Chapter 14, Generalization-

Generalizing is something we all do in our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not. We all somehow end up making generalizations about things. As stated in our textbook, generalizing is when "we conclude a claim about a group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the sample." Overall, generalizing is making an argument. Chapter 14 goes in depth about what generalizing is and how a generalization can be good and bad, which is something I did not know before reading the chapter. On page 289, the book gives us the premises needed for a good generalization:
     - The sample is representative
     - The same is big enough
     - The same is studied well
These are all premises to ensure that the generalization made about an argument is good. Overall, even though everyone uses generalization without really realizing it, the book did a great job at describing it and going over all its aspects.

My favorite & least favorite thing about this class...

My favorite things about this class were that first off it was online, and second my group members. I have to say that I really enjoyed taking this course online. Even though sometimes I had a hard time keeping up with the blogs, I enjoyed writing every week and the process of posting it online. I also liked taking the tests online and being able to do everything from home, at my own paste. My second favorite thing from this class was my group members. Most of the times, when I get assigned a group, I somehow always end up with people who do not put as much effort as I do. However, the group that I had for this class was really great. We all got along great and actually had a lot of fun every time we met. We were really understanding of everyone's schedules and were always able to help one another when one of us was not understanding something or was not able to make a meeting. Overall my group members made this class a lot easier and more fun.
My least favorite thing about this class was the fact that we had to wait 12 hours in between posts. I know that speaking for myself, I have a very busy schedule as I'm taking 6 classes and have ice skating practice every single day. I therefore wish that we could have done all the posts at once. It would have been a lot easier for me personally.

What I've learned...

To be honest, when I first started this course, I was not expecting to finish it with so much information which I could actually use in real life. For whatever reason, I thought that I would retain the information for a while, but that eventually, I would not use the skills we learned. I have to say that I was gladly surprised when I found out that it actually was not the case. It turns out that I have learned a lot from this class. Going over all the different types of reasonings, as well as fallacies was truly interesting. I may not remember all the different names for each types, but I have learned that there are many different ways to reason, each with their own purposes. The one thing which I learned in this class and found the most useful is how to communicate effectively with group members. I have learned from this class how to communicate well and how to express my thoughts and feelings in such a manner that would improve the outcome of a situation. I was overall very surprised when this course came to an end because I realized that I had learned a lot more than I expected to.

Chapter 15

Something I found interesting while reading chapter 15 was the concept of "normal conditions."
As stated in our book, normal conditions are "the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid or strong."
What this mean is that while making an argument, people tend to state what is important and tend to leave claims which are obvious and therefore do not necessarily require to be stated.
For example, let's say that I was babysitting my two years old brother and that his screaming woke me up. The cause is obvious: my brother crying. And the effect is then: I woke up.
Obviously, my brother's crying woke me up. This cause is therefore the normal condition. However, I could also say that "my brother's room is right next to mine," "My brother usually does not cry during the night," etc. These statements are however obvious, and are therefore not needed, unless someone challenges my arguments.

Mission Critical Website

I overall felt that the Mission Critical Website was a great review for everything we have studied in class so far. "The Basics" as stated on the websites were some of the first topics we studied in class; some which I had forgotten a little I have to admit. It was therefore great to read through them again to remember what they were. The "Fallacies and Non-Rational Persuasion" was also a very interesting part of the website. i think it is the one I enjoyed reading the most because it concentrated on fallacious appeals as well as other common fallacies which is something we just studied. I found it very helpful because it went into depth and explained the different fallacies very well. I therefore felt that the website not only explained them very well but also helped me remember what they were and how to use them. The 40 fallacy review exercises were also very helpful. Practice is always good, and in this case it really helps one understand what fallacies are and how to use them, etc.

I will definitely make sure to bookmark this website so I can use it to study for our final ;)

Cause & Effect Website

I overall found the Cause and Effect website to be very interesting and helpful. I really liked how it included an example everyone can relate to; as most of us drive and have either been in an accident before or have seen some kind of accident happen. I thought it was therefore very easy to relate to the example, or at least understand it.
I also really liked how the website ended by stating the three factors used to determine how strong an argument is:

1. how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is-
2. how likely the case for causation seems to be-
3. how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is-

I also found the examples towards the end of the website to be of great use. They were a very good practice, and I really liked how the website explains the answers to you. If you got the answer wrong, it explains to you why it was not the right answer.

