- I feel that all emotions are important.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am able to stay calm in high-pressure situations.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am able to take criticism without becoming defensive or overly emotional.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am able to handle setbacks and obstacles constructively and easily.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I manage my anxiety, stress, and fear constructively and healthily.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I feel good about myself.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I use the criticism I receive to improve my personal growth.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am positive.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am able to explore others' perspectives in a fair and just manner.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I recognize how my behavior affects others.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I can admit to my mistakes.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I am able to listen without judgement.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I understand that being emotionally available to others is sometimes necessary.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I think only with my emotions, your heart is your true compass.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I air my grievances whenever necessary in a healthy and skillful manner.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
Monday, March 14, 2016
Emotional Intelligence Quiz (New and Improved)
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Which a more reliable source of knowledge, sense perception or reason?
Often we hear the phrase, "seeing is believing", however, this is rarely the case. For example, take a look at the picture above. Your sense perception, what you are seeing, tells you that the picture is moving; when in reality, it is standing still. With this information, you are able to reason that the picture above is an optical illusion. However, without seeing the image above, would you have been able to reach this conclusion? On their own, sense perception and reasoning are both unreliable sources of knowledge. However, when combined, they often allow our minds to reach greater findings and confirm (or deny) them.
The older we get, the more we draw on our reasoning as a source of knowledge. This may be due to the fact that we acquire more background knowledge through our experiences through our memories and experiences as we age, or because our senses begin to weaken and fail us as we grow into senior citizens. Inversely, the younger a person is, the more they rely on their sense perception as a source of knowledge because of the lack of past experiences to reflect upon, as well as how much more there is to taken in with your senses when everything in your environment appears new to you. However, relying on sense perception alone is dangerous because of how subjective it is. The associations that one person has with a certain color, smell, or taste may not be the same as that of another person's. Sure, there are general pieces of information that one can derive from sense perception, such as, "red = danger" or "cold = jacket", but it becomes impractical on its own when one is searching for a greater knowledge or solutions. Reason comes into play at this point, as the conclusions that we are able to come to utilize background knowledge and the thought process in general. However, it is necessary to use sense perception to justify that conclusion.
For example, look at the term "scientific theory" or "mathematical theorem". Often theories or theorems (at least the important ones, anyway) are based on a high amount of reasoning and logical thinking that allows one to reach a conclusion. When a theory can't be "proven" it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, it simply signifies that the conclusion in question cannot be confirmed or denied by means of sense perception. A theory/theorem does not become a "law" until its actions and implications can be seen (and not just necessarily in nature, a mathematical equation may suffice in some cases), felt, heard, smelt, or tasted. People can formulate their conclusions or theories on other theories, but these conclusions do not become working knowledge in the natural world until they are justified by some form of sense perception.
Therefore, on their own, neither sources of knowledge are truly reliable. Reasoning will always run the risk of being untrue on its own, while sense perception reaches conclusions that are too simple and too common to be truly considered "knowledge". When the two sources work together, they are able to create "reliable" and important deductions.
The older we get, the more we draw on our reasoning as a source of knowledge. This may be due to the fact that we acquire more background knowledge through our experiences through our memories and experiences as we age, or because our senses begin to weaken and fail us as we grow into senior citizens. Inversely, the younger a person is, the more they rely on their sense perception as a source of knowledge because of the lack of past experiences to reflect upon, as well as how much more there is to taken in with your senses when everything in your environment appears new to you. However, relying on sense perception alone is dangerous because of how subjective it is. The associations that one person has with a certain color, smell, or taste may not be the same as that of another person's. Sure, there are general pieces of information that one can derive from sense perception, such as, "red = danger" or "cold = jacket", but it becomes impractical on its own when one is searching for a greater knowledge or solutions. Reason comes into play at this point, as the conclusions that we are able to come to utilize background knowledge and the thought process in general. However, it is necessary to use sense perception to justify that conclusion.
For example, look at the term "scientific theory" or "mathematical theorem". Often theories or theorems (at least the important ones, anyway) are based on a high amount of reasoning and logical thinking that allows one to reach a conclusion. When a theory can't be "proven" it does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, it simply signifies that the conclusion in question cannot be confirmed or denied by means of sense perception. A theory/theorem does not become a "law" until its actions and implications can be seen (and not just necessarily in nature, a mathematical equation may suffice in some cases), felt, heard, smelt, or tasted. People can formulate their conclusions or theories on other theories, but these conclusions do not become working knowledge in the natural world until they are justified by some form of sense perception.
