Jang

Joined

• started 96 topics
• posted 495 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jang

• 
  22

  INTERNET SECURITY

  by Amazing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all: this is short and good i recently had a total crash on my pc.

  i built the thing myself, and it used to run like a race horse.

  but, unknown to me, my old anti-virus program was not updated due to my subscription running out, and my getting lazy about staying watchful.. so, i installed a new security program.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Zev, I tried Zone alarm and it was a pain in the butt!

  I am on cable, so I have to have something, but so far, all I have acheived is interference with my connections and the puter slows down to a XT .... well it feels like it <G>

  JanG
• 
  22

  INTERNET SECURITY

  by Amazing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey all: this is short and good i recently had a total crash on my pc.

  i built the thing myself, and it used to run like a race horse.

  but, unknown to me, my old anti-virus program was not updated due to my subscription running out, and my getting lazy about staying watchful.. so, i installed a new security program.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Amazing - what is the programme you were using?

  I tried a firewall etc and it made it almost impossible to use my system while online?????

  Would love a little guidance on this one .....

  Can you write me on it?

  Thanks heaps

  JanG
• 
  27

  Selling Ice to an Eskimo

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the second step is the real target.

  on the first step.

  i give a little, you give a little.. a second explanation of the ditf that has been given is called, "perceptual contrast.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Ginny, I will not be around for the next few days as far as doing as you suggest. Hence, I got these up while I could.

  If people don't want to read them they don't have to. You didn't have to open the message or any of the others if you felt this way.

  In addition, you can always save the message ot your own disk and read it later at your pleasure.

  Maybe i might get a friend of mine to post the messages in future that way and then those of you who have this opinion of me that I am yelling 'listen to me" might realise that I could care less about who gets the credit for the articles beign available, and more interested in making it available when I have time to post them.

  As for putting them all up on my website.... I guess you will pay for the extra secure webspace for me

  Feeling cheezed off to the max today ...... on my feet!

  JanG
• 
  27

  Selling Ice to an Eskimo

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the second step is the real target.

  on the first step.

  i give a little, you give a little.. a second explanation of the ditf that has been given is called, "perceptual contrast.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Ever wondered how you were talked into buying something you didn't want?

  Ever wondered how you got talked into the WTS

  The best sales training is that we received at Theocratic Ministry School ..... and we didn't know it!

  SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS

  A stranger approaches you at the shopping mall one day and politely asks if she can have a minute of your time. You stop
  and say, "Yes."

  The stranger goes on to describe the importance of the local blood bank to the safety and well-being of your community.
  (You nod your head in polite agreement, but you know there's a gimmick.) Then the stranger gets to the point:

  "Would you be willing to be a blood bank volunteer? You'd have to give ten hours a week for the next year and solicit blood
  donations from the people of our community by contacting them over the phone or face-to-face. Will you give us your time?"

  You think to yourself, "Ten hours a week? For a year?! That's crazy. Volunteering is important, yes, but no one should have
  to give up that kind of time!"

  And so you politely tell the stranger, "No."

  The stranger looks a little disappointed and says:

  "Well, if you can't give your time, could you at least give a unit of blood right now? We have a station set up right down this
  hall."

  Now this is a more reasonable request. And even though you've never given blood before you find yourself walking down
  that hallway with this stranger . . .

  Something happened here.

  A stranger stops a person. The stranger makes an extreme request. The person says, "No thanks." The stranger makes a
  second less extreme request. The person says, "I'll do it."

  Amazing as it may sound, this persuasive strategy is a reliable means of influencing people. It is also effective at getting
  behavior change which can be the toughest kind of change to get. It does not work in every situation and it is very important
  to know its limitations, but the sequential requests strategy is simple to implement and effective in outcome.

  HOW SEQUENTIAL REQUESTS ARE DONE

  From our example, you can see that this tactic has two steps. The first step is a set up. The first request is not the true target.
  Rather it is used to get the receiver in the right frame of mind. The second step is the real target. It is the action the requester
  really wants you to perform.

  Now, if you think about it, you can do this Two Step dance two different ways. The first way is called the door-in-the-face
  or DITF for short. The second way is called the foot-in-the-door or FITD. Both dances require two steps. Both do a set up
  on the first step. Both have the real target on the second step. The difference is how step one hits the receiver.

  Our example illustrated the first tactic, the door-in-the-face. Here, the first request was aimed solely at getting the receiver to
  say no very quickly. The second, less extreme request then followed and is more likely to be accepted.

  The other tactic, foot-in-the-door, pushes the first request in the opposite direction. Instead of starting off with an extreme
  request, FITD starts with a little request that almost no one would refuse. After getting a "Yes!" response to this little request,
  the receiver is hit with the second, larger request.

  See if you understand the FITD. Take our blood donation example. Our real target is to get people to give a unit of blood
  right now. To do the FITD, the first request has to be small and acceptable. Then, after we get affirmative action at step one,
  we hit them with step two, give blood. Think of a smaller request we could make of a person that would elicit a "Yes"
  response before we ask for the blood donation.

  We could . . .

  . . . ask the person if she would sign this petition here that offers public support for the local blood bank.

  That would work. It is a small request. Takes no time to sign a petition. It is for a worthy cause; everybody supports it.
  Almost everyone would sign that petition, wouldn't they?

  Then as soon as the ink dries on the signature, the requester follows up with, "Well since you obviously support the blood
  bank and are willing to say so on this public petition, maybe you'd like to show a little more support and give a unit of blood
  right now. We have a station set up . . ."

  Sequential requests are very simple to do. Here is a little diagram of their action.

  First Step
  Second Step
  DITF
  get No! (large request)
  get Yes! (real request)
  FITD
  get Yes! (small request)
  get Yes! (real request)

  If you have been carefully following along, you realize that both versions of the Two Step can lead to the same target. With
  the DITF we get to the target by starting out with a request that is extreme. With the FITD we get to the same target by
  starting out with a request that is small.

  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TWO STEP

  You might be wondering just how effective the Two Step is. Over the past twenty-five years many studies of the Two Step
  have been completed. If you read all of them and draw conclusions, here's what we know about effectiveness.

  Imagine that you make only the second request to a group of people (would you give a unit of blood right now?). Let's say
  for the sake of argument that 30% of the group would volunteer right on the spot if you just ask them. The question becomes,
  how many more volunteers could we have gotten if we had used a Two Step?

  The research is in strong agreement that on average you would increase your volunteer rate about 10%. Thus in our running
  example, a Two Step would produce a total of 40% volunteers versus the simple request. If the simple request had gotten,
  say, 60% volunteers, the Two Step would have produced a 70% rate.

  A ten percent improvement may not sound like much, but consider this. The requester has only to say a couple of extra
  sentences to get that 10%. Merely through a careful and thoughtful consideration of how to get a "No!" or a "Yes! response
  at step one can get on average 10% more impact.

  But, there are some important limitations to the Two Step. Notice that it is a 10% improvement, on average. There are
  certain conditions that can boost the improvement even higher or drive it considerably lower. Let's look a bit closer.

  LIMITATIONS TO THE TWO STEP

  There are several important limiting conditions on the impact of the Two Step. Some conditions apply only to DITF and
  others apply only to FITD. First, we will examine the DITF.

  Limitations on DITF. Two major limitations apply to DITF. First, the requests appear to work best if they are prosocial
  rather than selfish. Second, the requests work best if there is no delay between them.

  The research seems to indicate that selfish appeals do not work well with the DITF. If the receiver is asked to do something
  that would provide a selfish benefit, there is limited influence. By contrast, if the request is done for more altruistic,
  it's-a-good-thing-for-everybody, reasons, the tactic is more effective.

