Interpersonal Communications and Perceptions Chapter 3 Revised 9/14
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•786 views
Interpersonal Communications
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Interpersonal Communications and Perceptions Chapter 3 Revised 9/14
Ähnlich wie Interpersonal Communications and Perceptions Chapter 3 Revised 9/14 (20)
Mehr von Ray Brannon
Mehr von Ray Brannon (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Interpersonal Communications and Perceptions Chapter 3 Revised 9/14
- 1. Interpersonal CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn aanndd PPeerrcceeppttiioonn
- 3. YYoouurr lleeaarrnniinngg ssttyyllee mmaayy pprreeddiicctt yyoouurr ppeerrcceeppttuuaall ccoommmmuunniiccaattiioonn ddiiffffeerreenncceess wwiitthh ootthheerrss.. WWhhaatt iiss yyoouurr ddoommiinnaanntt lleeaarrnniinngg ssttyyllee?? TTaakkee tthhiiss qquuiizz ttoo ffiinndd oouutt.. http://www.metamath.com/multiple/multiple_choice_questions.html
- 4. PPeerrcceeppttiioonn BBaarrrriieerrss • Stereotyping , thin slicing and generalizing. Be careful not to hold on to preconceptions about people or things. We often have a tendency to see what we want to see, forming an impression from a small amount of information. • Not investing time. Making assumptions and ignoring details can lead to misconceptions. • Having a distorted focus. Focusing on the negative aspects of a conversation or a situation is a habit common to many people. Even though we may recognize the positive things, we often give more weight to the negative (i.e., one negative comment overshadows numerous positive ones). • Assuming similar interpretations. Not everyone will draw the same conclusions from a given situation or set of information. Everybody interprets things differently. Make sure to check for other people’s interpretations, and be explicit about your own. People need not always think alike, but do not assume that they will. Similarly, do not assume that everyone shares your priorities.
- 5. OOnnlliinnee PPeerrcceeppttuuaall DDiiffffiiccuullttiieess • “Text only” is open to miscommunication. Emoticons have grown to be so popular because they have become the substitution for body language. A wink usually means you are teasing. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/186534/807994 • Context and timing are important! Surrounding sentences and paragraphs can provide clarity. However as we move forward with new electronic advancements, our written messages get shorter and shorter.
- 6. AAuuddiittoorryy CChhaannnneell “I know you think you heard what you know I thought I said...”
- 7. MMiixxeedd MMeessssaaggeess • Example : An overweight child is rewarded with food and candy. • The antidote to mixed messages is where wwhhaatt yyoouu ssaayy iiss ccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh wwhhaatt yyoouu ddoo,, aanndd wwhhaatt yyoouu ddoo iiss ccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh wwhhaatt yyoouu ssaayy..
- 8. BBeeccoommiinngg ““ootthheerr-- oorriieenntteedd..”” GGeett oonn tthheeiirr cchhaannnneell!! • “I – it” relationship • “I – thou” relationship.
- 9. PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss GGoonnee BBaadd!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6zpwscHUJA
- 10. ““HHeeaalltthhyy SSkkeeppttiicciissmm”” bbee ccaauuttiioouuss ooff ~~ oovveerrssiimmpplliiffyyiinngg ~~iiggnnoorriinngg iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn ~~oovveerrggeenneerraalliizziinngg Vaccines cause autism. Global warming is a hoax
- 11. BBaarrrriieerrss ttoo PPeerrcceeppttiioonn:: BBlliinndd SSppoottss Over generalizing – thin slicing We treat small amounts of information as if they are highly representative. Epistomology – how do we know what we know? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY0WFdk44pc
- 12. Oversimplifying - takes more effort to explain
- 13. Stereotyping – harmful categorization
- 14. Imposing consistency and ignoring fluctuation in mood and behavior of others.
- 15. Focusing on the negative
- 18. RRuulleess ooff sseellff ddiisscclloossuurree:: WWee hhaavvee ppeerrssoonnaall bboouunnddaarriieess • Be “other oriented” • Watch the non-verbal responses • Do it slowly – watch for TMI • Back off if they do not reciprocate
- 19. Want to know your EE..QQ.. ((ffoorr ffuunn)) –– TTrryy tthhiiss qquuiizz.. http://quiz.ivillage.com/health/tests/eqtest2.htm Emotional Intelligence refers to the ability to perceive, control, and evaluate emotions. Some researchers suggest that emotional intelligence can be learned and strengthened, while other claim it is an inborn characteristic.
