ElementalTruths.Com ©

Collaboration refers to the concept that people work together incorporating both the work of individuals and the product of larger collectives. Perhaps due to its unwieldy nature their is no commonly accepted theory of collaboration. Improving the definition might go a long way in allowing us all to collaborate more effectively and efficiently.

The greatest problem to collaboration based conflict management is that it is based on a oxymoron in and of itself.

Collaboration, by definition is the polar opposite of conflict. It is rather likes having a wet dryness approach to conflict management.

Collaboration occurs when a group of equally vested parties interact in a process of shared rules, norms and structures to resolve an issue in which they are all vested.

One of the mode predominant models built around this conflict management style is Win Win Conflict Management. In this approach problems are solved in ways that go beyond fair. This process is possible only when both (all?) parties are completely open and honest in expressing and prioritizing their desired outcomes. Theoretically, in this way both (all?) parties get what they want and negative relationships are minimized.

“Let’s work this out so we can both get what we want.”

This approach is most useful in situations in which their is a mutual trust between all parties. The investment of time and energy is worthwhile when maintaining positive relationships is paramount. This is also useful when consensus building is necessary to insure continued positive interaction. It is also a strategy worthy of consideration when time constraints are not an issue.

Unfortunately, it is an approach which consumes a tremendous amount of time and energy. And all involved parties must be completely open and honest.

Collaborating
Competing
Avoiding
Harmonizing
Compromising

We each have our own way of dealing with conflict. The techniques we use are based on many variables such as our basic underlying temperament, our personality, our environment and where we are in our professional career. However, by and large there are five major styles of conflict management techniques in our tool box. In order to address conflict we draw from a collaborating, competing, avoiding, harmonizing or compromising style of management.

None of these strategies is superior in and of itself. How effective they are depends on the context they are used in.

Each statement below provides a strategy for dealing with a conflict. Rate each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 indicating how likely you are to use this strategy.

1 - Rarely 2 - Sometimes 3 - Often 4 - Always

Be sure to answer the questions indicating how you actually behave rather than how you think you should behave.

1. I explore issues with others so as to find solutions that meet everyone’s needs . (___)
2. I try to negotiate and adopt a give-and-take approach to problem situations. (___)
3. I try to meet the expectations of others. (___)
4. I would argue my case and insist on the merits of my point of view. (___)
5. When there is a disagreement, I gather as much information as I can and keep the lines of communication 0pen. (___)
6. When I find myself in an argument, I usually say very little and try to leave as soon as possible. (___)
7. I try to see conflicts from both sides. What I need? What does the other person need? What are the issues involved.(___)
8. I prefer to compromise when solving problems and just move on. (___)
9. I find conflicts challenging and exhilarating and enjoy the battle of wits that usually follows. (___)
10. Being at odds with other people makes me feel uncomfortable and anxious. (___)
11. I try to accommodate the wishes of my friends and family. (___)
12. I can figure out what needs to be done and I am usually right. (___)
13. To break deadlocks, i would meet people halfway. (___)
14. I may not get what I want but it’s a small price to pay for keeping the peace. (___)
15. I avoid hard feelings by keeping my disagreements with others to myself. (___)

How to score your survey.

As stated the 15 statements correspond to the five conflict resolution styles. To find your most preferred style, total the points in the respective categories. The one with the highest score would indicate your most commonly used strategy. The one with the lowest score would indicate your least preferred strategy. However, if you are a leader who must deal with conflict on a regular basis you may find your style to be a blend of styles.

Collaborating 1) 5) 7)
Competing 4) 9) 12)
Avoiding 6) 10) 15)
Harmonizing 3) 11) 14)
Compromising 2) 8 ) 13)

Collaborating Style
Problems are solved in ways in which an optimum result is provided for all involved. Both sides get what they want and negative feelings are minimized.
Pros:
Creates mutual trust.
Maintains positive relationships.
Build commitment.
Cons:
Time consuming.
Energy consuming.

Competing Style
Authoritarian approach.
Pros:
Goal oriented.
Quick.
Cons:
May breed hostility.

Avoiding Style
The non-confrontational approach.
Pros:
Does not escalated conflict.
Postpones difficulty.
Cons:
Unaddressed problems.
Unresolved problems.

