Global Aid
http://hausercenter.org/iha/2010/10/20/foreign-aid-as-soft-power-in-india-brazil-and-china/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1994.tb00162.x/abstract;jsessionid=8F25D556E36FF2A15CD7E9553321C18C.d01t01
http://www.care.org/getinvolved/advocacy/pdfs/foreignaid.pdf
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/08/articles/393.html
http://www.care.org/getinvolved/advocacy/pdfs/foreignaid.pdf
Inclusive growth
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/468980-1218567884549/WhatIsInclusiveGrowth20081230.pdf
http://orissadiary.com/Shownews.asp?id=23535
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/govt-pursuing-inclusive-growth-schemes-krishna/articleshow/6612739.cms
http://www.businessworld.in/bw/2010_11_18_Populism_Affecting_Indias_Growth_RS_Sharma.html
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_populism-affecting-india-s-growth-ongc-chairman_1468463
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ongc-chief-slams-populist-politicians/712993/
http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/indias-inclusive-growth-remains-elusive
http://www.livemint.com/2009/05/19205707/What-is-inclusive-growth.html
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
88 Rules for Debate
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
23. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.
24. In the questioning period, the questioner may ask any fair, clear question that has a direct bearing on the debate. The questioner may use the period to build up any part of his own case, to tear down any part of his opposition's case, or to ascertain facts, such as the opposition's position on a certain issue, that can be used later in the debate. The questioner must confine himself to questions and not make statements, comments, or ask rhetorical questions.
25. Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.
26. Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.
27. Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."
28. Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.
29. Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.
30. Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.
31. Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
32. Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough. There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous.
33. Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used.
34. Apply the scientific method.
35. Cite relevant personal experience.
36. Be polite.
37. Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
38. Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also anti-gun.)
39. Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
40. Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
41. Read the post you are responding to.
42. Stay open to learning.
43. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
44. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
45. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
46. Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
47. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
48. Quantify, wherever possible.
49. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
50. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
51. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
52. Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
53. Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
54. Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
55. Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
56. Argument from "authority".
57. Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
58. Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
59. Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
60. Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
61. Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
62. Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
63. Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
64. Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
65. Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
66. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
67. Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
68. Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
69. Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
70. Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
71. Confusion of correlation and causation.
72. Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
73. Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
74. Choose a definitive formulation of the thesis you are proposing, and communicate this formulation to your opponents at least several days beforehand. (Proponents and opponents should be clear about the thesis that is being debated.)
75. State this formulation of the thesis at the beginning and end of your presentation, and several times in the middle. (The audience should be clear about the thesis that is being debated.)
76. Make it clear what the theoretical background of your argument is. (E.g., in ethics: utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, etc.)
77. Attempt to trap your opponent, by anticipating his arguments beforehand and showing what is wrong with them.
78. Do not be afraid to use visual aids (blackboard, handouts, overhead projector) to make your point.
79. Include a conclusion in which you demonstrate how you have established or refuted the thesis.
80. Avoid lengthy and repetitive presentations of facts or stories. Avoid mouthing a familiar party-line. Concentrate on arguments and on thinking through to basic presuppositions.
81. Use notes. If you attempt to write out every word of your presentation beforehand it will sound wooden.
82. Speak loudly and clearly, and address your remarks to the audience.
83. Speak confidently; always sound as if you believe absolutely in what you are saying, always maintain a consistent front.
84. Always prepare more notes than you think you will need. If you think you have said enough, move directly to your conclusion. Do not leave the audience with the impression that you have not said enough.
85. Leave your personal views and your personal experiences out of account; what is important is exclusively the quality of your arguments.
86. Never concede that you agree with the other side or suggest compromise positions. Preserve a clear opposition between the views of proponents and opponents throughout.
87. Use radical and imaginative gambits to keep the attention and sympathy of your audience. For example: pretend to agree with almost everything the opposing side says, but then reveal how what your opponents say implies that they are in fact quite wrong. Or use the method of reductio ad absurdum (i.e. show that, if the opposing side were correct, then this would have absurd consequences).
88. Do not use ad hominem arguments. Even perverts can have good arguments. The qualities of the person presenting an argument are irrelevant to the quality of the argument he presents.
Americanization of the world
https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/americanization.html
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/76.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/05/03/the-rise-of-the-rest.html
http://www.globalenvision.org/library/33/1658
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-history-of-the-world-in-six-glasses-ancient-history-a231748
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-history-of-the-world-in-six-glasses--modern-history-a255995
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/76.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/05/03/the-rise-of-the-rest.html
http://www.globalenvision.org/library/33/1658
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-history-of-the-world-in-six-glasses-ancient-history-a231748
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-history-of-the-world-in-six-glasses--modern-history-a255995
Monday, December 20, 2010
Readings
Article 1:
PM: corporate sector must be sensitive to needs of common man
Article 2:
“Indian village is a swamp of inequity”
Article 3:
Socialist leader Surendra Mohan passes away
Article 4:
Vision for making India truly India
Whether politics is a profession*
http://www.hindu.com/biz/2010/
IMF plans fund to help strengthen tax systems
http://economictimes.
http://www.hindu.com/biz/2010/
IMF plans fund to help strengthen tax systems
http://economictimes.