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Van Hecke presents 10 Blind Spots: 1. Not Stopping to Think 2. What You Don't Know Can Hurt You 3. Not Noticing 4. Not Seeing Yourself 5. My-side Bias 6. Trapped by Categories 7. Jumping to Conclusions 8. Fuzzy Evidence 9. Missing Hidden Causes 10. Missing the Big Picture
- Professional opinion A doctor's view: 'The MMR vaccine was a godsend' Dr Tom Smith has been practising medicine since before the MMR jab was introduced – and knows just how serious measles, mumps and rubella can be Advertisement feature Dr Tom Smith guardian.co.uk l ar ger | smal l er Doctor listening to young baby's heartbeat Photograph: Smith Collection/Getty Images I'm old enough to have practised medicine before we had vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. I still remember the 13-year-old girl dying of sudden and severe measles in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham when I was a final year medical student. And the 11-year old boy with mumps encephalitis (a swelling of the brain), whom I looked after when I was a house officer in the Birmingham Children's Hospital. In my early years in practice I had to cope with outbreaks of measles every few years. It was a horrible disease. Children suffered greatly from painful wracking coughs for days on end, for which we could do very little. Then there were the unlucky children with hearing, sight and brain impairments because their mothers had caught rubella during their pregnancies. The MMR vaccine was therefore a godsend; most of the doctors who have graduated in the last two decades have never had the misfortune to see measles, mumps or rubella. It is taken for granted that these illnesses won't return and now people have forgotten how distressing they are. As time passes, there's an impression that they were only mild diseases, and that immunisation against them is now more damaging than the illnesses themselves. It is a dangerous development. 1/25/2010 A doctor's view: 'The MMR vaccine was … guardian.co.uk/mmr-nhs/…/print 1/3 Since we started vaccinating people against diseases in the 18th century we have always had an anti-vaccination lobby. The introduction of a compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1853 stirred up mass action: one demonstration by antivaccinationists in Leicester in 1865 attracting 20,000 people. In the 1970s the anti-vaccine lobby was stirred to action again with the claim that the whooping cough element in the standard series of childhood immunisations against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough was causing brain damage. The steep drop in uptake led to many cases of whooping cough, leading to long-term lung damage. It took ten years of careful studies to disprove the claim, and whooping cough immunisation rates slowly returned to their pre-scare levels. Then came 1998. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues proposed that MMR might cause autism. Their study was in children with the medical diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) one form of which is autism. There were only 12 children in the study, and no comparison or control group. Four more studies followed in which a new disease called autistic enterocolitis was reported, in which fragments of measles virus, apparently from the vaccine, were found in the gut of affected children more often than in children without the disease. Other doctors strongly disagreed with these claims. Dr Liam Smeeth and his colleagues from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine doubted that the fragments of measles virus were from the vaccine or that they were the cause of the disease – they could just as well have been the consequence of pre-existing bowel disorder. By 2002, three large epidemiological studies independently concluded that there was no link between MMR and either autism or colitis. Many people took no heed of them, preferring to believe the Wakefield story. The media must take much of the blame for this. The Press ran repeated stories supporting the Wakefield claims, long after they were shown to be without any foundation. Even the BBC news persisted in preceding MMR with the adjective 'controversial' long after it was clear that it was not. The public preferred to believe the scare stories, rather than the truth. The antivaccinationists were given free rein. The crunch for the Wakefield hypothesis came with a 'case-control' study conducted by Dr Smeeth and his team. They looked at 1294 people who had been diagnosed with autism and similar disorders, and compared them with 3671 'controls' without them. Of the 'cases' 78% had been given MMR before their diagnosis. Of the 'controls' 82% had had MMR before the age at which their matched case had been diagnosed. Dr Smeeth concluded: "We have found no convincing evidence that MMR vaccination increases the risk of autism or other PDDs. No significant association has been found in rigorous studies in a range of different settings. There are severe diseases for which very little is known about causation: this absence of knowledge itself might have contributed to the misplaced emphasis on MMR as a cause. Research into the real origins of autism is urgently needed." Of course, families whose children developed symptoms after vaccination were still not convinced. That's understandable: it is natural to need something to blame. But the fact remains that the first symptoms of the illness usually start at and just after the age at which we immunise children. As with the whooping cough vaccination scare, it was easy to be persuaded that there was a link, even though the timing was coincidental. The evidence is now so strong that it's impossible for an independent person to disagree with Dr Smeeth. Happily, most parents are now persuaded that MMR is safe, and MMR 1/25/2010 A doctor's view: 'The MMR vaccine was … guardian.co.uk/mmr-nhs/…/print 2/3 gu a rdian.co.u k © Gu a rdian News and Media Limited 2 01 0 with Dr Smeeth. Happily, most parents are now persuaded that MMR is safe, and MMR uptake rates are rising, albeit slowly. However, even by 2008 fewer parents were allowing their children to have MMR than the other immunisations, something that has not occurred in other countries. Measles cases in Britain rose from 56 in 1998 to 1370 in 2008. In the United States they are in single figures. Which leaves us as doctors with the task of persuading the parents who don't use MMR to change their minds. To keep measles, mumps and rubella at bay, we need 95 percent of our children vaccinated. Currently we are falling short of that figure, but we are getting close. We don't need to go down the American road of compulsory vaccination before children can be admitted to school. But we need to lose that old prejudice against vaccination that started more than 200 years ago. Find out more, at the official NHS MMR website. 1/25/2010 A doctor's view: 'The MMR vaccine was … guardian.co.uk/mmr-nhs/…/print 3/3