Get help from the best in academic writing.

Motivate and Manage Change Presentation

Motivate and Manage Change Presentation.

Purpose of AssignmentStudents will apply the course work to a real business issue and be able to think through the implications to the organization. Organizations and individuals engaged in global trade must adapt to the opportunities and challenges created by doing business across borders.Assignment StepsSelect a continent where your organization (or a company for which you want to work) is currently operating or wishes to operate.Outline how change can be managed for a company that has never done business outside of the U.S.Create a 10- to 12-slide communication plan in Microsoft® PowerPoint®, with speaker notes.Define the contribution of employee empowerment as a catalyst for change into a global organization.Explain how you can motivate and manage change, taking into account the following concepts:Change Management and the Basic Functions of ManagementAdapting to workforce diversity, cultural and language differences, and foreign customsInclude at least four peer reviewed references.
Motivate and Manage Change Presentation

Truth Can Be Subjective Philosophy Essay

It can be stated, truth can be subjective to a particular person or belief, but such subjectivity comes out of ignorance of what is objectively true and an unwillingness to search for truth on our own, accepting truth from others as objective without checking the factuality or bias of such things to decipher it as one’s own truth. One can believe many things as true if they have grown with the notion as such. Our education plays a crucial role in what we know as truth, whether from parents or the education system. Others teach us what is true from experiences, whether personal or historical, and, out of ignorance, we accept those teachings from them as infallible and do not search for any logical doubts in the knowledge gained from said teaching. This can lead to the understanding of things with a bias considering a majority of knowledge gained for experience may have some bias attached to it resulting in a distorted perception of truth. Say for example, if in childhood one is taught the color green is purple and vice versa, the child would grow up with the belief grass is purple. Yet ones ignorance of truth from teaching, which one believed infallible, would be one was taught the wrong name for the colour, and choose to accept such a notion not aware of the fallacy attached. This of course is a result not only of biased experience but also of ignorance of truth. Although, knowing from proper teaching green is green and purple is purple, another would know grass is green and it being purple is an irrational claim. Of course, one might ask the certainty of the statement grass is green, how can one be certain of this fact. Although it can be stated ,grass is green if and only if grass is green which would lead into looking at truth from the sematic theory stating x is y if only if x is y. Of course, this can be argued from contingent and non-contingent proposition depending on what is observed, with the alternative factors at play. Of course, one may state it is true to this person grass is purple, on the basis ones understanding is not of grass being what is the perceived colour purple only it is their understanding of the correlation between purple the linguistic manner and the colour perceived in grass. So it can be stated then to that person grass is purple. In addition, if one has no understanding of colour except in the linguistic manner as the result of a genetic incapability to see colour it could be stated grass is grey, so it is true for them, grass is not green but either purple or grey dependent upon experience and inability to perceive the spectrum of colour. So what prevents us from searching for the truth? Friedrich Nietzsche proposed, “Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth because they do not want their illusions destroyed.” (Nietzsche 1870s, pg3) Acceptance of truths, which may be infallible and objective, results in many people unwilling to find truth for themselves. Of course, those who do are left bewildered wondering what is actually true and if we can even know any truth. It can be argued truth has no nature. Looking at truth from the deflationary theory would suggest such a notion as truth hold no metaphysical significance. The notion being, truth is only what we claim to be true, so stating “grass is green,” holds no significance on its own. Of course, one may state, “it is true the grass is green” in a means to prove a point but stating such would become redundant. Saying “it is true” and “the grass is green” are both stating truth and stating them together adds no value to the statement of truth. This theory of redundancy does not apply to all cases just generalized accepted truths. There are instances in which to say “it is true” would not be redundant, in the cases where there is an indirect reference to truth it would be necessary to add “it is true” Of course, the desire to know what is true has to come from somewhere does it not? From childhood, we try to figure out the purpose of everything, we are searching for what is infallibly true. We spend our whole lives looking for some ultimate truth, which stands alone as the center of knowledge. Where does this desire come from? Alternatively, one can only know truth based upon our experience and reason, or that of others as our teaching of childhood would account for. Still, is all we know as truth based upon what has been perceived, or does something formulate the notion of truth from infancy? Now, stating truth is know from infancy would lead to sway to truth not being subjective but objective, yet, the factuality of such a notion would be difficult to decipher considering, from infancy we establish truth from experience and the teaching we receive from others experiences. Of course, one might add everything gained is just knowledge reclaimed and we are born knowing everything our minds had only to relearn it during childhood, but such a claim is highly open to criticism. Deciding whether truth is subjective would in turn be subjective itself, leading to the notion of the overall idea of truth being subjective to ones beliefs and personal view. This leads to the notion it is impossible to state whether or not truth is subjective in a broad sense, one can only state subjectivity as a personal view and not as a generalized statement. In conclusion, it is difficult to state if there are grounds for truth being subjective. One has to consider some knowledge they may have retained hold grounds for scrutiny since our knowledge of thing constantly changes. If our knowledge of things changes what we perceive and learn changes, this ultimately changes what is known as truth and if what has been held as true has changed how can we discover truth. Truth could possibly be subjective but it is a basis of opinion and opinion is not truth unless it can be proven without doubt. Although, truth is something a person should decipher for oneself whether objective or subjective there are grounds for both depending on the circumstances. Resources: Glanzberg, Michael, “Truth”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = . Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1870s. “On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense.” Philosophy and truth: Selections from Nietzsche’s notebooks of the early 1870s (1979) 79-97. Thakchoe, Sonam, “The Theory of Two Truths in Tibet”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

