Mentorrrrrrrr~

In Chapter 4 of "The Essential Guide to Group Communication", the authors talk about the importance of mentors in groups. Mentors are usually older and more experienced than other members, and can offer knowledge and wisdom that no one else in the group or team can offer. Proteges benefit from that knowledge and are able to grow, develop, and/or learn at a faster pace. The relationship between those two types of group members relies on each member understanding his or her role in the group. The mentor must be willing to teach, while the protege must be willing to learn. Both sides must make the effort for each other in order to accomplish their goal.

I found this information useful because all of us are mentors and proteges depending on the situation. When it comes to trying to learn something, I have to be more open-minded. Meanwhile, I have to be more patient whenever I teach something to someone. Also, the four stages in a mentoring relationship (initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition) showed me that being a mentor is not an overnight thing.

I am a pink hair pierced ears rebellious punk

Slippery slope is a type of fallacy that falsely assumes that one thing must lead to another.

They begin by telling that if we do one thing then that will lead to another and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we consequently shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with this kind of fallacy is that it is possible to do the first thing that they declare without doing the other thing.

For example, my parents have a tendency to use slippery slope in their argument.

“If you piece your ears, then next you’ll get a tattoo, and before you know it you’ll be a rebellious punk with pink hair and everything."

I don’t want to become a rebellious punk with pink hair.

Therefore: This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to pierce my ears without becoming a punk; I could pierce my ears and not get a tattoo.

The conclusion therefore hasn’t been proven, because the argument’s first premise is false.

If you have a lot of cars you don't drive, then you are a bad neighbor. Whatttt?

I. “My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
1. People do not like living next door to such a mess.
2. He never drives any of them.
3. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.
4. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.”

Argument! Yes!
Conclusion: My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed: If the neighbor is messy, doesn’t drive their old leaky car, then they should be forced to get rid of all their cars since it is bad for the neighborhood and will decrease property values.
Identify any subargument: Premises 2 and 4 support 5, while 3 is independent.
If people do not like living next to that mess, and if they look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place, then it is bad for the neighborhood and will decrease property values.
All of the premises support the conclusion, 1.
Good argument! No… it is a bad argument.

Although there are independent premises, I don’t think they lead to the conclusion. How does the writer know other people view it “such a mess”? Why does it matter if the neighbor “never drives” his cars? Why does it matter if they look old and leak oil? Many people own cars that are old and leaky. That doesn’t mean it is bad for the neighbor and decrease property values. The conclusion of removing their cars in their yard because of those dubious premises is a bad argument. Plus, it is the neighbor’s yard, their property and matter.

I find the exercise to be useful because I was able to break down and analyze the argument.

Types of leadership

There are four types of leadership: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez faire.

Authoritarian leadership focuses on group goals and takes complete charge of decision making, demanding strict fulfillment from subordinates.

An example would be Bill Gates and Steve Jobs controlling their company to a success.

Consultative leadership focuses on using the skills, experiences, and ideas of others. However, the leader or manager using this style still holds the final decision power. They will not make major decisions without approval from others.

An example would be for the Critical Thinking group project. One person would approach their team members on what article to use. The team members brain storm over the issue, some suggest drug related article and others suggest political articles. The participative leader takes all these suggestions, weights their pros and cons, and then takes the final decision after considering their team members’ opinions.

Participative or democratic leadership focuses on their group members to participate. It is more expressive and group members feel more motivate and creative in this type of leadership.

An example would be asking all group members for ideas and inputs. Then, all group members vote what would be the best idea in a project. After that, asking group members to work with their strengths and have them divide the work. This lets members to work at their own pace and set their own deadlines. This is the type of leadership my Critical Thinking group is using.

Laissez-faire leadership focuses on the group to function more or less on its own. It is when there are no feedbacks from the leader. All of the group members have the power of authority.

An example is when the manager have other higher priority and went on a business trip. All the employee have the power to maintain the store. 

1 lb of cajun mild crawfish with potatoes and sausages please :D

A valid argument is when you can back up with supporting evidence. It is when the argument is provable, legitimate, and correct.

For example,

“Boiling Crab is the best seafood restaurant in San Jose because it always has a long line!”

It isn’t a strong argument due to the reason the evidence that supports it doesn’t have to point to the argument being made.

Just because a restaurant has a very long wait doesn’t make it better than any other. It could be that the restaurant’s capacity is smaller than the amount of customers, lack of efficient seating customers, or customers take so long eating the food.

A strong argument would be “Boiling Crab is the best seafood restaurant in San Jose because customers often wait for many hours to eat despite its long line compared to many other seafood restaurants. Plus, many customers became loyal after eating there.

A strong argument is persuasive, but may not essentially be truthful or based on accurate facts. It is also make it hard for people to refute.

Swine Flu?

“Today I woke up with a headache, sore throat, and a runny nose. I must have a cold.”

The premises are plausible because I have a good reason to believe it is true. I woke up in the morning with my head swirling, painful throat, and nose dripping.  I can’t think of any reason on why it is not plausible.

My premises are more plausible than the conclusion because people can physically tell that I have those symptoms when my head is hot, raspy voice, and my snots falling out of my nostril.

There is a connection between the premises and conclusion. My symptoms of having a headache, sore throat, and a runny nose establish my conclusion.

This argument is valid since there is no way the premise could be true and the conclusion wrong at the same time.  However, there is some way that the premise to be right and the conclusion to be wrong. I could’ve a hangover from alcohol to have that symptom or a swine flu. Though, I am sure that I did not drink alcohol the day before I woke up, and  I had a swine flu vaccine. That possibility is unlikely. 

BOYFRIEND, HOLD ME!!

Besides objective and subjective claims, there are another two different types of claims: descriptive and prescriptive claims. Descriptive claims means “says what is” whereas a prescriptive claim means “says what should be. Essentially, what that means is that a prescriptive claim is where someone commands what needs to be done.

Few weeks ago, I was with my friends who just became a couple. We were at a park late at a chilly night. My female friend was shivering of the cold.

Female friend: -shivers- It’s so cold!!
Her boyfriend: Oh, you should’ve brought a thicker jacket.
Female friend: I didn’t know it was going to be this cold!
Her boyfriend: -continues talking with the group-

A descriptive claim would be my female friend stating that she is cold.

Due to the word, should, it indicates that the statement above is a command from someone else, prescriptive claim.

A value judgment, conversely, is similar to a prescriptive claim. However, the only difference is that it includes word, such as good, better, best, or bad, worse, worst. A value judgment is someone’s opinion of whether something is right or wrong. A prescriptive claim is often backed by a value judgment saying what should or shouldn’t be done.

I thought it was kind of wrong for my friend’s boyfriend not to do anything when his girlfriend is cold. Instead of telling her what she should’ve done and letting her shiver, I think he could’ve given her his jacket or hug her to keep her warm. That would be my value judgment.