I’m working on a history writing question and need an explanation to help me study.
Listen to the On the Media podcast episode entitled, “ʻBusted’ #3: Rags to Riches” (you can find this anywhere you download or stream podcasts, or here:https://www.wnyc.org/story/busted-3-rags-riches/Write a 200-400 word response.write your response to ONE of the following questions:At one point, host Brook Gladstone asks Natasha Boyer, “Do you feel poor?” This leads to a fascinating exchange about whether life is fair. Do you agree with Boyer?Over the final third of the podcast (about 12 minutes), Gladstone summarizes and connects the work of a series of economists and other figures. Which of these do you find most interesting and why?Gladstone concludes, “So I can say, ‘I’m really self-made.’ But I know I’m not.” Reflect on this in relation to your own experiences. Do you identify with Gladstone’s observation? Why or why not?How does this podcast connect to the material from the textbook?Requirements: 200-400 words
HIS 122 Molloy College The Self Made Fallacy & USA Since Reconstruction Discussion
REDACCIÓN 3All redacciones or compositions must be double-spaced, Times New Roman, 12 pt font, and be one (1) page long, please.TOPIC: House, home, daily routine, favorite seasonWrite about your dream house, your daily routine, and your favoriteweather/season. What is your dream house? How many rooms, restrooms,levels, garage, yard, land, location, etc. Write as though you already live in thathouse. What is your daily routine (when you wake up, when you get up, getdressed, get dressed, shower/bathe, teeth, hair, make-up, breakfast, when youleave for work/school, etc.)? Describe what your typical day is like. You don’thave to do the entire week, just choose one day.Next, write about your favorite season. Why is it your favorite season? Whatdo you do? Compare seasons and what makes your favorite season the same ordifferent from other seasons (is it the same, is it different, is it better or worse?).Choose a single day during your favorite season and describe what you aredoing that day (present progressive). Is what you are doing this day differentthan what you would do any other day in your favorite season? Why or whynot?CONCLUSION: Write a few sentences to conclude the essay.OJO: Before turning in your composition, check:• the verbs hacer, oír, poner, salir, traer, ver• reflexive verbs• use of the present progressive• your spelling, including accent marks.• your choice and conjugation of the verbs ser vs estar• comparisons• sentences that can be joined with y, pero, sin embargo (however), or también.
Spanish 1 House Home Daily Routine & Favorite Season Essay
Major studies of conformity
Major studies of conformity. This essay will describe and evaluate several major studies of conformity. Conformity has been defined in number of ways. Crutchfield (1955), defined conformity as “yielding to group pressure”. Mann 1969 agrees with Crutchfield, however Mann (1969), argues that it may take different forms and be based on motives other than group pressure. (Gross p 479) Conformity is a change in belief or behaviour in response to real or imagined group pressure where there is no direct request to comply with the rest of the group norm” Zimbardo and Leippe (1991). A lot of research has been done to try and understand the situations individuals need to be in to conform and the factors affecting conformity. However there are various cultural and methodological considerations that affect the understanding of conformity research. The first study would be Jenness in 1932. Jenness was the first person to study conformity. Jenness asked students to estimate the number of beans in a bottle. Taking individuals estimates first then placed the individuals into groups and asked them to discuss their estimates. Once the findings had been calculated he found that the students in particular groups would conform to a group average. According to Jenness in a situation where the answer was unknown they listened to their peers and would in his view conform. His research was criticised by Sherif (1935) because the experiment was not taken out in ecologically valid circumstances. The students were not in surroundings that were familiar to them thus behaving differently. Critics have argued that the students may have conformed in order to make the results easier for the psychologist. This demonstrates informational social influence and is explained in a classic study by Sheriff. Methodologically the first major problem encountered when testing conformity was the ambiguity of the situations the participants were placed in. This was highlighted by Mustafer Sherif (1935) when he used the ‘auto-kinetic effect’ to test conformity. The Auto-kinetic effect is a perceptual illusion where participants perceive light moving when in fact it is stationary. Participants were placed in a darkened room in which they could see a light that was stationary. They were asked to record how far the light moved and on their own they settled on individual estimates however when the participants were put in a room together with other participants they were encouraged to shout out their estimates. Sherif found that they started with different answers but then all came to agree on the same answer. Then after they split up the group into individuals again Sherif found that they gave the answer they had settled on with the group. In Sherif’s research into conformity (1935), the aim was to see if people conform to a group norm. The results of the test showed that individual responses differed to those from the group response. The post-experimental interviews said that the participants denied being influenced, they struggled to get the correct answers, and they never actually felt part of the group. The conclusions drawn from this said that the participants conformed towards the group norm because they were uncertain about their own individual responses. Sherif then argued that his results showed conformity however there was a problem with the methodology. This conformity research was criticised to be artificial and lacking ecological validity. Also, because the task was thought to be ambiguous and that there were no real answers, the participants were more likely to conform. As the answer was very ambiguous and there wasn’t an obvious