  This is great news for teachers if you think about it. We want students to change their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors about a
  wide range of issues, events, objects, etc. Most of these things are prosocial in nature. We want our students to like reading
  or mathematics, enjoy school and learning, trust their friends and classmates. All these revolve around prosocial themes and
  therefore are amenable to a tactic like DITF.

  The second limitation is somewhat obvious. There should be no delay between the two requests. If the requester waits for a
  week, a day, even a few minutes, DITF will not work.

  We know that on average DITF produces about a 10% improvement in influence compared to a simple request. What
  happens if the above limitations are followed? If DITF is used without delay between requests on a prosocial issue, the tactic
  produces a larger improvement, about 20% on average.

  Limitations on the FITD. There are two major limitations on FITD. First, FITD works best with prosocial requests just like
  DITF. Second, FITD works best when there are no extra incentives offered for performing the requests.

  We have already discussed the importance of prosocial requests versus selfish requests in the DITF section. The Two Step
  appears to work best when the receiver is not acting for selfish gain. And, as noted before, this prosocial factor is good news
  for teachers. Since so many of the things we want our students to prefer or do revolve around prosocial themes.

  The second limitation on FITD concerns incentives. If the receiver is offered an incentive for performing any request (the first
  or the second), then FITD will not work. Thus, when people are promised rewards (money, gifts, or anything that is valuable
  to them), they will not be influenced.

  This makes common sense. We already know that the Two Step works with prosocial requests. When people are offered
  gifts or money to "help" others, the reason is transparent. They are doing it solely for the reward.

  You will recall that on average the FITD produces about a 10% improvement in influence over the simple request rate. Now
  we know that there are two limiting factors on the FITD. What happens to the success rate if these factors are kept in mind?
  If there is a request on a prosocial topic for which the receiver has no incentive to perform, the influence rate will improve to
  about 20%.

  WHY DOES THE TWO STEP WORK?

  Surprisingly there is not widespread agreement on why either the DITF or the FITD work. Some explanations have received
  partial support. But at present much more theoretical work needs to be done. Here is the best current thinking.

  DITF Explanation. The strongest explanation of DITF is called, "reciprocal concessions." It simply means this: I give a little,
  you give a little. As the requester, I make an "offer." As the receiver, you counter and say, "No!" I come back with another
  offer, this time a smaller one. I have made a concession, right? I am no longer asking for that big thing, but rather this little
  thing. In the rules of polite society, you should respond with a concession of your own. In this case you should accept my
  lower offer. I give a little, you give a little.

  A second explanation of the DITF that has been given is called, "perceptual contrast." Unfortunately, tests of this theory have
  failed. Perceptual contrast holds that the first request defines a standard of comparison. When the second request comes
  along, it seems much smaller compared to the first one. For example, imagine if you had to judge the "heaviness" of a 20
  pound weight. If you first lifted a 50 pound weight, then the 20 pound weight, those 20 pounds wouldn't feel so heavy, right?
  There is an intuitive appeal to the perceptual contrast explanation, but the data strongly disconfirm it.

  Clearly more theoretical work needs to be done with DITF. We know that it works, but we are not sure why. The reciprocal
  concessions explanation has good appeal. It demonstrates that the receiver is not a helpless pawn, but rather is part of a
  communication interaction commonly called negotiation. The DITF, however, is a negotiation that strongly favors the
  requester.

  FITD Explanation. The preferred explanation of FITD is self perception theory. Since this theory is covered in detail in
  another chapter, we will just review it here. This theory says that we learn about our internal states (attitudes, beliefs,
  preferences, etc.) by observing our own behavior. If we observe ourselves doing some thing (signing a petition in support of
  the local blood bank), then we reason that we must like the thing. Do you see the application of this to FITD? Think about it.

  With FITD the first step is to get a "Yes!" response to a small request. According to self perception theory, what happens
  here? Right, the person observes his behavior. "Ahhh, here I am signing this petition. If I'm doing this, it must mean that I have
  a favorable opinion about it."

  Now, the second step comes along, right in line with the first one, and what happens? The person knows he should accept
  the second request because he is "that" kind of person. He has already seen himself do other behaviors in support of it. He
  obviously supports that kind of thing, he is that kind of person. And he complies with the second request.

  Another interesting explanation comes out of consistency theory. Again, this theory is covered in another chapter, so we only
  need a review. The basic principle of this theory is that people need to maintain psychological consistency in their thoughts,
  actions, and feelings. Inconsistency is painful and causes us to restore a sense of balance.

  FITD fits in nicely with consistency theory. Step one gets the receivers to take a stand. "Yes! I'll sign that petition." Step two
  comes along and literally forces them to maintain consistency. "Well, sir, since you've signed this petition in support of the
  local blood bank, I'm sure you the kind of person who also wants to give blood and since we have station set up just down
  the hallway . . ." The receiver is in a difficult psychological position. To say, "No!" to the second request would demonstrate
  an obvious inconsistency. The pressure to maintain consistency, therefore, leads to compliance.

  At present there is no reason to prefer self perception theory over consistency theory or vice versa. It is an interesting area of
  research and one that will occupy the time and effort of persuasion scientists.

  DOING THE INSTRUCTIONAL TWO STEP

  Application of the Two Step is simple and straightforward, but it does require careful advance planning. You must clearly
  define your target request, then figure out how to get either the desired "No!" or "Yes!" response to the first request. If you
  do not plan correctly, you will be doing the Two Step by yourself.

  Using DITF. A classic example of the DITF concerns assignments and deadlines. A teacher announces several weeks in
  advance that a major test will be given on October 5. The teacher, however, deliberately schedules more work during the
  time before the test than can be reasonably completed. Thus, just a few days before the major test, it is obvious to every
  student that they are going to have a killer work load in the next few days to be ready for the test. So what happens?

  The kids complain. It's too much work. We can't do all this. There's not enough time. IT'S NOT FAIR!!!

  In essence they are saying, "No!" to the first request. So what happens next?

  The teacher makes a concession.

  "Okay, if I give you an extra week will you study and work hard and do well on the test?"

  According to the reciprocal concessions explanation, we know what should happen. You made a concession, now the
  students should make a concession.

  Here's another example: "I need volunteers to come to class every Saturday morning for a month to help me set up bulletin
  boards. Who'll volunteer to help?"

  Stunned silence greets the teacher. Faces look down on the floor, avoiding eye contact with the teacher.

  "Okay, then, if you can't help me every Saturday for a month, how many of you will volunteer to stay after school for thirty
  minutes once this semester to help out?"

  Using FITD. Parental involvement in student learning is critical. The more support and effort parents give to their child's
  education, the higher the achievement for the child. Some parents, however, need to show a little more support than they do.
  It may not be reasonable to hit parents with a long list of activities they should be doing for their kid and expect them to
  follow all the items on the list. You need to bring them along slowly, one step at a time.

  Get your foot in the door with a phone call.

  "Hi, Mrs. Jones? This is Mrs. Watson, your son's teacher. Oh, no, he's not in trouble. I just need a little help from you. We
  send some work home with all the students every Tuesday and Thursday and I'm asking my parents if they would just put a
  little checkmark on the homework to show that the children are doing these projects at home. On Tuesday and Thursday,
  your Jimmy will bring home an assignment and all you or Mr. Jones need to do is just put your initials on the front or some
  other little mark. It would really help us a lot. Will you do this?"

  Assuming you get the, "Yes!" response (and if you don't you have definitely learned a lot about the Joneses), you have your
  foot in the door. What do you do next?

  That's right. The next time you see or speak with the Joneses, you remind them about their helpfulness, then bump them up to
  the next level.