Therefore, on their own, neither sources of knowledge are truly reliable. Reasoning will always run the risk of being untrue on its own, while sense perception reaches conclusions that are too simple and too common to be truly considered "knowledge". When the two sources work together, they are able to create "reliable" and important deductions.
Monday, March 7, 2016
What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? If no one spoke at all?
If everyone spoke the same language, communication would become less diverse and it would become impossible to explore one another's viewpoints. If everyone were to speak the same language, the world would be exactly the same if everyone were not speak at all.
With each separate language, dialect, and region comes a variety of cultural facets and attitudes that are able to expand the knowledge of every individual. While such barriers can be seen as obstacles, I would argue that the differences between each language tempts humans to explore more in order to understand one another better. With every variation in language not only do we, as people, discover more, but we also begin to understand more about the world around us.
In Russian there is a word called Тоска. It is impossible to translate the literal meaning of the word into English, however, it can be paraphrased to mean "yearning" or "melancholy". Yet, no single word in the English language can carry the magnitude of Тоска. It speaks of a type of pain that affects the soul, or the spirit, of a person. It is a type of anguish that seems like it will last forever, it is a type of longing that causes permanent restlessness in the brain. However, if the whole world were to speak only English, there is no possibility that this word could have been created. Without it, one would never be able to understand such a specific, yet important, emotion. While the word may be untranslatable, without it in the Russian language, such a concept would not exist. It would become impossible to sympathize with a person in such pain because it would become impossible to understand. It would become infinitely more difficult to learn more or expand one's knowledge because cultures and each variation in each language would be unable to contribute to the public's knowledge as a whole.
While it may seem that one universal language may only increase clarity in communication, it decreases our understanding of others and world around us, as it disallows for the possibility for multiple viewpoints to be established, developed, or contribute to the world as a whole.
However, if everyone were unable to speak, it would have the same effects as if everyone spoke the same language.
People would still be able to write, but more than likely poor and hard to understand writing would lead to greater misunderstanding. The small nuances that come with communicating with someone face-to-face or even simply through one's voice would be lost. Tone of voice, an important indicator in the meaning of one's words, would be lost. Certain cultural phenomenons, such as sarcasm, would cease to exist in the writing of the public eye. If no one was able to speak, the thirst for discovery and the varied viewpoints that contribute to knowledge as a whole would disappear; much like if everyone were to speak the same language.
With each separate language, dialect, and region comes a variety of cultural facets and attitudes that are able to expand the knowledge of every individual. While such barriers can be seen as obstacles, I would argue that the differences between each language tempts humans to explore more in order to understand one another better. With every variation in language not only do we, as people, discover more, but we also begin to understand more about the world around us.
In Russian there is a word called Тоска. It is impossible to translate the literal meaning of the word into English, however, it can be paraphrased to mean "yearning" or "melancholy". Yet, no single word in the English language can carry the magnitude of Тоска. It speaks of a type of pain that affects the soul, or the spirit, of a person. It is a type of anguish that seems like it will last forever, it is a type of longing that causes permanent restlessness in the brain. However, if the whole world were to speak only English, there is no possibility that this word could have been created. Without it, one would never be able to understand such a specific, yet important, emotion. While the word may be untranslatable, without it in the Russian language, such a concept would not exist. It would become impossible to sympathize with a person in such pain because it would become impossible to understand. It would become infinitely more difficult to learn more or expand one's knowledge because cultures and each variation in each language would be unable to contribute to the public's knowledge as a whole.
While it may seem that one universal language may only increase clarity in communication, it decreases our understanding of others and world around us, as it disallows for the possibility for multiple viewpoints to be established, developed, or contribute to the world as a whole.
However, if everyone were unable to speak, it would have the same effects as if everyone spoke the same language.
People would still be able to write, but more than likely poor and hard to understand writing would lead to greater misunderstanding. The small nuances that come with communicating with someone face-to-face or even simply through one's voice would be lost. Tone of voice, an important indicator in the meaning of one's words, would be lost. Certain cultural phenomenons, such as sarcasm, would cease to exist in the writing of the public eye. If no one was able to speak, the thirst for discovery and the varied viewpoints that contribute to knowledge as a whole would disappear; much like if everyone were to speak the same language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)