Harmonizing Style
Giving in to maintain relationships.
Pros:
Minimizes injury when we are outmatched.
Relationships are maintained.
Cons:
Breeds resentment.
Exploits the weak.

Compromising Style
The middle ground approach.
Pros:
Useful in complex issues without simple solutions.
All parties are equal in power.
Cons:
No one is ever really satisfied.
Less than optimal solutions get implemented.

Those in social media, particularly the marketing and communications practitioners, have long been aware of The Age of Conversation, a collaborative book in which 100 marketing authors bring one page of their ideas on the topic of “conversation.” the book is a remarkable exercise in mobilizing a passionate community of marketers into producing a single document.

Now, the book is coming out print, and the editors, Gavin Heaton and Drew McLellan, are donating all proceeds to Variety, the Children’s Charity. To publicize this, the authors have planned a “Bum Rush the Charts” style assault on Amazon.com, to try to move the book up the charts for a single day.

How do you participate?

Buy the book- click here for the Amazon page

This effort is named for the “Bum Rush the Charts” effort of a year ago, in which the online communities successfully placed a song by the band Black Lab on the iTunes charts for a day.

Why do I care? I am contributing a segment to “The Age of Conversation II.” I’m looking forward to joining my colleagues in the industry to continue the success of this experiment. If nothing else, it keeps us all thinking about how we approach the changing media world and use the evolving communications tools in our lives and livelihoods.

Here is a full list of Age of Conversation II contributors:

