Which parts of the listening process do you need to improve? Why?
Using the reasons listed in our text, what do you believe impacts your ability to listen effectively?
Watch Julian Treasure’s TedTalk: 5 Ways To Listen Better
Do you agree with the points made in this TedTalk? Explain your answer.
Search entries or author Filter replies by unread Unread Collapse replies Expand replies Subscribe.
Paraphrasing on the Job
Copyright © Cengage Learning
1. Besides paraphrasing, what other helping styles does Mark use?
2. Find situations where Mark reflects Jill’s feelings, as well as her thoughts.
3. Why do you think Mark’s responses were more helpful than offering advice to Jill?
4. Apply the criteria for choosing whether to paraphrase, found in the textbook’s Chapter 8, to evaluate whether this was an appropriate time for Mark to paraphrase Jill’s concerns.
Based on what you have learned from Chapter 8, what is the most important thing you can do to improve your listening skills?
People are subjective on the grounds that in spite of endeavoring to quit influencing world that they are a piece of, they are evolving it. This relationship, which causes an adjustment on the planet through activity, changes any target see into a subjective one since they are impacting what an unadulterated eyewitness can't. By endeavoring to just quit 'doing' and simply watch, individuals endeavor to achieve a condition of unadulterated objectivity. This, be that as it may, turns into a unimaginable errand once one considers that their simple presence is a 'demonstration' all by itself. Implying that the best way to wind up really objective is to incidentally quit existing, watch simply in that non-existent state, and afterward continue existing inside the world as an individual. To have the capacity to significantly consider playing out these outlandish assignments is similar to being God. Altogether, it is outlandish for a person to accomplish a condition of non presence just on the grounds that the insignificant demonstration of living makes one wind up subjective because of the reality they have an effect on their general surroundings. While they are youthful, people inevitably achieve a moment that they end up mindful that their presences are concealed in eliteness. They see that their lives are loaded with decisions, intersections which make it clear that at whatever point one picks something, something unique must be avoided. These decisions can bring the torment of weighing between the alternatives and the individual outcomes, and also dealing with the possibility that one can't have everything. Considering the human impediment of excluding one thing keeping in mind the end goal to increase another, individuals will dependably go after a level of objectivity in their decisions; they need to evacuate a portion of the agony and trouble that they feel from making those decisions by withdrawing themselves candidly from the decisions they need to make. In spite of reality of presence lying in subjectivity, there is an oddity appeared here; that people are relatively preset to go after objectivity notwithstanding the 'appropriate response' existing in the other bearing: past subjectivity. To come to the 'appropriate response' of life, one should first grapple with reality of presence. Kierkegaard's existential truth is subjectivity; for a human to comprehend that subjectivity is the center of presence at that point empowers them to seek after and in the end comprehend the 'appropriate response' to life. Subjectivity in itself is vital to get a handle on as a human, and subsequently, it likewise fills in as a separation between the straightforward man and the savvy man. On the off chance that the shrewd man is being subjective, he realizes that there is a distinction amongst subjectivity and objectivity. Nonetheless, the main sign that he is by and large 'totally subjective' at a given point is that he dispassionately knows the distinction amongst 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'. This understanding enables him to get a handle on the idea of the 'appropriate response' to life while in the meantime raises the mystery of just being subjective while being objective. Conversely, if the basic man is being subjective, he is basically being subjective by purpose of drive and would not know about it. Along these lines the straightforward man can't be considered to have achieved an indistinguishable existential truth from the savvy man. To be savvy is a revile and also a gift, for the oddity shows him the significance of the existential truth, while in the meantime, keeps him from achieving it. Given Kierkegaard's conviction that the existential truth is subjectivity, that all people in the end progress toward becoming in any event somewhat objective and that individuals should be marginally objective to be subjective, at that point an oddity presents itself. In the event that a human can't be subjective without being target then this makes one wonder about regardless of whether a human achieve a condition of unadulterated subjectivity. Inside the World-Historical view, there is however a solitary target truth to any individual occasion all through history, yet subjectivity demonstrates an alternate, singular truth for each individual review it. Seeing that individuals can't unbiasedly watch and thoroughly consider the past (without first achieving the outlandish assignment of getting to be God-like), individuals are left to see the occasions themselves from the present, filling in the holes between target realities with subjective translations. These all arrange to subjective facts; each being reality, yet none being any pretty much legitimate than the last. By being human, one is confined by the 'world' they have subjectively built; a world made with the subjective realities impacted by their own particular musings, emotions and encounters. In any case, as incompletely subjective presences in what must be seen as an absolutely subjective world, one must inquire as to whether people can truly exist in the same 'world' as any other person and if the response to that question changes the 'appropriate response' to life itself. This presents us with the last Catch 22; that so as to acquire the 'appropriate response' one must be a goal and static substance, however people all in all are subjective basically through presence. Were one to 'discover' the supposed 'answer' to life, one's life would on a very basic level change. In any case, as an immediate aftereffect of finding that 'answer', this recently changed life is essentially another life all by itself. This new life is in any event marginally not quite the same as the old life and, therefore, has another subjective truth to it. This viably renders the past 'answer' useless, maybe having never existed in any case. This in itself demonstrates that the 'appropriate response' can't be found in the continually dynamic 'life', however just in the static 'demise' where the steady, static world is unaffected by a man. Notwithstanding this, the 'appropriate response' holds no significance after death and can't be imparted to the living bringing about a similar absence of 'truth'. Thus, I've discovered that I can't present my response to this deep rooted task, and that to do as such I would have to never again be viewed as 'alive'. I apologize and might want to ask for an expansion; ideally to at some point in the late 2070's.>GET ANSWER