A Chama da Ascensão

pesquisar

 
LAR
Segunda-feira, 06 / 04 / 20

Study: Why Saying ‘Thank You’ Is Better Than Saying ‘I’m Sorry’.

Study: 

Why Saying ‘Thank You’ Is Better Than Saying ‘I’m Sorry’.

Jamie Logie, B. Sc.

learning-mind.com

April 5, 2020 .

 
saying thank you instead of im sorry.

 

 

Could the simple approach of altering an apology and saying thank you be a much better form of communication?
Expressing gratitude is something they teach us from a young age. It shows appreciation, kindness, and respect. You probably never think of saying thank you when it comes to apologizing – but it may be a more effective approach.
If you work and deal with the public, this can be a much more effective strategy than constantly apologizing. This isn’t just for someone who works in retail, but switching from saying ‘I’m sorry’ to ‘Thank you‘ may help in your daily relationships.
This article looks at a recent study that took a deeper look into this approach.

The Science Behind Why Saying ‘Thank You’ Is Better

This study was a multi-university approach and dealt with the issue of customer service satisfaction. The University of South Carolina, New Mexico State University, Zhejiang University in China, and The Ohio State University worked together to investigate this.
They looked at the issue of consumers’ expectations of quality service being higher than ever. Business leaders around the world have recognized this increase in service quality demand. At the same time, it’s clear that there are many issues surrounding customer interactions with service providers.
The attempt of this study was to find the best way to restore customer satisfaction as it’s needed in retail and business. The whole issues go far beyond a consumer feeling disregarded as poor customer service is costing companies billions of dollars. In 2016, the U.S. lost a staggering $1.6 trillion dollars because of customers switching to competing companies. This was all because of poor service. This has a spillover effect because of word-of-mouth and the damage that comes from this.
These days, word-of-mouth happens online – and it happens fast. Poor service has led to 44% of unsatisfied customers venting about it on social media. A bad review or report that goes viral can sink a company. This is nowhere more clear than in the hospitality industry, with a large proportion of consumers unsatisfied with how things go when dining out.
So what we have we seen to remedy this situation, and how can you apply it to your own life?

Why You Need to Stop Apologizing

The study looked at how service providers could restore customer satisfaction after a service failure. They focused on two different forms of recovery communication; saying ‘thank you’ (showing appreciation) and saying ‘sorry’ (the apology). The example the study gives has to do with a plumber who was late for an appointment: the plumber could either say “I am sorry you had to wait,” or “Thank you for your patience.”
The study found that showing appreciation to the consumer was a more effective approach. Saying ‘thank you’ was better at restoring consumer satisfaction than saying “I’m sorry.”
This has practical effects in real-world situations. When service providers show appreciation, the consumer becomes satisfied that the situation has been recovered in the best way possible. This leads the customer to stick with that business, recommend it to others, and less likely to complain in the future.
When you constantly say you’re sorry to someone, they get the sense that you aren’t doing everything in your power to improve the situation. Only saying sorry to a person (whether it’s a customer, friend, associate, etc) gives them the impression that you’ve washed your hands of things and what’s done is done.
According to the study, saying ‘I’m sorry’ emphasizes the service provider’s fault, while saying ‘thank you’ makes the customer feel more important.

Why Is Saying Thank You So Much More Powerful?

The sense of importance a customer feels is because saying thank you highlights their merits and contributions. When you say ‘thank you for your patience’ you are showing the positive contribution they have made. This may seem small, but it’s a way to improve a person’s self-esteem. With business, it enhances post-recovery satisfaction. With a friend or family member, it enhances the bond between the two of you.
When you say ‘Thank you’ instead of ‘I’m sorry’ – in any aspect of your life – it helps you deal with even the most difficult people. A narcissistic person only thinks of themselves, and if you can highlight their contribution and merits, they embrace this and can adapt quicker. Saying ‘I’m sorry’ takes the emphasis away from them and puts it on you.
Sometimes an apology is needed, but you just need to read the situation and see what it calls for. In the service industry example; saying ‘thank you’ (the appreciative approach) will be the best approach for those highly narcissistic people. The appreciation approach might not work as well for customers and people who are quiet, shy and show low narcissism.

What to Take Away from This Study

The key takeaway is that saying ‘thank you’ isn’t a way to get out of apologizing, but has some real resolution power to it. If you work in a retail setting, this can be a great time to use this method with the rise of angry and unreasonable customers. Besides saying ‘thank you for your patience,’ you can also use variations of:
  • Thank you for your understanding
  • Thank you for coming to me with this
  • I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, thank you
On a personal level, saying ‘thank you’ does a better job of resolving a conflict with another person. The appreciation approach gets you onto their level and they feel valued. It’s all about shifting the focus from things being your fault and spotlight the merit in others.
People rarely feel appreciated, and if you can do this in a negative situation, you create a better bond, connection, and resolution with that person. Ultimately, they go away feeling better about themselves.
Saying ‘thank you’ isn’t a cop-out, it’s a simple way to improve the lives of those around you.
References:
  1. https://journals.sagepub.com
  2. https://psychcentral.com
.
 

About the Author: Jamie Logie, B.Sc.

Jamie Logie is a certified personal trainer, nutritionist, and health & wellness specialist. He holds a bachelor of science (B.Sc.) degree in Kinesiology from the University of Western Ontario, studied sociology and psychology at Western University and has a counseling diploma from Heritage Baptist College. He has run a blog and top-rated podcast on iTunes called "Regained Wellness". Jamie is also a contributing writer for places like the Huffington Post, Thrive Global, LifeHack and has an Amazon #1 book called "Taking Back Your Health".