Adam Crowe, Adrian Ho, Aki Spicer, Alex Henault, Amy Jussel, Andrew Odom, Andy Nulman, Andy Sernovitz, Andy Whitlock, Angela Maiers, Ann Handley, Anna Farmery, Armando Alves, Arun Rajagopal, Asi Sharabi, Becky Carroll, Becky McCray, Bernie Scheffler, Bill Gammell, Bob Carlton, Bob LeDrew, Brad Shorr, Bradley Spitzer, Brandon Murphy, Branislav Peric, Brent Dixon, Brett Macfarlane, Brian Reich, C.C. Chapman, Cam Beck, Casper Willer, Cathleen Rittereiser, Cathryn Hrudicka, Cedric Giorgi, Charles Sipe, Chris Kieff, Chris Cree, Chris Wilson, Christina Kerley (CK), C.B. Whittemore, Clay Parker Jones, Chris Brown, Colin McKay, Connie Bensen, Connie Reece, Cord Silverstein, Corentin Monot, Craig Wilson, Daniel Honigman, Dan Goldstein, Dan Schawbel, Dana VanDen Heuvel, Dan Sitter, Daria Radota Rasmussen, Darren Herman, Darryl Patterson, Dave Davison, Dave Origano, David Armano, David Bausola, David Berkowitz, David Brazeal, David Koopmans, David Meerman Scott, David Petherick, David Reich, David Weinfeld, David Zinger, Deanna Gernert, Deborah Brown, Dennis Price, Derrick Kwa, Dino Demopoulos, Doug Haslam, Doug Meacham, Doug Mitchell, Douglas Hanna, Douglas Karr, Drew McLellan, Duane Brown, Dustin Jacobsen, Dylan Viner, Ed Brenegar, Ed Cotton, Efrain Mendicuti, Ellen Weber, Emily Reed, Eric Peterson, Eric Nehrlich, Ernie Mosteller, Faris Yakob, Fernanda Romano, Francis Anderson, G. Kofi Annan, Gareth Kay, Gary Cohen, Gaurav Mishra, Gavin Heaton, Geert Desager, George Jenkins, G.L. Hoffman, Gianandrea Facchini, Gordon Whitehead, Graham Hill, Greg Verdino, Gretel Going, Hillel Cooperman, Hugh Weber, J. Erik Potter, J.C. Hutchins, James Gordon-Macintosh, Jamey Shiels, Jasmin Tragas, Jason Oke, Jay Ehret, Jeanne Dininni, Jeff De Cagna, Jeff Gwynne, Jeff Noble, Jeff Wallace, Jennifer Warwick, Jenny Meade, Jeremy Fuksa, Jeremy Heilpern, Jeremy Middleton, Jeroen Verkroost, Jessica Hagy, Joanna Young, Joe Pulizzi, Joe Talbott, John Herrington, John Jantsch, John Moore, John Rosen, John Todor, Jon Burg, Jon Swanson, Jonathan Trenn, Jordan Behan, Julie Fleischer, Justin Flowers, Justin Foster, Karl Turley, Kate Trgovac, Katie Chatfield, Katie Konrath, Kenny Lauer, Keri Willenborg, Kevin Jessop, Kris Hoet, Krishna De, Kristin Gorski, Laura Fitton, Laurence Helene Borei, Lewis Green, Lois Kelly, Lori Magno, Louise Barnes-Johnston, Louise Mangan, Louise Manning, Luc Debaisieux, Marcus Brown, Mario Vellandi, Mark Blair, Mark Earls, Mark Goren, Mark Hancock, Mark Lewis, Mark McGuinness, Mark McSpadden, Matt Dickman, Matt J. McDonald, Matt Moore, Michael Hawkins, Michael Karnjanaprakorn, Michelle Lamar, Mike Arauz, Mike McAllen, Mike Sansone, Mitch Joel, Monica Wright, Nathan Gilliatt, Nathan Snell, Neil Perkin, Nettie Hartsock, Nick Rice, Oleksandr Skorokhod, Ozgur Alaz, Paul Chaney, Paul Hebert, Paul Isakson, Paul Marobella, Paul McEnany, Paul Tedesco, Paul Williams, Pet Campbell, Pete Deutschman, Peter Corbett, Phil Gerbyshak, Phil Lewis, Phil Soden, Piet Wulleman, Rachel Steiner, Sreeraj Menon, Reginald Adkins, Richard Huntington, Rishi Desai, R.J. Northam, Rob Mortimer, Robert Hruzek, Roberta Rosenberg, Robyn McMaster, Roger von Oech, Rohit Bhargava, Ron Shevlin, Ryan Barrett, Ryan Karpeles, Ryan Rasmussen, Sam Huleatt, Sandy Renshaw, Scott Goodson, Scott Monty, Scott Townsend, Scott White, Sean Howard, Sean Scott, Seni Thomas, Seth Gaffney, Shama Hyder, Sheila Scarborough, Sheryl Steadman, Simon Payn, Sonia Simone, Spike Jones, Stanley Johnson, Stephen Collins, Stephen Cribbett, Stephen Landau, Stephen Smith, Steve Bannister, Steve Hardy, Steve Portigal, Steve Roesler, Steven Verbruggen, Steve Woodruff, Sue Edworthy, Susan Bird, Susan Gunelius, Susan Heywood, Tammy Lenski, Terrell Meek, Thomas Clifford, Thomas Knoll, Tiffany Kenyon, Tim Brunelle, Tim Buesing, Tim Connor, Tim Jackson, Tim Longhurst, Tim Mannveille, Tim Tyler, Timothy Johnson, Tinu Abayomi-Paul, Toby Bloomberg, Todd Andrlik, Troy Rutter, Troy Worman, Uwe Hook, Valeria Maltoni, Vandana Ahuja, Vanessa DiMauro, Veronique Rabuteau, Wayne Buckhanan, William Azaroff, Yves Van Landeghem

I’ve shamelessly lifted almost this entire post from the wonderful blog of 1 Good Reason But that’s OK now because I’ve given attribution, right? ;-}

Tanks for reading,

Here is a Robert Brown article abstract exploring the science of scent and human behavior.

Forty-eight male undergraduates participated in an experiment designed to investigate the effects of pleasant scents on physical aggression. Subjects were first angered or not angered by a male or female confederate, and then provided with an opportunity to aggress against this person. One third aggressed in the presence of a very pleasant scent (perfume), a second third aggressed in the presence of a mildly pleasant scent (pine-scented aerosol). The remaining subjects aggressed in the absence of any pleasant aroma. Results indicated that when the victim was male, aggression was enhanced by the presence of perfume if subjects had been angered, but reduced by this scent d they had not been provoked, in contrast, when the victim was female, aggression was enhanced by the presence of perfume regardless of whether subjects had previously been angered. The pine-scented aerosol failed to exert any significant effects upon subjects’ behavior. These findings were interpreted as consistent with the suggestion that the impact of pleasant scents on social behavior may stem from several different mediating mechanisms, including heightened arousal and shifts in social perception.

