Coaching portofolio Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Coaching portofolio - Term Paper Example Coaching philosophy covers ones purpose as a coach and how he will approach player development and winning. Ones coaching philosophy is made up of the primary objectives, beliefs and the principles that one adhere to in order to achieve his goals. (Barbour, 2011, p. 203) One’s coaching philosophy will guide him on how to behave as a coach and how to interact with his trainees. Coaching philosophy has to touch on who one is and who one wants to be in future. (Parsloe, 2009, p. 128) Mostly, it is based on one’s experience, knowledge, and opinions. All excellent philosophies describe and explain the purpose of coaching, the views, and the principle that the coach will use to achieve his goal. Some of the elements of the coaching philosophies are discussed below. Plan, prepare and perform: For all aspects of football planning is the key ingredients for good performance of footballers. It is advisable to use planning, preparation and performance in the ratio of 3:2:1. That is taking 3 hours to plan, 2 hours to prepare and 1 hour to perform. Fitness, skill and game sense: Whenever it is possible the coach should try to reproduce the ‘game type’ preparation. Tactics and skills of the game at times need to be given much weight for better performance. (Association, 2013, p. 307). Footballers should spend most time in situations that are pressured in terms of time and space. This will help them to win possession, make good and fast decisions and execute efficient disposal. Leadership: One should come up with his style or approach depending on the maturity of individuals he is coaching. Young athletes with no experience need some real direction and control. But when the player grows, become educated, experienced, confident, they need to be far more involved in the coach-player relationship. A well-performing team is always having a high leadership group, who wants to take ownership of the dynamics of the process which in place

Any form of captivity Essay Example for Free

Any form of captivity Essay Animals should not be kept in any form of captivity. Animals belong in their natural habitat. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them away, and put them behind bars. All animals that are kept in captivity should be realized into the wild. Healthy News In zoos around the world animals are suffering Weird News. Every day animals are taken out of their natural habitat and put behind bars, purely for our beneï ¬ t. Studies have shown that these animals are suffering form severe cases of depression, abnormal behavior and physiological distress. How does the bird feel in the cage when he can clearly see his wild cousin ï ¬â€šying free from his conï ¬ ne many people visit zoos so they are able to gain greater knowledge of how animals behave and operate. These people want to see the animals acting naturally, how they would in the wild. The only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment. Zoos give totally artiï ¬ cial and misleading views by isolating animals from there ecosystem. If people want to see how animals behave they should go out into the wild to see real animals, not ones who are physiologically distressed? More questions. In some poorer zoos the conditions are extremely bad. Most of them keep their animals in wire cages which are often too small to allow the animals to move around. Most of these cages have cement ï ¬â€šoors and lack any opportunities for the animals to act naturally. To make it worse most of these animals die young due to the harsh conditions they are forced to live with. Many zoos are absolutely disgraceful Zoos are cruel jails for these animals and should be outlawed unless they provide the animals with a friendly and roomy habitat, good food and good medical care. Most unfortunately do not †¦ I cannot imagine what life must be like for these animals in your gallery and thousands like them the world over †¦and Zoos are indeed a double-edged sword. Some people claim that zoos help protect endangered animals. Some owners even think that cage is a good discipline for a pet which will calm the and make them pay attentionbut for some it causes depression and more fear from the animal more that loyalty. In my opinion I am fully against cages for animals that can cause either mental or physical pain. The only reason I would consider it an option is if you had multiple dogs and one needed it’s own privacy if it has been returned from the vets or it has been suffering from stress of other pets in the home. There is no medical need for an animal to be kept inside a cage from it’s beneï ¬ cial point of view because it has no advantages from the fact that it can only separate the pet from the outside world. No animal deserves to be treated like a prisonerit has some emotional effects on the pet which can become permanent and it could change the pet for good.