 
Patrick Montgomery:
I believe it’s appropriate to say both “I’m sorry” and “Thank you” in the same situation, if applicable. For example, if you’re late to a meeting with me, you’ve just wasted some of my time and my time, as with everyone’s, is valuable and finite. I need to know you understand and appreciate this concept. Even if being late was beyond your control. Apologize. And then say “thank you for your patience and understanding” which will assuage my annoyance letting me know you appreciate my situation making it possible for a productive meeting without any attitudes or misunderstandings. Neither “thank you” or “I’m sorry” should be over used as a go to response unnecessarily. I understand this study is primarily geared to customer service, however, it appears your suggesting to use this “thank you” approach in social or other professional situations. Don’t. Regardless of what the study says, if somebody screws up my order and says the words “thank you” in their first response sentence to me instead of apologizing, I’m thinking they’re clueless and WTF?! What I won’t be thinking is; “Gee, that was refreshing and nice. This company gets it. I’m gonna tell everybody about this positive experience”.
 


Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
 
Archives:

 
Main Site:
violetflame.biz.ly
Alternative to Google

 Alternatives to YouTube
 
Jordan Sather's 
 
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 

Like this! please bookmark. It is updated daily

 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 17:35
link do post | comentar | favorito
Sexta-feira, 27 / 12 / 19

What Is Slippery Slope Fallacy and How to Handle It in an Argument

Lottie Miles.

learning-mind.com

Posted December 26th, 2019.

 
Slippery Slope Fallacy.

 


The slippery slope argument is frequently used in a variety of contexts from our own internal reasoning to political propaganda. It takes the view that a certain action will lead to a specific chain of events, usually resulting in a negative outcome. But how helpful is this argument and why has it been termed the ‘slippery slope fallacy’?

In this post, we explore the fallacy of the slippery slope argument and look at how to handle this viewpoint when faced with it in an argument.

What Are the Different Types of Slippery Slope Arguments?
Slippery slope arguments come under many guises and philosophers have distinguished them under the following three categories:

1. Causal Slippery Slopes
A causal slippery slope relates to arguments that suggest a minor action will lead to a major (and potentially catastrophic) event. The causal nature of this argument is that the minor event leads to further events that gradually escalate until the ultimate tragic ending.

An extreme example of a causal slippery slope is someone suggesting that legalizing prostitution would cause lead to an increase in marital breakdown. This then escalates into the destruction of the constitution of the family and results in the very destruction of civilization itself.

2. Precedential Slippery Slopes
These suggest that in treating a minor issue a certain way, we will be obliged to treat a related issue that is more major in the same way in the future.

A common example of this type of slippery slope is the argument against the legalization of cannabis. Those that oppose this use the slippery slope to suggest it will lead to more positive attitudes towards harder drugs and the subsequent legalization of drugs like heroin.

3. Conceptual Slippery Slopes
This form of slippery slope argument is linked to the concept of vagueness and draws no distinction between the possibility of getting from one thing to the next and removes all decision-making processes from this. From this perspective, if you decide to do one thing, then you will inevitably decide to do every next step that occurs. Eventually, this will lead you to the ultimate negative result.

What Is the Slippery Slope Fallacy?
The slippery slope fallacy disputes arguments that predict such an escalation of events. In philosophy, certain discussions on logic and critical thinking have deemed the slippery slope argument a fallacy. It is deemed one of the logical fallacies because there is only a small possibility that one event will actually lead to the predicted (often negative) outcome.

The probability of such a cumulative effect of disastrous events occurring is actually quite slim. The argument also ignores the human ability to learn from experiences and take a different track when a decision may not have been the right one. Slippery slope arguments are also criticized for leveraging fear in jumping to extreme hypothetical consequences which are based on very little evidence.

How to Handle This Type of Fallacy in an Argument
You may be new to the world of slippery slopes or have found this article because you’re frustrated with your acquaintances using this logic. Here we highlight how you can tackle the slippery slope fallacy head-on.

1. Ask for justification
A good place to start when faced with the slippery slope fallacy is to ask your opponent to provide evidence behind their cause. In asking them to justify the reasons behind their belief that one event will inevitably go down the slippery slope to another, you will likely make them think again about their reasoning.

2. Highlight the missing pieces
Another way to tackle the slippery slope argument is to highlight the events that are missing from the slope. In emphasizing the key events that will occur between the start of the slope and the end, you can show your opponent that their argument rests on very tentative foundations.

3. Use an example
When it comes to winning an argument, it is always helpful to have an example up your sleeve.

The slippery slope argument that has gained significant attention is relating to the right to die movement. The use of the slippery slope argument in this context suggests that if the right to die was legalized, then this right would be abused. It implies that no matter what safeguards are put in place, the doctor now has the ‘power to kill as well as cure.’

Benatar (2011) helpfully picks apart this argument in applying this same logic to driving. People drive dangerously, under the influence, and drive cars that are not roadworthy. All of these actions lead to accidents and death. However, the idea that driving should be banned is absurd.

In other words, the slippery slope argument does not create a justification to withhold a legal right from someone just because some people have abused this right (i.e. not everyone can be tarnished with the same brush).

Final Words
The slippery slope argument can be an influential tactic. However, when you stop to think about it, it becomes clear that these arguments are often based on very tentative foundations.


When you tune into this idea, you will no doubt spot the slippery slope fallacy in many outlets including the media, politics, and discussions with your peers. To counter these arguments, try out the steps above and you’re sure to get one step closer to revealing the fallacy.
 
 
 

 

Lottie Miles

 


 
About the Author: Lottie Miles
 
Lottie Miles is a professional researcher and writer with a passion for human rights. She has 4 years of experience working within the NGO sector and has a Masters Degree in Social Policy. She has a keen interest in exploring ways in which happiness habits can help to improve mental health and wellbeing. In her spare time, she likes doing crossword puzzles, painting and traveling.
 