Monday, December 13, 2010
World Economics :)
India vs China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(China)
Central Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrategy_in_Central_Asia
Oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_politics
Rare Earth elements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_of_Pearls_(China)
Central Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostrategy_in_Central_Asia
Oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_politics
Rare Earth elements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
Sunday, December 12, 2010
More readings...
Concept of Inclusive Growth
How the Hydrogen Economy Works: Problems with the fossil fuel economy
What are climate refugees?: How Climate Change Displaces People
How Sustainable Communities Work: Examples of Sustainable Communities
A role for the G20 in aid for trade?
Friday, December 3, 2010
THE POWER OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND BODY LANGUAGE
Nonverbal Communication
THE POWER OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND BODY LANGUAGE
Nonverbal communication, or body language, is a vital form of communication. When we interact with others, we continuously give and receive countless wordless signals. All of our nonverbal behaviors—the gestures we make, the way we sit, how fast or how loud we talk, how close we stand, how much eye contact we make—send strong messages.
The way you listen, look, move, and react tell the other person whether or not you care and how well you’re listening. The nonverbal signals you send either produce a sense of interest, trust, and desire for connection—or they generate disinterest, distrust, and confusion.
Nonverbal communication cues can play five roles:
§ Repetition: they can repeat the message the person is making verbally
§ Contradiction: they can contradict a message the individual is trying to convey
§ Substitution: they can substitute for a verbal message. For example, a person's eyes can often convey a far more vivid message than words and often do
§ Complementing: they may add to or complement a verbal message. A boss who pats a person on the back in addition to giving praise can increase the impact of the message
§ Accenting: they may accent or underline a verbal message. Pounding the table, for example, can underline a message.
There are many different types of nonverbal communication. Together, the following nonverbal signals and cues communicate your interest and investment in others.
Facial expressions
The human face is extremely expressive, able to express countless emotions without saying a word. And unlike some forms of nonverbal communication, facial expressions are universal. The facial expressions for happiness, sadness, anger, surprise, fear, and disgust are the same across cultures.
Body movements and posture
Consider how your perceptions of people are affected by the way they sit, walk, stand up, or hold their head. The way you move and carry yourself communicates a wealth of information to the world. This type of nonverbal communication includes your posture, bearing, stance, and subtle movements.
Gestures
Gestures are woven into the fabric of our daily lives. We wave, point, beckon, and use our hands when we’re arguing or speaking animatedly—expressing ourselves with gestures often without thinking. However, the meaning of gestures can be very different across cultures and regions, so it’s important to be careful to avoid misinterpretation.
Eye contact
Since the visual sense is dominant for most people, eye contact is an especially important type of nonverbal communication. The way you look at someone can communicate many things, including interest, affection, hostility, or attraction. Eye contact is also important in maintaining the flow of conversation and for gauging the other person’s response.
Touch
We communicate a great deal through touch. Think about the messages given by the following: a firm handshake, a timid tap on the shoulder, a warm bear hug, a reassuring pat on the back, a patronizing pat on the head, or a controlling grip on your arm.
Space
Have you ever felt uncomfortable during a conversation because the other person was standing too close and invading your space? We all have a need for physical space, although that need differs depending on the culture, the situation, and the closeness of the relationship. You can use physical space to communicate many different nonverbal messages, including signals of intimacy, aggression, dominance, or affection.
Voice
We communicate with our voices, even when we are not using words. Nonverbal speech sounds such as tone, pitch, volume, inflection, rhythm, and rate are important communication elements. When we speak, other people “read” our voices in addition to listening to our words. These nonverbal speech sounds provide subtle but powerful clues into our true feelings and what we really mean. Think about how tone of voice, for example, can indicate sarcasm, anger, affection, or confidence.
It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it
§ Intensity. A reflection of the amount of energy you project is considered your intensity. Again, this has as much to do with what feels good to the other person as what you personally prefer.
§ Timing and pace. Your ability to be a good listener and communicate interest and involvement is impacted by timing and pace.
§ Sounds that convey understanding. Sounds such as “ahhh, ummm, ohhh,” uttered with congruent eye and facial gestures, communicate understanding and emotional connection. More than words, these sounds are the language of interest, understanding and compassion.
Nonverbal communication is a rapidly flowing back-and-forth process. Successful nonverbal communication depends on emotional self-awareness and an understanding of the cues you’re sending, along with the ability to accurately pick up on the cues others are sending you. This requires your full concentration and attention. If you are planning what you’re going to say next, daydreaming, or thinking about something else, you are almost certain to miss nonverbal cues and other subtleties in the conversation. You need to stay focused on the moment-to-moment experience in order to fully understand what’s going on.