  ". . . and thank-you for doing those little checkmarks. I know it seems minor, but it does help. Tell me, when you look over
  the homework before you initial it, have you noticed if Jimmy seems to do better on some projects than others? I mean does
  he seem to need some help with spelling or sounding things out? He does? Well, of course, you could help him a little bit if
  you think he needs it . . ."

  The FITD can be a continuing chain that links a series of desired behaviors together. You start with actions that almost
  anyone will do, then build on them. Make sure they appear consistent with each other. Make sure the receivers "see"
  themselves performing the action.

  A HEALTH TWOSTEP

  One of my former master's students did a very interesting application of FITD in a health setting. Danielle wanted to influence
  more women to schedule breast cancer screening tests (mammograms). And she wanted to do this in an applied setting. So
  she got the cooperation of the Mon County Public Health Department and did her experiment during a health fair held at the
  Morgantown Mall.

  The Public Health Department had a booth at the fair where they gave free vision tests to anyone who wanted one. While
  women were standing in line, some were randomly selected and then approached by Danielle who did a FITD tactic. She
  would asked selected women, "Would you be interested in learning more about the breast self-exam procedure?" As she
  said this, she held out a "shower head" card that displayed series of pen and ink drawings showing how a woman should do a
  self-exam. Every woman took the card, stuck it in her purse, then continued in line. Women in the control group were not
  approached. After the vision test all women (FITD and control) were told about the services offered by the Public Health
  clinic and were asked the key question: "Would you like to schedule a mammogram right now?"

  In the control group approximately 25% of the women agreed to the request and scheduled an exam. Among the FITD
  women 41% agreed. Interestingly enough, this effect size difference is just about what meta-analytic research predicts it
  should be.

  So to significantly increase this important health action, all Danielle had to do was ask one little question and get women to
  take a free brochure. A very small price to pay for the extra benefits the two step provides.

  CONCLUSION

  Doing the Two Step requires advance planning. You must know where you are headed (the second request, the real target).
  You must know how you will get there (start high or start low?) It is also clear that you consider the limiting factors. Your
  target request must have some prosocial connection; selfish appeals will not benefit from the Two Step. If you are using
  DITF, there can be no delay between requests. If you are using FITD, there can be no incentives for performance. If you
  implement the Two Step properly, however, you know you can improve your effectiveness by 20%.

  REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS

  Cantril, J., & Seibold, D. (1986). The perceptual contrast explanation of sequential request strategy effectiveness. Human
  Communication Research, 13, 253-267.

  Cialdini, R., Vincent, J., Lewis, S., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for
  inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 206-215.

  Dillard, J. (1990). Self-inference and the foot-in-the-door technique: Quantity of behavior and attitudinal mediation. Human
  Communication Research, 16, 422-447.

  Dillard, J. (1991). The current status of research on sequential-request compliance techniques. Personality and Social
  Psychology Bulletin, 17, 282-288.

  Dillard, J., Hunter, J., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door
  and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488.

  Dolin, D., & Booth-Butterfield, S. (1994). Foot-in-the-door and cancer prevention. Health Communication, 7, 55-66.

  Freedman, J., & Fraser, S. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and
  Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

  JanG
• 
  4

  Emotional Abuse -what it does to children..!!!!!!

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another.

  it may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a. course of conduct, not a single event.

  it is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a
  course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers
  himself unworthy--unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and
  protection.

  Emotional abuse can be as deliberate as a gunshot: "You're fat. You're stupid. You're ugly."

  Emotional abuse can be as random as the fallout from a nuclear explosion. In matrimonial battles, for example, the children all
  too often become the battlefield. I remember a young boy, barely into his teens, absently rubbing the fresh scars on his wrists.

  "It was the only way to make them all happy," he said. His mother and father were locked in a bitter divorce battle, and each
  was demanding total loyalty and commitment from the child.

  Emotional abuse can be active. Vicious belittling: "You'll never be the success your brother was." Deliberate humiliation:
  "You're so stupid, I'm ashamed you're my son."

  It can also be passive, the emotional equivalent of child neglect--a sin of omission, true, but one no less destructive.

  And it may be a combination of the two, which increases the negative effects geometrically.

  Emotional abuse can be verbal or behavioral, active or passive, frequent or occasional. Regardless, it is often as painful as
  physical assault. And, with rare exceptions, the pain lasts much longer. A parent's love is so important to a child that
  withholding it can cause a "failure to thrive" condition similar to that of children who have been denied adequate nutrition.

  Even the natural solace of siblings is denied to those victims of emotional abuse who have been designated as the family's
  "target child." The other children are quick to imitate their parents. Instead of learning the qualities every child will need as an
  adult--empathy, nurturing and protectiveness--they learn the viciousness of a pecking order. And so the cycle continues.

  But whether as a deliberate target or an innocent bystander, the emotionally abused child inevitably struggles to "explain" the
  conduct of his abusers--and ends up struggling for survival in a quicksand of self-blame.

  Emotional abuse is both the most pervasive and the least understood form of child maltreatment. Its victims are often
  dismissed simply because their wounds are not visible. In an era in which fresh disclosures of unspeakable child abuse are
  everyday fare, the pain and torment of those who experienced "only" emotional abuse is often trivialized. We understand and
  accept that victims of physical or sexual abuse need both time and specialized treatment to heal. But when it comes to
  emotional abuse, we are more likely to believe the victims will "just get over it" when they become adults.

  That assumption is dangerously wrong. Emotional abuse scars the heart and damages the soul. Like cancer, it does its most
  deadly work internally. And, like cancer, it can metastasize if untreated.

  When it comes to damage, there is no real difference between physical, sexual and emotional abuse. All that distinguishes one
  from the other is the abuser's choice of weapons. I remember a woman, a grandmother whose abusers had long since died,
  telling me that time had not conquered her pain. "It wasn't just the incest," she said quietly. "It was that he didn't love me. If he loved me, he couldn't have done that to me."

  But emotional abuse is unique because it is designed to make the victim feel guilty. Emotional abuse is repetitive and
  eventually cumulative behavior--very easy to imitate--and some victims later perpetuate the cycle with their own children.
  Although most victims courageously reject that response, their lives often are marked by a deep, pervasive sadness, a
  severely damaged self- concept and an inability to truly engage and bond with others.

  Emotionally abused children grow up with significantly altered perceptions, so that they "see" behaviors--their own and
  others'--through a filter of distortion. Many emotionally abused children engage in a lifelong drive for the approval (which they
  translate as "love") of others. So eager are they for love--and so convinced that they don't deserve it--that they are prime
  candidates for abuse within intimate relationships.

  The emotionally abused child can be heard inside every battered woman who insists: "It was my fault, really. I just seem to
  provoke him somehow."

  And the almost-inevitable failure of adult relationships reinforces that sense of unworthiness, compounding the felony,
  reverberating throughout the victim's life.

  Emotional abuse conditions the child to expect abuse in later life. Emotional abuse is a time bomb, but its effects are rarely
  visible, because the emotionally abused tend to implode, turning the anger against themselves. And when someone is
  outwardly successful in most areas of life, who looks within to see the hidden wounds?

  Members of a therapy group may range widely in age, social class, ethnicity and occupation, but all display some form of
  self-destructive conduct: obesity, drug addiction, anorexia, bulimia, alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, attempted
  suicide, self-mutilation, depression and fits of rage. What brought them into treatment was their symptoms. But until they
  address the one thing they have in common--a childhood of emotional abuse---true recovery is impossible.

  One of the goals of any child-protective effort is to "break the cycle" of abuse. We should not delude ourselves that we are
  winning this battle simply because so few victims of emotional abuse become abusers themselves. Some emotionally abused
  children are programmed to fail so effectively that a part of their own personality "self-parents" by belittling and humiliating
  themselves.

