EXERCISE 1: Essay Writing
Below you will find a short article written by a psychologist, Gwen Randall-Young. We have already looked at one of her articles HERE.
Today, I want you to:
Deconstruct the article;
Note it's points;
Think about what was in the writer's mind;
Think about your own reactions to it,
And Then,
I want you to write about an event in your life
where you were criticised
or
you were the person criticizing,
and write about How you could have handled the situation better.
Responding to Criticism
By Gwen Randall-Young
May 7, 2009 "A successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him." -- David Brinkley
How to you react when someone criticizes you? Our first instinct may be to defend ourselves, or else to retaliate. This indicates that we have been offended by the criticism. If this is true, we have given the other the power to hurt us.
While it is true that we do not want others to think badly of us, their criticism really says more about them than it does about us. If they are saying something that is hurtful, they are not being respectful and clearly do not have our best interests at heart.
Often when someone criticizes us their intention is to make us feel small, and to make themselves feel powerful. A strong person does not need to use criticism of others to feel powerful.
There are many ways to make a point without belittling the person. To my mind, the relationship should always be more important than the issue. People should realize that a critical remark is the psychological equivalent of hitting someone. Just because it is words and not a fist, does not mean the damage is any less.
If someone is making hurtful remarks, we can let them know that we are not interested in hearing their opinions expressed in that way. Tell them that if they want to express concerns in a respectful manner you will listen. If they continue with the criticism, it is time for you to leave.
Remember that many highly successful people have had to deal with a lot of criticism and judgment. Rather than getting into fights about it, they have chosen to focus instead on their own path. Criticism, if nothing else, gives you the opportunity to remain in integrity, refusing to stoop to that level. You can hardly object to a behavior if you turn around and do it yourself!
Gwen Randall-Young is an author and award-winning Psychotherapist. For permission to reprint this article, or to obtain books or cds, visit www.gwen.ca.
The Next Two Exercises
Reading what is written
Reading INTO what is written
Reading what is written means just that. It is noting objectively what is stated to be Fact.
Reading INTO what is written, means giving meaning to something that is not written as fact.
In these two exercises you must:
Record the Factual content
Record the opinion content
John is wearing a Red Shirt and Blue Trousers. - Fact!
He knows that I don't like Red Shirts so he must be wearing it to annoy me. - Opinion!
Exercise 2
China opposes honorary Paris citizenship for Dalai Lama:
May 07, 2009 China demanded Thursday that the city of Paris stop interfering in China's internal affairs. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu made the comment in response to a question on the city's decision to give honorary citizenship to the Dalai Lama next month.
The Paris City Council approved a resolution last year to honor the Dalai Lama, which aroused indignation in China, Ma said.
"I want to reaffirm that Sino-French relations got back on track through the joint efforts of both countries," Ma said.
He said he hoped France would work with China to remove obstacles and promote ties that would develop in a sound and stable way.
Bilateral relations warmed after several high-ranking current and former French officials visited China, including former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, National Assembly Speaker Bernard Accoyer and former President Jacques Chirac.
Bilateral tensions thawed after the two foreign ministries jointly released a communique on April 1 stating that France fully recognized "the sensitivity of the Tibet issue" and that France would not support "Tibet independence" in any form.
On the same day, President Hu Jintao met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London, signifying the restoration of bilateral ties soured by the French leader's meeting with the Dalai Lama.
Source: Xinhua
Exercise 3 Jackie Chan's 'freedom' talk sparks debate April 22, 2009 Kungfu star Jackie Chan's comments on freedom - lambasted by netizens and scholars - were taken out of context, his spokesman said on Tuesday. "I'm confused about whether it is good to have freedom," Chan said last Saturday at the Boao Forum for Asia, responding to a media query on his understanding of cultural freedom.
"Hong Kong and Taiwan are very chaotic due to their freedom. I gradually feel that the Chinese need some kind of regulation and control," Chan said.
He also said he would choose Japanese television sets instead of Chinese ones, as the latter might explode.
Kungfu movie star Jackie Chan speaks at the Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan province last Saturday. His comments on cultural freedom was lambasted by netizens.(China Daily) Solon So, the chief executive of Chan's company JC Group and his main spokesman, told AP in a phone interview Tuesday that the actor was referring to freedom in the entertainment industry rather than Chinese society at large.
"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he said," So said.
He told China Daily Tuesday that the company would hold a press conference on the matter after Chan's concert in the Bird's Nest, the main venue of last year's Beijing Olympics, on May 1.
A netizen going by the moniker "dhp0448" posted on popular Chinese online forum Tianya.com that Chan, being a celebrity, was only trying to get some publicity and his remarks should not be taken seriously.
Some scholars said Chan was not totally wrong.
Cai Shangwei, director of the center of culture industry in Sichuan University, said Tuesday: "Some Chinese products do have quality problems, which means we must intensify regulation."
Su Minsheng, a deputy editor from Taiwan Voice magazine, said: "He is just an actor rather than a politician. He should be cautious about his comments on politics. I like him, because he is patriotic and he is just so eager to see China growing strong."
But Chan's comments sparked outrage in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Some legislators blamed him for insulting the Chinese race. Some people called for a ban on Chan's movies and the products he endorsed.
Taiwanese politicians on Monday demanded that the city government of Taipei strip Chan of his role as ambassador of the Deaf Olympic Games to be held in the provincial capital in September.