answer it was argued that participants are more likely to conform as they are never completely certain of their answer. This methodology therefore affects Sherif’s interpretation of conformity as it is not very reliable Solomon Asch (1951) was the psychologist that challenged Sherif’s methodological and in 1951 he created ‘The Asch Paradigm’ where he tested conformity rates to very unambiguous situations. In his experiment there was one participant and seven to nine other confederates who knew about the experiment. The group was asked to identify lengths of vertical lines and match up a given vertical line to one of three in another display. Each confederate gave their answer and the participant sat in the next-to-last seat. On some questions all the confederates would give the wrong answer and Asch observed the conformity rate of the participant agreeing with the wrong answer even though the answer was very obvious. Asch found that 32% of the trials, the naive subject conformed to answer given by the rest of the group, and 72% of naive subjects conformed at least once. 13 out of 50 naive participants never conformed. When he interviewed the naive participants afterward, he found that conformity existed on three levels: distortion of judgement, distortion of perception and distortion of action. Those who experienced distortion of judgement conformed because they trusted the group’s judgement over their own. Those that experienced distortion of action knew that they were right, but changed conformed to avoid ridicule from the rest of the group. Finally, those who experienced distortion of perception actually believed that they saw the group’s choice as matching the line on the card. The aim of the experiment was still to see if people would conform towards the group norm. The results showed that the individuals conformed to the group norm, even if the answers were wrong. The naive participant explained their reasons for conforming to be because they didn’t want to spoil the experiment, look stupid, their eyes must have been deceiving them, and because they felt that the group was probably right. This experiment also told us that the influence from three or more stooges gave more of a reason to conform than if there was one stooge. The conclusions for this study were that the people conformed for public compliance rather than public acceptance. Also it seemed like people with low self esteem were more likely to conform. The methodology in this experiment was a lot more accurate then Sherif’s experiment as the answers are very unambiguous and if the participants were on their own or first then they would almost certainly have given the right answer. The results from this experiment are therefore can be a better explanation of conformity than Sherif; however there are other methodological problems which make this experiment fairly inaccurate in the interpretation of conformity. However there are also ethical issues about the experiment. The main criticisms for this experiment was that it was artificial, time-consuming, time-dependant and unethical. The experiment lacks ecological validity due to a lack of both experimental and mundane realism. It lacks experimental realism as some participants worked out what the experiment was or at least thought the experimenter wanted them to answer the same as the others and therefore the conformity rates could be unreliable. It also lacks mundane realism as the situation does not reflect a real life situation and therefore people may act differently in real life and maybe the conformity rate would be lower. Crutchfield (1954) criticized Asch that the type of experiment undertaken by Asch is very time consuming, as only one person can be tested at a time. Richard Crutchfield decided to change the experimental method so that several people, usually five, could be tested simultaneously. The same kind of problem as Asch used, was used. Each participant sat in a booth with an array of lights and switches in front of them. They were told to give their answers and each were told that they were last to guess and the others guesses were indicated by the lights on the panel. However each participant was actually given the same display, which on about half the trials was actually incorrect. Crutchfield aimed to find out whether people conformed to unambiguous tasks when the pressure from others was more imagined than real. Crutchfield found that 37% conformed all of the time but 46% some of the time. The results found were really similar to Asch’s but had a lower conformity rate. This concluded that there is conformity to imagined pressure. The experiment was criticised to have specific people used that were perhaps more conforming. Also it lacked external validity. The time the experiment was done in (1950’s) was generally a more conforming time, so that could have been one of the reasons why the people conformed more. This experiment was also thought to be unethical as the participant were lied to and could have been embarrassed. Stanley Milgram (1963) conducted an experiment on obedience that highlighted the persuasive power of authority in social psychology for the first time. His experiment exceeded all expectation and led to greater awareness of authority and how much power it credited the perpetrator of it. Participants were made to give increasing electric shocks to someone (who was an actor pretending to be receiving the shocks through wires) when the person gave the wrong answer to a question. Many of the participants continued to the highest voltage (450V). There were many reasons why participants obeyed, such as the fact that the experiment was in a professional setting (Yale University). The experimenter was an authority figure and so was trusted; and the subjects were told that anything that went wrong would not be their responsibility. It was also because the participants could not see the ‘victim’ which made it seem less real to them or it could have been because the participant had taken on a role so they felt that they were someone else. Milgrams work has been criticised both on ethical and methodological grounds. Baumrind (1964) believed that Milgram showed insufficient respect for his participants, there were insufficient steps taken to protect them, and his procedures could have long term effects on the participants. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants did not believe they were giving electric shocks and they were just playing along with their role in the study. A famous example showing conformity was the experiment Zimbardo et al., (1973) carried out the prison simulation experiment at Stanford University. The aim of the experiment was to see the psychological effects of making an average person into a prisoner or guard. After less than 36 hours one of the prisoners had to be released from the experiment due to severe depression. Others who were acting as prisoners also showed signs of anxiety and depression. According to Zimbardo, these results showed how easily people could adapt to a new role in a new situation and behave out of character to fit that role. He quoted ‘Note that anyone ever doubted the horrors of prison, but rather it had been assumed that it was the predispositions of the guards (sadistic) and the prisoners (sociapathic) that made prisons evil places. Our study holds constant and positive the dispositional alternative and reveals the power of social, institutionalised forces to make good men engage in evil deeds’. (Gross p 500) There have been many criticisms levelled at his study, (Savin 1973) argues that the prisoners did not give fully informed consent; they didn’t really know what was going to happen to them. They were humiliated and dehumanised by the procedure when reaching the prison (strip searched and deloused). Savin also argued the point the ends did not justify the means. The study had become ‘too real’ and should never have been carried out. Perrin and Spencer (1980) tried to repeat Asch’s study in England in the late 1970s. They found very little evidence of conformity, leading them to conclude that Asch’s effect was a ‘child of its time’. However the low levels of conformity found in Perrin and Spencers study may have occurred because they used engineering students who had been given training in the importance of accurate measurement and therefore had more confidence in their own opinions. Bond and Smith (1996) also considered changes into conformity over time based on studies carried out in the United States. They conclude as follows; “Level of conformity in general had steadily declined since Asch’s studies in the early 1950” (BondMajor studies of conformity
World literature discussion
term paper help World literature discussion.
When looking at women’s literature of the 20th century, one can easily see some of the struggles that women were still fighting to overcome as they shared their creativity with the masses. Some of those struggles included making their voices known in a seemingly male dominated world.Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own” tackles some of the topics that may have been considered taboo during a time when women were just gaining their footing in society. Do you think that Woolf’s essay still rings true in some ways, or has society come full circle when it comes to so-called gender roles? Only a paragraph or two.
World literature discussion
San Diego State University Chapter 6 Rights of African Americans Paper
San Diego State University Chapter 6 Rights of African Americans Paper.
I’m working on a editing writing question and need a sample draft to help me understand better.
editing instructions _________________The assignment specifically asked students to incorporate materials from Chapter 6 of Garland’s book. You do not. * Your attempted incorporation of materials from Milovanovic’s work is poorly applied. Indeed, I am alarmed regarding your alleged citation to p. 81 of Milovanovic’s book, An Introduction to the Sociology of Law, in support of your statement, “As a result people of colour have less rights protecting them legally and are therefore more vulnerable to death penalties (Milovanovic 81).” Attached please find a jpg image of page 81. Please, please, please guard against inserting page citations that bear no relation to the point you are making. The most reasonable inferences are either, a) the student is sloppy and effectively dis-interested, or b) the student is fabricating the source reference and believes the instructor will not check out the reference. (I used the word ‘alarm’ intentionally because as noted in the marked up first page of your paper, a citation to Garland’s book is widely inaccurate).___________________________origional essay instructions The only two books you need to use for this essay are:1. Feinman, Jay M., (2006) Law 101: Everything you Need to Know about the American Legal System. Oxford University Press, 5th ed.2. Milovanovic, Dragan, (2003) An Introduction to the Sociology of Law. Criminal Justice Press, 3rd ed.NO OUTSIDE SOURCES YOU MUST ONLY USE THESE BOOKS TO ANSWERS THE ESSAY QUESTIONREAD INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY ANF FOLLOW THEM WORDS BY WORD AND CITE CITE CITEThe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Statistical disparities associated with the death penalty would appear to belie the Constitution’s promise as it involves the lived experiences of persons of color and, more specifically, African Americans.Write a three-to-four page (double spaced, twelve point font) essay using the death penalty in America to explain why, if at all, the rights of African Americans continue to be functionally and/or systemically subordinated to whites. Restrict your sources to class and course materials. Page source references and give particular attention to assigned readings from David Garland’s book Peculiar Institution – America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition, including but not limited to Chapter 6, “State and Society in America.” Also draw and cite, i.e., include, support from two (or more) chapters of Dragan Milovanovic’s book, An Introduction to the Sociology of the Law, to support your explanation. Please avoid use of the first person, e.g., “I think,” “to me,” “personally,” etc. Also kindly do not cite slides from class outlines. You are, of course, free to take whatever position you choose, e.g., no functional and/or systemic racism exists, as the assignment is intended to evaluate your study and application of the materials versus boxing you into a particular position which may be inconsistent with your considered judgments and reasoning.
