Humans ask questions on a daily basis. We have a natural urge to understand our surroundings and to develop knowledge about different issues. However, how do we know that the question we create does not have some sort of bias? How do we know that the questions that we create are not already anticipating a certain answer, as we immediately create a scope of possibilities where the answer may be? Before we question the possibility of neutrality in a question, we first have to define what neutrality means.
Now there are two basic lines of questioning to follow: Question My Emotional State Sometimes the problem could be very emotionally charging so in that case, questions are being aimed at finding out: What am I feeling about the problem? What would have I done if no help would’ve been given? What am I scared of? This is important because this will tell me that despite emotions I rely on myself to take positive actions or if I’m required to push a little more. Question My Objective My next task is to find out what solution exactly I came looking for?
Finally, in the very last paragraph Konie is very persuasive with ending with a great rhetorical question stating “…are you willing to listen to your body?” This is very effective in getting the audience to think about the main topic of this article. But also since sugar brings huge health problems and rises the obesity rate, shouldn’t we be listening to our bodies and not consuming sugar? Are body needs natural and healthy sugars found in fruit, etc. In order for us to have a healthy living America, it needs to start with making healthy
Another useful questioning technique as this stage would involve asking helpful questions to encourage the patient to think about diabetes differently. For example, what do you do every day to take care of your diabetes? Why do you do this? With regards to our 48 year old gentleman, he may be concerned about whether his diabetes may affect his job as a lorry driver. Questions he may have could be whether he has to inform the DVLA of his new
The subject that investigated evidence of group polarization among small group or citizens committee in educational contexts were reported by Friedkin (1999). An important rationale for the study also revolved around the factors associated with decision qualification or factors which influence group polarization in a small group like disciplinary commission or panels made up of a small group of instructor. The previous field of study only reported on the existence of the phenomenon of group polarization in committees or small groups of teachers or scholarly person set up to make decisions or choices but none of these studies reported on the variables of the teachers or the students which could have influenced the group polarization. Social comparison theory is one of the theories that explain how members are made up of small social groups. People think that people need to evaluate their opinions and abilities and often compare their opinions and performance with similar viewpoints and
Some have similar to others, but the majority make their own decisions. You cannot classify or put a nation of people in a box, and have a legitimate claim. To say that “We do not discuss healthy habits or limitations”, without proper facts and statistics is absurd and would definitely make that an opinion statement. If Maxfield was to actually go out and take a poll on how many people either eat healthy or select unhealthy foods, then to have it published that would aid her claim significantly. While it is true that Americans are either overweight or obese, it does not and cannot define us all, as an
Thus, it can be concluded that an individual’s performance is strongly affected by his environment. The same person would react differently to same stimulus when faced with different environments. Thus, to influence behaviour, focus should be laid on
Michela C. Schippers, “Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness” In this paper, a significant 3-way interaction between social loafing tendencies, conscientiousness, and agreeableness in predicting team performance indicated that especially if there is a high degree of conscientiousness and agreeableness within the team, team members will compensate for social loafing tendencies, and performance will stay up to par. Robert C. Liden, “Social Loafing: A Field Investigation” Social loafing was investigated by testing a multilevel model among 23 intact work groups comprised of 168 employees representing two organizations. The purposes of the current research were threefold:
What definitions would you need to use to answer the question? 5. Who in the community might be an expert at relationships? How can you find out what they know? 6. Who else might you talk to, and why would you talk to them? The purpose for this line of questioning is to get the students thinking about all the different places they can look to answer questions.