The Nature Nurture Debate Psychology Essay

essay order In the history of psychology one of the oldest arguments is the Nature-Nurture debate with regard to what makes us human beings different from each-other: our genes or our environment, and which one of these sides contributes more to a person’s psychological and physical development. The Nature -Nurture debate was introduced in the late IX Century by one of the first experimental psychologists Francis Galton in his “English men of science: Their Nature and Nurture” (1874). In this work he calls nature and nurture, “a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads the innumerable elements of which personality is composed. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth” (p. 12). Philosophers in ancient times, such as Plato, believed that a child was born with some innate knowledge. Locke however, was an empiricist and believed that the mind at birth was a “blank slate”-with an empty brain and no abilities. Certain physical characteristic are biologically determined by genetic inheritance such as pigmentation of skin and color of eyes which are gathered by the genes we inherit. Additional physical characteristics such as height, weight, hair loss even some illnesses (e.g. breast cancer in women) appear to be influenced by the genetic make-up of our parents. These facts have made many to ask the question whether psychological characteristics such as intelligence, gender, personality and behavior are product of our genes or they are influenced by the environment. The following debate looks at whether we acquire many of our traits through nature, or through our environment- nurture concerning our intelligence and gender. The case of heredity (nature) as an argument to the debate can be traced back to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the idea of “survival of the fittest” influencing the Biological approach in Psychology which focuses on genetic and hormonal explanation of behavior and tends to favor the nature side of the nature-nurture debate. The nature approach view claims that many human skills and actions are result of genetically inherited urges (e.g. intelligence, personality, maternal instinct) and it is supported by nativists. On the other hand the view that supports the belief that human main skills and characteristics are socially learned and developed through experience is the view of empiricists, according to whom whatever we learn we learn trough perception. The topic of Intelligence is one of the major interests within Psychology and very difficult to define as it is subject of many psychological factors as: ability to cope with all aspects of daily living, problem solving skills, learning and benefiting from previous experiences, predicting likely outcomes and many more skills that humans use to adapt themselves to their environment. Good reasoning abilities, rationalization and cognitive skills seem to further develop intelligence. An influential theory of the biological bases of intelligence is the idea that the base of intelligence is in the brain (Donald Hebb 1949). This theory suggests the necessity of distinguishing among different intelligences: Intelligence A as innate potential which is biologically determined and represents the capacity for development. Intelligence B is the functioning of the brain and is generated when intelligence A interacts with the environment. Philip E. Vernon (1979) elaborated this definition to include intelligence C, which is the score one obtains on an intelligence test. Hebb’s point of view is that the basic potential for intellectual development is provided by the genes and the stimulation for this potential to be reached is environmentally provided. Early psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, defined intelligence in terms of simple sensory, perceptual, and motor responses, as opposed to higher mental processes such as thinking and problem solving. Galton’s main contribution was that he raised questions about individual differences in intelligence and how it should be assessed. He believed that intelligence is innate something we are born with. In 1905 Alfred Binet and his student Theofile Simon introduced one of the first measuring intelligence test called the Binet-Simon scale. They developed the concept of mental age to measure the individual’s level of mental development relative to others. For example a child with a mental ability of a normal five year old has a mental level (age) of five, so an eight year old with a mental age of five is ‘deficient’. Using Binet’s concepts and calculations, William Stern developed the intelligence quotient (IQ). The IQ is a concept measured by dividing a person’s mental age by his/her chronological age and multiplying by 100. The current version of the original IQ test is called the Stanford-Binet and it can be administered as early as age 2 and through adulthood. It has been revised to assess abilities in four areas: verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, abstract/visual reasoning, and short-term memory. Intelligence quotient is the most common measure of intelligence, but is it the most accurate and can it measure all the types of intelligence that people possess. Is it valid and reliable concerning different cultures and environmental factors. Perhaps not, for example intelligent tests designed for middle class white children do not reflect the values and early experiences of children in other cultures, which means that they are culturally biased. However it is proved that most intelligence tests have high reliability with a correlation coefficient of 90 and IQ scores are a good predictors of success in school, e.g. the verbal scale of the Weschler tests correlated with school grades. Twin studies are probably the best way to assess the influence of genes and the environment in determining individual differences in intelligence. Because identical twins (MZ) come from a single fertilized egg that splits in two, they share virtually the same genetic code which means they are of the same sex and they should look very much alike. By comparing fraternal twins (DZ), (who come from separate eggs and share on average half their DNA) with identical twins, researchers can identify the extent to which our genes affect our intelligence. If identical twins have more similar IQ scores than fraternal twins, there would be a reasonable conclusion that heredity influences intelligence. The various studies carried by researchers regarding intelligence use the aforementioned different degrees of genetic relationship as a basis for their hypothesis. It should be the case that the closer the kinship the more similar individuals should be, if the particular characteristic investigated is inherited. Some of the evidence supporting the genetically inherited intelligence comes from the twin studies. For instance, by reviewing many twin studies Bouchard and Mc Gue(1981) found that identical twins raised in different environment tend to have more similar IQ scores than the fraternal twins reared together. These findings suggest that there is a strong genetic component to IQ and supports the heredity point of view. If the environment was an important factor, the fraternal twins’ IQ scores should have had closer correlation. However there is few criticisms of the twin studies, Leon Kamin for example criticizes Shield’s twin study claiming that the twins in the study were actually raised by members of the family e.g. one twin by the mother and the other by the grandmother, aunt or other relation. They shared the same environment by going to the same school and living in the same neighborhood. Another more general criticism of the twin studies would be the small samples of twins actually used in the studies and the method of recruiting them e.g. advertisements in the media therefore each sample was self-selected. Last criticism would be that MZ twins are not exactly identical, partly because of small genetic differences and also because they create their own microenvironment. The Adoption studies provide an alternative option to investigate the effects of heredity and environment in intelligence, by comparing adopted children’s intelligence to that of their adoptive family and of their biological parents. Adopted children share half of their biological parents’ genetics and none of their environment, while they share no genes and some environment with their adoptive parents. Hence any similarity detected between adopted children’s IQ and either their real or adoptive family would indicate which one of these factors nurture or nature, plays more important role in human’s intelligence. The Texas Adoption Project-Horn(1983) involved almost 500 children, the findings of wich showed that adopted children’s IQ’s were more closely correlated with their biological rather than adoptive mother(0.28 compared with 0.15)though differences were small. Years later when the children were older they were tested again and the results showed, increased IQ correlation with their biological mothers and decreased one with the adopted family especially during late adolescence (Bouchard, 1997; McGue, Bouchard, Iacono,

PHYS 102 Physics of Matter Blended Learning Discussion

PHYS 102 Physics of Matter Blended Learning Discussion.

