May 27, 2010
Have you "Changed the Environment" Recently?
May 25, 2010
What Are the Negative Effects of the 12 Roadblocks?
- stop talking, shut me off.
- argue.
- feel resentful or angry.
- feel I'm being pressured to change--not accepted as I am.
- feel I'm not being understood.
- feel I've been interrupted.
- feel I'm on the witness stand being cross-examined.
- defensive and resistant.
- feel inadequate, inferior.
- feel guilty or bad.
- feel the other person doesn't trust me to solve my problem.
- feel my feelings aren't justified.
- feel frustrated.
- feel the listener is just not interested.*
May 24, 2010
Do What's Right For You
May 19, 2010
Why Are There Conditions for Active Listening?
2. Must be giving off cues and clues that express those feelings or problems ("I'm worried, I've got a problem," crying, sulking, etc.) and
3. Must be willing to talk to the listener about the situation.
2. Want to help (not just be turning on a technique).
3. Have, and want to take, enough time.
4. Trust that the other, with some helpful support, can solve their own problem better than the listener can.
- Attempts to change or influence the other person with hidden solutions, judgments, etc. buried in the feedbacks.
- Nonverbal cues of unacceptance or lack of interest.
- Inability to decode the other person's real messages. The "inner ear" will be turned off.
May 18, 2010
Do Children Who Get Spanked Really Have Lower IQ's?
A co-worker forwarded this article to me and after reading it, I felt I had to share it here:
Children Who Get Spanked Have Lower IQs
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
posted: 24 September 2009 09:12 pm ET
"All parents want smart children," said study researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire. "This research shows that avoiding spanking and correcting misbehavior in other ways can help that happen."
One might ask, however, whether children who are spanked tend to come from backgrounds in which education opportunities are less or inherited intelligence lower.
"You can't say it proves it, but I think it rules out so many other alternatives; I am convinced that spanking does cause a slowdown in a child's development of mental abilities," Straus told LiveScience.But while the results only show an association between spanking and intelligence, Straus says his methodology and the fact that he took into account other factors that could be at play (such as parents' socioeconomic status) make a good case for a causal link.
Intelligence quotients
Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Maryland studied nationally representative samples of two age groups: 806 children ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9. The researchers tested the kids' IQs initially and then four years later.
Both groups of kids got smarter after four years. But the 2- to 4-year-olds who were spanked scored 5 points lower on the IQ test than those not spanked. For children ages 5 to 9, the spanked ones scored on average 2.8 points lower than their unspanked counterparts.
The results, he said, were statistically significant. And they held even after accounting for parental education, income, cognitive stimulation by parents and other factors that could affect children's mental abilities.
Straus will present the study results, along with research on the relationship between average national IQ and prevalence of spanking around the world, Friday at the 14th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, in San Diego, Calif.
Spanking science
Whether or not spanking equates with dumber kids is not known, and may never be known. That's because the only way to truly show cause and effect would be to follow over time two groups of kids, one randomly assigned to get spanked and another who would not get spanked. Barring that method, which is unfeasible, Straus considers his study the next best thing, as he looked back at a nationally representative set of kids who were followed over time.
Jennifer Lansford of Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy and Social Science Research Institute called the study "interesting," and agrees the method is a strong one. Lansford, who was not involved with the study, said following kids over time as this study did rules out the possibility that children with lower IQs somehow elicit more physical discipline.
However, unlike research showing the link between spanking and a kid's aggressive behavior, in which kids model parents' actions, this link is less clear to her. She added that a question still left unanswered is "what are some of the other mechanisms that could be responsible for this link between physical discipline and lower IQ?"
How spanking harms
If spanking does send IQ scores down, Straus and others offer some explanations for what might be going on.
"Contrary to what everyone believes, being hit by parents is a traumatic experience," Straus said. "We know from lots of research that traumatic stresses affect the brain adversely." Also, the trauma could cause kids to have more stressful responses in difficult situations, and so may not perform as well cognitively.
By using hitting rather than words or other means of discipline, parents could be depriving kids of learning opportunities. "With spanking, a parent is delivering a punishment to get the child's attention and to get them to behave in a certain way," said Elizabeth Gershoff who studies childhood development at the University of Texas, Austin. "It's not fostering children's independent thinking."