Critique of Utilitarianism Theory

Critique of Utilitarianism Theory Utilitarianism as an independent ethical position only arose in the eighteenth century however fundamental utilitarian ideas can be found in the thoughts of philosophers such as Aristotle. It is a philosophical theory of morality or how one should act which has historical roots within the liberal tradition. The aim of utilitarianism is to make decisions on the basis of a calculation of consequences. As a moral theory, There are however many critiques of utilitarianism which vary as they have different reasons and different targets due to the fact utilitarianism isnt a single coherent theory but a cluster of related theories which have developed throughout the years. In this essay I will be explaining some of the problems with utilitarianism as a theory and discussing whether these problems are insurmountable, for which I think they are. As a theory, utilitarianism is usually thought to start with Jeremy Bentham, however, similar ideas were evident in the writings of David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1)and Francis Hutchinson, whom David Hume studied under, in his An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue (2). Utilitarianism tells us an act is moral insofar as it creates the greatest good for the greatest number. It tells us to take the amount of happiness distributed between sentient beings and look at which distribution is going to maximise the amount of happiness. It gives a systematic answer. Throughout the past two centuries utilitarianism has been very influential within practical disciplines of politics and economics. As a result, utilitarianism has had an influence modern life, particularly public policy. What could be more important when making political deliberations than aiming to make peoples lives better and less unhappy? One of the first utilitarian theorisers, Jeremy Bentham, is famously credited for being the founder of the doctrine. Bentham defined utility as instrumental to happiness. He believes that all judgements of good and bad can be based on pleasure and pain. He is seen as an advocate of psychological hedonism. In his famous introduction of An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1979), Bentham states Nature has placed man under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. Therefore, pain and pleasure provide the basis for his moral theory of what we ought to do. Initially, he began his career by studying law and then moved on to moral ethics in order to advise legislators. He was primarily interested in improving the law and his goal for the legislator was the utilitarian principle or the greatest happiness principle. Therefore, his advice was not initially aimed for individuals and their life choices but for the legislator. Although Bentham sees pleasu re as the key of explaining how human beings act, he relies more often on the concept of pain when constructing his legal theory. While he does endorse act-utilitarianism, his sanction-based theory of obligation is more applicable to the legal system he was so interested in improving. John Stuart Mill is also one of the most well-known utilitarian thinkers and defenders of the theory. His celebrated thoughts can be found in his famous essay: Utilitarianism. Mill observes something of a crisis in moral thinking. Philosophical thinkers have been unable to come to a consensus on the principle of what constitutes right and wrong. Mill argues that having such a foundation is necessary to legitimise morality. This is why the theory of utilitarianism is so important. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill categorise and measure utility and pleasure in different ways. Bentham uses the hedonic calculus which decides the value of pleasure by seven measures of quantity: duration, intensity, certainty or uncertainty, remoteness or propinquity, fecundity, extent and purity. Bentham is well-known for his treating of all pleasures as of equal value. By this he means not that all pleasures are of exactly equal, but that the legislator who his work on utilitarianism is aimed at should not be valuing one pleasure above another. John Stuart Mill however saw pleasures in two categories higher and lower pleasures. A criticism of John Stuart Mills utilitarianism, and the first problem with the theory that I shall be addressing, is his categorisation of higher and lower pleasures. The difference between these pleasures is founded on sort and not degree, therefore this makes comparison of the consequence of actions far more difficult to calculate. Higher and lower pleasures cannot be measure or compared as they are of a different kind. How would Mills version of utilitarianism be applied in situations in which bother higher and lower pleasures are involved in the calculation? In relation to John Stuart Mills classification of higher and lower pleasures, a common criticism of simple versions of the theory such as Benthams utilitarianism is that they reduce the subtleties of human life to a stark calculation of animal-like pleasures, with no concern for how these pleasures are produced. This gave utilitarianism a bad name and it was often mocked as a doctrine only worthy of swine. (philosophy of the classics, mill utilitarianism). John Stuart Mill defends utilitarianism from such criticism with his version which differs from Jeremy Benthams simple version: Mills differentiation between higher and lower pleasures puts forward that intellectual pleasures are intrinsically more valuable that physical pleasures. Bentham however treats all pleasures as equal to each other. So, when utilitarianism is described as a doctrine worthy only of swine, Mill argues that