Copyright © 2012-2019 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.
 


Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
 
Archives:

 

 
and https://www.facebook.com/mel.tavares.75


A Trusty with Privacy Search 
Alternative to Google
startpage.com

Alternative to YouTube
brighteon.com
 
 
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 

Like this! please bookmark. It is updated daily

 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 05:45
link do post | comentar | favorito
Sábado, 14 / 12 / 19

Why Having the Last Word Is So Important for Some People & How to Handle Them

Lauren Edwards-Fowle.

learning-mind.com

Posted December 13, 2019.

 

 

Having the last word for some people means winning the argument. Whilst this clearly isn’t always true, it is a frustrating trait that applies to more than just Wikipedia!

It is worth remembering that the person who wins the debate is not necessarily the person who shouts the loudest, or gets in the last word.

Often a person with this personality is likely to be an egomaniac or bordering on being one. An egomaniac can be defined as a person who is obsessively self-centred or egotistical.

Why do egomaniacs feel the need to have the last word?

There are many reasons people behave as they do. Trying to understand the psyche behind aggressive behaviourscan help to plan your course of action if you regularly deal with people who insist on always having the last word.

Insecurity:

Somebody who lacks confidence or self-esteem may try to assert themselves in other ways, by expressing himself or herself in a forceful way. This is a familiar scenario in bullying, where often the aggressor is a victim in another way.

Should this be the possible reason for their insistence on having the last word, trying to discuss your differences with sensitivity might help to reach a peaceful outcome. They probably need to be heard more strongly than they need to feel validated.

Arrogance:

A person with extreme arrogance may genuinely not be able to accept that they might be incorrect, or that another person’s opinion is equally as valid as their own. This is an unfortunate trait to have, and it may be that an extremely arrogant person simply isn’t worth arguing within any circumstance.
Egocentricity:

Some people simply need to be the centre of attention, and will argue black is white in order to keep the spotlight. This can occur for lots of reasons; they might feel ignored in their home life, or feel impotent in other areas of their social or professional relationships.

If a person is unreasonable simply for attention, it isn’t wise to stroke their ego. You will only find yourself drawn into their appeals for attention, and may be supporting their egocentricity by doing so.

Power:

Having the last word can be perceived as powerful, often by people who lack assertiveness in other areas of their lives. This is a difficult scenario to deal with, as you are the unwitting recipient of their onslaught that is enforcing their own feelings of control and power.

Try not to be drawn into a debate with this person; they will do their utmost to drive you down for their own self-esteem.

Anger:

Refusal to debate calmly can be a reaction to feelings of anger, and shouting down an opponent is a way to express their feelings. In this situation, it may be best to revisit the discussion when the other person has had time to calm down. Otherwise, debating with an angry opponent could quickly turn into a volatile situation.

Dominance:

As with power, a person who feels the innate need to dominate others or to establish their seniority may do so by insisting they have the final word in any conversation. A scenario most likely to exist in the workplace, people can try to demonstrate their dominance over peers or colleagues by forcing them to concede an argument.

In this situation, you need to reinforce your own self-esteem, and perhaps have a third party step in. Don’t be crushed by another person’s drive to control your actions; make sure your voice is heard even when you are speaking quietly.

How should you deal with an egomaniac, and is there any way to have a productive debate?

When you are having a discussion with somebody who refuses to listen, it is wise to choose not to continue the conversation. This might sound counterproductive, but channelling energy and time into a scenario that is never going to have a mutually agreeable outcome is not a worthwhile investment.

If an opponent makes the decision to step away from the debate, this can entirely diffuse the situation. You are not obliged to continue a dialogue that makes you feel uncomfortable. Nor is it your sole responsibility to change the mind of a person who refuses to listen to reason.

Take a step back. There is a better chance that your arguments will mature over time and that any valid points you have made will remain in their thought process and perhaps inform behaviour in time.

Keep your own poise

Feeling frustrated is understandable. If you are trying to reach an agreement in a fruitless discussion, you might feel embattled and try ever more strenuously to communicate your perspective.

If a debate is continuing to escalate, at some point this needs to end before it turns into a heated exchange which is a negative experience for all involved.

In order to de-escalate a tense situation, you might do well to agree to disagree. You don’t ever have to agree with something which you feel is wrong or incorrect, but you can express your acceptance of another person’s point of view without having to concede that you are not right.

Silence speaks volumes

Don’t feel drawn or forced into an impossible discussion. If you know that you are dealing with an egomaniac that has no intention of considering another perspective, you can decide not to engage in the conversation.

Being the bigger person isn’t always the easiest course of action, but may save your headspace from becoming bogged down with an argument that you were never going to win.

Particularly in contentious circumstances (politics springs straight to mind!) it might be wiser to say nothing at all and keep your peace.References:
  1. Psychology Today
  2. Your Tango
 

 
Lauren Edwards-Fowle
 
 
Copyright © 2012-2019 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.
 
 

 
About the Author: Lauren Edwards-Fowle
 
Lauren Edwards-Fowle is a professional copywriter based in South East England. Lauren worked within Children's Services for five years before moving into the business sector. She holds an MSc in Applied Accountancy and BSc in Corporate Law. She now volunteers within the community sport sector, helping young people to live healthier, more productive lifestyles and overcome the barriers to inclusion that they face. With a keen interest in physical wellbeing, nutrition and sports, Lauren enjoys participating in a variety of team sports in her spare time, as well as spending time with her young family and their dog Scout.
 


Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
 
Archives:
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 

Like this! please bookmark. It is updated daily

 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 04:07
link do post | comentar | favorito
Domingo, 24 / 11 / 19

8 Types of Logical Fallacies and How They Distort Your Thinking

Alexander Nyland

https://www.learning-mind.com/

November 24th, 2019.


 
 
We often come across various types of logical fallacies when engaging in an argument or debate. These can slip into our reasoning when trying to argue a claim. Perhaps this is due to building a poor argument, for deliberate aims or simply through laziness.
 
However, what is meant by types of logical fallacies? For instance, we need to know what logical fallacies are before we can scrutinise some of the many forms they take.
 
What Is a Logical Fallacy?
 
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. It is a point that is made that’s logically false. This renders the argument defective due to the plausible validity of it being undermined.
 
Sometimes they are easy to spot and sometimes they are much more subtle. This can depend on how they arise is an argument. As mentioned, someone may just have constructed a weak argument. As a result, these logical inconsistencies may begin to appear.
 
On the other hand, a seasoned rhetorician may use them in a more tactical way. They will purposely use them to dupe the audience to their way of thinking.
 
In whatever situation they may appear in, you should know and recognise the many types of logical fallacies in the most basic sense. Then you can benefit greatly in various different aspects of your life.
 
Notably, it will help you become more adept in your own reasoning. In addition, it can also equip you with means to deconstruct an opponent’s argument effectively.
 
In this article, we will explore many common types of logical fallacies that can crop up in a debate. We will discuss how you can spot them and recognise how they can manipulate debate and distort your thinking.
 
8 Types of Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them
 
Logical fallacies come in many different types and forms. Here is a list of 8 of the most common that you may come across. Each one comes with an explanation so that you may be able to see them at work for yourself.
 
Ad Hominem Fallacy
 
An ad hominem is a personal attack. One would use a personal attack on their counterpart rather than using sound reasoning to advance their argument. This is usually done when someone is criticising or disagreeing with another person’s view.
 
However, they show this criticism and disagreement through personal insults. Moreover, these insults are not connected or applicable to the subject at hand.
 
Verbal attacks replace logical thinking. It proves nothing except a poorly built argument. Indeed, it does nothing to develop the debate.
 
Look out if someone starts to personally insult you in some way when engaging in an argument. Identifying the ad hominem will allow you to expose it. In turn, this might strengthen your position in the debate.
 
Strawman Fallacy/Argument
 
The strawman fallacy is a poor ploy to try and make your own position stronger. You achieve this by criticising a position that the opponent never held. You would not deal with the actual matter at hand. Instead, you would respond to a genuine stance that your opponent has taken.
 
For example, one would manipulate this position and attack a superficial stance that you have created for them. This position may seem similar to what they have argued but it is ultimately false and unequal.
 
Hence, you end up criticising a position that your opponent never wanted to argue for in the first place. The strawman fallacy cheaply manipulates the discourse to strengthen a position. Listen carefully for this. Scrutinising this immediately will allow you to uncover this weakness.
 
Appeal to Authority
 
Sometimes citing an authoritative figure or organisation to back up your argument can be an effective way of strengthening it. However, relying on this can make your position weak. Not to mention, it can steer the debate away from the real issues at hand.
 
The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when you wrongly apply authority to your argument. This is done to provide proof of what you are trying to say.
 
Appealing to authority can initially seem like a persuasive tool. However, often it needs additional support to really be effective. Otherwise, it can be just a cheap way of falsely making an argument look stronger.
 
Appealing to authority can be relatively easy to spot. What important is to evaluate it in the context of the subject of the debate. Only then can you see whether it is relevant or appropriate.
 
Bandwagon Fallacy
 
The bandwagon fallacy is another addition to this list of types of logical fallacies. It is also perhaps one of the easiest to deduce. Most people will be familiar with the phrase ‘jumping on the bandwagon’. The bandwagon fallacy is essentially this but using it as a means of gaining support and credibility.
 
This fallacy is judging something to be true just because many others believe it to be. Or, taking up a position, without any prior belief in it, because many others support it. To put it another way, deceitfully gaining support for a position and bolstering in the process.
 
Slippery Slope Fallacy
 
The slippery slope fallacy occurs with a reasonable proposition and then spirals into fanciful and extreme suggestions or consequences.
 
Someone may begin their reasonable proposition, then suggest something will happen as a consequence, and this relates to a chain of linked events. However, as the proposition unfolds it eventually ends in a highly improbable outcome.
 
This can be easy to spot. The ridiculous or inconceivable outcome has little to no evidence to suggest that it may actually come about.
 
Hasty Generalisation
 
A hasty generalisation is exactly as it sounds. Someone may hastily generalise their argument. Then they will reach their conclusion swiftly without any substantial evidence to back it up. This could be for several reasons:
  1. Rushing to a conclusion
  2. Making a sweeping assumption
  3. Making a wild exaggeration without any sort of credible proof
 
It is essentially jumping to a conclusion erratically without much thought and without enough evidence to support that conclusion. It can occur through a poorly structured argument.
 
If an opponent in a debate seems to have reached their conclusion quite quickly and without much evidence, then it’s probably a hasty generalisation.
 
Circular Argument
 
A circular argument is when someone arrives at a conclusion in which they just repeat what has already been established or assumed.
 
It is a type of logical fallacy doesn’t really prove anything new. Actually, all it does is repeat previous arguments in the same way. However, it insinuates a new conclusion is reached.
 
An example of this would be “the bible is true, therefore, you should accept the word of god”. We have no new conclusion after the original premise of assuming the bible is true. All we have is a conclusion that resembles the original premise.
 