  The pain does not stop with adulthood. Indeed, for some, it worsens. I remember a young woman, an accomplished
  professional, charming and friendly, well-liked by all who knew her. She told me she would never have children. "I'd always
  be afraid I would act like THEM," she said.

  Unlike other forms of child abuse, emotional abuse is rarely denied by those who practice it. In fact, many actively defend
  their psychological brutality, asserting that a childhood of emotional abuse helped their children to "toughen up." It is not
  enough for us to renounce the perverted notion that beating children produces good citizens--we must also renounce the lie
  that emotional abuse is good for children because it prepares them for a hard life in a tough world. I've met some individuals
  who were prepared for a hard life that way--I met them while they were DOING life.

  The primary weapon of emotional abusers is the deliberate infliction of guilt. They use guilt the same way a loan shark uses
  money: They don't want the "debt" paid off, because they live quite happily on the "interest."

  Because emotional abuse comes in so many forms (and so many disguises), recognition is the key to effective response. For
  example, when allegations of child sexual abuse surface, it is a particularly hideous form of emotional abuse to pressure the
  victim to recant, saying he or she is "hurting the family" by telling the truth. And precisely the same holds true when a child is
  pressured to sustain a lie by a "loving" parent.

  Emotional abuse requires no physical conduct whatsoever. In one extraordinary case, a jury in Florida recognized the lethal
  potential of emotional abuse by finding a mother guilty of child abuse in connection with the suicide of her 17-year-old
  daughter, whom she had forced to work as a nude dancer (and had lived off her earnings).

  Another rarely understood form of emotional abuse makes victims responsible for their own abuse by demanding that they
  "understand" the perpetrator. Telling a 12-year-old girl that she was an "enabler" of her own incest is emotional abuse at its
  most repulsive.

  A particularly pernicious myth is that "healing requires forgiveness" of the abuser. For the victim of emotional abuse, the most
  viable form of help is SELF-help--and a victim handicapped by the need to "forgive" the abuser is a handicapped helper
  indeed. The most damaging mistake an emotional-abuse victim can make is to invest in the "rehabilitation" of the abuser. Too
  often this becomes still another wish that didn't come true--and emotionally abused children will conclude that they deserve
  no better result.

  The costs of emotional abuse cannot be measured by visible scars, but each victim loses some percentage of capacity. And
  that capacity remains lost so long as the victim is stuck in the cycle of "understanding" and "forgiveness." The abuser has no
  "right" to forgiveness--such blessings can only be earned. And although the damage was done with words, true forgiveness
  can only be earned with deeds.

  For those with an idealized notion of "family," the task of refusing to accept the blame for their own victimization is even more
  difficult. For such searchers, the key to freedom is always truth--the real truth, not the distorted, self-serving version served
  up by the abuser.

  Emotional abuse threatens to become a national illness. The popularity of nasty, mean-spirited, personal-attack cruelty that
  passes for "entertainment" is but one example. If society is in the midst of moral and spiritual erosion, a "family" bedrocked on
  the emotional abuse of its children will not hold the line. And the tide shows no immediate signs of turning.

  Effective treatment of emotional abusers depends on the motivation for the original conduct, insight into the roots of such
  conduct and the genuine desire to alter that conduct. For some abusers, seeing what they are doing to their child--or, better
  yet, FEELING what they forced their child to feel--is enough to make them halt. Other abusers need help with strategies to
  deal with their own stress so that it doesn't overload onto their children.

  But for some emotional abusers, rehabilitation is not possible. For such people, manipulation is a way of life. They coldly and
  deliberately set up a "family" system in which the child can never manage to "earn" the parent's love. In such situations, any
  emphasis on "healing the whole family" is doomed to failure.

  If you are a victim of emotional abuse, there can be no self-help until you learn to SELF-REFERENCE. That means
  developing your own standards, deciding for yourself what "goodness" really is. Adopting the abuser's calculated
  labels--"You're crazy. You're ungrateful. It didn't happen the way you say"--only continues the cycle.

  Adult survivors of emotional child abuse have only two life-choices: learn to self-reference or remain a victim. When your
  self-concept has been shredded, when you have been deeply injured and made to feel the injury was all your fault, when you
  look for approval to those who can not or will not provide it--you play the role assigned to you by your abusers.

  It's time to stop playing that role, time to write your own script. Victims of emotional abuse carry the cure in their own hearts
  and souls. Salvation means learning self-respect, earning the respect of others and making that respect the absolutely
  irreducible minimum requirement for all intimate relationships. For the emotionally abused child, healing does come down to
  "forgiveness"--forgiving yourself.

  How you forgive yourself is as individual as you are. But knowing you deserve to be loved and respected and empowering
  yourself with a commitment to try is half the battle. Much more.

  And it is never too soon--or too late--to start.

  JanG
• 

  Symptoms Of Unhealthy Authority and Dependance

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  symptoms of unhealthy authority and dependance based relationships.

  to feel .

  i feel like x therefore i am x. .

• 

  Jang

  Symptoms Of Unhealthy Authority and Dependance Based Relationships

  Based on an adaptation of work from Alice Miller's For Your Own Good

  Authority figures (AF) can be parents, partners, teachers, principals, supervisors, religious figureheads, cult leaders, etc.
  Dependents can be children, partners, students, employees, religious followers, etc. What matters is that there is a power
  imbalance and a dependence of some sort, whether physical, financial, "spiritual," psychological or emotional.

  1. AF's are the masters of dependents.

  2. AF's alone decide what is right and wrong.

  3. Dependents are held responsible for the AF's feelings (anger, disappointment, embarrassment, humiliation, happiness and
  unhappiness)

  4. The AF is only responsible and accountable for good things that happen, never the bad ones. Thus the AF' appears to
  always be in the right and when things go wrong, the dependent is always blamed and feels responsible and guilty.

  5. The AF tries to exercise total control of the dependent by controlling his thoughts, feelings and behavior. Whenever this
  control is not absolute, the AF' feels threatened.

  6. The dependent's individuality is minimized as much as possible by the AF.

  7. The AF creates an intricate system of punishments and rewards which rob the dependent of any sense of inner direction
  and esteem.

  8. The following freedoms listed by Virginia Satire are denied to the dependent as much as possible:

  The freedom to perceive
  To think and interpret
  To feel
  To want, need, and chose

  9. The AF never admits mistakes; never apologizes.

  10. All of the above take place in a way which does not expose the AF's true motives and none of this is openly talked
  about. No "back talk" is allowed

  Some of the Consequences

  Mistakes are concealed
  People are under constant stress
  Needs are frustrated, denied
  Fear dominates
  Power is based on fear, not respect
  Information is withheld and distorted
  Information flow is primarily from top down
  Behavior is forced; does not come naturally
  Behavior is not consistent with true feelings, which adds to the stress
  Conflicts and problems are blamed on the dependent's "poor attitudes" and "character flaws."

  All of this tears the dependent person apart, causing self-alienation and even self-loathing. The dependent person loses faith in his/her own mind and feelings with devastating self-esteem consequences. Depression, rage, mood swings, co-dependency
  and self-destruction are typical outcomes.

  Deciding who to spend time with

  The inspiration for this list came from a woman who described in detail a man she married. Soon after, he disappeared-- with
  a lot of her money. She later found out he was an alcoholic, had lied to her extensively, etc. See also signs of low-eq

  Note how much the person:

  labels
  uses sarcasm
  interrupts you
  invalidates you
  changes the subject to himself or herself
  talks about other people, other relationships, former partners
  blames other people vs. accepts responsibility
  uses flattery, BS, guilt, "shoulds";
  boasts; engagse in name-dropping

  How evasive is this person; how many secrets does s/he have; how many subjects are off limits?