it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig; and better to be a dissatisfied So crates than a satisfied fool. His defence is that human beings are capable of intellectual pleasures as well as physical ones, whereas pigs cannot enjoy intellectual pleasures. In his view, humans who have experienced intellectual pleasures will prefer them to lower, physical ones. Those who still are lead astray by lower physical ones are falling for immediate sensual gratification, even though they know full well that higher, intellectual pleasures are more worthwhile. John Stuart Mils idea of higher and lower pleasures has been viewed as flawed in itself. It has been criticised as a self-serving idea. For example, an intellectual will view his preferred enjoyments as a higher, more important pleasure. Therefore, as an intellectual, it could be argued that Mill himself is biased towards what constitutes as higher and lower pleasures. A further and harsh criticism of utilitarianism is that the theory would justify slavery. This is as long as the slaves were happy or the overall happiness gained by the beneficiaries of the slavery was calculated as than the slaves unhappiness. Bentham fiercely denies this to be the case, as he argues that the choices of human beings give the best inclination of what makes humans happy, and slavery by definition is never a choice and therefore slaves can never be said to be happy. Bentham is also well known for his application of utilitarianism as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This can subsequently be translated to mean that utilitarianism sacrifices the unfortunate few the powerful many. Therefore it has been argued by some that regarding the slavery example mentioned previously; if the vast economic benefits of slavery outweighed the unhappiness of the slaves then slavery is still favoured by utilitarianism. Bentham argues against this however as he claims the greatest happiness for the greatest number should be applied in a way that the interest of the powerless many should be more important than the interests of the powerful few. Another fundamental criticism of utilitarianism is that it ignores justice. A classic example of this criticism was given by H. J. McCloskey McCloskey, H.J. (1957) An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1957), pp. 466-485. If framing an innocent man for a crime that would reduce the further riots and pain that looking for the real guilty person would incur, utilitarian theory would suggest that this would be the optimal choice as although an innocent man will suffer, for a greater number of people less pain will be caused, incurring in a calculation of more pleasure overall. Therefore, if the sole aim of utilitarian theory is to maximise pleasure and reduce pain for the greater number, justice will be ignored in situations such as this example. Bentham however argues that it is a serious misrepresentation to say that utilitarians would be willing to ignore justice and punish an innocent man in the name of the greater good. ADD t o benthams defence. Another problem with utilitarianism is the impracticality of calculating the utility of actions in real time. The calculation of utility is said to be self-defeating as by the time the best utilitarian course of action has been calculated and decided, the opportunity to take this action may well have passed. How can one calculate which of all possible actions will maximise the most happiness overall. What if one is in a dilemma and has a decision to make quickly? In high pressure situations, one usually does not have time to sit down and make exact calculations regarding which decision will bring about the most happiness and minimise pain. Mill deflected this objection with the response that humans learn general moral principle though experience that can later be relied on in such situations. Exact calculations are not necessary for each situation in life as this would be impractical. In chapter 2 of his essay Utilitarianism, Mill replies to such criticism: In such circumstances, one should follow common-sense moral rules, which summarize lots of human experience, and tend to guide us toward actions that promote general happiness and away from actions that tend to dampen it. Also, one can cultivate habits and train individual character, so that people become disposed to act in ways that are happiness-promoting. I feel his reply is valid as utilitarianism as a theory is still in use when making decisions in ordinary situations without exact calculations. It is logical to assume common sense moral rules as guidance when making decisions without needing to apply exact calculations. A further problem of John Stuart Mills utilitarianism is that strict application of some utilitarian principles can result in unpalatable consequences. This has been argued by many of utilitarianism critics and there are plentiful examples of scenarios where consequences of utilitarianism being applied leads to unacceptable consequences. A great difficulty with utilitarianism is that for one to truly take on a core principle such as the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is very demanding. Everything action an individual undertakes would become a moral obligation to help a greater number of people. It requires the actor to be impartial regarding his own happiness and desires and focus neutrally on the happiness of others over one sown. as between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. (jsmill utilitarianism chapter 2) What makes this so demanding is the excessive amount of strangers in need of help and the indefinite opportunities there are to make sacrifices to maximise their happiness. This is also a problem as there is no differentiation between helping your friends