Blended Learning DiscussionIn the Real World: Under PressureIn this course, we will engage in graded discussions that focus on “the real world” by applying the physics concepts we are learning to both everyday life and to aviation.After completing the readings and concept-related activities in the above sections of the module—including the module Experiment, you will be prepared to engage in this discussion.Initial Post Instructions and Requirements:Choose a discussion topic.Formulate an organized, clearly worded, and succinct initial post that substantively covers all discussion paragraph points stated for your chosen topic. Because your initial post will be scored on the degree to which you meet these standards, there is no set minimum word requirement. However, there is a set maximum word requirement – confine your initial post to 500 words. Remember that we are all reading each other’s posts, and one that is succinctly written is more likely to be read and responded to, thus furthering our discussion on that topic.Include at least one graphic, video, or image that visually adds to some aspect of your post – as they say, pictures are worth 1000 words!Post your initial post by the 4th day of the module week. You will not be able to see any posts until you post your initial post.
PHYS 102 Physics of Matter Blended Learning Discussion

Inorganic Containments Present in Water Samples

Project 1: Inorganic Containments Present in Water Samples Introduction Background: Chemistry is commonly used when it comes to testing in a laboratory. Scientist use many different ways to determine what an unknown substance is. Looking at the qualitative properties of the substance such as the color, smell and other properties that can be observed and not measured is one way. However, looking at the quantitative properties, measurable portion of testing like moles or melting point, also contribute to the identification process of finding out what an unknown substance is. When looking at substances that are hazardous to wildlife we can use the method of Spectroscopy which is when light interacts with an unknown substance (1). This is an example of a qualitative test because you observed the difference that one substances has with certain types of light. When the police seize unknown substances from criminals or in drug raids they need someone to confirm the identity of these substances. Unknown powders, liquids and even pills that could be potentially illegal would be confirmed by forensic labs. There are two types of test they usually use which are presumptive tests and confirmatory tests. However, unlike presumptive tests, confirmatory tests are very specific and allow the forensic lab to determine the exact identity of the substance (2). Theory: There are four tests that will make up the qualitative procedures of this experiment. These include solubility, conductivity, pH, and a flame test. The unknown compound we had was white in color and had a baking flour appearance meaning that it was fine. These will all be used to help weed out the other unknown substances from a few that would be able to give you a general direction. Solubility tests are generally used to see how soluble the substance is in deionized water. The conductivity test is used to measure the dialysis fluids, according to a dialysis fluid is a solution of salts that are dissociated (3), total concentration of salts. The next test is pH and which measures the pH level of the solution that we made and this helps us narrow down if the substance is an acid base or neutral which will further narrow our choices. A flame test shows us the color of a substance by putting it directly into the flame and each substance has a different color that will appear. Next will be the test that will be the two quantitative procedures of the experiment. Gravimetric analysis is based on weight where Volumetric analysis is based on volume. Volumetric was the one we used since discovering that the unknown we had basic or acidic properties. Hypothesis: Since the portions of our experiment gave us an assumption that after all the test that our unknown substance is Magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) since it did not have the signature smell. Objective: Week one our goal were to get an idea of what our unknown substance was after all the qualitative experiments. After week one we had a general thought of which of the two substances it would be between. However, week two the goal was to figure out which quantitative experiment worked for us the best and that ended up being the volumetric. Then to proceeded to figure out our substance. Methods Part I Methods: We began the experiment with the solubility test and we started by putting 0.5g of the unknown substance and then 49.5g of deionized (D1) water into a beaker then decided that it was soluble in water. We repeated this same measurements of 0.5g of the unknown substance with 49.5g acetone and ethanol in a beaker but both resulted in the substance being clumpy and could not dissolve into a solution making it insoluble. This helped us minimize options for what the unknown substance could be. Next we made a solution with D1 water and the substance to test the conductivity and pH, we used 70 mL of water with 0.5g of the substance to make our base solution and we conducted the experiment by using the conductivity meter and the pH meter. Using only one at a time, we would turn it on, stick it into the solution, and waited until it gave us an answer. This showed the conductivity helped determine the conductivity of the substance and the pH helped determine if the acid base or