Andrew went to hear a speech by a community leader he very much admired. he took a notebook and pen and, during the speech, wrote down everything he could from the speech. when he got home later, he reviewed his notes and could barely make sense out of them. what went wrong? a. andrew should have simply listened to the speech rather than taking notes. b.andrew should have taken notes by making a full-sentence outline of the speech. c.andrew should have paid more attention to the speaker’s delivery rather than focusing on the words of the speech. d.andrew should have resisted distractions and concentrated more effectively on the speech. e.andrew should have made a key-word outline of the speech instead of trying to write down everything

The best answer to the question: Andrew went to hear a speech by a community leader he very much admired. He took a notebook and pen and, during the speech, wrote down everything he could from the speech. When he got home later, he reviewed his notes and could barely make sense out of them. What went wrong?, would be, E: Andrew should have made a key-word outline of the speech instead of trying to write down everything.

Explanation:

Even at the best of times, the human brain, and human capacity to remain focused on what is being said, is limited. This is why, in public speaking, a speaker is taught to use so many techniques to ensure maximum listening capacity from an audience and retention. In the case of listeners, a good listener needs also to remember this limitation, so they can use the best methods to ensure retention, and appropriate comprehension and memory. In the case of Andrew, given that speeches tend to be wordy, and lengthy, it is practically impossible to try to write and listen at the same time, without losing at least something. Very few people are even half-accomplished in multitasking. Which is why outlining is such a great technique, and learning to jot down only key words, and data, that will later help memory come back. If Andrew had done that, he would have also found that his brain´s capacity for retention when correctly paying attention, is much greater than we believe, and it can be further improved when learning to use key words and clues, that later on help memory return. This is why the answer is E.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.