Esiah Stone 1. The Fundamental Attribution Error says that, “we tend to overestimate the role of our own personal factors and to over look the impact of situations.” (DeNeui, D. 2009, class lecture.) This helps us to explain the difference in the prediction versus what actually happened by overlooking the danger at hand and carrying out the task at hand by negating what is at stake. In a nut shell, the difference is how people would predict the obvious answer that he/she would never knowingly harm another person, so how could he/she go all the way, but when a person is “ordered” to do something they will blindly does it. 2.
I have identified an interpersonal conflict that stands out strong for me. It was self-disclosure or the lack thereof between Alex and Sarah. It created a conflict, and a trust issue. This scenario could have been handled in a totally different way. As individuals disclose information about themselves the hope is they will not be judged or looked at differently.
Normally, we would not argue about children, but the statement that was made by me was taken out of context. We ended up settling everything, but that just goes to show how things can go left if you are miscommunicating with other people. Miscommunication is described as a lack of clear or adequate communication. In order to make sure that a miscommunication does not happen in the future, you have to make your voice well heard. Make sure that you are saying things in a way that it cannot be mistaken for anything other than it is.
Justin Skoglund Motivational interviewing requires always listening, what the client is saying and how the client is saying it is what you are looking for. So when we are listening and thinking about the language of change we think about ways clients are speaking. Are they saying “How things are is ok” or “there’s no reason for me to make any change” which is referred to as sustain talk. The client might begin to shift to change talk, start to think maybe things should be different or could be different or maybe would like them to be different. So as interviewers when we see clients begin to shift from sustain talk to change talk we need to shift with them.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
You gonna get me in trouble jus’ like George says you will” (91). He thought he was just keeping her quiet, not killing her. It’s not like he had the intention to kill her. His mental disability keeps him from thinking like a normal person. Lennie is not responsible for her death because he did not understand what was
Knowing that he could have been less obstinate and changed his assessment of power would have prevented Creon's son and wife from dying the way they did. Although Antigone was also persistent in not changing her own viewpoints, this worked in her favor because she was stubborn for a better reason than Creon. She stood up for her family because she knew it was the right thing to do. Creon did not show that he cared about anything but his own appearance for the fear that he will be observed as weak, until it was too late. By comparing and contrasting the characters of Creon and Antigone, one can assume that a lesson to be learnt from reading this play is that one should do what they believe is right based on their values and not concentrate on the thoughts of those who aren't important to him or
“For there are two main obstacles to gaining knowledge of affairs: modesty, which throws the mind into confusion; and fear, which keeps people from undertaking noble exploits once the danger becomes apparent. But folly removes these hindrances in a fine fashion”(42) Naturally given the nature of Folly the answer is herself. But Folly as an answer to attaining wisdom is paradoxical. To overcome the parameters of gaining knowledge she embraces the very opposite. It doesn’t attempt to solve the problem of knowledge, it just distracts from it.
She concluded Brigit might not have done the tests accurately because of the previous reading. Instead of addressing this issue she decided to avoid the confrontation and shoulder the responsibility of retesting everyone. In my opinion passive communication, although avoid confrontation is not effective because Brigit is left unaware she completed the tests inaccurately. This is an injustice to her and the students because she will continue to make this mistake unknowingly. The more effective way to handle this in my opinion would be to ask Brigit to demonstrate how to complete the test and show her what she is doing incorrectly.
The author tried to convince the parent as well as the experts that being a teenager can’t be an excuse for committing sexting by using the logic strategy, “ But this is something that just cannot be dismissed as kids ‘ doing stupid things.’.”, And he or she was trying to convince the audience that the authorities don’t consider these teens a criminals, but they just want to put an end to this “dangerous new trend” as he or she used the ethos strategy, ”Authorities aren’t convicting children, but using the law as teaching tool and trying to put stop to a toxic new trend.” . The author used a pathos appeal when talking to the oppose experts by mentioning the sad story of Jessie’s subside, “ Bertani must not have heard of the Cincinnati suicide.” ; Also he or she used a logos appeal to convince the experts that this “dangerous new trend” is not a private issue and it is also due to the irresponsibility of the parent to their teens: “ The civil libertarians may wish to consider their position. They claimed it is a private matter best resolved by parental responsibility. Would it follow that their parental irresponsibility should make the parent the legally liable