  How often do they say something like "I don't want to get into that, " or "Let's not go there" (refering to a sensitive subject)?

  How often does this person ask too many questions, as if gathering information, without giving you corresponding answers?

  How often are they inconsistent?

  How do they spend their time and money?

  How much do they spend on distractions and mood band-aids like TV, movies, fiction books, cigarettes, aclcohol, etc.?

  How much do they spend on external appearance management, like cosmetics, make-up, hair products, clothes, jewelry?

  How much do they still concern themself with their parents's and siblings' approval?

  How much work do they do on improving themselves?

  How open minded are they?

  How defensive, rigid?

  What kind of problem-solving methods do they use?

  What kind of coping skills?

  What do they say when you ask them why they believe they are lovable?

  How often are you saying "I'm sorry", feeling guilty, asking what's wrong; trying to read his/her mind; wondering what you did
  wrong?

  How much do you feel dependent on him/her; how much do you believe you can't leave the relationship

  People and Cars- Warning Signs

  In my experience, a person's driving and how they relate to cars is a good indicator of his (or her) true personality. Below are
  some warning signs of an unhappy person with a lot of unmet emotional needs. I know this because I have done most of them
  myself!

  Someone who:

  Labels people; calls other drivers idiots, morons, etc.
  Criticizes other drivers
  Swears
  Thinks he is a better driver than others
  Doesn't look ahead to see if the light is red before speeding up to pass someone
  Tailgates
  Weaves in and out of traffic
  Gets so close to the back of a truck that you can read the expiration on the license plate, even at high speeds
  Indicates his car is more important than your feelings
  Will hurt you physically or psychologically if you hurt his car
  Spends more time talking about the traffic and how others drive than talking to you
  Spends more time working on his car than on himself
  Drinks, smokes and throws the bottles & wrappers out the window
  Courts danger
  Seems not to value either your or his life
  Tries to teach other people a lesson as he drives, especially if they anger him
  Gets out of his car & shouts at other drivers (or worse)
  Needs to be first
  Points out all your driving flaws
  Honks at anything he doesn't like
  Shows off while driving
  Gets angry at himself if he gets lost or misses a turn
  Leaves late, then drives dangerously fast
  Speeds up at yellow lights
  Uses the car to scare you
  Uses the car to communicate indirectly with you or others
  Slams on the brakes in anger
  Slams car doors
  Hits or kicks the car in anger
  Says he "hates" a lot of things while driving
  Deliberately refuses to let people in front of him

  Cognitive Distortions

  This section is largely from taken a book called "Feeling Good," which is based on cognitive therapy by David Burns. I first read his book in 1994. Since then I decided he took the concept of cognitive therapy too far. By this I mean he undervalues feelings and encourages us to think all negative feelings away without getting the value from them which I believe they contain. Some people I have known who were ardent students of cognitive therapy are overly detached in their treatment of negative feelings, and they strike me as robotic, inhuman, invalidating and lacking of compassion.

  Emotions have the ability to distort our vision of reality. Hence the following common expressions:

  He sees the world through rose colored glasses.
  He was blinded by his rage.
  She always expects the worst.

  At such times we are making what have been called þcognitive distortionsþ since our thoughts, or our cognitions, are being
  clouded by our feelings. When this happens we are thrown off balance from reality. Consider these examples:

  Emotional reasoning. This is when we allow our emotions to lead us to faulty conclusions. An example of this
  is someone who believes that because he feels like a failure, he is a failure.

  Emotional imprisonment. This is where we become a prisoner to our feelings. We feel trapped or we feel
  locked into a certain course of action, even when our better judgment and all the evidence is against it.

  Mental coloring or filtering. We may either see everything in an overly positive or overly negative light. We
  may for example, see any sign of trouble as "a disaster." Or we might allow our emotions to trick us into
  converting a positive into a negative. An example of this would be someone who feels so bad about herself that
  she thinks people who compliment her are lying out of pity.

  Over-generalization. This is where we mistakenly think that because something happened before, it "always"
  happens. This is similar to black and white thinking. High EQ people refrain from making themselves feel worse
  by their distorted "self-talk." Some examples of over generalizing negative self-talk are:

  I always screw up.
  I am always forgetting things. .
  I always get lost. .
  I will never be happy.
  My partner is always late.

  Awareness of these common distortions may help remind us to try to remain realistic, to try to see in a more positive or at
  least neutral perspective, as opposed to seeing things based on largely negative perceptions, which often are actually
  distortions resulting from many years of negative social influences influences in our families or society.

  "Man is not troubled by events, but what man tells himself about those events." (Aristotle or someone)

  Cognitive distortions list from Feeling Good, by David Burns

  Ten Common Cognitive Distortions:

  1. All or nothing thinking. Black or white.

  2. Overgeneralization. Always/never...

  3. Mental Filter. Dwell on negative aspect. Filters out the positive

  4. Disqualify the positive. Changing + into -

  5. Jump to conclusions: a)mind reading b)fortune telling

  6. Magnification/minimization (Catastrophizing)

  7. Emotional reasoning. I feel like x therefore I am x.

  8. Should statements.

  9. Labeling.

  10. Personalization.

  JanG
• 
  6

  ABUSE!!

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  abuse .

  definition.

  7. psychological abuse, including .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  Abuse

  Definition

  Abuse is defined in the dictionary as "an evil or corrupt practice; deceit, betrayal, molestation, violation" and comes in many
  forms, eg sexual abuse, physical abuse, child abuse, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, stalking, rape, torture, etc. All
  abuse is violent, be it physical, emotional, psychological, or a combination. I define < seven types of abuse below. The
  common denominator of all abuse is the collection of behaviours called bullying

  Anxiety

  The abuser is an individual who lives in a state of unusually high anxiety and who has not learnt to deal with that anxiety in the way normal people have. The abuser is insecure, immature, and inadequate, especially in the areas of interpersonal and
  behavioural skills. If the abuse is of a sexual nature, the abuser is usually sexually inadequate.

  The high anxiety seems to be the result of an inability to relate to other people combined with the fear of exposure of that
  person's inadequacy, immaturity and insecurity. This leads the abuser to want to control and dominate others, having never
  learnt how to interact with others in normal ways. Often, the abuser is psychopathic (physically violent) or sociopathic
  (psychologically violent) and despite being fearful of exposure, doesn't show the normal activation of the fight or flight
  mechanism.

  Upbringing

  Abusers are usually brought up in a dysfunctional family. The more abusive the adult, the more dysfunctional the family.
  Often, the father, if present, is violent and abusive. Perhaps the mother is co-dependent, a successful survival strategy when
  living with a violent partner; however, co-dependency also perpetuates the violence as it avoids dealing with the issue.
  Usually one or both parents are sociopathic or psychopathic. Occasionally, the child is over-protected, usually by the mother,
  and thus never allowed to develop as an individual human being. Sometimes, the child is ignored in favour of a sibling.

  Before blaming the parents, the reason parents are dysfunctional is because they were brought up in dysfunctional families.
  The more dysfunctional the parent, the more dysfunctional were their parents ... and so on. Most people are never taught
  parenting skills. The sole teachers of parenting skills are thus ... our parents. It's not that we actively teach our kids to parent - kids learn by example. We grow up and repeat what they did to us. If all you have ever known is abuse, that is the only way you know how to behave. Human beings do not automatically know what is right and what is wrong; we have to learn it.