Tips for successful nonverbal communication:
§ Take a time out if you’re feeling overwhelmed by stress. Stress compromises your ability to communicate. When you’re stressed out, you’re more likely to misread other people, send off confusing or off-putting nonverbal signals, and lapse into unhealthy knee-jerk patterns of behavior. Take a moment to calm down before you jump back into the conversation. Once you’ve regained your emotional equilibrium, you’ll be better equipped to deal with the situation in a positive way.
§ Pay attention to inconsistencies. Nonverbal communication should reinforce what is being said. If you get the feeling that someone isn’t being honest or that something is “off,” you may be picking up on a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal cues. Is the person is saying one thing, and their body language something else? For example, are they telling you “yes” while shaking their head no?
§ Look at nonverbal communication signals as a group. Don’t read too much into a single gesture or nonverbal cue. Consider all of the nonverbal signals you are sending and receiving, from eye contact to tone of voice and body language. Are your nonverbal cues consistent—or inconsistent—with what you are trying to communicate?
Before you can improve your nonverbal communication skills, you need to figure out what you’re doing right and where there is room for improvement. The most effective method is to observe yourself in action:
§ Video camera – Videotape a conversation between you and a partner. Set the camera to record both of you at the same time, so you can observe the nonverbal back-and-forth. When you watch the recording, focus on any discrepancies between your verbal and nonverbal communication.
§ Digital camera – Ask someone to take a series of photos of you while you’re talking to someone else. As you look through the photos, focus on you and the other person’s body language, facial expressions, and gestures.
§ Audio recorder – Record a conversation between you and a friend or family member. As you listen to the recording afterwards, concentrate on the way things are said, rather than the words. Pay attention to tone, timing, pace, and other sounds.
As you watch or listen to the recordings, ask yourself the following questions:
Evaluating your nonverbal communication skills | |
Eye contact | Is this source of connection missing, too intense, or just right in yourself or in the person you are looking at? |
Facial expression | What is your face showing? Is it masklike and unexpressive, or emotionally present and filled with interest? What do you see as you look into the faces of others? |
Tone of voice | Does your voice project warmth, confidence, and delight, or is it strained and blocked? What do you hear as you listen to other people? |
Posture and gesture | Does your body look still and immobile, or relaxed? Sensing the degree of tension in your shoulders and jaw answers this question. What do you observe about the degree of tension or relaxation in the body of the person you are speaking to? |
Touch | Remember, what feels good is relative. How do you like to be touched? Who do you like to have touching you? Is the difference between what you like and what the other person likes obvious to you? |
Intensity | Do you or the person you are communicating with seem flat, cool, and disinterested, or over-the-top and melodramatic? Again, this has as much to do with what feels good to the other person as it does with what you personally prefer. |
Timing and pace | What happens when you or someone you care about makes an important statement? Does a response—not necessarily verbal—come too quickly or too slowly? Is there an easy flow of information back and forth? |
Sounds | Do you use sounds to indicate that you are attending to the other person? Do you pick up on sounds from others that indicate their caring or concern for you? |
Source: The Language of Emotional Intelligence, by Jeanne Segal, Ph.D. | |
The point of this exercise is to develop your nonverbal awareness. As you continue to pay attention to the nonverbal cues and signals you send and receive, your ability to communicate will improve.
Power dressing
Power dressing refers to a style of clothing and hair intended to make wearers seem authoritative and competent, especially in professional settings in business, law and government. While references to the style apply more typically to women, the look is the same for both sexes: medium-length parted hair (trimmed on the back and sides for men); dark, conservative, usually matching pants and jacket (sometimes a long skirt for women); and bold, colorful "accents", such as ties, kerchiefs or brooches.
Suit: The most appropriate suit colors are black, navy and charcoal. Your buttoned-up blouse or shell should not be sheer; silk and cotton impress best. Employment experts say a skirt suit should be worn on a first interview, and can be exchanged with pants on the second or third interview.
Shoes: Shoes with 1- to 2-inch heels are appropriate, and the should be polished and in good condition. Flesh-toned hosiery or hosiery that is compatible with your attire is ideal. (Tip: Always keep an extra pair of hosiery in your bag because runs occur at the most inopportune time.)
Accessories: Jazz up your suit with a tasteful (and trendy) brooch or classic jewelry. But jewelry should be kept to a minimum. Body piercing (in nose, tongue, eyebrows) is generally unacceptable in a corporate environment.
Hair: Your hairstyle should be neat and your hair color should be natural-looking and complementary to your complexion. Wild colors (blue, pink, platinum streaks, etc.) and hair glitter are a no-no.
Nails: Short, well-manicured nails in one tone, including French manicures, are ideal. Long exotic and colorfully designed nails send the wrong message to a potential employer: that you are more concerned about pretty nails than you are about producing quality work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)