Answer:
I. Viewing many television programs that associate successful males with football
III. Operant conditioning
IV. Gender schemata
Explanation:
As we can see in the question above, the boy contracted a very wrong custom of associating virility with his ability and taste for playing football. According to the boy, he is only manly and manly enough boys who like and know how to play football.
This thought (which is extremely wrong) occurs with the influence of some things. The first is the frequency with which this boy watches many television programs that show men, soccer players with a successful and well-established career.
The second influence is the result of operant conditioning, which is a psychological concept characterized by a form of learning that allows a person to associate a situation with a punishment. In this case, the boy associates the lack of skill and the lack of interest in football with words that cause embarrassment as punishment. For this reason, he calls his colleagues who don't like football "sissy".
The third influence occurs through gender schemes, which is a term used to describe the separation of things, activities and behavior as feminine and masculine, in addition to determining that only women can do what is considered feminine and only men can do what it's male. The boy associates football with masculinity and those who do not like or have no interest in football are feminine, effeminate and not men.
False, you can develop an interpersonal skill.
Steps:
1.improving nonverbal communication
2.understand the importance of nonverbal communication
3.learn comfortable body language
recognize cultural Norma
5.understand how gender differences influence nonverbal communication
6.regulate your emotional cues
7.set goals
8.use efficient communication
9.give others the chance to speak
10.know what makes good communication
11.find common ground
12.dont presume of assume things
<span>13.dont</span> force a conversation
Answer:
D
Explanation:
We get bits of info througn our ears, mouth, nose and skin
Bolivar stood apart from his class in ideas, values and vision. Who else would be found in the midst of a campaign swinging in a hammock, reading the French philosophers? His liberal education, wide reading, and travels in Europe had broadened his horizons and opened his mind to the political thinkers of France and Britain. He read deeply in the works of Hobbes and Spinoza, Holbach and Hume; and the thought of Montesquieu and Rousseau left its imprint firmly on him and gave him a life-long devotion to reason, freedom and progress. But he was not a slave of the Enlightenment. British political virtues also attracted him. In his Angostura Address (1819) he recommended the British constitution as 'the most worthy to serve as a model for those who desire to enjoy the rights of man and all political happiness compatible with our fragile nature'. But he also affirmed his conviction that American constitutions must conform to American traditions, beliefs and conditions.
His basic aim was liberty, which he described as "the only object worth the sacrifice of man's life'. For Bolivar liberty did not simply mean freedom from the absolutist state of the eighteenth century, as it did for the Enlightenment, but freedom from a colonial power, to be followed by true independence under a liberal constitution. And with liberty he wanted equality – that is, legal equality – for all men, whatever their class, creed or colour. In principle he was a democrat and he believed that governments should be responsible to the people. 'Only the majority is sovereign', he wrote; 'he who takes the place of the people is a tyrant and his power is usurpation'. But Bolivar was not so idealistic as to imagine that South America was ready for pure democracy, or that the law could annul the inequalities imposed by nature and society. He spent his whole political life developing and modifying his principles, seeking the elusive mean between democracy and authority. In Bolivar the realist and idealist dwelt in uneasy rivalry.