  The child lives in a dysfunctional environment where abuse, violence or neglect are the norm; as the subject of abuse, the
  child cannot predict the behaviour of the responsible adults, and therefore has no control. The child learns, usually from an
  early age, that using bullying behaviours brings relief from anxiety. With so few people able to recognise bullying for what it is,
  and with strategies of denial, distraction and feigning victimhood perfected by about the age of five, the child has found a
  successful strategy for reducing anxiety, and thus surviving. Controlling other children through violent behaviour means brings
  a sense of power (control) to the child; he can't predict or control his parents but he can control other (smaller or less
  physically strong) children. His targets also become useful objects onto which he can freely displace his own aggression.

  Abuse

  I identify seven types of abuse:

  1. Physical abuse, including assault and any deliberate act resulting in physical injuries, including beatings in the
  guise of corporal punishment but which are delivered with fists or to the child's head. The work of Lewis and
  Pincus in the States is relevant here - in many violent criminals, especially serial killers, they've found evidence of
  brain damage during childhood from parental beatings and accidents which have resulted in a smaller than
  normal cortex, with consequent lack of ability to control violent tendencies.

  2. Sexual abuse, including incest, rape, buggery or any paedophile activity for the gratification of the abuser.
  The abuser usually has a sexually dysfunctional or unsatisfying relationship with their partner; sexual relations
  may be violent or inadequate or non-existent, and the child becomes a convenient substitute.

  3. Tactile abuse, where there is little or no physical contact between parent(s) and the young child, and any
  contact tends to be violent, punitive, unjust and inappropriate. Physical contact seems to be especially important
  in the first five or six years. Some children enjoy a cuddle into their teens. Sadly, with abuse coming into the
  open, many parents (especially fathers) now fear that physical contact with children may be regarded and
  misconstrued as abuse (Note: with malicious accusation, it is invariably the accuser who is guilty of the abuse -
  see projection on the serial bully page). For further information on the importance of touch, see the work of the
  Touch Research Institute.

  4. Existence abuse where the existence and rights of the child are ignored

  neglect of needs:
  physical (food, clothing, shelter)
  intellectual (education)
  psychological (self-development, self-confidence, self-esteem, maturity)
  behavioural (company, friendship, interpersonal and communication skills, relationships)
  ignoring the child's existence
  rejection as an only child
  ignoring one child and loving all others (rejection)
  ignoring the child as a separate human being and using the child as an extension of one's own existence
  (as in MSBP, Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy - almost killing the child then rescuing them in a dramatic
  attention-seeking manner by arriving at hospital casualty at the last minute, then revelling in the adulation
  of the concerned mother who nearly lost her child)
  abandonment

  5. Religious abuse or cult abuse

  The child is forced to accept the narrow, exclusive religious views of the parent or guardian to the
  exclusion of any other belief or possibility of any belief
  Any behaviour by the child not in line with the parents' rigid religious zeal is met with punishment and
  abuse
  The child is starved of development in interpersonal skills and relationships in the name of religion
  The child is subjected to strange, unnatural and often perverse beliefs on sexual matters and sexual
  development in line with the religious belief
  The child is discouraged or prevented from associating with any person not sharing the religious belief of
  the parent or guardian

  6. Emotional abuse, including

  refusal or unwillingness or inability to express love
  deliberate withholding of love
  conditional love (eg "I don't love you when you behave like that")
  loving one child to the exclusion of all others
  cocooning and smothering, denying the child the opportunity to develop as a separate individual
  being forced into any conflict between parents
  being used as a pawn by warring parents
  being forced into a caring or caretaker role at an inappropriate age
  witnessing alcohol or substance abuse, especially on a regular basis, perhaps being forced to participate
  witnessing violence between parents or adults

  7. Psychological abuse, including

  constant criticism of a trivial and unjustified nature
  unjustified blame, often for things which have no connection with the child (scapegoating)
  refusal to value
  refusal to acknowledge the child and their achievements
  refusal to praise
  inconsistency in judgement
  unclear, shifting and inconsistent boundaries, sometimes no boundaries, at other times very tight
  boundaries
  refusal to make eye contact with the child over a long period
  refusal of parents to agree with or support each other when dealing with children
  unpredictable behaviour on the part of the parents

  Violent adults tend to be those whose childhood was characterised by experiencing the above behaviours on a regular basis,
  combined with lack of affection and lack of expressed love. The three influencers of stress, namely control, prediction and
  expectation are pivotal (see section on stress response on the health page). Where a child is brought up under these constant conditions, those areas of the brain which deal with interpersonal, behavioural and social skills simply fail to develop normally.

  In many cases of violent offenders (eg serial killers), their brain's frontal lobes - which modify and mitigate violent urges - are
  measurably smaller than in normal people. See the work of Dorothy Otnow Lewis and Jonathan Pincus for further insight into
  violent adult behaviour and its origins in childhood.

  A child who is subjected to regular abuse, even if entirely non-physical, needs an outlet for their consequent aggression;
  frequently they will act out their violent impulses on another child at school (bullying), or sibling, or family pet. Being violent
  towards others because they are violent towards you combined with the fact that you are unable to deal with other people's
  violence is called displacement aggression. Violence towards animals (eg torturing the cat or killing the dog) is now
  recognised as a common early warning sign of forthcoming violence in adulthood.

  We're all guilty of some of these things (especially the emotional and psychological abuse) some of the time, either unwittingly
  or when we are stressed. However, children are resilient and if you avoid physically punitive responses (eg use restraint and
  the promise of a bonus or reward for good behaviour rather than punishment for bad behaviour), educate them in how to
  show dignity and respect, teach them the skills of assertiveness (which include psychological self-defence), talk to them and
  assure them of your love regularly, they're likely to grow up to be normal, well-adjusted and intelligent people - who will then
  pass on these benefits to their children. I recommend Michele Elliott's book 501 ways to be a good parent (Hodder &
  Stoughton, 1996, ISBN 0-340-64903-8).

  For dealing with verbal abuse I recommend The verbally abusive relationship: how to recognize it and how to respond,
  Patricia Evans, Adams, ISBN 1-55850-582-2.

  JanG
• 

  Influence: How people are sold on anything.

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that is, a person can use each rule .

  no, it's the comparison rule.

  and he sold aspirin, not as robert young, the actor, but as .

• 

  Jang

  THE CUES OF LIFE

  This is based on the work of a researcher who is vitally
  concerned with persuasion in real life. His name is Robert Cialdini
  and his ideas are extremely interesting to teachers and anyone else
  who uses influence for a living.

  As Cialdini describes in his very readable book, (See Below) he learned about
  real life persuasion by living with professionals. He took part-time
  jobs with sales groups that pushed vacuum cleaners or aluminum
  siding or dance lessons. He hung out with cops who worked the bunco
  squad. He worked with fund-raising groups and advertisers. And he
  did this as a trainee, not as a scientist, so that the people felt
  comfortable with him.

  From his experiences, he derived six general Cues of influence.
  These Cues appear to transcend occupation, region, personality, and
  education. In other words, they work in many different situations.
  These six Cuess also share another important similarity: They
  operate as mental short cuts. That is, a person can use each rule
  with very little thought. This is the heuristic mode as we learned
  in the Dual Process Models.

  This is a critical point about the Cues. They work best when the
  receiver is not carefully, deeply, and systematically thinking. The
  Cues apply only when the receiver is being the lazy thinker, the
  cognitive miser who uses mental shortcuts to save time and effort.
  As soon as the receiver changes the mode of thinking from heuristic
  to systematic, the Cue evaporates.

  For each Cue, I will give you a one word label, then a statement of
  the Cue. By the way . . . can you figure out what CLARCCS is?

  THE CLARCCS CUES

  Comparison . When Others Are Doing It, You Should, Too. Few can
  resist this. You are walking down the street and you notice ahead of
  you three or four people just standing there on the street looking
  straight up in the air. As you move closer to them, what do you do?
  You look straight up in the air.

