Communication Channels

One concept from this week's reading is about using communication channels. In any organization there needs to be some sort of communication. There are many ways to communicate within an organization including emails, text messages, phone calls, and of course face to face conversations. Some organizations use "formal channels" for communication meaning that there is a hierarchy of communication. It would start at the top where the Board of Directors will tell the CEO, who would tell the President, who would tell the Vice Presidents, who would tell the Directors and so on. This all means that there needs to be some sort of authority and chain of command. And if something were to happen at the lower levels of the hierarchy then the news would work its way up to the board of directors. When using this method for communications, it is best to use formal writing techniques such as writing emails and letters, keeping documents and memos much more than face to face conversation.

Dr. Novello

Dr. Novello became the United States Surgeon General in 1989. Dr. Novello focused on four public health problems: AIDS, violence, alcohol, and tobacco. She became aware that because of the advertisements that Camel cigarettes were publishing in 1988 that smoking has increased. This is where the "cause-and-effect" inductive reasoning takes place. Dr. Novello banned cigarette and alcohol ads targeting youth and increased education in school systems. She felt that if youth were not bombarded with images/videos/slogans for cigarettes and alcohol, they would be less likely to smoke and drink. She also worked with the school systems to help educate youth about violence and AIDS. Her reasoning is that the more the youth knew about the consequences of AIDS, violence, tobacco, and alcohol the more likely youth would be to abstain from them. She was somewhat successful because in the beginning of the mid 1990s there were less reports of violence and a decline in cases of AIDS.

Inductive Arguement

My friends and I were at a corner store trying to buy something to drink. I wanted a Red Bull to get my energy up but my friends said most energy drinks are bad for you and that Red Bull is an energy drink, therefore Red Bull is probably bad for you. The premise of this argument is that energy drinks are not healthy for your body. The conclusion of this argument is that Red Bull is a energy drink, so it probably is not healthy for your body. This is an inductive argument because my friend did not say that Red Bulls were bad for me, he said that energy drinks were bad and because Red Bull is an energy drink, I inducted that the Red Bull energy drink is bad for me. Inductive reasoning is based on probability and not facts. Just because most energy drinks are bad, does not mean Red Bull is. Red Bull might be perfectly fine for my body, but because of inductive reasoning it is probable that Red Bull is bad for me.

Leadership

There are many ways to lead a group to a desired outcome, some are better than others in different situations. The best all around I believe is participative leadership. Participative leadership is when the leader works with the group, they get the group together and keep people accountable but have no more influence over the end result than any other member of the group. This way seems the best in most situations because things get done efficiently, is of higher quality, and minimizes group conflicts. Sometimes though, time is a luxury that a group does not have so they require a authoritarian leader. Authoritarian leaders have all control over the whole group, with little to no input from group members. The group members may not like not being able to contribute their ideas and concerns but things will get done faster. If things need to get done as soon as possible an authoritarian leader might be necessary if a group cannot get things together quick enough with an participative leader.

Death Penalty

Sister Helen Prejean is a Roman Catholic religious leader who says that capital punishment goes against the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, "who taught us to not to return hate for hate and evil for evil." Some Christians do disagree with her. I think the book is putting too much on an emphasis on either you believe in it or you do not. Sometimes, people believe in somethings that Christianity has to offer, but not all of it. Some may argue that the death penalty is the worst punishment, while I do agree that it is the most final and definite punishment, it is not the worst. Sitting in a jail cell for a lifetime and thinking about why you are in there seems to be a lot worse then being killed. Why does someone who believes in one thing, have to agree with everything about it? My conclusion is this; to be a Christian, you must believe some of the bible, but not all of it. But not not believing all of it, does not make you not a Christian.

Silver Blaze Deductive Reasoning

When Sherlock Holmes tries to figure out what happened to Silver Blaze, he did not go off of what people's opinions or rumors. Holmes used his logic of where the possible places the horse would go after running away. One by one Holmes eliminated all the possible places Silver Blaze could have went until he eventually finds the horse at Mapleton. Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however probable, must be the truth." People have difficulty separating their own opinions/theories when trying to figure something out.
For my personal experience, sometimes I lose my wallet and I used to struggle with finding it but now I use deductive reasoning to find it. First I check all my pockets, and if it is not in my pockets then it is either in my backpack or in my room. I check my backpack next and realize that it must be in my room. I then find my wallet sitting on my desk in my room.

Obama: Same-sex marriage

President Obama is inconsistent with his views on same-sex marriage. I believe President Obama does want to legalize same-sex marriage at the federal level but if he does he may or may not lose support from people and he is unwilling to take that step. He would also need support from Congress and that may be difficult. However, legalizing it at the state level shows that President Obama does support same-sex marriage and it goes "under the radar." Meaning if a federal law were to change, people would talk and media would be all over it but changing state laws do not seem to be as big of a deal. To Nava and Dawidoff, President Obama would say that he cannot just go changing federal laws. It would take time and a lot of negotiating with non-supporters. I believe that President Obama, as a person, supports same-sex marriage and would change it, but because he is the President and needs to worry about how people view him, he does not want to legalize same-sex marriage.