discussions.docx 1） Firstly, the idea of a national peace academy was first bought to the Senate following recommendations made by a commission appointed by President Jimmy Carter and chaired by Senator Spark Mastunaga in the United States. The purpose of the institute is to "serve the American people and the federal government through the widest possible range of education and training, basic, and applied research opportunities, and peace information services on the means to promote international peace and the resolution of conflicts among the nations and people of the world without recourse to violence.  According to Solomon and Quinney, in general, U.S negotiators are inclined to sit down and solve problems, reach deals, and negotiate with the objective of reaching agreements that satisfy both sides, also, in another words, sometimes, reluctant to negotiate with foreigners, especially those whose beliefs, and behavior go against U.S. values, and sometimes skeptical of the need for compromising given the U.S power position. Therefore, U.S. intercultural negotiating style is "highly professional but also pushy, informal but also urgent, cordial but also blunt, calculating but also given to sermonizing.  According to Kinhide who are from Japanese political scientist, he believes there is a basic incompatibility between U.S and Japanese negotiators based on the fundamental philosophical difference in view about the relationship between humans and their environment, and he also believes the U.S negotiating style is based in the belief that humans can freely manipulate the environment for their own purposes. In the end, he concludes that the cultural vale is that results are more important than relationships. As example in book, in Japanese culture, “I will do my best" probably mens "No way!", but Nixon thought it's an agreement.  According to Cohen statements, it describes U.S.negotiators are surprised with the other parties' preoccupation with history and hierarchy, preference for principle over details, repetitive style of argument, lack of enthusiasm for explicit and formal agreement, an willingness to sacrifice substance for from. U.S. negotiators express frustration with the other parties' intransigent bargaining, evasiveness, dilatoriness, and willingness to walk away from the negotiations without an agreement. And he also explained that high-context cultures negotiators are frustrated with the U.S negotiator's insensitivity, tendency to see issues in either-or terms, appetite for crisis, intimidating readiness for confrontation, tendency to bypass established channels of authority, inability to take no for an answer, and obsession with tidying up loose ends and putting everything down on paper.  WORD COUNT: 402 2）In our text, Jandt talks about traits and how they are so important to communication. Traits are so important because they define the individual. A person is made up of traits. Traits make up an individual’s habitual pattern o.

1. discussions.docx
1）
Firstly, the idea of a national peace academy was first bought to
the Senate following recommendations made by a commission
appointed by President Jimmy Carter and chaired by Senator
Spark Mastunaga in the United States. The purpose of the
institute is to "serve the American people and the federal
government through the widest possible range of education and
training, basic, and applied research opportunities, and peace
information services on the means to promote international
peace and the resolution of conflicts among the nations and
people of the world without recourse to violence.
According to Solomon and Quinney, in general, U.S negotiators
are inclined to sit down and solve problems, reach deals, and
negotiate with the objective of reaching agreements that satisfy
both sides, also, in another words, sometimes, reluctant to
negotiate with foreigners, especially those whose beliefs, and
behavior go against U.S. values, and sometimes skeptical of the
need for compromising given the U.S power position.
Therefore, U.S. intercultural negotiating style is "highly
professional but also pushy, informal but also urgent, cordial
but also blunt, calculating but also given to sermonizing.
According to Kinhide who are from Japanese political scientist,
he believes there is a basic incompatibility between U.S and
Japanese negotiators based on the fundamental philosophical
difference in view about the relationship between humans and
their environment, and he also believes the U.S negotiating
style is based in the belief that humans can freely manipulate
the environment for their own purposes. In the end, he
concludes that the cultural vale is that results are more
important than relationships. As example in book, in Japanese
culture, “I will do my best" probably mens "No way!", but
Nixon thought it's an agreement.

2. According to Cohen statements, it describes U.S.negotiators are
surprised with the other parties' preoccupation with history and
hierarchy, preference for principle over details, repetitive style
of argument, lack of enthusiasm for explicit and formal
agreement, an willingness to sacrifice substance for from. U.S.
negotiators express frustration with the other parties'
intransigent bargaining, evasiveness, dilatoriness, and
willingness to walk away from the negotiations without an
agreement. And he also explained that high-context cultures
negotiators are frustrated with the U.S negotiator's insensitivity,
tendency to see issues in either-or terms, appetite for crisis,
intimidating readiness for confrontation, tendency to bypass
established channels of authority, inability to take no for an
answer, and obsession with tidying up loose ends and putting
everything down on paper.
WORD COUNT: 402
2）In our text, Jandt talks about traits and how they are so
important to communication. Traits are so important because
they define the individual. A person is made up of traits. Traits
make up an individual’s habitual pattern of behavior, thought,
and emotion, such as extraversion and introversion (p.126).
Central traits can be defined as basic to an individual’s
personality, secondary traits as peripheral, and more serious
cardinal traits which dominate a person’s life so much so that
he/she becomes known for those traits. To list off traits seems
rather endless, because there are so many. With that being so,
psychologists reference five core traits that all together, form
human personality, usually being described as extroversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and ones’
openness. Communication traits can be defined as an abstraction
that’s constructed to account for enduring consistencies and
differences in message sending and message receiving behaviors
amongst individuals.
I think that communication traits are so critical to

3. understanding aggression and conflict because aggression in
communication can be a regular thing, but not many people
understand it. Many times it seems that while communicating
with others, they can tend to get upset, loud, rude, or just be
relatively unpleasant. This can root from many different things;
it can be the way they are wired, so their core traits, or even the
fact that they don’t really understand what you are saying.
Miscommunications and misinterpretations can root many
issues, so being able to understand communication traits and
how they relate to aggression and conflict, in my opinion, can
help to better avoid or deescalate various occurrences.
Interpersonal behaviors can be considered aggressive if it
applies force in a physical or symbolic manner to dominate or
damage, and on a more serious scale to defeat or destroy one’s
body, material possessions, self concept, position on various
issues, and behavior. Understanding everything encompassed in
this realm can provide clarity and help to not have the use of
aggressiveness in communication.
Reference:
Jandt, F. E. (2017). Conflict and communication. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
W.C. 326