  Is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it's the Comparison Rule. When
  others are doing it, you should, too.

  When we are not thinking very carefully, we use the behavior of
  other people as a guide to what we should think or do. We
  essentially compare our behavior against the standard of what
  everybody else is doing. If there is a discrepancy between our
  actions and what we observe in others, we change. Here are more
  examples of the Comparison Rule.

  TV producers will add a laugh track to even the most witless
  situation comedy as a way of inducing our laughter. And it works. If
  there are two audiences watching the same comedy, but one comedy has
  a laugh track added to it and the other doesn't, guess which
  audience will laugh more? Right. The one with the laugh track.

  I suspect TV producers learned this trick from the theater. In the
  past (and it may still go on today) theatrical producers hired
  professional audience members. These highly skilled people would
  show up to a new play or musical or opera and provide the "proper"
  response at the right time. They would start applauding when the
  star entered or begin crying when the heroine died or erupt into
  gales of laughter when the clowns walked on. This would elicit the
  desired response from the audience who would automatically start
  clapping or sobbing or giggling on this cue.

  And even religious groups are aware of and use the Comparison Rule.
  There is a practice known as "salting the collection plate." Before
  the collection plates are handed out to the faithful, ushers will
  throw several different bills or checks onto the plate. Thus, no one
  ever gets an empty plate. This makes a considerable difference in
  contributions. People are slow to fill up an empty collection plate
  and a little salt gets things going. Also, the heavier the salt, the
  stronger the contribution. That is, you get more contributions if
  you salt the plate with tens and twenties than if you salt it with
  ones and fives.

  Liking . When You Like the Source, Do What Is Requested. Joe Gerard
  sells cars and trucks. He sells a lot of them as a matter of fact.
  Some consider him to be the Greatest Car Salesman in the World. What
  is his secret?

  Every month Joe Gerard sends a hand written card to every customer
  he has ever had and signs it, "I like you, Joe Gerard." That's all.
  "I like you, Joe Gerard."

  Now, he does send out a lot of cards every month (13,000 he
  estimates), but he swears by the tactic. Is such a simple thing as,
  "I like you," sufficient for influence? Another example.

  What happens at a Tupperware party? A group of people who know each
  other come over to the house of a mutual friend. Everybody eats a
  little. Everybody chats a bit. Everybody has a little fun. Then the
  mutual friend steps up and introduces a new person. And the new
  person breaks out the product, Tupperware.

  Gee, isn't that new person friendly? Isn't that Tupperware grand?
  Everybody smiles, everybody laughs, everybody buys something.

  Of course, Tupperware is not the only product sold in this way. Mary
  Kay Cosmetics has pushed a lot of powder with these kind of parties.
  The important point is this: The basis of the sale is liking. The
  receiver likes somebody involved in the transaction. Maybe you like
  the sales person. Maybe you like the friend throwing the party.
  Exactly who you like is less relevant than the fact that you like
  somebody. (I'll also bet some Comparison is operating here, too. You
  see other people buying things, so you buy too.)

  Last example . . . physically attractive people are very influential
  in our society, but the primary reason appears to be that we like
  attractive people. (If you do an experiment where you have one
  source who is attractive and likable, and another source who is
  attractive and dislikable, only the likable source will be
  influential. So, it appears that attractiveness operates through
  liking. Now, back to the example.)

  A researcher trained courtroom employees to rate the attractiveness
  (and, indirectly, the likability) of people accused of crimes as
  they came before a judge for the first time. The people were accused
  of a wide variety of misdemeanor charges. The meeting with the judge
  was to determine the amount of fines for the misdemeanors. The
  courtroom employees were not involved in the arrest and were only
  escorting the person.

  What happened? Less attractive people received fines two to three
  times larger than more attractive people. (Sometimes it is better to
  look good than to be good, right?)

  Authority . When the Source Is An Authority, You Can Believe It. I
  am old enough to remember the TV series, "Marcus Welby, M.D." The
  actor, Robert Young, portrayed a friendly, wise, and incredibly
  available physician who never lost a patient except when it would
  increase the show's Nielsen ratings.

  Most interesting was the fact that Robert Young parlayed his fame as
  Dr. Marcus Welby into a very productive sideline. He sold aspirin on
  TV ads. And he sold aspirin, not as Robert Young, the actor, but as
  Dr. Marcus Welby.

  There were enough lazy thinkers out there that they did not realize
  that the guy on the ad selling aspirin was merely an actor and not
  the real thing. It didn't matter. Robert Young looked and acted like
  an authority. And sales of his brand of aspirin increased.

  Eventually the federal authorities got wise to this gimmick and
  cracked down on it. It is now illegal to use an actor in this way.
  So what have advertisers done? Their response and its impact is so
  amazing to me that it stands as the best example of how lazy we can
  be.

  Here's the new trick. The advertisers will still use a popular actor
  to sell their aspirin and stay legal with their ads. Here's what
  happens. The famous TV doctor looks at the camera and says, "I'm no
  doctor, but I play one on TV and here's the aspirin I recommend."
  And sales of that aspirin increase.

  The Authority Rule is quite powerful and useful. We will look at it
  again in this book in other chapters.

  Reciprocity . When Someone Gives You Something, You Should Give
  Something Back.

  You're walking down the street, minding your own business as a
  stranger approaches in your direction. The stranger makes eye
  contact with you, then smiles. If you are like most people, you will
  automatically and thoughtlessly respond with a smile of your own as
  you continue down the street.

  The stranger give us something and we give back something in return.
  A nice rule for meeting people, but what has it got to do with
  influence?

  Ever get free gifts in the mail along with a request for a magazine
  subscription. "Here, keep this valuable prize," the letter goes, "as
  a token of our esteem. And by the way, if you like magazines, how
  about this one!" Time magazine used to send out a free pencil with
  their subscription offers. The pencils were very small, very thin,
  and very red. And you got to keep it even if you didn't subscribe to
  the magazine, but what the heck, Time is a pretty good
  magazine . . . and before you know it, bang, you've got a year's
  subscription.

  The rule is very simple. First, the source gives you something. Once
  you accept it, you are now obligated to give something back. Note
  that you are not given a reward, because rewards are given for
  something that you have already done or will do. That first
  something given by the source is yours without you doing anything in
  the past or the future to earn it.

  Reciprocity operates in many social relationships, especially with
  visits and dinners. For example, a new couple moves into the
  neighborhood. You invite them over for dinner. Now, the new couple
  is obligated to give you a dinner in return even though you said
  nothing about it. And if the new couple fails to reciprocate (they
  don't invite you over) or fails to reciprocate in kind (you serve
  steak, they serve hot dogs), you are angry. I know some people who
  will refuse that first invitation because they do not want to get
  trapped into the spiral of reciprocity.

  Commitment/Consistency . When You Take A Stand, You Should Be
  Consistent.

  Earnest Salesperson: "Excuse me, but do you think that a good
  education is important for your kids?"

  You: "Yes, of course." ES: "And do you think that kids who do their
  homework will get better grades."

  You: "Yes, I'm sure of that." ES: "And reference books would help
  kids do better on their homework, don't you think?"

  You: "I'd have to say yes to that." ES: "Well, I sell reference
  books. May I come in and help improve your child's educations?"

  You: "Ahhh, wait a minute . . ." This is the famous "Four Walls"
  sales technique. The salesperson asks four questions that in essence
  wall in the receiver, literally forcing the conclusion that those
  reference books must be purchased. The logical force comes from the
  Commitment/Consistency Rule. When you take a stand on something, you
  must be consistent with it. This can be a very powerful tactic and
  the business world is filled with variations on it. I will show you
  another one.