So when a child gets in a bind, he or she might do the right thing to keep from a spanking rather than figuring out the best decision independently, added Gershoff, who was not involved in Straus's current study.
And then there are genes, as some kids are just born smarter than others.
Even though spanking has been shown to cause negative consequences, Gershoff said many parents still fall back on the behavior-shaping tool. As for why, she says it's a quick fix, though its seeming success is short-lived and the negative consequences often outweigh the positives. Parents also might have been spanked themselves and so continue the tradition.
May 17, 2010
Beware of the GLOP!
By Linda Adams, President of GTI
"She's unfriendly."
"He's a skeptic."
"My child misbehaved."
While these may seem like simple, harmless descriptions of people, in fact, they are laden with judgment.
What did that person do or say for me to jump from focusing on their specific behavior to the conclusion that they're "unfriendly" or "skeptical" or "misbehaving"? Why is it that we automatically put labels on people and then start acting in accordance with those labels? Once we have made such a judgment about someone else whether it is positive or negative, we tend to categorize or type them based on that judgment, and then act as if it's a fact which in turn, determines how we treat them.
For this reason I have an issue with personality instruments which are very widely utilized in companies to classify employees and their co-workers into categories. I've heard people describe themselves or someone at work as an "INTJ" and the like. A colleague once said to me "You're a high 'D', right?" Granted, many of these tools help people gain a better understanding of themselves and a tolerance for differences among people. A problem is that some employers rely on these instruments as a basis for hiring, firing, promoting and assigning jobs. "Maybe we shouldn't promote her to that position--she might not do well as a manager." "I don't think he should be assigned to that project--his head is in the clouds."
The "blue states" vs. the "red states" is another example of this kind of labeling. In this case, red and blue aren't merely descriptive colors, they're judgmental statements. Even though it's a current, quick, easy way to make a point, I think the use of these labels is divisive and tends to separate us even more and in ways that aren't real. Just like any other judgment-laden label that categorizes people, this one is narrow and limiting and doesn't fully or accurately describe a state or group of people.
GLOP
Labels such as these make it easier to forget our common interests and concerns. Instead we focus on the differences between us and emphasize them which creates distance, tension and friction in our relationships. In our L.E.T. and P.E.T. courses, we refer to such labels as GLOP or General Labeling Of People.
GLOP can cause us to see ourselves and each other not as unique individuals but as a certain type of person. Think back to when you were a child and remember some of the things your parents said to you. Mine include: "You're being selfish," "You're so responsible," "You're stubborn," "You're as independent as a hog on ice." Isn't it amazing how these labels stick with us and if we allow them to, they continue to define us?
Another problem associated with GLOP is that we look for information, for behavior that confirms our original judgment and often discount evidence to the contrary.
Another Way of Looking at Behavior
Behavior is only what you can directly observe by seeing or hearing. What did that person say or do? Their attitudes, feelings, moods and thoughts are their own inner reality and are not behaviors because you can't directly observe them. You can only guess what they might be.
Here is the difference between GLOP and descriptions of behavior using the examples I gave above:
GLOP Description of Behavior
"She's unfriendly." "She didn't smile at me or say 'Hi'."
"He's a skeptic." "He asked lots of questions in the meeting."
"My child misbehaved." "She took stuff off the shelves in the grocery store."
Notice that in each case, there's a behavior that can be described--with no judgment or blame attached to it. It's easy to see that the problem lies in our tendency to leap to an assumption about someone's attitude or feeling underlying that behavior.
Here's a quick assignment for you: try changing these judgmental labels into descriptions of the other person's specific behavior (it's harder than it seems).
"You're too picky."
"She's irresponsible."
"You're just jealous."
"You're being a brat."
What You Can Do
Become aware of any tendency you have to judge and label both yours and others' behavior. Each time you catch yourself interpreting or evaluating or judging, make a conscious effort to go back and focus on and describe the specific behavior.
There is a major benefit of describing behavior instead of leaping ahead to label it. It is that you will maintain and improve and strengthen your relationships causing them to spiral upward.
May 11, 2010
Listen!
May 10, 2010
What Are The Benefits of Active Listening?
May 6, 2010
What Appreciative I-Message Will You Send to Your Mom?
- "I appreciate your taking my turn making dinner. It gave me time to finish my homework."
- "I really like the story you wrote."
- "Mom (Dad, Grandma, etc.), I love you."*