and family before complete strangers. For example, choosing to work excessively and earn as much money as possible to help those in poverty wou ld be the correct utilitarian choice as it does the most good for the most people. We would become charitable cogs and ignore our human nature to have personal leisure time for example and engage with our individual wants and needs. This ties in with the criticism of utilitarianism that it ignores individuality and individual rights which is a main topic of criticism. As a theory, utilitarianism cannot respect the rights of individuals mill defends. Taking into account John Stuart Mills defence, I personally do not think that utilitarianism looks at individuals as unique and groups people together without regard for their individuality. One would become a martyr for greater happiness, disregarding ones own, apparently less important wants, needs and desires. Utilitarian thinkers argue that the world would in fact be a much better place if we did live by principle. I disagree and feel that in this sense utilitarianism is overly demanding and has a lack of respect for individual righ ts. This is a key problem with the theory that I do not believe is insurmountable as it would deter individuals from engaging with the theory. Act-utilitarianism is too demanding Therefore critics of utilitarian argue this overly demanding theory would leave one with a life of hardship and austerity. Bernard Williams is an infamous critic of utilitarian theory. He states that we need a sense of integrity and commitments to justify any morality. He effectively argues that utilitarianism misses moral agency. His example of this problem with utilitarianism is the differentiation between an act and the consequence. It is hard to justify that the action rather than a possibly terrible consequence is what makes an action immoral. Too much egoistic weight is placed on personal actions. For example, the action of shooting someone with a gun rather than the victim dying is what is wrong with such a scenario for a utilitarian. Williams argues that we do not judge actions by their consequences and this notion of utilitarianism should be rejected no matter how plausible it may seem. Williams believes this way of judgement removes what it is to be human from the scenario. Moral decision should preserve our psychological identity and integrity. John Stuart Millss proof of utilitarianism has also come under constant criticism. His answer the question why maximise happiness? is controversial. Mills claim is that happiness is pursued as an end in itself and is the aim of all human activity. If someone claims that they pursue virtue as an end in itself, Mill argues that this is just an ingredient in their life of happiness and just a means leading to the same end: happiness, pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Virtue is just part of their happiness. So for Mill, the question of why maximise happiness? is in fact a question of why happiness is desirable. His analogous answer to this is that The only way we can prove an object is visible is by demonstrating that people can actually see it. Therefore the evidence that happiness is desirable is that people desire it. This evidence of proof has come under much criticism as it is argued by Henry Sidgwick that itis based on a bad argument. First of all he criticises the comparison of what is desirable and what is visible. Visible means can be seen however desirable doesnt actually translate to can be desired. In fact it is more correctly translated to mean should be desired. This weakness of John Stuart Mills analogy makes it hard to compare what people do desire to what people should desire. Therefore, his proof of happiness being desirable is based fully on bad argument. As the fundamental aim of utilitarianism is the maximise happiness, the fact that Mill has difficulty proving that happiness is what the people desire is a fundamental problem with the theory that I do not feel can be ignored. It is also argued that if John Stuart Mill had given a correct analogy, his argument would have lead to a selfish version of utilitarianism compared to the utilitarian approach that the greatest happiness for the greatest number its aim. In Mills example, individuals wanting their own personal happiness will add up to an aggregate happiness. Therefore, it is argued he needs a far stronger argument than his given analogy to prove that general happiness is what all people should aim for. It is clear that utilitarianism, although often considered a simple theory which declares that the morally right action in any circumstances is the one which is most likely to maximise happiness, is actually a very complex cluster of related theories which have developed rapidly since the 18th century. Throughout this time many features of utilitarianism have come under constant criticism and as a normative theory it has been widely accused of being unworkable. I do believe that utilitarianism has flaws which John Stuart Mill as the theorys key defender has been unable to explain adequately. A lot of Mills utilitarianism is defendable such as how he deals with the objection that the calculations are impractical. However some of his answers to criticism do not persuade me that the problems with utilitarianism are surmountable. I sympathise with the criticism that utilitarianism is overly demanding and following rule utilitarianism strictly would lead to a life of austerity and self-de nial. As a moral basis for some decision making I think utilitarianism could have use in society today, however, as moral theory I do not think that it upholds and the problems within it are insurmountable. The criticisms I have mention in this essay are not exhaustive.