  It is called, "bait and switch," and it is illegal in most states.
  It works in two steps. First, some attractive offer is presented as
  bait. The customer rises to the bait, demonstrating their interest
  in the product. Second, the bait is taken away and a new product (of
  lower value or higher cost) is presented. Many people will ruefully
  take the second offer.

  For example, you need a new stove and you notice an ad for a really
  high quality stove at a very good price. I mean a very good price,
  not impossibly low, but very good. You think to yourself, "Self, I'm
  gonna buy a new stove." So you pack up the kids and zoom over to the
  mall.

  And when you get there, a friendly salesperson greets you with a
  smile. "Ahh, you saw the ad . . . I guess you really want a new
  stove don't you? Let's see if I can help you get what you need. I'll
  go back and check on it for you."

  You, of course, are out of your mind at the prospect of getting this
  great stove at a great price. You even let the kids act wilder than
  usual you are so excited yourself. But wait.

  The salesperson returns with some bad news and some good news. The
  bad news is that they just ran out of those advertised specials. The
  good news is that they just happen to have a similar stove right
  here that's yours for the taking and it only costs $100 more. Not
  surprisingly, many people will buy the more expensive product, never
  seeing the game.

  The driving force is consistency. In these business games, the
  customer commits to some initial position ("I want to spend money in
  this store."), and the salesperson simply forces the customer to
  maintain consistency with that initial position. This is an
  extremely powerful and popular persuasion tactic and we will see its
  application in other chapters.

  Scarcity . When It Is Rare, It Is Good. I admit it. I am a closet
  fan of the Home Shopper Networks. If you have never seen these
  stations it could be that you do not have cable TV. All the station
  does is sell retail merchandise over television. They will feature
  some product for ten or fifteen minutes. If you like it, you call
  their 800 number and place an order which is mailed to you the same
  day.

  There are several different Home Shopper stations and they are
  extremely successful. The reason for that is that these guys really
  understand the principles of influence and use them well.

  In particular they use the Rule of Scarcity. They know that rare
  things are highly valued in our society.

  What are some of their scarcity tricks? They always have a little
  clock running in the upper corner of the screen. You only have ten
  minutes to buy this precious beauty and the clock lets you know how
  little time you have to make the buy of a lifetime. They make time
  the scarce resource.

  They often have a counter on the screen, too. Sometimes the counter
  runs down with every sale. "We only have a limited number of these
  fabulous quilted party skirts and when they're all gone, we will
  never sell them again." So that counter started with 100 and every
  time somebody calls, the counter decreases, 99, 98, gee whiz look at
  that, 92, wow, 85. They make the product scarce.

  Scarcity is a time honored tactic. Limited Time Only. The Weekend
  Special. Sale Ends at Midnight.

  Here's a great one from Olan Mills, the photographers. They will
  take 10 different pictures of your child. They then send you one
  copy of each photo and ask you to choose the shots you like and the
  number of copies you want. Then (here's the scarcity trick) they
  tell you had better order plenty of pictures because they will
  destroy all the negatives after a certain date. How many fathers and
  mothers can face the prospect of losing forever all those darling
  shots . . .

  WHY THE RULES WORK

  I want to review why the Cues work. As noted at the beginning of
  this chapter, these Cues are used as mental shortcuts by lazy
  thinkers. Receivers can easily apply these Cues to guide their
  thinking or action with a minimum of mental effort and activity.
  (And a lot of the time the Cues really are helpful and correct.) As
  soon as the receivers change modes of thinking from heuristic to
  systematic, these Cues typically become useless.

  Thus, if you want to apply any of the Cues in your own situation,
  you must learn to use them with heuristic thinkers. To the extent
  that people are systematically thinking in the situation, these Cues
  will not work and indeed can make the user look rather foolish.

  FINALLY

  Some pretty neat ideas here. There is a lot of practical and
  scientific evidence that demonstrates the usefulness of the CLARCCS
  Rules. Just start thinking like a salesperson. Create your own
  applications.

  Oh, did you figure out what CLARCCS is? Sure, it is an acronym. Take
  the first letter of each Cue, and it spells CLARCCS. Should make
  them a little easier to remember. And use.

  REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS

  Cialdini, R. (1980). Influence: Science and practice, (2nd Ed.).
  Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.

  Down, A.C., & Lyons, P. (1991). Natural observations of the links
  between attractiveness and initial legal judgements. Personality and
  Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541-547.

  Hinsz, V., & Tomhave, J. (1991). Smile and (half) the world smiles
  with you, frown and you frown alone. Personality and Social
  Psychology Bulletin, 17, 586-592.

  JanG
• 

  Who is the Devil?

  by Jang in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this logic was so funny i had to share it ..... .

  the seven deadly sins of gilligan's island theory is quite simple.. each of the seven characters on the island represents each of the.

  seven deadly sins.

• 

  Jang

  This logic was so funny I had to share it .....

  The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island theory is quite simple.
  Each of the seven characters on the island represents each of the
  seven deadly sins. Now, this theory seems to fit upon initial
  inspection, there are technical difficulties when you get down to
  THE MAN himself, Gilligan.

  Run with me on this one...

  Most obvious is the Professor, who fits PRIDE to a T. Any man who
  can make a ham radio out of some wire and two coconuts has to be
  pretty cocky. (His character was later revised and given a series
  of his own, called MacGuyver".)

  For the sin of ENVY we need look no further than Maryann, who may
  have worn those skimpy little tops, but could never achieve
  Ginger's glamour. (As an interesting and completely irrelevant
  side note, a nationwide survey of college students a few years ago
  revealed that the professor and Maryann were voted the most likely
  couple to have 'done it' on the island.)

  And who could doubt for a moment that Ginger is LUST incarnate?
  Sure,the kids were supposed to think she was ACTING, but we all
  know what being deprived episode after episode was doing to her.
  You know and I know that glazed look wasn't boredom, my friends.

  What kind of person takes a trunk full of money on a three-hour
  cruise? Mr Howell gets my vote for GREED.

  We are now left with three characters and three Deadly Sins. We
  have Gilligan, the Skipper and Mrs Howell to whom we must match
  GLUTTONY, SLOTH and ANGER. As you can see, there is a Gilligan
  problem here.
  Certainly we can further eliminate Mrs Howell from this equation by
  connecting her with SLOTH. She did jack shit during her many years
  on the island and everybody knows it.

  This leaves ANGER and GLUTTONY, either of which the Skipper had no
  shortage. He was, after all, a big guy with the tendency to hit
  Gilligan with his hat at least once an episode. After much
  consideration, I have decided that he can easily do double-duty,
  covering the two remaining Deadly Sins.

  So here we have the Seven Deadly Sins trapped in an endlessly
  recurring Hell of hope followed by denial and despair, forced to
  live with each other in our TVs until the last re-run ends. And
  who is their captor? What keeps them trapped there?

  Gilligan.

  Gilligan has to be the devil then .... think about it.

  JanG
• 
  32

  Hair-raising Tale!

  by Free2Bme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  let's have some fun.did you find out some juicy gossip about a witness that you are just dying to blab?.

  here's one from me.. i went to a hairdressing salon for the first time and the stylist was a camp male who never stopped chatting from the second he got his gesticulating paws on my scruffy mop.. my mum who is a devout jw was sitting reading a mag waiting for me.. next thing he's telling us about his gay male friend who is a bit down because he is having an affair with a jw.

  to make things worse he is married with kids (the brother not the gay friend).. stifling my shock and trying not to look at my mum who is staring wildly and unseeingly at her mag i asked his name or address and although he didn't know the name he told us his street and district!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jang

  BEW --- you may not believe in deeeeemmuuuunzzzzzz .......

  but watch out for those eeeffful spoorites ......

  JanG