I overall thought that the website was very helpful, and very clear, which made it easy to understand and read.

Casual Reasoning

I found this week's topic to be interesting because I had not realized until now how often we actually use casual reasoning. After reading about it in our textbook and online, I realized how often we actually use casual reasoning while having a normal conversation. For example this morning, I was talking to my ice skating coach and told her: I have been skating since I was a little girl and it is one, if not my biggest passion. I therefore think that I will keep on skating until I absolutely have to stop.
I did not realize until after reading this chapter that casual reasoning is used very often in our every day conversations. I therefore found it kind of cool, in a way, that we learned about it :)
I also had not realized until reading this chapter that there were so many different ways to reason. Even though some are very similar to one another and can be kind of confusing, I found this chapter to be very helpful and interesting.

Inductive Reasoning

Out of all the different types of reasoning we were given, the one which confused me the most was inductive reasoning. When I first read about inductive reasoning, I was a little confused and did not fully understand what it truly was. However, after looking it up some more online, I found exactly what it was. Inductive reasoning is taking a specific case and making it into an overall rule. It is basically making a generalization from one specific situation. Here is an example of what inductive reasoning is: "All flies I have ever seen were black. Therefore all flies must be black." In this specific case, the argument is false. There are not only black flies; their colors differ according to their species. However, inductive reasoning is taking a specific case, in this case "all flies I have ever seen were black" and making it a generalization by concluding that all flies must therefore be black.

Types of Reasonings

1). Reasoning by Analogy:
Premise #1: My father and brothers all play ice hockey.
Premise #2: My mother and I are both figure skaters.
Conclusion: Every member of my family ice skates.

2). Sign Reasoning:
Coach: Elsie, make sure you are at the rink at 6a.m tomorrow morning.
Elsie: That will not be possible. I have a huge midterm I really need to study for.
Coach: That is fine, but make sure to practice and come in earlier the next day then.
Elsie: Okay, I will come in two hours earlier the next day to make up the hours I missed.

3). Causal Reasoning:
Premise #1: I left my house late for school this morning.
Premise #2: I missed the bus and had to walk all the way to school.
Conclusion: I therefore got to school an hour late.

4). Reasoning by Criteria:
Your wife will want some kind of shiny and expensive jewelry for your anniversary. How about this diamond ring?

5). Reasoning by Example:
You should practice your triple axle as often as possible. I know people who did not spend enough time practicing it and who now are not able to do it.

6). Inductive:
Premise: I have been at the ice rink every single monday at 6a.m since the semester started.
Conclusion: I will be at the ice rink at 6a.m next monday.

7). Deductive: 
Premise #1: Everyone who lives in my house owns a pair of ice skates.
Premise #2: My brother lives in my house.
Conclusion: My brother owns a pair of ice skates.

Apple Polishing

In chapter 10, we talked about a concept called "Apple Polishing." When I first read about this concept in the book, it was a little vague to me. I did not fully understand what it was exactly or even how to use it. After researching it online though, I found out that it is an appeal to emotion which uses flattery; in most cases, false flattery. Here is an example of what apple polishing is:
"Wow you look so beautiful today! I really like your makeup, it's so pretty. Can I borrow 5 dollars?"
After reading some examples online and reading a couple definitions, i realized that kids tend to use apple polishing a lot when they want something they know they shouldn't want or ask for. The kids I babysit for example always do it with me. One of them always wants cookies, right before dinner, which she knows she can't have. She therefore uses apple polishing and hopes that her flatteries will work in her favor and that I will give in because she flattered me. In her case, it is kind of cute though :)

Exercise 3, page 195

3. Find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. Is it a good argument?

An advertisement that uses an appeal to fear which automatically came to mind for this exercise is the "Quit Smoking Campaign - Artery" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEc-Rsv9pMc&feature=fvst

This specific commercial released by The National Tobacco Campaign is intended to show people why it is important for them to quit smoking. Moreover, in this commercial, NTC showed the public what smoking does to one's artery and how it can de deadly in some smokers' cases. This video uses appeal to fear by scaring people, by showing them what smoking cigarettes does to one's artery. In this case, I found the argument to be good. The video uses appeal to fear to convey a message which is intended towards a good cause and is done to show people how very important it is for them to stop smoking. The facts shown in the videos are true and so is the conclusion; the argument is therefore good.

