verbal中等

She found that mothers who used devices during the exercise started 20 percent fewer verbal and 39 percent fewer nonverbal interactions with their children.

她发现，在练习中使用电子设备的母亲与孩子发起的言语互动少了20%，非言语互动少了39%。

“Parents don’t have to be exquisitely present at all times, but there needs to be a balance and parents need to be responsive and sensitive to a child’s verbal or nonverbal expressions of an emotional need,” says Radesky.

“父母不必时时刻刻都全身心陪伴，但需要有一种平衡，父母需要对孩子表达情感需求的言语或非言语表现作出回应并保持敏感，”拉德斯基说。

slows down babies’ verbal development.

减缓婴儿的语言发展。

verbal expressions are unnecessary for emotional exchange.

言语表达对情感交流来说是不必要的。

These tools can help you win every argument — not in the unhelpful sense of beating your opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people, learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments — from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect and understanding — then we change the very nature of what it means to “win” an argument.

这些方法可以帮助你赢得每一场争论——不是在击败对手这种无益的意义上，而是在更好的意义上：了解使人们产生分歧的问题，了解他们为什么与我们意见不同，并学会与他们交谈和合作。如果我们重新调整对争论的看法——从口头争斗或网球比赛转变为一种理性的交流，通过这种交流我们都能获得相互尊重和理解——那么我们就改变了“赢得”争论的本质含义。

Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like physical fights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions — like, say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments, especially about politics and religion.

如果争论就是争斗——我们常常这样看待争论——那么卡耐基就是对的。和肢体冲突一样，口头争斗也会让双方都头破血流。即使你赢了，最终也不会更好。即便争论只是竞赛——比如说网球比赛——你的前景也几乎同样黯淡。对手们两两对阵，来回击球，直到所有参赛者中产生一个胜者。其他人都是输家。正是这种想法让那么多人尽量避免争论，尤其是关于政治和宗教的争论。