Accreditation does not guarantee that you will be satisfied with a particular college or degree program. (26) , it does mean that an independent, trustworthy source has checked that standards are being met and that your graduation (27) in greater esteem by future employers, higher education providers and industry peers. Accreditation is a tool usable for (28) to make an accurate evaluation of their options. It also rewards and publicly acknowledges those institutions that (29) a benchmark in their education provision. It rewards the institution and the communities (30) they are based and retains a focus on achievement.
Accreditation does not guarantee that you will be satisfied with a particular college or degree program. (26) , it does mean that an independent, trustworthy source has checked that standards are being met and that your graduation (27) in greater esteem by future employers, higher education providers and industry peers. Accreditation is a tool usable for (28) to make an accurate evaluation of their options. It also rewards and publicly acknowledges those institutions that (29) a benchmark in their education provision. It rewards the institution and the communities (30) they are based and retains a focus on achievement.
Accreditation does not guarantee that you will be satisfied with a particular college or degree program. (26) , it does mean that an independent, trustworthy source has checked that standards are being met and that your graduation (27) in greater esteem by future employers, higher education providers and industry peers. Accreditation is a tool usable for (28) to make an accurate evaluation of their options. It also rewards and publicly acknowledges those institutions that (29) a benchmark in their education provision. It rewards the institution and the communities (30) they are based and retains a focus on achievement.
Accreditation does not guarantee that you will be satisfied with a particular college or degree program. (26) , it does mean that an independent, trustworthy source has checked that standards are being met and that your graduation (27) in greater esteem by future employers, higher education providers and industry peers. Accreditation is a tool usable for (28) to make an accurate evaluation of their options. It also rewards and publicly acknowledges those institutions that (29) a benchmark in their education provision. It rewards the institution and the communities (30) they are based and retains a focus on achievement.
Accreditation does not guarantee that you will be satisfied with a particular college or degree program. (26) , it does mean that an independent, trustworthy source has checked that standards are being met and that your graduation (27) in greater esteem by future employers, higher education providers and industry peers. Accreditation is a tool usable for (28) to make an accurate evaluation of their options. It also rewards and publicly acknowledges those institutions that (29) a benchmark in their education provision. It rewards the institution and the communities (30) they are based and retains a focus on achievement.
Among all the sciences, psychology is perhaps the most (31) to the general public, and the most (32) to misconceptions. Even though its language and ideas have (33) everyday culture, most people have only a hazy idea of what the subject is about, and what psychologists actually do. For some, psychology conjures up images of people in white coats, either staffing an institution for mental disorders or (34) laboratory experiments on rats. Others may imagine a man with a middle-European accent psychoanalyzing a patient on a couch or, if film scripts are to be believed, plotting to exercise some form of (35) control.
Among all the sciences, psychology is perhaps the most (31) to the general public, and the most (32) to misconceptions. Even though its language and ideas have (33) everyday culture, most people have only a hazy idea of what the subject is about, and what psychologists actually do. For some, psychology conjures up images of people in white coats, either staffing an institution for mental disorders or (34) laboratory experiments on rats. Others may imagine a man with a middle-European accent psychoanalyzing a patient on a couch or, if film scripts are to be believed, plotting to exercise some form of (35) control.
Among all the sciences, psychology is perhaps the most (31) to the general public, and the most (32) to misconceptions. Even though its language and ideas have (33) everyday culture, most people have only a hazy idea of what the subject is about, and what psychologists actually do. For some, psychology conjures up images of people in white coats, either staffing an institution for mental disorders or (34) laboratory experiments on rats. Others may imagine a man with a middle-European accent psychoanalyzing a patient on a couch or, if film scripts are to be believed, plotting to exercise some form of (35) control.
Among all the sciences, psychology is perhaps the most (31) to the general public, and the most (32) to misconceptions. Even though its language and ideas have (33) everyday culture, most people have only a hazy idea of what the subject is about, and what psychologists actually do. For some, psychology conjures up images of people in white coats, either staffing an institution for mental disorders or (34) laboratory experiments on rats. Others may imagine a man with a middle-European accent psychoanalyzing a patient on a couch or, if film scripts are to be believed, plotting to exercise some form of (35) control.
Among all the sciences, psychology is perhaps the most (31) to the general public, and the most (32) to misconceptions. Even though its language and ideas have (33) everyday culture, most people have only a hazy idea of what the subject is about, and what psychologists actually do. For some, psychology conjures up images of people in white coats, either staffing an institution for mental disorders or (34) laboratory experiments on rats. Others may imagine a man with a middle-European accent psychoanalyzing a patient on a couch or, if film scripts are to be believed, plotting to exercise some form of (35) control.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls.
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls.
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls.
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls.
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
There’s a fun game I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion”. The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue” — only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make an excellent president”. Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of those people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!” In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias”. This bias often manifests itself when we see in politics or polls.
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it”, and is clearly not as intelligent as “us”. But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb”.
可觀看題目詳解,並提供模擬測驗!(免費會員無法觀看研究所試題解答)