I have seen many adds on television from the National Tobacco Campaign and I have to say that I find them very awakening. The appeal to fear in these cases is really well used because it truly affects people and makes them realize why smoking is not good for them nor the people around them. Now I am sure that for some smokers who are dependent on cigarettes, the adds might not be that powerful. But for myself at least, and many of my friends, the adds are powerful and scary enough for us to not want to become a consumer of cigarettes.

Appeal to Emotion

As stated in our book, an appeal to emotion is "a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain a way." There are many different kinds of appeal to emotions; including appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite, etc.
One appeal to emotions which really striked me was appeal to spite. An appeal to spite is often associated, as our book states, with the idea of revenge. As the book also explains, this kind of  appeal is morally wrong in some culture because it includes this idea of revenge and overall negativity. An example of an appeal to spite would be:

Jessica: Elsie, can you teach me how to do a double axel?
Elsie: Sure.
Michael: Why would you help her learn how to do one?! She did not help you last week when you asked her for help. You should not help her because when you needed help, she did not help you.

In this situation, Michael does not want me to help Jessica only because she did not help me when I needed her help. Michael is therefore using an appeal to spite in order to seek revenge from Jessica.
I chose to talk about this specific appeal to emotion because I have noticed that many people use it, without really realizing that their argument is intended towards getting revenge.

Further discussion

A concept which I feel needs further discussion are fallacies. Our book talks about many kinds of different fallacies. I however feel that it does not go into enough depth and can even be a little confusing. What I mean by confusing is that some of the examples used in the book are not clear enough. i therefore wanted to use this assignment to make more research on what the different fallacies all are and how they can come in handy.
I found this website: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/fallacies.html
The website provides a definition for every kind of fallacies and uses examples for each one which were i thought, cleared than the ones in our book. The website goes over Ad Hominem fallacies, fallacies of false cause, straw man fallacies, appeal to ignorance, appeal to emotion, etc.
Overall I feel that the website really helped me understand what the different fallacies are and how to use them. The book also goes over the different kinds of fallacies but does it in a very unorganized way. The different fallacies are all over the place which makes it harder to fully understand what their differences and meanings are.

Assignments

The main thing I learned from both the assignments we have been assigned in this class is how to communicate and work well with group members. I learned that it can be very hard to schedule a meeting according to everyone's schedules. However, my group members were all very understanding which made it very easy to communicate and organize ourselves. It has also been a good experience to get to know people online and then meet in person. These assignments also taught me how to be more responsible as other people depend on my work as well. It also taught me how to be organized and make sure my work was turned in on time.
The second assignment was also really interesting. My group decided to work on the Red Cross which I thought was one of the most interesting organizations out there. The assignment was really interesting and enriching.
Overall, I felt that the assignments were very helpful because not only were they about interesting topics, they also taught me a lot about organization and communication.

Chapter 8

Chapter 8 talks about general claims using words such as: all, some, no, and only.
One thing I learned about chapter 8 is what a direct way of reasoning is. An example of a direct way of reasoning with "all" for example would be: "All cats eat cat food. Ginger is a cat. So Ginger eats cat food." Now arguing backwards with "all" would turn the argument into: "All cats eat cat food. Ginger eats cat food. So Ginger is a cat." The argument is then weak. An argument with "no" for example would be: "All cats eat cat food. No dog is a cat. So no dog eats cat food."
Chapter 8 also explains how to reason with an argument by using diagrams. I felt that the diagrams were really helpful and made it clearer to understand the argument.
Chapter 8 was I thought pretty easy to understand and the examples used were very clear and helpful.