Jimmy Durante, image from flikr

How are emotion and behavior impacted by scent?

How does context impact reaction to scent?

Some psychologists (Rachel Herz, Trygg Engen) have proposed that response to specific odors is learned rather than innate. For example, Herz cites a woman who had and extremely adverse reaction to the smell of roses because she first smelled them at her mother’s funeral.

There are also cultural variances to the response to certain scents. In the United States the majority of people react positively to the aroma of wintergreen. Conversely, older British citizens find it unpleasant due to its association with a specific analgesic rub popular during World War II.

Other than biological reasons (nasal irritants) that some people don’t like certain scents, Herz and Engen believe that response to different scents is a learned behavior.

Despite our belief that sight and hearing are the two most important senses to our survival, from an evolutionary perspective smell is one of the most important senses. To recognize food or to detect poison, smell is the sense that almost all other mammals use. Because of this basic feature yet vital role, smell is one of the oldest parts of our brain.

Engen maintains that smell serves as a kind of “index keys” to quickly retrieve certain memories in our brain. This primitive yet essential role is probably why smells trigger memory more than does seeing or hearing.

It is said that people can identify about 10,000 different smells (Harvard, 1999). These rang from flowers to fried chicken. But when scientists look closely at the nose, that proclamation doesn’t make sense.
Harvard Medical School discovered that mice have approximately 1,000 different sensors in their noses. Humans are thought to have about the same number. This begs the question, how can a human identify 10,000 different smells with 1,000 sensors?

Inside the top of your nose is a small patch of tissue crowded with millions of nerve cells. Each nerve cell contains one type of the 1,000 different sensors. Each receptor recognizes multiple odorants, and a single odorant can be recognized by multiple receptors. These are the molecules that humans and other animals perceive as smells. So the different combinations of receptors can identify 10,000 odors. The same way the letters in the alphabet can be rearranged to form different words.

Odor on the Brain
A small shift in the concentration or make up of the molecules can change the perception of an odor from pleasant to disgusting. These changes can quickly move a reaction from fear and loathing to the realms of sex and pleasure.

Memory of Smell
Memories associated with a specific fragrance can trigger changes of behavior. The smell of rotten food sparks a revulsion response. The aroma of a roasting turkey brings back childhood recollections of holidays and family.

The Smell of Taste
Humans may have an ability to sense chemical signals from each other without being aware of it. Other animals have this second system which enables them to detect sexual and social information via substances known as pheromones. A whiff of a pheromone from a male rat in its territory may spur another male to a quick attack. Such signals exchanged between males and females incite mating.

Animals detect pheromones via a special organ located in the septum that divides the nose. However, pigs recognize at least one pheromone by using the same sensors in the top of the nose that humans use to smell food. This leads researchers to speculate that humans may have the ability to detect pheromones and these chemicals, in turn, influence their behavior.
No one has ever isolated and identified a human pheromone. So, don’t rush out and buy a case of the latest male cologne based on the commercial which implies it will attract a pride of young, fertile females; at least not human females.

Elemental Value Added Truth: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” Marcellus (Character). Hamlet, Act I, Scene 4, William Shakespeare.

In mid-January, Drew McLellan and Gavin Heaton announced they were ready to take on the sequel to the incredibly successful Age of Conversation.They put out an author call and in a new twist, asked everyone (authors and readers) to vote on the theme of this year’s book.

As I was new to web publishing I missed out on the first edition but I wasn’t going to let that happen again. So, I sent a proposal to Drew and Gavin and they agreed to include some of my work in the new book.

The votes are tallied and we’re off to the races!  The winning theme was “Why don’t they get it?”  To add dimension to the book, they’ve added a new layer — topics.  So each author was asked to select one of eight topics that falls under the “why don’t people get it?” theme.  They will share those with everyone down the road.  In the meantime, while they are getting everyone set on their specific writing assignment…

They thought it was time to introduce the 275 (yes…275!) authors of Age of Conversation: Why Don’t People Get It?