San Diego State University Chapter 6 Rights of African Americans Paper
FSW245 Toddlerhood Observation & Analysis Paper
FSW245 Toddlerhood Observation & Analysis Paper.
I have already choose my boyfriend’s aunt home as my public place to observe and the community park as the private place to observe.For this specific assignment on Infancy & Toddlerhood, you will be examining a private space and a public space for specific resources and safety features related to children and parenting. For each space you visit, take notes about various features.Private spaceSuggestions for evaluating safety of private space (select one to use) https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ecd/childproofing-checklist (Links to an external site.)https://www.thebump.com/a/checklist-babyproofing-part-1 (Links to an external site.)https://www.thebump.com/a/checklist-babyproofing-part-2 (Links to an external site.)Public spaceLook for the following in your selected public space Nursing/feeding and/or sensory-reduced spacesKid-friendly options (food, activities, etc)Additional accessibility for strollersSeating for childrenBathroom facilities and changing tablesWhere are changing tables located, if there are any?Are family restrooms or other multiple-person facilities available?Submit your assignment with the following structure:Proof of observationInclude a selfie of you in both locations you visitedDescription of observation experienceDescribe what it was like to visit these locations while looking for these specific things.For example: Was it difficult to find anything you were looking for? Did it feel strange looking for something like a changing table if you don’t have children with you?Analysis of observation
What did you notice about the safety concerns and/or facilities?
Be detailed in your analysis and incorporate course concepts as you examine your notesAre there discrepancies in services/facilities by gender or other factors?Compare what you observed to topics covered by the course so far, both from a child development perspective and as if you were a parent in these places.General Reflection
Provide overall opinion of the facilities/locations of observations/activities (as appropriate).Provide your assessment of the observation/activity process and experience (what you learned, what you wished you would have learned, what you would do differently).Conclusion – Wrap it all up!What did you learn?What are key takeaways from this observation experience?What more might we want to know about safety and facilities needs for young families?Is there a need for any sort of action or advocacy?You may submit your assignment in written, audio, or visual format. Be sure to address all parts of the assignment and analysis questions. As part of this course, you will be completing some assignments in the form of direct child observation, caregiver observation, and/or community activities/interviews. You will then use these observations along with course resources to complete 3 assignments for this course. These assignments are essential to understanding how the concepts we learn in this course apply to the real world.Course ObjectivesThese assignments are organized to help you address all 5 of our course objectives.Classify the physical, emotional, cultural, social and cognitive characteristics of children within various general stages of development spanning conception through middle childhood.Examine the complex relationship between biological and environmental factors (including culture) and their impacts on the development of children, the learning process, and developmental parenting dynamics.Apply major theoretical models, historical perspectives, and social and legal components that organize our understanding of child development and parenting norms.Generate observations, records and reports of information on similarities and differences in development patterns and behaviors of children.Contribute meaningfully to discourse/debate about challenges and solutions currently facing families in our world.Academic IntegrityThese assignments are to be completed on your own without outside help. You are not to work in groups or with anyone else on these assignments. They are designed to help assess your knowledge of course material and your ability to apply that material to real-world examples. You must submit your own, individual work for these assignments.If you are referencing course materials or other resources, be sure to cite that source (preferably in APA formatting). Citation helps to add credibility to your statements and will help you to analyze and reflect upon your observations.Grading CriteriaAssignments will be graded using the rubrics provided within Canvas. You may earn up to 10 points for each pre-work submission and 100 points for each observation and analysis submission. If you have any questions about evaluation criteria, please consult your instructor after viewing the rubric.RubricObservation & AnalysisObservation & AnalysisCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProof10.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription15.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis30.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflection30.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion15.0 ptsTotal Points: 100.0
FSW245 Toddlerhood Observation & Analysis Paper