Conditional Claim

One of the topics I found interesting in our reading this week was the topic of conditional claims. As the book states, "a claim is a conditional if it can be rewritten as an "if... then..." claim that must have the same truth-value."
An example of a conditional claim would be: "If you clean your room before noon today then you will get to go to the party tonight." In this specific claim, there is no promise that the person will get to go to the party. It is a conditional promise; meaning that IF the person cleans their room before noon, they will therefore get to go to the party.
I found this specific topic to be really interesting because it was pretty easy to understand and most of us tend to use conditional claims a lot. My older brother for example used to use this kind of claims with me all the time. He would for example tell me "if you do not tell mom and dad that I went out tonight then I will give you a ride to your friend's house tomorrow."

2 things I learned from chapter 7

One of the things I learned from chapter 7 is how to raise objections and why it is important to do so. Raising an objection is used to demonstrate that an argument is either weak or dubious. For example yesterday, my ice skating partner made this argument: "We should skate to this kind of music, because everyone likes rap these days." My coach however raised an objection by saying "I actually do not like rap. Moreover, your choreography will not work to rap rhythm." My coach raised an objection to show that my partner's argument was weak.
Another thing I learned from chapter 7 is how to refute an argument. In our book, it gives us three ways of refuting an argument. First, "show that at least one of the premises is dubious," second, "show that the argument isn't valid or strong," and third, "show that the conclusion is false." Here is an example of how to refute an argument; "I really want good french fries. But the ones my mom makes are not good. Therefore I am going to go to the only good place that makes good french fries; mcdonalds." As I am sure most of you guys would agree, it is very easy to refute this argument. One could first argue with the premises and say that first of, the french fries made by my mom are in fact really good. One could also argue with the conclusion and say that mcdonalds does not make the best french fries. This argument is very easy to refute because not only is the conclusion false, but the premises are also not valid.

2 things I learned from chapter 6

Chapter 6 talks about compound claims; what they are, how to use them, etc.
The first thing I learned from this chapter is what a compound claim actually is. The book's definition of a compound claim is, "A compound claim is one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim." An example of a compound claim would be "I'll call you by 2'o'clock today or I'll come over to your house." We therefore have one claim, and not two. In this specific kind of claims, the one word that links the two claims and turns them into one claim is the word "or."
The second thing I learned from chapter 6 is what false dilemmas are. The book's definition of false dilemmas is "A bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious "or" claim itself is called a "false dilemma."" What this means is that sometimes, people make bad arguments because one or both of their claims are invalid. For example, "You're either getting rid of this couch, or we are getting rid of your cat!" This is a false dilemma and therefore, the argument is not good.

"Eh, who is he to make this argument?!"

All day I was thinking of a concept from the readings that I found interesting and wanted to blog about and could not figure one out until I got done with my ice skating practice. In our reading, the author talked about a concept in which an argument is not taken seriously because of the person who made it. During my practice, one of the assistant coach told me that i needed to put more weight on my right leg while making a move or I would eventually end up hurting myself or my partner. I was in a bad mood and and did not give him a response. I instead gave him a head nod and skated away. My partner then skated over to me and said "who cares, he's just the assistant coach. His comments don't matter." Now had it been my coach who had made this specific argument, my partner would not have doubted his argument and would not have commented on it. I then automatically thought about the reading and remembered it. Sometimes people, like my partner, tend to overlook an argument because of the person who made it. In this specific case, my partner did not think of the argument to be important because of the person who made it. It is therefore important to make a clear distinction between who makes the argument and what it is about.

"Red Bull gives you wiiings"

The advertisement that I chose for this post is an advertisement made by the energy drink Red Bull. Red Bull chose to sponsor the freestyle motocross super star Robbie Maddison. In the advertisement, Maddison is jumping over the Arc de Triomphe in Las Vegas. As soon as he makes the high jump, he takes off his helmet and says, "Welcome to my world, the world of Red Bull." It is then written on the screen, "Red Bull gives you wiiings." - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXa02tB8DLo

In section A & B of chapter 5, it says that we can accept or reject a claim based on our personal experiences as well as other reliable sources.

I am going to reject this claim and disagree with it. Even though I love Robbie Maddison and consume Red Bull often, I do not agree with the claim that Red Bull gives you wings. Based on my own experiences, I do not find that Red Bull gives me wings. Of course, I know that this claim is a metaphor. Red Bull does not literally give people wings; it implies that people will feel more energized then usually. Based on my own experiences, I do not believe this claim. I have drank Red Bull many times before and it honestly has never really worked on me. Red Bull has never energized my friend Stephanie either. Neither of us felt that Red Bull "gave us wings."