Tu Quoque Fallacy
 
‘Tu Quoque’ is Latin for “you too”. This logical fallacy diverts attention from the argument at hand and the attention on yourself. Rather, it seeks to expose the hypocrisy in your opponent.
 
It works by taking away the criticism of yourself by throwing it back at your opponent. It does this effectively by either making a similar or the same accusation.
 
Imagine you are watching a political debate and ‘politician A’ accuses ‘politician B’ of lying to the electorate about a particular policy. A tu quoque fallacy would occur if politician B would just retaliate by pointing out that politician A has also lied in the past. They would make no attempt of defending that accusation put against them.
 
Focusing on an opponent’s hypocrisy is a false attempt to discredit them. This is because it does not further the argument in any way – it just answers criticism with criticism.
 
How Do These Types of Logical Fallacies Distort Your Thinking?
 
These types of logical fallacies have the potential to distort our thought process in a debate. This is due to the illogical and irrelevant stance that they may take. They can often throw us off course if confronted with them.
 
At the same time, they can divert the argument into another direction or weaken your own argument if you do not know how to recognise or expose these logical fallacies.
 
Final Thoughts
 
The first step to overcoming this and strengthening your debating and reasoning skills will be learning what these logical fallacies are and how to spot them. Once you understand what they are you can credibly present your argument.
 
References:
 
 
COPYRIGHT © 2019 LEARNING MIND. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FOR PERMISSION TO REPRINT, CONTACT US.


About the Author: Alexander Nyland

 
Alexander Nyland is an avid writer, blogger and traveller with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature and Philosophy, graduating in 2018 from the University of Sheffield. His particular focus and interests in his studies included Film and Ancient Greek philosophy. Alex has always been fascinated by art, culture and philosophy and believes they are an integral and important part of all of our lives. He has his own blog, thefilmpheed.com, which discusses these subjects and their role in our lives and society in-depth.
 
 
 

Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 16:27
link do post | comentar | favorito
Domingo, 03 / 11 / 19

5 Types of a Personality Clash between People and How to Handle It

Becky Storey.

https://www.learning-mind.com/

November 2nd, 2019.




 
In life, it seems, we’re forced into socializing with people we don’t get along with. Whether it’s at school or work, or maybe with a neighbor or a mutual friend, sometimes, we just have a personality clash with other people.
 
It’s not that you outright dislike this person (though sometimes it could be). It’s often more that you don’t see eye to eye. When personalities clash, it’s usually because your views, opinions or behaviors just don’t line up.
 
This can be tricky to navigate when you’re stuck with this person, but it’s not impossible to handle. With a little forgiveness, understanding, and kindness, you can get along just fine even with a clash of personalities.
 
It can be hard to tell if you have a justifiable personality clash, or if you just don’t like a person.
 
If you know the difference between the two, you could save a whole lot of energy and maybe even a friendship.
 
Your “Verts” Clash
 
The “verts” are categories we put ourselves and others in, based on our personalities. There are generally three types:
Introvert – a person who likes their own company, ponders their own thoughts and can tire quickly in social situations. They are stereotypically quiet and even lack confidence.
Extrovert – a person who thrives in the company of others, enjoys sharing and caring for others. They are typically loud and confident.
 
Ambivert – a little mix of both.
 
With such wide-ranging personalities as an introvert and extrovert might have, it’s no wonder these two personalities clash.
 
At work or in school, or any situation where you’re thrust into interactions with people you haven’t chosen, you’ll probably meet people of different “verts” to you.
 
As an introverted soul, you might find yourself feeling unsure of someone for being too loud. They’ve done nothing wrong though, your personalities just collide. On the other hand, extroverts might find introverted people strange, as they would rather be quiet and alone, which can come across as pretentious, or just plain weird. Again, there’s no one at fault here. You just have a personality clash.
 
Handling this one is fairly straight forward. Simply, be considerate. If you’re an extrovert, you could try to level yourself out when you sense a clash coming on.
 
As an introvert, consider telling your louder friends about your needs. You could also consider pushing yourself out of your comfort zone and tolerating more so you can cope with each other better.
 
You Clash with the Way They Treat Others
 
When it comes to the treatment of others, some of us can be pretty opinionated. For example, imagine a colleague welcoming a young new employee. How you would treat them may not be the same way that your work colleague does. It wouldn’t be uncommon to find yourself clashing with them over being too hard on them too early, or not being hard enough. It’s all based on opinion.
 
We often feel frustrated with others because they aren’t showing enough respect to someone or they’re being too soft on those who don’t deserve it. If you’re irritated by the way they interact with others, you probably have a personality clash.
 
This can be resolved with good communication. Explaining what you don’t like and discussing what you’d like to be altered. If you aren’t in a position to open up about these matters, maybe it’s your boss or just someone you don’t know all that well, you may have to work on rising above it.
 
Sometimes you can’t fix everything. If possible, you could be the change you want to see. Be nicer to those who deserve it and more constructive for those who need it.
 
Your Values and Morals Clash
 
In our modern society, we’re mostly free to be exactly as we want to be. We live (somewhat) happily amongst people with all sorts of differing views and opinions to our own. We even live, work and socialize with people whose life values and morals are completely different from ours.
 
It’s not too difficult to understand why a person of conservative values might have a personality clash with someone whose values are more liberal. While #freethenipple might be a lifestyle to one, skirts that cover the ankles might be important to another. Fortunately, if neither’s views are harming others then these two types of people will have a harmless personality clash.
 
To handle this scenario, you must be respectful of the other’s wishes. Everyone is allowed to govern their own body, their own wardrobe and their own choices. If you don’t agree with a person’s choices, that’s okay. As hard as it might be, if they aren’t hurting anyone, you have to leave them to it.
 
