that Catholics are the right religion and everyone else is wrong and we have it right. For years and years I grew up thinking that the Roman Catholics was the real and true religion and all other forms of religion and even Christianity were wrong. It was not until recently when the whole debate about Prop 8 came around and the Catholic church not only supported it, but some people of the church would get very violent or be verbally abusive over it. I was shocked that the same church that claimed that God loves all and we are all equal and we should love thy neighbor no matter what is bashing on homosexual people. Then I realized that made no sense and I sort of took a step back and questioned what I thought was my religion. Currently, I still am a Catholic but I do not know if the Roman Catholics got it right, their beliefs and ways of putting on to other people puts me in absolute shock.

I am sure there are people out there who have a story just like this even if it is not as extreme or something apart from religion. I feel that at one point, we do not have to be creature of a culture that we were born into.

With that said, I feel that in order for us to break through the limits of our cultures, we need to have an open mind and be not afraid to question initial beliefs. I personally voted no on Prop 8 even though my religious views said otherwise. I felt that looking at something as a whole and getting the facts right, although is not always easy due to bias and in some cases stubbornness, will help people step out of their cultural circle and possibly find something new. Just remember, it all starts with an open mind.

Week 7 Useful Concept

A very interesting concept I liked in the text was the entire section called "Territory and the Use of Space." This section talks about the concept of territoriality. In the text it is defined as, "The need to create boundaries, to control areas of space and make them ours. Trenholm explains in better detail that there are four different types of this, which are; public, home, interaction and body. "Public" is the space we create on our own in settings like parks, shopping malls and sidewalks. We all know that these places are open to the public but what we are comfortable with in terms of what we can and cannot do all depends on the individual. "Home" is the space we create in the comfort of our own living space. This is where we as individuals are more free and have the most amount of space to be ourselves. "Interaction" is when we are at a social party with friends and/or family and for the most part we are comfortable in this type of setting but obviously not as much freedom is granted here compared to home. Sometimes, in order to allow a higher level of comfort, sometimes people who are considered to be outsiders, will not be welcomed to join the party. Finally there is "body," this one is what each individual sets for themselves and what we allow in terms of our bodies being touched. According to Trenholm, this is the most restricted territory for any individual. Even with loved ones like lovers, friends and family, we still set limits of how much we allow to be touched by them.

Trenholm says that the more freedom that is allowed in terms of personal space, the more comfortable someone is to be themselves. I do not fully agree with that because there are shy people in the world who are conservative both when they are at home and in public. There are some people who just do not like to socialize and would rather be alone. Even though, it is agreed that the more private and open a space will be, a person's true personality comes out. If I am not mistaken, what Trenholm refers to when she wrote that sentence is that people will be more social and talkative and less conservative. I do not think that is always the case. I truly feel that there are people in the world who act the same in public as they do in private in their own home. Whether it be the quiet conservative type, or it be the wild and crazy type. Not everyone fits Trenholm's description, but I will say she is right about setting territories.

Week 7-Nonverbal Messages in Other Countries

Growing up I always thought that the peace sign was always something appropriate. The peace sign for those of you who do not know what it is, it is when the index finger and the middle finger straight up and the other fingers are kept down by being held down by the thumb. I did not know until I got to college that the peace sign can mean the F word if held up the wrong way. I also did not know that sticking your tongue out to people in China (I could be wrong) is also considered to be the F word. I also heard that pulling down the skin under one of your eyes and sticking your tongue out is also like saying the F word. I do not know where, but I also heard in parts of the middle east, a thumbs up is also like the F word. It is interesting to know that people in different parts of the world accept or reject certain body gestures. Perhaps if there were more awareness for the people in America to know what is not acceptable body gestures in other parts of the world, maybe other countries would hate us less. =)

Week 7 Ambiguous Nonverbal Messages

I have been wrong so many times with how I interpret nonverbal messages from people. I do it almost everyday actually. At school or work I see people all the time who give off these messages with their actions. I've seen couples fight, people become excited, people get sleepy and so much more, all without them having to say a word. Those things are easy to figure out when they happen but there are times when something seems very ambiguous and the interpretation of the meaning can be wrong.

When I worked at Circuit City before it closed down, I had a coworker in my department who always seemed to have the majority of her shifts match with mine. Every time she came into work, she would always get excited and smile and tell me how much fun we are going to have because we are working together. She was very friendly and very nice to me every single time we worked together and I thought it meant that she was interested in me both emotionally and physically. One day she was telling me how one of the co-workers we had kept hitting on her and she was telling me how much she did not like him. To me it was just confirmation that she was into me and I decided to ask her out. Of course, she had a boyfriend and to top it off, I wasn't her type and needless to say, I was embarrassed.