Also, I have read many articles, written by doctors and researchers, explaining that Red Bull was not healthy for our bodies. Enhance why it was banned for a really long time in France for example.

Overall, based on my personal experiences with Red Bull, as well as the articles I have read, I chose to reject the claim.

Repaired Argument

Repairing arguments is a very easy concept. While repairing an argument, we are allowed to add a premise or a conclusion as long as it satisfies three steps:
-The argument is transformed into a strong or valid argument
-The premise added is a plausible one and other people believe it to be plausible as well
-The premise must be more plausible than the conclusion
We are also allowed to delete one of the original premises IF the argument does not become worse from us doing so.

Argument: Only Anaheim Ducks fans like Corey Perry. Therefore I like Corey Perry.

Analysis: "I am a Ducks fan" is the only premise that needs to be added in order for the argument to be a valid or strong argument. Therefore, we need to add this premise.
With this premise added, the argument would be: Only Anaheim Ducks fans like Corey Perry. I am a Ducks fan. Therefore I like Corey Perry. Once the premise is added, the argument is good.

How does mentoring work?

One concept that I liked and found useful from the materials we read was the exaplanation of how mentoring works and why it is so important. The Book "The Essential Guide to Communication," written by Dan O’Hair and Mary Wieman, does a great job at explainning the concept of mentoring. Mentoring is really important, especially in our society today. Mentors are really helpful because they pass on knowledge and skills to their students, in order for them to later on become as experienced and skilled as their mentors. The authors of the book developped four stages in mentoring; First off, "initiation". During the first stage, the mentor and his student become more aquainted with one another and the mentor starts to advise the student. During this stage, it is very important for both parties to communicate and pay attention to one another. The second stage is called "cultivation." During this stage the mentor and his student become closer and more skills are passed on by the mentor. During stage three, "separation," the mentor and his student start to separate. Either because the student is able to stand on his own and no longer needs the mentor, or because the student might simply need to be moved. During the last and fourth stage, "Redefinition," the relationship between the mentor and his student is "redefined"; they are now equals.

I found this section really interesting because in the work field today, mentors are really common and I found it interesting to see how mentoring works and how to do it.

Content Fallacies- Bad appeal to authority

Bad appeal to authority is to me, the easiest and most interesting content fallacy.
A real world example of bad appeal to authority I have recently heard would be this: "Do not engage in any kind of conversation with any boy at the party tonight, it will end up in you having relations you will later on regret." My friend and I were getting ready at her place to go to a party when her brother came in and interrupted us to say this specific claim. Now my friend's brother, who is really protective, was using bad appeal to authority in the way that he is the eldest, and as her older brother, she should listen to what he says and follow his advise. This specific fallacy occurs when someone of a higher position or rank tries to persuade you that whatever they are saying is right because they are somehow "higher" than you are. In this specific example, since he is the eldest brother, his opinion matters and everything he says should be (but is not always) right. Had he stated his argument differently, my friend and I would not have rolled our eyes at him. Had he said something like "You girls be careful tonight, you never know what kind of people you will meet and some people might not have good intentions," we would have taken him more seriously and would have listened. We however are used to him, and knew he had good intentions at heart (:

The Structure of Arguments

#2: (1) I'm on my way to school. (2) I left five minutes late. (3) Traffic is heavy. (4) Therefore, I'll be late for class. (5) So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Argument: Yes.
Conclusion: Since I am going to be late to class, I might as well stop to get breakfast.
Additional premises needed: There should be a premise in between 4 and 5 which explains why it is okay to go get breakfast and be even more late to class. For example: It does not matter whether I am 5 minutes late or 30 minutes late to class, my teacher will still mark me late.
Identifying any subargument: 1, 2, and 3 are independent and 4 is the result of those 3 subarguments. 5 is the conclusion.
Good argument: Yes I think it is a good argument IF the additional premise is added to the argument. The premises are plausible and do explain why one would be late to school. The argument would then be valid with the new added premise. If the new premise was not added however, the argument is not good because one could very easily say that by stopping to get breakfast, one would be even more late to class which is not good. It would therefore not make it okay to stop for breakfast even if one was already late for class, and the argument would not be good.