Societal Norms and Masturbation Essays -- Sociology, Sexuality

Societal norms greatly influence our views and attitudes concerning masturbation. In American society, Psychology Today says people tend to consider masturbation â€Å"as a sexual refuge for singles† who are looking to â€Å"compensate for a lack of sex† (Castleman) and gives others the impression that one who masturbates in inferior or incapable of having sexual relations. However, Castleman’s article references a survey conducted by the University of Chicago that disputes this theory and suggests instead that â€Å"a sexless relationship [will suppress] masturbation† (Castleman). Historically, masturbation was thought to lead to serious medical side-effects; however this is not the case. As more and more doctors medically proved that masturbation is not physically harmful, others looked to support the idea that masturbation could possibly have positive health effects. Both of these factors lead to a greater normalization of masturbation today. Media plays a considerable role in our society’s sexual education and views. Most commonly, the stigma that masturbation is an inferior or weak sexual act crosses our television and computer screens often. For example, both â€Å"That 70s Show† and â€Å"Seinfeld† suggest that those who give in or fail to be â€Å"masters of his domain† (Chaney) are substandard to the rest of society. Physical evidence that masturbation and sexual pleasure are positive behaviors seems to be more evident now than ever before. Not only is the act arousing, but serotonin and â€Å"epinephrine [course] through your body† (Daniels), increasing one’s mood significantly. Also, many researchers argue that people who masturbate have a heightened sense of what pleases them sexually, which often leads to a better intimacy with a partner (... ...t I introduce in their sessions. However, I am concerned that not all participants will be completely honest and candid because of the stigmas inherent in our society. Works Cited Castleman, Michael. "All About Sex." 30 March 2009. Psychology Today. 1 February 2012 . Chaney, Jen. "'Seinfeld,' Four: It's Real and It's Spectacular." 17 May 2005. The Washington Post. 2 February 2012. Daniels, Chris and Jes Levatter. "Masturbation key to healthy, functional sexual relationships." 19 April 2007. The Badger Herald. 31 January 2012. Dolphin, Lambert. Masturbation And The Bible. 5 March 1991. 31 January 2012 . Wells, Ken R. "Masturbation." 2006. Health Line. 2 February 2012 .

