the use of mediators

The techniques presented in chapter 11 can all be facilitated by a mediator. Fractioning, framing, reframing, and common ground are all techniques that should bring to an end any type of conflict and not just those conflicts that are interpersonal. For example, let's say a company wanted to build a parking lot on a well-known community park. The conflict would arise from the fact that one party wants the parking lot built, while another party is against it. A mediator can be brought in to try and resolve the conflict. During fractioning the mediator can identify smaller issues that both parties can deal with. During framing the mediator asks questions that won't offend either party. During reframing the mediators job is to change any loaded questions or comments made by either party. This keeps the conflict from escalating and allows for a resolution. When a mediator uses a technique known as common ground he or she attempts to find any values, behaviors, or attitudes that either party may have. This all should lead to a resolution that both parties agree with.

mediators

The book explains that the skills necessary to be a good mediator are not skills that are innate, rather, these are skills that must be learned. This means that a Communications Major has an advantage because they will be studying the exact rules that regulate what it means to be an effective mediator. They will know how to react to each conflict that arises because they have studied this. This is also the same reason why lawyers and psychotherapists don't make good mediators. Psychotherapists don't study the skills necessary to be a good mediator. Often the conflict they deal with is between one person. They are not qualified to be able to effectively mediate a conflict between two parties.

The book explains that lawyers often turn what should be mediation into more of an adjudication where mediation doesn't really take place. Lawyers are also not trained to be mediators. Their job often consists of defending a defendant with unbiased notions.

discipline

I think most parents raise their kids the same way their parents raised therm. They were taught that being strict with their children is good parenting. These are often the parents that see no problem in hitting a child. I think it's ridiculous that if someone sees someone hitting an animal he or she can be arrested and charged with animal cruelty, but most parents are not punished for hitting their kids. I think hitting a child is just a parent's over reaction to a situation. The parent lets their anger get the best of them. However, I think there are worst ways to punish a child than by using violence. The parent can take away television, video game, or cell phone privileges. If a parent is hitting a toddler it's even worse because the parent should know that their child doesn't know any better.

I used to work with preschoolers and they would sometimes spill things. It would irritate me, but then the teacher would come in and say, "oh, it's okay." The teacher made sure that the child wouldn't feel bad they did. I used to think, 'so that's how you react.'