This exercise did help me because I learned exactly how an argument is structured and how to break it down. It was also good because I realized how one premise can change an argument completely. This exercise was overall useful.

Types of Leadership

In chapter 3 of the book, "The Essential Guide to Group Communication," written by Dan O' Hair and Mary O. Wiemann, the subject of leadership is brought up. Moreover, the authors developed four different types of it: authoritarian, consultative, participative, or laissez-faire.
An authoritarian leader is a leader who does everything in his own way and does not consult with the other group members. An advantage of such leaders is that decisions are made faster, however most group members tend to not be satisfied.
On the other hand, a consultative leader asks for other's opinions. This kind of leader will ask other group members for ideas and will check in with them in order to make sure his/her final decision is educated and well thought-through. In this type of leadership however, the leader still makes his decision alone.
A participative leader is a leader who consults with his/her group members and does not make a decision on his/her own. This kind of leader does not have any more power then any of the other group members but does facilitate communication between his/her group members. In these kind of groups, the outcome tends to be greater and of better quality since everyone is working together.
A laissez-faire leader is a leader who will not get involved in anything and will not facilitate any type of communication. The leader will let everything pass by and will not take action towards anything. This is said to be the least effective leadership of them all.

Strong versus Valid Arguments

A strong argument is an argument which has true premises and a conclusion that is highly plausible. A valid argument has true premises as well, it however has a valid conclusion that is for sure true. The difference between a valid and strong argument is whether or not the conclusion is plausible.
For example: The Ducks of Anaheim won the Stanley Cup in 2007. This argument is valid because it is a true fact that has happened.
An example of a strong argument would be: Every time I attend a Sharks vs. Ducks hockey game, the Ducks always win. Therefore, when I attend the next game in October, the Ducks will win again. In this specific argument, the premise is true. It is true that every time I have gone to a Ducks game in San Jose, they have won the game. The conclusion is plausible but is not valid. I do not know for sure that the Ducks will win the next game. The Ducks could be having an off-day and could very easily lose the game. This argument is therefore a strong argument because the conclusion is plausible but is not a 100%.

Good Argument?

Ryan Sheckler is the youngest skateboarder to ever participate in the X-games. He was awarded the gold medal this year for his skating abilities during the competition. Ryan Sheckler is therefore the most talented skateboarder in the world. 

This is a strong argument; it is however not valid. The premises are true and give true facts which would influence people to believe the conclusion to be true as well. However, the argument is not valid. Even though it is an accurate fact that Sheckler is the youngest skateboarder to have ever participated in the X-games, and even though he did win the gold medal this year, it does not necessarily mean that he is the best skateboarder in the world. It is true that there is a high chance for the conclusion to be valid based on the premises; however there are also some chances for the conclusion to be false. Since there are millions of skateboarders in the world, many who do not participate in the X-games, it is very hard to prove that Sheckler is the best out of them. The other skateboarders participating in the competition might have also been having an off-day and might have not been performing at their best. Many people also rate skateboarders on different scales and would argue that Sheckler did not in fact deserve gold. It is very possible that Sheckler is in fact the best skateboarder and that the conclusion is therefore valid; it is however very difficult to prove with the given information. Even though the premises are true and state concrete facts, since the conclusion is not certain and cannot be proven, the argument is strong, but not valid.

how can one avoid having problems communicating with his group?