Henrik Ibsen- A Doll’s House

Henrik Ibsen was one of the most popular poet and dramatist in his time. He is considered as the father of modern realistic drama because he is responsible for the transition of the Romantic style going to modern realistic style of writing a play. The Norwegian playwright was born on Skien from Knud Ibsen and Marichen Altenburg, a relatively well-to-do merchant family. The family of Ibsen was one of oldest and distinguished family in their country. But the fortune of his family was taken away when he is going to its adulthood.Her mother turned to religion for support while his father financial situation was ruined because his father’s friend broke all connections with him and forced to bankruptcy in 1836 (Bellinger). Ibsen was motivated to go into playwriting by his mother. His mother was an enthusiastic painter and she loves theater. But because of situation of their family which was made them in to poverty, Ibsen at the age of 15 decided to go to Grimstad to be a pharmacist (Bellinger).In 1850, Ibsen goes to Christiania which is now called Oslo where he earned his journalistic writings in Heltberg. In this year also when his first written work was made and these were Catiline, a tragedy, which reflected the atmosphere of the revolutionary year of 1848, and The Burial Mound, written under the pseudonym of Brynjolf Bjarme. In 1858, returned to Christiania to apply his education in writing plays at Christiania’s National Theater and the same year when he married Suzannah Thoresen.All of the plays that were written by Ibsen were based on poverty and family problems. This was because on his past experience on his family. One of the plays that were written by Ibsen was the A Doll’s House. The said play, after being published received many criticisms about the traditional Victorian marriage. A Doll’s House-Critical Essay A Doll’s House was the first play that was written by Ibsen that has sensational effect on the audiences because it tackles on the norms of Victorian marriage.It is the most popular works that was written by Ibsen. The center of the story is about on Nora Helmer, who is the mother of the three children and the wife of Torvald Helemer who is a banker. The story is about on the marriage of the two characters that was ruined because the wife did not do her role as the mother and that she made an action that broke a law. The main points of Isben in his play were the family structure on his time and the way society thinks on the role of the father and the mother.The society in his time, after reading the play was patriarchal. It is very obvious because the play gives more importance on the male rather than equal opportunities. Ibsen designed the play in such a way that the audience can see the inequality of men and women as well the breakage of the norms in a marriage between husband and wife. The first secession of Nora in the society was when she committed a crime just to save the life of her wi fe.He was forced to forge the signature of his father so that he can borrow money that will be used for her husband’s treatment. The incidence showed that women can also make decision on their family and not the husband only. This is one of the norms in a Victorian marriage, were work, politics and decision are left from men while the household chores are women. The second secession of Nora in the society was when she decided to divorce her husband. In that time, divorce in never allowed by the society because it breaks the relationship of husband and wife.From the two secessions, it can be seen that the society dictates the relationship of a husband and wife and favors men. Nora secessions are very deliberate and thought out. She knows what society expects of her and continues to do what she feels is right despite them. Her secessions are used by Ibsen to show faults of society. Reference: Bellinger, Martha Fletcher. â€Å"A Short History of the Drama. † (1927). Novem ber 14, 2007 .

Communicate Effectively at the Direct Leadership Level Essay

a.Mass communication enables you to communicate information to large numbers of people in a relatively short time. .Identify the principles of interpersonal transactional communication a.First principle – You cannot NOT communicate. i.Each day we receive thousands of behavioral cues to communicate. We choose which are worthy of our attention. We interpret or attribute meaning to each of these cues. We learn to accept some cues and reject others. We select the cue we will respond to and how we will communicate that response. Through this process, we assign purpose to each communication. Communication with purpose cannot be random. This conditioning process begins early in life. b.Second principle – Communication is predictable. i.Whenever you choose to recognize some sensory cue, you must organize the information in some personally acceptable way. The easiest way to do this is  to compare the behavior you now sense to all the behaviors you’ve ever known. As you repeat this process, you come to expect certain patterns of communicative behavior from certain people in certain situations. You learn to categorize people and their responses by paying attention to the feedback you get from people when we communicate with them. In this way, you improve the effectiveness of your communication by learning more about your own and the other person’s communicative patterns. c.Third principle – Communication is a â€Å"chicken and egg† process. i.Think of yourself as a simultaneous and continuous sender and receiver. Because communication occurs constantly in some form, it is difficult to determine whether you communicate first and respond last or vice versa. However, does it really matter? We define the context of our communication through punctuation. Punctuation is simply assigning specific beginning and ending points along the line of the continuous communication process. Human