The Hong Kong Tourism Board, of which Chan is an ambassador, received many complaints on Monday, saying, his comments "hurt the image of Hong Kong and aren't reflective of Hong Kong people," Singaporean newspaper website Zaobao.com reported Tuesday.
This is not the first time that Chan has got into trouble for making "improper comments". He was banned from entering Taiwan for four years, after he described the shooting of "presidential" candidate Chen Shui-bian on the day before the election as the "biggest joke in the world".
Source: Xinhua
This is a Student's email report to me on Delai Lama Article.
She only provides sections she considers to be Subjective Opinion
I did ask for both those things which are objective fact and those things which are subjective
Objective facts I think are harder to determine that noting subjective opinions.
red means subjective opinion
China demanded Thursday that the city of Paris stop interfering in China's internal affairs.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu made the comment in response to a question on the city's decision to give honorary citizenship to the Dalai Lama next month.
The Paris City Council approved a resolution last year to honor the Dalai Lama, which aroused indignation in China, Ma said. Did China's indignation get aroused?????? if so - then this is not a subjective statement "I want to reaffirm that Sino-French relations got back on track through the joint efforts of both countries," Ma said. Why is this Subjective? Did the relationship get back on track? Did it only appear to get back on track? Is it an opinion or a fact?
He said he hoped France would work with China to remove obstacles and promote ties that would develop in a sound and stable way. "Remove obstacles" Whilst the determination of what is and is not an obstacle may be subjective, that there are 'obstacles' is surely a fact? "would develop" is the subjective part of the statement. Bilateral relations warmed after several high-ranking current and former French officials visited China, including former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, National Assembly Speaker Bernard Accoyer and former President Jacques Chirac.
Bilateral tensions thawed after the two foreign ministries jointly released a communiqué on April 1 stating that France fully recognized "the sensitivity of the Tibet issue" and that France would not support "Tibet independence" in any form. 'would not' = future tense and in politics nothing is certain in the future, no matter what people say today. "France Fully recognised" is this true? Is it possible for a person from another country and culture to fully recognise anything that derives from another culture?
On the same day, President Hu Jintao met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the sidelines of the G20 summit in London, signifying the restoration of bilateral ties soured by the French leader's meeting with the Dalai Lama. signifying the restoration of bilateral ties ... signify comes from signal or sign and speaks of another reality... so perhaps 'signifying' is a fact, and 'restoration' may or may not be fact
soured by the French leader's meeting with the Dalai Lama. This I think is fact.... the relationship was soured WHEN the French leader met with the Delai Lama. What is subjective is whether the 'souring' was caused by Chinese reaction or by two men meeting.
Exercise 4
Winning at Working--Leveraging Your Future
By Nan S. Russell May 28, 2009 A friend's hairstylist saw her bookings drop as the economy fell, ultimately losing her job at a salon. But when my friend asked her if she'd be willing to make a house-call to style her ailing mother's hair, the stylist saw an opportunity. Ultimately, she launched a specialized in-home business and now makes more money than she ever did.
In these difficult times I'm enamored by this simple success story. I regularly talk to people on my radio show, work with individuals or client organizations, and connect with people when I speak at conferences. Recently I've been hearing intense heels-dug-in resistance to change. And I've also watched more and more people overlooking the opportunities that problems, challenges, and difficult changes can bring.
But not this hairstylist. She heard a problem, saw a niche, tried it, learned from it, and then leveraged it into a new delivery model for her services. She didn't resist change in how she delivered her skills, nor did she focus on all the reasons why going to someone else's home to style hair wouldn't work. Instead, she tried it by taking action on the seed of an idea, and ultimately evolving that shoot into a thriving business.
If immigrant Levi Strauss, arriving in San Francisco with bundles of cloth for making tents and wagon coverings, hadn't seen an opportunity in complaining gold miners with torn trousers, he wouldn't have created what we know today as jeans.
If Dr. June Carroll hadn't been struggling to navigate desert roads at night to treat remote patients, she never would have painted white lines on the road to help her find her way, a practice quickly adopted for all roads by the California Highway Commission.
If Clarence Birdseye hadn't noticed the almost frozen fish he'd caught ice-fishing in sub-zero weather was revived in a bucket of water, he never would have contemplated that fresh food might be able to be frozen and then restored.
These people were creatively focused, gathering bits and pieces here and there, absorbing information, and threading it together to create new pathways for their careers, new ideas for their businesses, new financial avenues for their innovative problem solving. That approach differentiates people who are winning at working from those who aren't.
You see, people who are winning at working understand that opportunity can be anywhere and everywhere. It can be in the recurring problem you have the skills to solve if you listen; it can be in the new request you can fill if you're open to it; it can be in the observation of everyday life if you're curious.
But there's a critical difference. Being able to leverage your creative focus is not about having ideas or noticing opportunities. It's about action. As the father of electronic gaming, Nolan Bushnell put it, "Everyone who has ever taken a shower has had an idea. It's the person who gets out of the shower, dries off, and does something about it that makes a difference."
Want to be winning at working? Creatively focus your ideas to leverage your future.
(c) 2009 Nan S. Russell. All rights reserved.
Award winning author of Hitting Your Stride: Your Work, Your Way (Capital Books; January 2008). Host of "Work Matters with Nan Russell" weekly on webtalkradio.net. Nan Russell has spent over twenty years in management, most recently with QVC as a Vice President. Sign up to receive Nan's "Winning at Working" tips and insights at www.nanrussell.com |