Task 2 no revisons PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Task 2 no revisons PDF

Description

Select a conversation where you had a disagreement that had an impact on you and triggered a bioreaction. The conversation could have been a long time ago or recently. A. Explain what happened during the disagreement by answering the following questions: • Describe the situation that led to the conversation. I was sitting in the passenger seat of a car driving home after eating dinner with my family. It was evening and dark outside, traffic was moderate, and I was looking out the passenger window. My husband and son were talking about the presidential election and the topic of voter fraud. • When did you realize that there was a disagreement during the conversation? I realized there was a disagreement when my son and spouse talked about voter fraud in many states, and people were coming forward with proof that democrats discarded ballets. The argument began when I said if there were voter fraud, then the authorities would investigate and come forth with their findings, but we should not assume that fraud occurred until there is proof. I questioned where my son had received his information and asked if it was authentic and reliable. Once I said this, both my husband and son started to disagree with me and started to name individual circumstances in several states. • Describe a bioreaction(s) that happened during the disagreement. My bioreaction was in flight. I knew that if I continued with my opinions, they would be challenged and disregarded, and I was unwilling to engage in this type of argument. • How did the conversation end? The conversation/disagreement ended when we arrived home. I stated that we both had the right to our thoughts and opinions, and sometimes we need to agree to disagree. I left the vehicle and went inside the house with my daughter. B. Analyze the conversation by answering the following questions: • Using the four levels of the conversation meter, what level were you listening at, and what level was the other person listening? I was in the pretense category, as I was attempting to avoid conflict and refrained from making a connection in the conversation. If this was a conversation with another party, I might have been more vocal on this subject. But because I did not want to start an argument in the car, I attempted to avoid conflict after a lovely evening out with my family. I would state that my spouse was at the level of sincerity when listening to me. He was brutally honest; he solicited my views but immediately rejected my point of view. He based his argument on facts – and practiced “me before we.” • Give examples of two factors that describe how you and they were listening in at these levels in the conversation meter: feelings, behaviors, language, or tone. During the pretense category, I intentionally held information. I did not want to counter-attack with findings that I may have heard on the news or via the internet. At the beginning of the conversation, I rolled my eyes and shook my head. After a few minutes, I no longer engaged in eye contact, turned slightly, and looked out the window with my arms crossed. I had a flat effect during the rest of the conversation and avoided answering questions. My spouse was able to produce facts – but I felt that he was not listening. He disregarded my point of view. His tone was factual and concise, and he made hand movements when talking. I also noticed that his posture became more upright during this conversation. He was assertive in his communication style. • What were your points of alignment or disagreement? Points of alignment included that we both were seeking truth and wanted the best for our country. Knowing our core values are aligned helped me focus that we are on the same team. I based the disagreement on if the

information was a fact or hearsay. Did this information come from a limited source, or was this common knowledge within the political environment? C. Reflect on how the conversation encouraged you to listen differently by answering the following questions: • How could you have listened differently moving up the conversation meter, and what effect would that have had on the disagreement? Being open-minded and listening closely to his information would have moved me to the accuracy or authenticity level. Asking my husband why this was important to him and reflect on his words to ensure I understood his position. Suspending judgment and factoring in his thoughts. By doing this, it may have met his needs. • How could you incorporate listening for needs, purpose, or concern to create value in the conversation (including describing what that would look like)? I could focus on what we had in common rather than our differences. Listening to his needs and his purpose. For example, "If this is important to you, then it is important to me as well. How can we help one another?" Or I may have said, "what I think I hear you saying is….." or "it makes sense to me that you might think that way because…" What have you learned about accuracy and authenticity that could be used to improve the conversation? I have learned that accuracy and authenticity allow feelings to be validated and enable each party to feel heard, fulfilling purpose and need. Finding common ground – no matter how small it may seem, can make us feel as if we are on the same team. Although you may not see things the same, giving the other person the ability to voice their thoughts/feelings in a non-judgemental atmosphere. Authenticity also allows the parties to come together to form a partnership to meet both parties' needs....