Adam Crowe, Adrian Ho, Aki Spicer, Alex Henault, Amy Jussel, Andrew Odom, Andy Nulman, Andy Sernovitz, Andy Whitlock, Angela Maiers, Ann Handley, Anna Farmery, Armando Alves, Arun Rajagopal, Asi Sharabi, Becky Carroll, Becky McCray, Bernie Scheffler, Bill Gammell, Bob Carlton, Bob LeDrew, Brad Shorr, Bradley Spitzer, Brandon Murphy, Branislav Peric, Brent Dixon, Brett Macfarlane, Brian Reich, C.C. Chapman, Cam Beck, Casper Willer, Cathleen Rittereiser, Cathryn Hrudicka, Cedric Giorgi, Charles Sipe, Chris Kieff, Chris Cree, Chris Wilson, Christina Kerley (CK), C.B. Whittemore, Clay Parker Jones, Chris Brown, Colin McKay, Connie Bensen, Connie Reece, Cord Silverstein, Corentin Monot, Craig Wilson, Daniel Honigman, Dan Goldstein, Dan Schawbel, Dana VanDen Heuvel, Dan Sitter, Daria Radota Rasmussen, Darren Herman, Darryl Patterson, Dave Davison, Dave Origano, David Armano, David Bausola, David Berkowitz, David Brazeal, David Koopmans, David Meerman Scott, David Petherick, David Reich, David Weinfeld, David Zinger, Deanna Gernert, Deborah Brown, Dennis Price, Derrick Kwa, Dino Demopoulos, Doug Haslam, Doug Meacham, Doug Mitchell, Douglas Hanna, Douglas Karr, Drew McLellan, Duane Brown, Dustin Jacobsen, Dylan Viner, Ed Brenegar, Ed Cotton, Efrain Mendicuti, Ellen Weber, Emily Reed, Eric Peterson, Eric Nehrlich, Ernie Mosteller, Faris Yakob, Fernanda Romano, Francis Anderson, G. Kofi Annan, Gareth Kay, Gary Cohen, Gaurav Mishra, Gavin Heaton, Geert Desager, George Jenkins, G.L. Hoffman, Gianandrea Facchini, Gordon Whitehead, Graham Hill, Greg Verdino, Gretel Going & Kathryn Fleming, Hillel Cooperman, Hugh Weber, J. Erik Potter, J.C. Hutchins, James Gordon-Macintosh, Jamey Shiels, Jasmin Tragas, Jason Oke, Jay Ehret, Jeanne Dininni, Jeff De Cagna, Jeff Gwynne, Jeff Noble, Jeff Wallace, Jennifer Warwick, Jenny Meade, Jeremy Fuksa, Jeremy Heilpern, Jeremy Middleton, Jeroen Verkroost, Jessica Hagy, Joanna Young, Joe Pulizzi, Joe Talbott, John Herrington, John Jantsch, John Moore, John Rosen, John Todor, Jon Burg, Jon Swanson, Jonathan Trenn, Jordan Behan, Julie Fleischer, Justin Flowers, Justin Foster, Karl Turley, Kate Trgovac, Katie Chatfield, Katie Konrath, Kenny Lauer, Keri Willenborg, Kevin Jessop, Kris Hoet, Krishna De, Kristin Gorski, Laura Fitton, Laurence Helene Borei, Lewis Green, Lois Kelly, Lori Magno, Louise Barnes-Johnston, Louise Mangan, Louise Manning, Luc Debaisieux, Marcus Brown, Mario Vellandi, Mark Blair, Mark Earls, Mark Goren, Mark Hancock, Mark Lewis, Mark McGuinness, Mark McSpadden, Matt Dickman, Matt J. McDonald, Matt Moore, Michael Hawkins, Michael Karnjanaprakorn, Michelle Lamar, Mike Arauz, Mike McAllen, Mike Sansone, Mitch Joel, Monica Wright, Nathan Gilliatt, Nathan Snell, Neil Perkin, Nettie Hartsock, Nick Rice, Oleksandr Skorokhod, Ozgur Alaz, Paul Chaney, Paul Hebert, Paul Isakson, Paul Marobella, Paul McEnany, Paul Tedesco, Paul Williams, Pet Campbell, Pete Deutschman, Peter Corbett, Phil Gerbyshak, Phil Lewis, Phil Soden, Piet Wulleman, Rachel Steiner, Sreeraj Menon, Reginald Adkins, Richard Huntington, Rishi Desai, R.J. Northam, Rob Mortimer, Robert Hruzek, Roberta Rosenberg, Robyn McMaster, Roger von Oech, Rohit Bhargava, Ron Shevlin, Ryan Barrett, Ryan Karpeles, Ryan Rasmussen, Sam Huleatt, Sandy Renshaw, Scott Goodson, Scott Monty, Scott Townsend, Scott White, Sean Howard, Sean Scott, Seni Thomas, Seth Gaffney, Shama Hyder, Sheila Scarborough, Sheryl Steadman, Simon Payn, Sonia Simone, Spike Jones, Stanley Johnson, Stephen Collins, Stephen Cribbett, Stephen Landau, Stephen Smith, Steve Bannister, Steve Hardy, Steve Portigal, Steve Roesler, Steven Verbruggen, Steve Woodruff, Sue Edworthy, Susan Bird, Susan Gunelius, Susan Heywood, Tammy Lenski, Terrell Meek, Thomas Clifford, Thomas Knoll, Tiffany Kenyon, Tim Brunelle, Tim Buesing, Tim Connor, Tim Jackson, Tim Longhurst, Tim Mannveille, Tim Tyler, Timothy Johnson, Tinu Abayomi-Paul, Toby Bloomberg, Todd Andrlik, Troy Rutter, Troy Worman, Uwe Hook, Valeria Maltoni, Vandana Ahuja, Vanessa DiMauro, Veronique Rabuteau, Wayne Buckhanan, William Azaroff, Yves Van Landeghem

