Questões Militares Comentadas para espcex

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.

    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”  

    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”

    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

Native English speakers are the world’s worst communicators

    It was just one word in one email, but it caused huge financial losses for a multinational company. The message, written in English, was sent by a native speaker to a colleague for whom English was a second language. Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.

    Months later, senior management investigated why the project had failed, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. “It all traced back to this one word,” says Chia Suan Chong, a UK-based communications skills and intercultural trainer, who didn’t reveal the tricky word because it is highly industry-specific and possibly identifiable. “Things spiralled out of control because both parties were thinking the opposite.”  

    When such misunderstandings happen, it’s usually the native speakers who are to blame. Ironically, they are worse at delivering their message than people who speak English as a second or third language, according to Chong. “A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language.”

    The non-native speakers, it turns out, speak more purposefully and carefully, trying to communicate efficiently with limited, simple language, typical of someone speaking a second or third language. Anglophones, on the other hand, often talk too fast for others to follow, and use jokes, slang, abbreviations and references specific to their own culture, says Chong. “The native English speaker is the only one who might not feel the need to adapt to the others,” she adds.

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

OXFAM AMERICA

    Oxfam stands for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. It was started in Oxford, England in 1942 in response to the European famine-related issues resulting from the Second World War. Ten other countries worldwide, including the United States and Australia, have started chapters of Oxfam. They make up what is known as Oxfam International.

    Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice through long-term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a privately funded organization, we can speak with conviction and integrity as we challenge the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from gaining the skills, resources, and power to become self-sufficient.

    Oxfam implements various global projects that target areas particularly affected by hunger. The projects focus on developing self-sufficiency of the communities in which they are based, as opposed to merely providing relief in the form of food aid. Oxfam’s projects operate on the communal level, and are developed by evaluating issues causing poverty and hunger in the community and subsequently the possible infrastructure that could end hunger and foster the attainment of self-sufficiency. Examples of projects in which Oxfam America has been or is involved range from a women’s literacy program in India to providing microloans and agriculture education programs for small-scale organic farmers in California.

Adapted from http://students.brown.edu/Hourglass_Cafe/Pages/about.htm

OXFAM AMERICA

    Oxfam stands for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. It was started in Oxford, England in 1942 in response to the European famine-related issues resulting from the Second World War. Ten other countries worldwide, including the United States and Australia, have started chapters of Oxfam. They make up what is known as Oxfam International.

    Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social injustice through long-term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a privately funded organization, we can speak with conviction and integrity as we challenge the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from gaining the skills, resources, and power to become self-sufficient.

    Oxfam implements various global projects that target areas particularly affected by hunger. The projects focus on developing self-sufficiency of the communities in which they are based, as opposed to merely providing relief in the form of food aid. Oxfam’s projects operate on the communal level, and are developed by evaluating issues causing poverty and hunger in the community and subsequently the possible infrastructure that could end hunger and foster the attainment of self-sufficiency. Examples of projects in which Oxfam America has been or is involved range from a women’s literacy program in India to providing microloans and agriculture education programs for small-scale organic farmers in California.

Adapted from http://students.brown.edu/Hourglass_Cafe/Pages/about.htm

Are any foods safe to eat anymore? The fears and the facts 48 49 50

    Food was once seen as a source of sustenance and pleasure. Today, the dinner table can instead begin to feel like a minefield. Is bacon really a risk factor of cancer? Will coffee or eggs give you a heart attack? Does wheat contribute to Alzheimer’s disease? Will dairy products clog up your arteries? Worse still, the advice changes continually. As TV-cook Nigella Lawson recently put it: “You can guarantee that what people think will be good for you this year, they won’t next year.”

    This may be somewhat inevitable: evidence-based health advice should be constantly updated as new studies explore the nuances of what we eat and the effects the meals have on our bodies. But when the media (and ill-informed health gurus) exaggerate the results of a study without providing the context, it can lead to unnecessary fears that may, ironically, push you towards less healthy choices.

    The good news is that “next year” you may be pleased to learn that many of your favourite foods are not the ticking time bomb you have been led to believe...

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151029-are-any-foods-safe-to-eat-anymore-heres-the-truth

Are any foods safe to eat anymore? The fears and the facts 48 49 50

    Food was once seen as a source of sustenance and pleasure. Today, the dinner table can instead begin to feel like a minefield. Is bacon really a risk factor of cancer? Will coffee or eggs give you a heart attack? Does wheat contribute to Alzheimer’s disease? Will dairy products clog up your arteries? Worse still, the advice changes continually. As TV-cook Nigella Lawson recently put it: “You can guarantee that what people think will be good for you this year, they won’t next year.”

    This may be somewhat inevitable: evidence-based health advice should be constantly updated as new studies explore the nuances of what we eat and the effects the meals have on our bodies. But when the media (and ill-informed health gurus) exaggerate the results of a study without providing the context, it can lead to unnecessary fears that may, ironically, push you towards less healthy choices.

    The good news is that “next year” you may be pleased to learn that many of your favourite foods are not the ticking time bomb you have been led to believe...

Adapted from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151029-are-any-foods-safe-to-eat-anymore-heres-the-truth