neutrality of the substance. The flame test shows if the substance has a reaction to the flame which will result in the flame changing colors. We used a wire loop to get a little bit of the solution with the substance and then placed it in front of the flame. Part II Methods: Finally we gathered the information collected from previous experiments and we decided to conduct the volumetric analysis. We used a solution of .5g of the substance with 70mL water so that it was fully dissolved. Then we added 10 drops of Silver nitrate l into a beaker to get the mixture that we would let drop into our solution. Safety: Chemical Name Chemical Formula Molecular Weight Potential Hazards Saftey Equipment Needed Magnesium sulfate MgSO4 120.366 g/mol -inhalation -Skin -Eyes -Ingestion Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Hydrochloric acid HCl 36.46 g/mol -Corrosive -Skin -Eyes Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Sodium hydroxide NaOH 39.997 g/mol – Inhalation – Corrosive Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Ethanol C6H6O 94.11 g/mol – Flammable -Vapor/air mixtures are explosive – Inhalation Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Acetone C3H6O 61.057 g/mol – Inhalation – Skin – Eyes Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Silver nitrate AgNO3 169.87 g/mol -Skin -Eyes – Headache, dizzieness and nausea Gloves, goggles, full lab gear Results Section I: CONDUCTIVITY AND pH (AVERAGE of 3 Trials): pH Conductivity 9 8.83 FLAME TEST: Ammonium or magnesium UNKOWN TRIAL COLOR ———- 1 No Color ———- 2 No Color ———- 3 No Color SOLUBILITY TEST: COMPOUNDS ACETONE ETHANOL H2O NH4Cl YES YES YES Ca(NO3)2 YES NO NO MgSO4 NO NO YES CaCl2 YES YES YES Na2CO3 NO NO YES CH3CH2Na NO NO NO UNKOWN NO NO YES CALCULATIONS: 0.1M * 100/1000L = .01 mol *40g/mol = 0.4g 0.1M 100mL NaOH Section II: FILTER PAPER TRIALS WEIGHHT (g) 1 0.67g 2 0.65g 3 0.66g Calculations: Median: 0.66g Discussion Part I Discussion: In the experiment when we tested the conductivity we did three trials and our end result was 8.83 s/m. Also the pH was at a 9 which the known pH of magnesium sulfate is between 5.5 and 6.5. The pH that we got was higher for the unknown than the known pH of MgSO4. When conducting the flame test we witnessed that there were no color on any of the trials that we got. Which the purpose of this test is to observe the color that is given by the compound that we had. The result matched up with either ammonium or magnesium. The next test was the solubility test in which we tested the unknown substance on how soluble it is in ethanol, acetone, and water. We conducted the test to see that it only is soluble in water just like MgSO4. Part II Discussion: Finally the last test was the volumetric test and this ended up showing us the precipitant weight that we got out of this experiment. We got a medium weight of 0.66g. Source of Error: At the beginning of experimenting we were using regular tap water instead of deionized. We observed that this did indeed change our results so to fix our mistake we grabbed D1 water so that everything would be the same and our results would not be wrong. Changes to the Experiment: I would probably change the experiment to where there would be certain amounts for certain substances. It made it difficult to know that the measurements of how much water is supposed to be in the beaker was different. Conclusion The purpose for this experiment is to get a better understanding of the tests that we used but the goal was to find what substance was our unknown and how we achieved that answer. I learned a lot of new things in this experiment with how to conduct then to how to put them into work to compare. All of our data matched up to what we believe to be is MgSO4 as our unknown substance. We used the skills that we learned to conduct the experiments to get this result. Research Connected In the article A Framework to estimate concentrations of potentially unknown substances by semi-quantification in liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (4), this article focuses on if it is possible to find the concentrations of an unknown substance within sources that rely on quantitative information. The procedures that they did were to use liquid chromatography, which is a technique used to separate ion or molecules when they are in a solvent (5). They also used statistical analysis, nozzle voltage, sheath gas experiments and more. However, in the article it did mention that they used general screening methods but not all compounds deionized in water which will make it hard to detect them. Authentication standard is making the unknown substances harder to work with. Using LC-MS quantification they were able to contain the concentration of 300 potential AOI with no use of matching or prior identification. However, estimation errors are still something that needs to be focused on because it would improve the predictions. References 1) Libretexts. (2018, November 26). 10.1: Overview of Spectroscopy. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from 2) Watson, S. (2018, March 08). How Forensic Lab Techniques Work. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from 3) Bertinsson, G. I. (n.d.). The conductivity of dialysis fluid. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from 4) A framework to estimate concentrations of potentially unknown substances by semi-quantification in liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. (2017, April 10). Retrieved February 19, 2019, from 5) Chemistry Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2019, from

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service