Behold….the authors of Age of Conversation: Why Don’t People Get It?

They will keep us up-to-date on the book’s progress as they move from defining the theme to the actual writing/editing of the book’s contents.  In the meantime…join me in cheering for and thanking Drew, Gavin and these fantastic authors, marketing professionals and business bloggers as they take on this collaborative challenge.

Drew and Gavin are thrilled at both the high percentage of returning authors and the terrific additions to the ‘08 edition.  They offer many, many thanks to all  those who shared their insights and talents.

According to psychologist Samuel Gosling, most people’s musical tastes fall in to four categories. Those categories, in turn, indicate the personality of the individuals. There is even an association with physical athleticism and prowess, verbal ability and political affiliation.

The groupings are “intense and rebellious,” “upbeat and conventional,” “reflective and complex,” and “energetic and rhythmic.”

People who listen to “reflective and complex” music are open to new experiences, have high verbal ability, percieve themselves as intelligently and are politically liberal.

People who listen to “upbeat and conventional” music have high extraversion, percieve themselves a physically attractive, athletic and are politically conservative.

The impact of sound and tempo on behavior is clearly demonstrated in this study.

What do you think?

Elemental Value AddedTruth: “Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day. Psalms 81:3

Psychologist (and advertisers) have studied the impact of color on human behavior for many years. Although most research fails to identify a universal psychological reaction to a particular color, there are general commonalities and even a field of color psychologists which refer to themselves as color consultants.

In any case, the following are the basic connotations associated with specific colors.

Gray
elegance, humility, respect, reverence, stability, subtlety, wisdom, neutrality, formality,innocence, peace, cleanliness, simplicity, coldness, clinicism

Black
power, sophistication, formality, mystery, style, fear, anger, anonymity

Red
passion, strength, energy, fire, passion, speed, heat

Blue
unity, harmony, calmness, tranquility

Green
nature, spring, fertility, youth, environment, vigor, generosity

Yellow
joy, happiness, idealism, optimism, wealth, hope

Purple
sensuality, spirituality, creativity, ceremony, royalty, arrogance

Orange
energy, balance, playfulness, aggression, arrogance, gaudiness

Brown
calm, rusticism, stability, tradition,

Pink
gratitude, admiration, appreciation, sympathy, femininity

This is only a quick look at the general responses to color based on research and word association studies. How well do your reactions match these norms?