communication, as a dynamic process is best understood as a system where senders are simultaneously receivers and receivers are simultaneously senders. d.Fourth principle – Communication occurs at two levels. i.Communication not only conveys information, but at the same time imposes behavior. All interpersonal communication occurs at two levels: content and process. â€Å"The Dynamics of Human Communication† refers to the two levels as content and relationship while the USASMA model refers to them as content and process. We will use content and process. Content communication conveys information. Process communication (tone, context, gesture, and other nonverbal action) sends instructions to the receiver about how to interpret the message. When the content message does not match the process message, conflict and mistrust form in the mind of the receiver. e.Fifth principle – Transactions are between equals or up–and–down. i.You relate to people as equals or as nonequals. A typical example of a nonequal relationship is that of the mother–infant pair. Nonequal relationships include two different positions: one communicator is in the superior, or one–up position, while the other is in the one–down, or inferior position. Do not equate the words â€Å"up† and â€Å"down† with judgmental terms as â€Å"good,† â€Å"bad,† â€Å"strong,† or â€Å"weak.† Nonequal relationships are often set by social or cultural factors. It is usual for one–up persons to define the nature of the relationship. f.Sixth  principle – Communication is a sharing of meaning. i.This means that what meaning one person assigns to a word or image may not be the same as the meaning assigned by someone else to the same word or image. Each of us has our own system of classification, our own filtration system, by which we assign meaning. When we share our assigned meanings (GUESSES) with others, we expose some of our self–hoping that the other will understand us and interpret our meaning as we do. 4.Identify the relationship between listening and effective oral communication a.The Three Myths about Listening i.Listening is a natural process.- If you believe that listening occurs naturally, like breathing, then it follows that you never need to learn how to do it. Listening is a skill just like driving a golf ball or firing a rifle. You develop the skill just as you would any other skill. ii.Listening is the same as hearing.- Hearing is a natural process, but as we stated above, listening is a skill that we develop. We can train ourselves to â€Å"not listen† or to listen selectively. iii.Listening is the same as paying attention.- Many times we pretend to listen when we really are not. The receiver of the communication must indicate to the speaker that he is being heard and understood. The receiver indicates attention through both verbal and nonverbal indicators. b.Overview i.Let’s look at listening from a different approach, in relation to four types of internal and external responses to spoken messages. These responses range from very casual, almost accidental, to very deliberate and purposeful types of responses. They are not orderly stages that you go through when listening, nor a sequence that must be followed. All or only a few of these may occur within one set of listening transaction, or they may be skipped or types may be applied in any sequence. The four types are reflex, content, relational or active, and introspective listening. c.Type I, Reflex Listening i.A very basic kind of listening involving little more than hearing and a recognition that some noise has come to you. Reflex listening is very common in social settings, classrooms, public settings, and in concerts. Reflex listening involves primarily â€Å"guidance† noises where you can move out of  danger, approach and engage prospective pleasant experiences, but stay tuned to hear other important messages should they occur. d.Type II, Content Listening i.This type of listening is the one most frequently referred to when teachers and managers (leaders) criticize â€Å"poor† listening. Learning in school, receiving instructions on the job, getting information about what to do and how to run your life, are all involved in the content level. You listen to learn and to understand and to somehow retain information. An important dimension of content–type listening is an ability to detect which messages are accurate, useful, sound, truthful, reliable, and relevant. e.Type III, Relational Listening i.Listening is important not only in relation to getting the content of the message called â€Å"deliberative listening† but also in another dimension called â€Å"empathic listening.† This empathic dimension to listening includes active listening. Active listening reflects a whole orientation to life and to people–one which implies that to listen is to have the creative power to imagine how it would make sense to say what the other person is saying. It says that the other person (the speaker) is fundamentally important and worth listening to. How do you â€Å"do† active listening–by listening to a person without passing judgment on what is being said, and mirroring back what has been said to indicate that you understand the feelings the speaker was putting across. Effective communication is free to happen when threats have been removed. By the mirroring process, you help build a climate in which you can be accepting, noncritical, and non–mor alizing. f.Type IV, introspective listening i.Focus in this type of listening is on having something happen to the listener, not to the speaker. It may be the inner enjoyment of hearing poetry or music or spoken endearments. You experience something when you listen introspectively. Introspective listening has the quality of listening with a very open mind, but it also has the uncommon quality of applying your own deep understanding of your personal commitments and of the persuasion process as you evaluate the speakers’ messages.