You have to accept everyone’s differences, in the knowledge that you wouldn’t want others telling you who or what to be either.
 
Your Work Ethics Clash
 
Sometimes, people just don’t work well together. Think about all those group projects you had to do as a kid. There was always someone who did nothing or took over the whole project. Those people, I’m sure, are still good people, but their work ethics clash with ours.
 
There are few things more frustrating than trying to work with someone who’s work ethic is different from your own. Try communicating more clearly what you would like from their work and meet them in the middle, considering their needs too.
 
It is possible for personality clashes to still work together successfully, it’s all about communication.
 
Your Political Views Clash
 
One of the most divisive factors in our personalities is our political alliance. It can be difficult to handle socializing with or working alongside someone with opposing views to our own. Political views tend to be the basis of so many personality clashes.
 
The best way to handle this is to weigh up how much it impacts their personality. If it is something that you can’t get over, then you simply have to get through. Be civil, for the sake of your sanity and everyone around you.
 
In most cases, being kind, civil and understanding is the only way to handle a clash.
 
References:
 
 
Becky Storey

 


 

About the Author: Becky Storey
 
Becky Storey is a professional writer who has been passionate about the way we think and the human mind since she developed chronic anxiety many years ago. Now she loves to write and educate people on mental health and wellbeing. When Becky is not writing, you’ll find her outside with her Labrador, sitting behind a jigsaw puzzle, or baking something with too much sugar.
 
Copyright © 2012-2019 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.
 


Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
 
Archives:
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 

Like this! please bookmark. It is updated daily

 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 01:29
link do post | comentar | favorito
Sexta-feira, 12 / 07 / 19

5 Examples of Herd Mentality and How to Avoid Falling into It ~ Sherrie.

5 Examples of Herd Mentality and How to Avoid Falling into It.

By Sherrie.

July 11th, 2019

 
It’s easy to fall into the herd mentality without even thinking. Following the leader isn’t always good.
People may not be animals, but they still often exhibit a herd mentality. What this means is they tend to congregate in groups to perform certain objectives or uphold common beliefs. There are ways that herd mentality can benefit us in the short term, I will not lie, but there are also reasons why we should avoid this train of thought altogether.


Unlike mob mentality

Individuals who operate in herds are different than those who contribute to mobs. Mobs are often seen as violent or aggressive groups. Being in a herd is basically being a part of the “in crowd” or adhering to a majority mentality. We see this in religious organizations and school affiliations.
Here are examples and explanations of the herd mentality.

1. Black Friday
I’m starting with one of the largest global phenomena in recent times – Black Friday. If there was ever a more moldable herd of people, it would be this group. Every year, on Thanksgiving day and the weekend following, Black Friday hits most retail stores and online sites offering ridiculous discounts in pricing.

When this happens, people go mad. More and more individuals are following the masses into this hysterical mode of shopping. Following the leader has never been so massive, and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be slowing down any time soon.

2.Investing

The herd mentality can also be seen in investments as well. Instead of making independent decisions, many will make moves depending on emotions and instinct. Social aspects are also a huge part of how people herd together to invest in certain stocks.
Investors will make rash decisions solely based on what their close friends are doing. Most people choose to do what others do simply because of the fear of embarrassment or the fear of being wrong. This fear of being wrong sometimes even goes against the better judgment of making a different choice that seems more logical – a judgment call that could be more profitable in the long run.

3. Choosing restaurants

Being a part of a herd also shows when looking for a place to eat. Let’s be honest, if you saw two restaurants that were almost exactly alike, one was crowded and one was almost empty, which would you choose? I think you would choose the busy and crowded one.
At least, this is true if you have a herd mentality. Many people think that if a restaurant is busy, the food must be better, and yet, it could only be a coincidence. This is a simple example, but it’s true, isn’t it?

4. Social groups

Just like in high school, the herd mentality can rear its head during adulthood. When it comes to making friends and being a part of a social group, people tend to gravitate toward larger groups or groups of popular and extroverted individuals.
In school, peer pressure told us that we were outcasts if we weren’t friends with certain people. Unfortunately, this attitude carries into later life more often than you think. Pay close attention and you may see a herd of people comprised of identical mentalities.

5. Beliefs/spirituality

As I mentioned earlier, herd mentality can be present in belief systems as well. There are many self-professed teachers in this area who are more than willing to share “truths” to others.
A following sometimes develops, not entirely unlike a cult, I venture to say. A person’s beliefcan quickly become a community’s belief. The bigger the community the larger the influence for others to join.

Why is herd mentality unhealthy?

Hey, let’s look at herd mentality this way – if you have a huge group of people of sub-par intelligence, and you add a few highly intelligent people to the large group, do you think the group will become smarter? No.
With the herd mentality, the intelligence level of the group does not change when a different form of stimulus joins. It’s usually the opposite. Most of the time, if intelligent people decide to join such a group, their higher intelligence is dormant to the group, or rather ignored.
All in all, I think we should avoid the herd mentality, and here are a few ways to do that.

Accept conflict

Instead of conforming to the norm, choose the other choice, so to speak. Stop going the easy route and agreeing with people, just because you live with them or they are part of your family. They could even be friends.
It’s easy to become part of the herd, and going against the grain is hard… but you must choose conflict in order to pull away from this mentality. You should practice saying no, get used to confrontations, and choose that road that many others abandon. This is how you start.

Know thyself

Who are you? I mean, if no one else existed, who would you be? Most people identify themselves with some connection to another. When I was younger and married, I often identified as a wife or a mother.
Here’s the thing. One way to find out if you are falling into herd mentality is to spend time with yourself. Find out what makes you happy without any influence of another human being. This is how you know yourself and this is how you sever from the majority rules concept.