Elemental Value Added Truth: “Mere colour, unspoiled by meaning, and unallied with definite form, can speak to the soul in a thousand different ways.” - Oscar Wilde

Where did the notion come from that males process information and work the same as females?

If we trace our history back we see that males have learned and functioned more successfully under a certain set of circumstances.

Lets look at how males were taught in the past…

In prehistoric times of nomadic hunters boys were taught by males.

In the first civilizations men taught boys to hunt, build tools and battle.

In Greek and Roman times elders taught boys to engage in debate for the good of the polis.

In medieval times masters taught apprentices.

In one room schools instruction was built around the harvest of the agrarian society.

The key players in instruction were: mothers, fathers, older siblings, mentors, extended,family
and community members.

Then a major paradigm shift occurred. Along about the time of the industrial revolution we decided to start produce a new product, students!

We decided, in the spirit of efficiency, that the most effective method of education was the assembly line. So, we filed the children into rows and began to assemble their learning. The was a lot of talk and not much movement.

We learned something in the process. Boys didn’t learn as fast when we use language as our main instructional tool as girls. So, we gave them even more language based instruction and even less movement.

Hmmm, I wonder why that isn’t working.

The bottom line is, we can’t treat boys as defective girls who just need more of what we are doing to help them succeed. They don’t need something more. They need something else.

If you are a male who has difficulty learning efficiently with nothing but lecture based instruction, stand up for yourself. If you have a male child who is being treated like a female with a defective processor, for heavens sake, stand up for him.

Some statistics indicate the divorce rate is at about 50% (Census Bureaus, 2003).

Other studies state between 45 and 60% of men and women have engaged in extramarital sex (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002).

So, we can agree that it is not an uncommon incident.

Now, my views here on Elemental Truths are pretty clear on this topic. I don’t think it is a casual thing. I strongly feel it is a betrayal of trust in every sense of the word. It is a true sin on your heart.

I believe if you decide to make a lifelong commitment to another person, you are bound to honor that commitment.

That being said, the statistics indicate a different picture.

This article is written to the audience of those who have discovered their spouse has been unfaithful. The next article in the series will address issues concerning the spouse who has strayed and the final will examine the impact on the children.

There are some serious decisions you must make when you discover your mate has been unfaithful.

• Will you ever be able to forgive them?
• Will you ever be able to trust them, again?
• How strong are the bonds of your commitment?
• Do you want to rebuild?

It may surprise you to learn that most affairs do not end a marriage. But, they do make it a lot worse.

Still, after an affair ends a couple has a brief time window in which to build a new rapport. Sometimes the relationships will come through even stronger than before the infidelity.

In any case, this is not the time to make major life decisions. Take some time to do some reflection about your relationship. Identify all the areas (other than infidelity) that need work. Recognize the reality of your relationship and make a plan to address them.

There is a school of thought that will tell you that what ever your feeling right now isn’t “wrong.” I tend to disagree. If your “feeling” is you should take a rash action of violence, you’d have to consider that a result of the chemical reactions coursing through your body at this time of crisis and identify that as “wrong.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t natural. Feelings are natural. My desire to attack someone who has insulted my spouse is natural. It is also wrong.

Remember this is a time of high stress and you must make a conscious choice to take care of yourself. Bad stress can make you sick, just as easily as eustress (good stress) can have a positive impact. Be aware of your nutrition. Require yourself to seek adequate exercise. Feel empowered to seek counsel. There are many proactive steps you can take.

It is imperative that you insist on your mate and yourself are tested for AIDS/HIV and STD’s. You must not feel guilty for this insistence. It was not your choice to expose your family to potentially life threatening disease.

Forgiveness is a core ingredient for relationship recovery. Under these circumstances forgiveness is an additional commitment more than it is an emotion. However, repeatedly forgiving infidelity is enabling further incidence of infidelity and deviant character development.

Do everything you can to seek out good counsel. That does not mean you must confine yourself to secular counselors. Secular counselors are much more likely to recommend divorce. If your goal is to rebuild your marriage you may be better served by a faith based counselor. Most faith based counselors are trained to do whatever they can to salvage the marriage and will rarely suggest divorce.

If you must choose to divorce, remember it is not the unpardonable sin.