Self-disclosure is the interaction process through which an individual may continuously divulge himself to another party. For instance, revealing things like goals, thoughts, beliefs, fears, feelings, and weaknesses to another part is part of self-disclosure (Levinson & Brown, 2011). I self-disclose regularity to my father and a college friend. That is why I chose the two to participate in the questionnaire interview. I find it comfortable to self-disclose to these parties because we have nurtured a mature relationship of trust, respect, and complete support for each other. The benefits of self-disclosure include emotional support, assistance, and security. Through self-disclosure, an individual is able to get emotional support that may be needed to overcome some private challenges such as a relationship breakup. In addition, self-disclosure may be important building trust and personal security. The demerits of self-disclosure include betrayal and opinionated judgment (Baack, 2009). The third party may easily betray confidentiality in self-disclosure and misuse the information to the disadvantage of the source of disclosed information. Besides, the third party may use the information disclosed to develop a negative opinion about the person disclosing the information. In the case of the interviewees, they agreed that I am a confident person and their trend in responses were consistent. However, my father was very consistent with my responses than the other friends. Self mediated communication has the impact of increasing the level of self-disclosure. Since computer mediated communication operates of the parameters of similarity, direct questioning, self-presentation, and self-awareness. Unlike face-to-face communication, self mediated communication give an individual a sense of privacy and ability to hide identity (Thomas, 2009). For instance, I am always more willing to update a lot of private information with my friends than share it in any other platform. My negative experience with language was during a heated argument with a friend on football. The friend stopped being objective and started attacking my personality. He called me names such as a fat pig and a good for nothing nitwit. I felt disrespected and misjudged by these strong words which do not represent my personality (Levinson & Brown, 2011). My positive experience with language was during a debate with a friend on political parties in the country. Unlike the friend who was not so much into politics, I was more of a tutor during the discussion. I admired my articulation and comprehension of the topic of discussion. I felt enlightened and smart considering that I considered this friend as knowledgeable in political issues. I can effectively deal with being offended by someone’s use of a word by ignoring what I feel is nonobjective and an attack to my personality. It is ethical to correct a stereotyping remark since it aim is to pass a wrong judgment of the victim. This is necessary to affirm the principle of objectivity and flexibility within the scope of a discussion. Correcting a stereotyping remark from an employer or a professor will guarantee a changed view when the same discussion is made in the future. I have learned that list