Disagree some more

Yes, I mentioned saying no, but you must go further. Stop agreeing with people just because you feel they are going to be picked for promotions or because they’re the popular group. If you feel like disagreeing, then do it.
Sometimes just disagree to surprise the majority and shake up the room. Taking a stand against the majority vote, for instance, will help you further achieve your individuality and tear away from the group. After all, who really knows where these herds are going anyway?

It’s never too late to leave the herd

If you’ve been following the herd for a while now, you can still change this mentality. After a while of following the masses, you may feel a part of yourself dying. This is a wake-up call that you’re falling in deep.
Take some time and look at what your following, who you’re following and why. You may be surprised by what you find. Maybe you can avoid falling into the herd mentality altogether if you’re lucky.
References:
  1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
  2. https://www.sciencedaily.com
 

 

 
About the Author: Sherrie

Sherrie is a freelance writer and artist with over 10 years of experience. She spends most of her time giving life to the renegade thoughts. As the words erupt and form new life, she knows that she is yet again free from the nagging persistence of her muse. She is a mother of three and a lifetime fan of the thought-provoking and questionable aspects of the universe.
 
COPYRIGHT © 2019 LEARNING MIND. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FOR PERMISSION TO REPRINT, CONTACT US.
 

 
 
 
Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 
 
 
No religious or political creed is advocated here.

 Organised religion is unnecessary to spirituality.

 Excellent teachings of the masters have been contaminated by the dogmatic control of these religions.

 Discernment yes; judgement does not.
If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 

With discernment it is possible to reach the spirit of the letter of any writing and it is also much easier to listen to the voice of the soul that comes from the heart.
Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.
 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
tags: , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 23:29
link do post | comentar | favorito
Terça-feira, 11 / 06 / 19

Karl Marx’s Conflict Theory and What It Reveals about Today’s Society ~ Janey Davies.

Karl Marx’s Conflict Theory and What It Reveals about Today’s Society.

By Janey Davies.

June 10th, 2019.

 
 

 



 

Brexit has caused deep divisions in households in the UK. In France, the ‘gilets jaunes’ are threatening to bring the country to a standstill over rising fuel costs. Can conflict theory help us understand why?
If you’ve noticed that the world seems to be getting a lot less tolerant these days, then conflict theory might have the answer.

What Is Conflict Theory?

Its premise is simple. Developed by Karl Marx, it suggests that society exists in a perpetual state of conflict, rather than harmony.
This is because we are all competing for the same, finite resources. In other words, for each social resource, there is a potential for conflict.
Marx stated that the wealthy in society will always protect their resources and keep them hidden away. The poor will try and obtain wealth using any means necessary.
As a result, there is a constant struggle between these two groups – the rich and the poor. Both individuals and groups within society will strive to benefit themselves over others.
Karl Marx conflict theory
Main Points of Conflict Theory:
  • Limited resources lead to competition between groups in society.
  • These groups are the rich ruling class or the poor working class.
  • The competition is usually economic or social with the ruling class dominating over the working class.
Let’s explore each of the main points in more detail.

1. Competition for resources

There are three types of resource that cause conflict:
  1. Economic resources
  2. Power resources
  3. Status resources
The most obvious resource in society is money. Wealth frees you from stress, worry, it provides you with a better life, more choices.
We all know what money can give us. Money buys you a big house. The opportunity to live in a nice area. The chance to go to a good school, to get a good education. Once you have good qualifications, you can get a better job. This perpetuates the circle of wealth.
Of course, resources don’t just include money. They are also those intangible things like time and social status. For example, a poor, working-class woman in a coercive relationship is not going to have the same opportunities as a single man with rich parents.
Therefore, it is important to understand that there are different types of struggles for resources.

2. The types of groups competing

Marx suggested two types of groups involved in the competition for resources.
  • The wealthy, the ruling class or the bourgeoisie.
  • The poor, working class or the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie account for a very small percentage of the population, but they have the power and resources. As a result, they use this power to influence and dominate the larger majority of the proletariat.
This is the pyramid theory in which a small group at the top control the power of all the other members of society below them. They achieve this in several ways. They take control of the media, they focus attention away from themselves and they will target minority groups for society’s problems.

3. Types of competition – economic and social

interpersonal conflict
So the two groups are the rich and the poor and they are competing for wealth, but they are also competing on a social level too. So what does that mean?
Take the relationship between an employer and a worker. The employer can keep wages stagnating for years, cut worker’s benefits, freeze overtime and stop pay rises. All the worker has is his or her labour to sell as a commodity. They don’t own the factory or the business. They are at the whim of the owners.
Ultimately, the owners want to get the most out of their workers with it costing them the least amount. The same applies to a tenant and a landlord. Their relationship in society is unequal. The landlord wants the most they can get for the property, no matter how nice their tenants are. Therefore there will always be conflict.

Conflict in today’s world

German sociologist Max Weber expanded on Marx’s theory. He suggested that people would be affected on many more levels, which included gender, race, education, class and social mobility. He also inferred that some might not be affected at all. Others might be influenced by the very people in power over them.
For example, if a popular leader made unpopular decisions, how would the masses react? It’s possible they would react favourably. So it’s safe to say that this theory is multi-layered and dependant on many factors, not just class and wealth.

Conflict and the Gilets Jaunes

So are we any closer to explaining the polarised views of Brexit or the protests in France? Well, yes. If the interests of an opposing group become too oppressive, then the opposed group will mobilise.
They will share a sense of belonging and social membership. They’ll create boundaries between those who belong and those don’t. Some will feel so incensed that they’ll take action.
In fact, the conflict itself tends to create a sense of solidarity and pull in others who might not ordinarily join the fight. We can see this with the gilets jaunes of France.
What began as a peaceful protest against a rise in fuel tax has now morphed into something completely different. Not only that but it has grown into a much larger anti-government movement. The protesters believe that you are either with them or against them.