The book "The Essential Guide to Group Communication" written by Dan O'Hair and Mary O. Wiemann mentions a very important concept to help improve the communication between a group and its member. The concept I chose to talk about explains how to avoid misunderstandings and problems in between group members. As the book explains, there are four things one can do in order to prevent any communication problems from occurring between himself and his group members. First off it says that it is important for people to be able to communicate with one another without feeling attacked. It is important to trust one's group members of course, but it is also important to discuss arguments and ideas in order to avoid misunderstandings or lack of communication later on. The second point made is to avoid making an issue more simple. Some people tend to want to avoid the issue completely and tend to want to make it more simple to avoid any kind of confrontation which is not good. It is important to discuss an issue fully and it is better to argue about it (in a polite manner) instead of settling for something that will later on cause an issue. My experience this summer is a perfect example to show that making an issue more simple does not work. This summer, my friends and I decided to take a road trip to Los Angeles. We had agreed that we would go to Disneyland, visit the Honda Center, attend some sporting events, etc. When the time came to discuss money issues and traveling plans, one of my friends told us to do as we pleased as she did not want to get involved in the planning. When we got to LA however, she complained that the trip was costing her too much money and that we should have gone to more places she wanted to go to. Had she participated in the planning of the trip with us instead of trying to make the issue more simple, she could have enjoyed the trip as much as we did.
Another point made, is that it is important not to overgeneralize an issue. it is very easy for people to sometimes assume that their facts are always true. For example, assuming that all American teenagers have children before the age of 18 is completely untrue and is called overgeneralizing. It is therefore very important not to do that and to make sure that one's point is actually based on actual facts and data. Lastly, it says to avoid making false assumptions. False assumptions tend to happen when there is a lack of communication between people; it is therefore important for people to keep all communications open and keep an open mind while discussing an issue.
I chose to talk about this specific concept the book brought up because I found it to be really important. It is really easy to lack communication in a group and these four points are great points to avoid this issue from happening between group members.

"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

Just last night actually, I was having a conversation with my friend Stephanie and she recalled a quote she had read somewhere online by Oscar Wilde which said, "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." When I first heard the quote, I found it to be a little ambiguous. I actually had to write it down and reread it in order to understand it better and analyze it. After thinking about it though, I interpreted it as everyone sins at some point in their life and even someone who might seem perfect has made mistakes before. In the same sense, someone who has sinned and has done mistakes can also change their life around and stop sinning. I then realized that I might have interpreted it this way because of the conversation I was having with my friend. Had we been talking about a different topic, I might not have thought of the quote in that way. Wilde's quote was ambiguous to me though because it really got me thinking about its meaning and I could see how easily it would be for people to interpret it differently. One could very easily disagree with the overall quote and say that it is not true; that everyone does not necessarily sin at some point in their life. My friend Stephanie for example argued with my own interpretation of the quote and said that "every sinner has a future" means that a sinner will keep sinning and will never stop doing it. She also thought the quote could mean that everyone sins and that there is no saint. I chose to talk about this specific quote because it was an ambiguous quote which can be interpreted in different ways according to each person's beliefs and state of mind when hearing or reading the quote.

Subjective & Objective Claims

A subjective Claim I have heard recently was, "Indian food is way too spicy." A subjective claim is a claim which is based on personal standards according to one's specific tastes, standards, etc. My friend had made this specific statement after some friends and I had gone to an Indian restaurant. I however found the food to be great and did not find it too spicy. My friend had made a Subjective Claim in the way that her personal standards found the food to be too spicy. Her claim was based on her own likings and did not make the claim accurate to everyone else.
An Objective Claim I have recently heard was, "You weigh 122lbs." An Objective Claim is a claim which is based on impersonal standards meaning that it is not based on someone's likings or preferences but is based on real and true facts which cannot be altered. When my doctor took my weigh and told me I weighed 122lbs, I could not change it to my likings or anyone else's. Of course I could gain or lose weigh according to my own liking but as of right now, my weigh is what it is whether i like it or not. This specific claim was therefore an Objective Claim as it was not based on personal standards.

Introductory Post

Hi everyone, my name is Elsie. I am majoring in Psychology and hope to one day become a psychologist.
I have some experience in communication as I am sure most of us all have. Communicating is really important to me as I like to express my feelings and understand other people's emotions and feelings as well. This class could benefit me in the way that it could help me express myself better to make any type of communication easier and better. I have taken one online class before and really enjoyed it (:
Some of my interests include music, ice hockey, art, and dance. I also love to travel and hope to one day be able to go to India or China and volunteer in an Orphanage. Helping people is one of my biggest passion as I love to see other people happy. I would definitely love to work with the red cross in my future or do something of that sort. I am also very family and friend oriented so I spend most of my free time with them (:
I think that is pretty much all you need to know about me! (:

-Elsie