I think if I applied what Trenholm says in the text about how there are three ways to increase the accuracy of a nonverbal message, I would not have been embarrassed. If I would have checked the "context" I would have noticed that she is probably nice to me because she is a nice person overall and is nice to everyone. If I would have compared her "current behavior" to her "baseline behavior" I would have noticed she always tells me how much fun we are going to have at work and that never changed because she probably just likes working with me and that's it. If I would have simply just asked her, if she had a boyfriend, I would have saved myself from so much embarrassment.

Week 6 - Useful Concept

A concept that I found to be useful in the reading was "Euphemisms." According to the textbook on page 77, Euphemisms are inoffensive words that are used instead of highly charged terms. This means that we can say things that do not sound as harsh and still get the message across. Trenholm uses the example that we can say "collatoral damage" instead of civilian deaths. When I read that, I knew exactly what was meant behind that. It allows us to be less offensive and talk about painful things and still address what needs to be addressed. When I learned that my friend has an issue when he gets too drunk by being too agressive and does unthinkable things I had to let him know immediately but I did not want to make him evasive by saying it the wrong way. So instead of me saying that I think he needs to stop drinking and told him that his actions are horrible, I told him that when we go out, we are not having a contest of who can drink the most. Immediately he understood what my intentions were and he actually apologized for his actions when he gets drunk. Now, he does his best to stay away from hard liquor and to just stick to beer and if possible, to take a taxi to the bar and back home instead of driving, even if he is not the driver because when we leave the bar there are taxi's lined up waiting for people to get in. That means we do not have to walk 2 or 3 blocks to get to the parking garage where the car is and risk him either getting into fights with strangers or something of that nature. Euphimisms can be applied to any situation just like this one and it could save anyone from a night in jail or worse.

Week 6 - Men vs Women in Language

I feel that men and women do use language differently. I also feel that men and women use it differently in the same situations too. I feel that men tend to be a lot more masculine around eachother and wen we speak we want to be tough. When we speak to the opposite sex we then tend to change our tone and be more sensitive and our choice of words are limited or completley changed. I also noticed that when I am around my freinds I speak in a joking tone with friends and always tend to make fun of them and talk about drinking beer and getting drunk and all that stuff. Then when I am with my girlfriend I do not really talk about getting drunk. I will say nicer things around her and I only make fun of her in good taste that is not as harsh because I do not want to say anything that she might take differently as my friends would. I also notice that my girlfriend talks to me one way but when she is talking to her friends it is like she is one of those gossiping hair stylists you see on tv that always hsve something to say about everything. I feel that we do this because we are conscious of our surroundings and we just naturally know what is appropriate and what is not.

Week 6 - Judgement

Before I ever took a course in communications, I felt that it was possible but hard for people to not pre judge other people. I learned that is not the case after I got to college. Trenholm discusses different types of schemata in Chapter 3 and one of them (Person Prototype) we as humans will prejudge people without even meeting, talking to, or listen to them. When we see people, we judge them before we even hear them speak regardless if we judge them from the start and automatically assume we know everything about them, or if we assume very little about them. In either case we made a pre-judgement and in most cases it can be considered wrong. Pre-judgement can both be negative and positive, if we were to be set up on a blind date and we see our date for the first time, we automatically judge them by the way they look instantly. I feel that this is a natural thing we do as humans and we cannot help ourselves. I believe that we can try to work on not judging people prior to actually meeting them but in all honesty, it cannot go away.

In my Interpersonal Comm course we learned that no matter what we do, when we see people we automatically judge them even if we just pass by them when we are walking. Something interesting that I learned, and completly agree with, is that when we engage in a conversation with someone for the first time, within 5-10 minutes (maybe even less) of the conversation, we start to evaluate if the other person is up to our own standards of whether or not we would want to have sexual activity with them. Sometimes we do not assess if we would want to have secual intercourse but we ask ourselves self-consciously if we would want to and also if we were to try and pursue it, would we succeed. We do not do it on purpose, but even the most loyal people in committed monogomous relationships will at one point have it cross their mind.

I feel that in order for us to better ourselves and to start pre-judging people positivley rather than negatively, we should just keep an open mind and not always judge a book by its cover. Someone who dresses in baggy clothing and smokes cigarettes everyday are not alaways going to be drug dealers, high school drop outs, thugs and gang members. If we can possibly reserve judgement until after actually talking to someone, stereotypes would be reduced and each indivdual would not automatically be classified in a stereotype because the stereotype can be wrong.
Trenholm elaborates a little bit on this schema by stating, "Person prototypes are idealized representations of a certain kind of person....Although prototypes give us a quick take on someone, they ignore individual details and can lead to stereotyped responses."