Conflict and Brexit

As for Brexit, the result of the UK referendum is still a huge cause for arguments in Britain. People’s emotions are highly charged. There’s a lot of black and white thinking on this subject.
Those who voted Remain believe they are right and so do those who voted Leave. Moreover, neither will listen to opposing views. With such a small difference in the result of the Leave vote (4%), you’d think people in the UK could find some common ground.
But no. We cement our own ideologies as the truth and the way forward all the while demonising our opponents. We’ve become self-righteous and feel completely justified in our actions. What we don’t realise is that we have now become as bad as our oppressors.

How to Use Conflict Theory to Resolve Disagreements

So let’s apply the theory to human relationships and problems. What we can agree on is that the most important factor is a sense of inequality. Remember the inequality can be real or imagined, it could have happened a minute ago or be centuries old.
  • Conflict is not a contest. If you go into an argument to win at all costs, you are not going to resolve the conflict.
  • Look at the problem from the other person’s perspective. This means putting yourself in their shoes.
  • Find out the root of the inequality. Is it financial, a question of time, education, insecurity?
  • Be open-minded about resolutions and solutions. Your partner or colleague might have an idea of how to resolve the conflict.
  • Listen to the other person. When people feel listened to and validated they are more likely to open up and the level of trust increases.
  • Leave emotion out. Be matter-of-fact when discussing a possible solution. Conflict increases when emotions rise.
  • Focus on the problem, not the person. It helps to take the personality out of the equation and keep your attention on the source of the conflict.
  • Don’t criticise, respect. Nothing shuts down a conversation more than criticism. However, showing respect does the opposite.
We can’t eliminate conflict from our world. But we can change the way we deal with it. This theory shows us that understanding the reasons behind conflict will help us negotiate our waythrough it more effectively.
References:
  1. https://www.investopedia.com
  2. http://www.csun.edu
 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

About the Author: Janey Davies.

Janey Davies has been published online for over 8 years. She is the head writer for Shoppersbase.com, she also writes for AvecAgnes.co.uk, Ewawigs.com and has contributed to inside3DP.com. She has an Honours Degree in Psychology and her passions include learning about the mind, popular science and politics. When she is relaxing she likes to walk her dog, read science fiction and listen to Muse.
 
COPYRIGHT © 2018 LEARNING MIND. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FOR PERMISSION TO REPRINT, CONTACT US.
 
 
 


Compiled by http://violetflame.biz.ly from: 


 Archives:
Please respect all credits.

 
Discernment is recommended.

 

All articles are of the respective authors and/or publishers responsibility. 

 

No religious or political belief is defended here. (Investigate yourself)

 

Individually you can be helped to find your Truth that is different of everyone. 

If you use discernment you are free to research with an open mind. 


More @ http://violetflame.biz.ly and https://rayviolet.blogspot.com/
 

Like this! please bookmark. It is updated daily

 
 
 
 
Free counters!

  geoglobe1
 
 
 
tags: , , , , , , , , ,
publicado por achama às 14:47
link do post | comentar | favorito
LAR
A Luz está a revelar a Verdade, e esta libertar-nos-á! -Só é real o AMOR Incondicional. -Quando o Amor superar o amor pelo poder, o mundo conhecerá a Paz; Jimi Hendrix. -Somos almas a ter uma experiência humana!

mais sobre mim

Agosto 2020

D
S
T
Q
Q
S
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

« Jun

posts recentes

últ. recentes

  • achama
    Thank you Mateo, It is fixed.
  • Mateo Sol
    Thank you for reposting my article. However the or...
  • Suricato
    "Hoje é um homem de missão cumprida, engenheirão v...
  • Dione Scarpelli
    Bacana esse post, vou compartilhar no facebook, cr...
  • achama
    O Sathya Sai Baba ainda está entre nós e vive na Í...
  • achama
    Olá, obrigado pelo comentário.Sempre que dermos ou...
  • achama
    Sempre que dermos ouvidos à voz que vem do coração...
  • Valdeci
    Ola Manuel, muita luz para você ,é a primeira vez ...
  • Anónimo
    fale alguma coisa,de mim sou poliana miguel
  • Poliana Cristina
    Você fala com anjos ,pede um deles mandar uma mens...
  • achama
    A "vida real" é uma ilusão Toda a matéria é formad...
  • Pedro
    Bom dia,reparámos que o seu blog faz uso de textos...
  • achama
    O Amor é tudo o que existe e na sua mais pura exên...
  • M
    usando uma metafora descrevendo a vida real, e nao...
  • m
    o odio deve-se à permissao do mal andar entre nós,...
  • apartamentos pequenos decorados
    Obrigado pelas suas palavras. Fiquei a conhecer po...
  • achama
    Adoro este artigo. Já tinha conhecimento do assunt...

arquivos

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011

tags

todas as tags

links

Elos à Chama

Principal

Secundário

Alternativo

Ilhas e Ilhotas

Açores e Ilhas do Atlântico

Ilhas do Atlântco Norte

Ilhas do Atlântico Sul

Israel ou Cazária!

PT: Israel é na verdade Cazária

EN: khazaria (VI-XI century Jewish Caganate)

EN: Israel (or Khazaria's nazism!?)

EN: Ashkenazi Jews are not Israelites

EN: Old and New Khazaria

subscrever feeds

RSSPosts

RSSComentários

RSSTag conflict

blogs SAPO


Universidade de Aveiro