Is the Internet Warping Our Brains? | LiveScience

02/25/2009
Geographical isolation of finches on the Galáp...
Image via Wikipedia

In our ongoing discussion about the ways in which the internet, technology and Google is changing the ways in which we think, I thought this article might be a good one to bring to light.

The Internet is no doubt changing modern society. It has profoundly altered how we gather information, consume news, carry out war, and create and foster social bonds. But is it altering our brains? A growing number of scientists think so, and studies are providing data to show it.

What remains to be seen is whether the changes are good or bad, and whether the brain is, as one neuroscientist believes, undergoing unprecedented evolution.

Texting and instant messaging, social networking sites and the Internet in general can certainly be said to distract people from other tasks. But what researchers are worrying more about are the plastic brains of teens and young adults who are now growing up with all this, the “digital natives” as they’re being called.

via Is the Internet Warping Our Brains? | LiveScience.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Journal Entry: Mediation Chapter 4

05/24/2008

This chapter focused on the basic skills and structure required for mediation. It talked about the flexibility and overlap of the phases of mediation, and specifically about 4 likely phases of mediation. It progresses along a sometimes meandering path between introduction, storytelling, problem solving, and resolution phases (pp. 63-64).

During introduction, an agenda is set, people are introduced, mediation is defined, and hopefully, trust is established (pp. 69-71).

In storytelling, information and individual points of view are offered as a way of establishing a starting point of understanding of the issues at the present. Active listening is performed by disputants as part of the process (pp. 71-82). It is important during storytelling for the mediator to give regular feedback to disputants to ensure that the message being delivered is accurate, which is done by rephrasing, summarizing, asking questions, reframing, reflecting, and acknowledging. This must be done in a non-authoritative, nonthreatening manner, and it must not be perceived as judgmental or attacking. These tools can be used to increase clarity, improve transparency, diffuse tensions, identify commonality, and create empathy (p. 78).

In problem solving (p. 82), we take what we learned in storytelling, and we begin to sift out resolvable issues. This is done through a process of careful structuring of clarified issues, separation of issues from people, and the differentiation of goals from actions. An agenda may be built in order to allow each issue to be defined, clarified, and seen as solvable in and of itself. Much of this process can be guided using Fisher and Ury’s principled negotiation, so that ideologically, we can begin to see the actual solvable issues, away and apart from their chaotic context (pp. 82-95). Many options are generated as possibilities for solutions to issues. It is important for the disputants to be the primary source for solutions and be in clear agreement about how the issues can be resolved.

In the Resolution stage, we begin to record in the agreement what we have learned in terms of how to resolve the issues. It is at this stage that the physical agreement is filled out, signed, and agreed to.

Domenici, K., Domenici-Littlejohn, & Littlejohn, S. W. (2001). Mediation: Empowerment in Conflict Management, Second Edition (2nd ed., p. 198). Waveland Press.

Personal Experiential Influence:

I found the task of building your own mediation instruction very useful, and I’ve revised it once or twice in order to make it more realistic. When I first created my introduction using cards, it was very bullet-point oriented, and was hard in practice for me to actually remember all that I wanted to say. After I made it into more of a narrative script, I found it easier to really touch on all of the points that I wanted to. You can see both my original introduction solution on this blog as well as my latest revision. I plan on doing a recording of it on YouTube before the semester is over.


Journal Entry: New Directions Chapter 2

05/23/2008

There is a need for a metatheoretical framework that can help mediators to assess and react to situations in the moment with some sense of a reliable result due to precedence and academic research (pp. 26-27). Relationship and communication provide a context with which we can begin to analyze conflict and the effectiveness (efficacy) of mediation in practice (p. 28). “Relationship is the keystone of conflict” and a relationship that has a life impact for participants has the greatest potential for massive conflict (p. 28). Relational Salience is the degree to which the relationship impacts life experience (p. 28). Mediation can be far more effective in conflicts between highly interdependent disputants because it pays far more attention to relational aspects more closely that legal or adjudicated methodologies (p. 29).

Communication is also key to both conflict and relationship. Communication and active listening are more likely in a relational mediation setting than in a courtroom setting because courts tend to reduce statements to unadulterated facts, witnessed events, etc., whereas relational (transformative) mediation emphasizes disputants’ emotional context, point of view, and story (p. 33).

Communication Study in Mediation shows that allowing disputants to talk for themselves, protecting their own voice, makes it more likely for mediation to succeed (p. 35).

Phase models of negotiation can be noted as successful when there is movement from “differentiation to integration” and “antagonism to coordination” (p. 36). Jones notes four phases in a variable progression for many successful mediation sessions: Agenda, Information Exchange, Negotiation, and Resolution.
in cases where the agenda phase is omitted or quickly run over, and in cases where the information exchange phase is stagnated and elongated where parties engage in disputing details, mediation tends to fail (p. 37).

The dialectical Model allows for an idea, a counter idea, and a sensemaking of the two (p. 38-39). The dialectical principle of unity is that a contradiction exists whenever two forces are interdependent (pp. 38-39). Interactional conflict is between these forces and contextual conflict is socio-cultural in nature. An example of mediation contradiction is the openness/closedness, in which vulnerability plays a role in keeping disputants from opening up, when opening up is essential to the process (p. 40-41).

Aside from contradiction, the dialectical model is concerned with process, or the idea that mediation is systemic and nonlinear in nature, and may need to shift in direction, dimension, and focus in order to be effective. The dialectical process may separate contradictions in order to more effectively address issues. Cyclic Alternation and topical segmentation allow for this. In cyclic alternation, there may be an emphasis of one contradictory pole vs. another over time. Mediators might also choose to neutralize contradictions in order to reduce tensions while still focusing on issues. Mediators might also do reframing in which differently stated stories that describe some commonality are restated in order to emphasize that commonality and to bridge disputant views (pp. 44-45).

Mediators should try to avoid boilerplate solutions, as part of the great potential power of mediation is in its relative flexibility comparative to other resolution methodologies.

Jones, T. S. (1994). A Dialectical Reframing of the Mediation Process. In J. P. Folger & T. S. Jones (Eds.), New Directions in Mediation: Communication Research and Perspectives (pp. 26-47). Sage Publications, Inc.

Personal experiential application:

In my one and only session so far as a mediator in role play, I found Jones’ progression (agenda, info exchange, negotiation, resolution) kind of difficult to find the edges of. I found myself getting through the introduction and agenda fairly easily, and the information exchange part was somewhat straightforward, in the sense that the mediator simply assures each disputant that they have an equal voice, but negotiation, resolution, and more information exchange quickly began to overlap thereafter.

Also, some of my feedback in that session was that I was clearly biased towards one of the disputant’s views, which I truly had no idea I was doing. As soon as it was mentioned though, I realized it was true. I had a similar experience to the character in roleplay, and quickly took up the character’s conflict as though it were my own. As mediators, we definitely have to turn off our own assessment of the situation, so that disputants can tell their own story in a more pure way, controlled only in the structure of delivery, but not in such a way that it shapes content.