In some instances, defense mechanisms are thought to keep inappropriate or unwanted thoughts and impulses from entering the conscious mind. For example, if you are faced with a particularly unpleasant task, your mind may choose to forget your responsibility in order to avoid the dreaded assignment. In addition to forgetting, other defense mechanisms include denial, repression and projection. In denial, is one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth? Denial is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred or is currently occurring.
We can keep our assumptions to ourselves but unless we consider all aspects of the situation we are not thinking critically. It is also important to recognize when you have made an assumption and attempt to rid yourself of the assumption, keeping it there will only make matters more difficult. • Fallacies are a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument. Fallacies in written arguments generally come from some type of news source: Biased material that tries people to believe something though it may just be for their gain. Fallacies in oral arguments are similar to written arguments.
These are the apologetic words. And there are many uncertainty when communicate with other, such as “possibly”; “maybe”; “perhaps”; “ if possible” and “ not sure”. They bring themselves down beside other people by saying the phrases such as “I have never done this before”; “I am still new to this and not very good at it”; “You obviously know more about this than I do”; “ It’s my mistake really” and so on. Most likely they expect permission from other people. For example, “Can I leave my bag here?”; “Do you mind if I go ahead?” and “Is this OK with you?” They often cease to consider their own needs.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
During the agentic state an individual may feel moral strain, moral strain is when a person may be aware that the order they're following is immoral or goes against their moral views but they feel unable to disobey and continue the behaviour anyway. When in the agentic state the individual is acting as an agent for others, they do not feel responsible for their own actions as they believe responsibility falls to the authority figure giving the order. As this gives a clear description of obedience, society can learn from and aim to avoid future events similar to Mai Lai massacre. There has been much researcher into obedience through many studies including Milgram & Hofling, both these studies were lab experiments so any findings from the data would be considered high in validity and therefore any changes made to society from the theory would likely be worthwhile. However agency theory is more of a description than an evaluation of obedience, therefore the theory is incomplete and other theories, such as social power theory it is an alternative explanation for obedience, as a result of this any changes society makes on the basis of agency theory may be invalid and useless as the theory itself may be incorrect/incomplete.
These flaws are usually associated with the fact that they are unable to fulfil the need to gain the answer since they may be biased, however even when these two ways of knowing are put together, they may contradict each other, or do not share the same view on the same exact case, this is what is considered as the conflict. In order to understand and find the answer to the question, the question must be clearly defined, in terms of emotion and reason as well as the idea of the conflict. Emotion is defined as any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking. Simply, emotion is the representation of one's mind when it comes to decision making or confronted with any other serious situation, and it occurs whether the individual consciously or subconsciously aware of it. Such example would be when one feels angered by the fact that the two choices given are not the choices that one desires or when confronted with an insulting joke, one would laugh at the joke, but disgusted or angered by the insult.
It would make no sense to say, I persuaded him, but he wouldn't come around to my way of thinking. Further, only when a receiver has freedom of choice, can we say that persuasion is being used instead of coercion. Although some would argue that the final goal of most persuaders is to change behavior rather than just mental states (Funkhouser & Parker, 1999), these changes are generally achieved through a person's mental state and, specifically, attitude. Directly controlling another's behavior is rarely appropriate in a democratic society. The existence of interpersonal communication is a given in persuasion research.
Non-logical arguments, statements that cannot be logically proven or disproved, are important in argumentative writing—such as appeals to emotions or values. Illogical arguments, on the other hand, are false and must be avoided. Logic is a formal system of analysis that helps writers invent, demonstrate, and prove arguments. It works by testing propositions against one another to determine their accuracy. People often think they are using logic when they avoid emotion or make arguments based on their common sense, such as "Everyone should look out for their own self interests" or "People have the right to be free."
A decision based on rationality is said to be logical, reasoned and sensible, whereas an emotional decision is passion-filled and unreliable. This is only true in some cases, but it is in my opinion that an intelligent person is both emotional and rational, using both of these features in different circumstances to make the best decisions. However, it depends on the situation you’re in whether it would be better to react from an emotional perspective or from a rational one. There are many circumstances under which an emotional person would be clouded from seeing the lack of logic in a situation that a rational person would be able to deal with. If someone is in an abusive relationship, they may not be able to end it because their emotions outweigh they ability to think rationally, whereas to everyone outside of the relationship the only logical thing to do is the end the relationship.
The second strategy is to sum up the other parties feelings or view points. Most conflict tends to arise when a person feels that their demands and views are not being heard. By paraphrasing their ideas you will not only show that you are listening, but also give yourself the opportunity to respond directly. The third strategy is to communicate your needs and wants effectively but firmly. By not directly stating what your conflict is and how you feel about it, you leave your ideas