Congenial associates Essay Example for Free

Congenial associates Essay This want issues from the social need of gregariousness and acceptance. Management can aid the process by carefully planned and executed induction programs, provision of means to socialize through rest periods and recreational programs, and promoting the formation of work teams through proper work-station layouts and human-related work procedures. Credit for work done: This want issues from the egoistic classification of needs and can be supplied by management through verbal praise of excellent work, monetary rewards for suggestions, and public recognition through awards. Releases in employee’s newspapers, and the like. A meaningful job: This want issues from both the need for recognition and the drive toward self-realization and achievement. This is a very difficult want to supply, particularly in large organizations having minute division of work and mechanically paced assembly lines. Some research into the possibilities of job enrichment has indicated the possibility of integrating the need of employees for significant work and the need of the organization productive, co-ordinate activity. Opportunity to advance: Not all employees want to advance. Some feel the social needs more strongly than the egoistic ones. However, most employees like to know that the opportunity is there, should they desire to use it. This feeling is influenced by a cultural tradition of freedom and opportunity. Comfortable, safe, and attractive working condition: The want for good working conditions also rests upon multiple needs. Safe working conditions issue from the security need. The specific attributes, such as desks and rugs, constitute symbols of status denoting a hierarchy of importance. Much management has discovered that the allocation of such status symbols can be quite as difficult as the allocation of money. In today’s environment where the threat of violence is increasing safety is also an important factor which plays an important role in employee motivation. Competent and fair leadership: The want of good leadership can issue from physiological and security needs. Good leadership helps to assure that the organization and its jobs will continue to exist. In addition, the ego demands that one-respect person from whom orders and directions are to be received. It is very frustrating to be subjected personally to a command from an individual who is deemed unworthy and incompetent. Reasonable orders and directions: The order is the official communication of organization requirements. In general, it should be related to the requirements of the situation, capable of being executed, complete but not unnecessarily detailed, clear and concise, and given in a manner that stimulates acceptance. Unreasonable orders incapable of accomplishment serve only to increase insecurity and frustration. Unreasonable orders that work contrary to the best interests of the organization may lead to a form of malicious obedience; the employee takes great delight in following them to the letter in hopes of harming the superior who merits little respect. A socially relevant organization: The trend toward greater social expectations of private organizations has impact upon such an organization’s employee’s expectations. This want issues from human needs of self-esteem, and levies a highly challenging responsibility upon the organization’s management. In a job environment where the most of the above mentioned conditions will fulfilled the employees will be more committed and productive. The managers at ACTAVIS should fulfil the conditions above in order to achieve the desired goals. Solution through using theories: As Locke (1976) put forward a theory of motivation based on goal setting. The individuals in the company can be motivated by setting goal as Goal Theory suggest that it is the goal that an individual is aiming for which motivates, rather than just the satisfaction of attaining it. Locke’s view is that what a person values or desires determines the goals he sets for himself, but that what actually drives him (motivates him) are the goals themselves. Locke’s own researches indicated that individual performance was better when people had been set specific goals of a challenging or difficult nature, and when they received feedback on their performance. This approach clearly has implications for the practice of management-by-objectives of target setting. Which relies for its success on the mutual agreement of specific goals between a manager and his subordinate. A modern and a more permanent approach to motivation are through job enrichment. This involves putting meaning into jobs. In other words, it is putting Herzberg’s two-factor theory into effect by building motivators into the job. These motivators include achievement, growth, responsibility, advancement and recognition. This approach can also work for ACTAVIS since the company is renovating its units. According to the approach the company should plan to change the job contents of the employees in order to motivate them for the new unit settled by ACTAVIS in Bulgaria. A number of research studies have indicated that the job content is an important factor in motivating people. So the content of a routine or repetitive task must be restructured to provide motivation to the performer of that job. One way of restructuring the job is through job enrichment, or making jobs more meaningful. If a manager can include more of Herzberg’s motivators, people who perform such jobs utilize their skills and potentials to the best of their abilities and be more productive on the job. Thus, the jobs would be richer and not just bigger. Hence the use of the term job enrichment. Keeping in view the case of ACTAVIS following steps have been recommended to make jobs enriching: Selection of an area or job where an improvement in motivation will make a difference in performance or productivity. Clues such absenteeism, turnover, tardiness, poor quality, lack of interest and production delays may provide an answer in selecting an area or jobs to be enriched. Development of criteria for measuring changes in productivity among the employees in the selected area or job. These measurements may include rate of absenteeism, number of products rejected, waste, etc.

Collective Happiness And Individual Happiness

Collective Happiness And Individual Happiness Happiness is the concern both to the public and the philosophers. But the contradiction of individual happiness and the collective happiness is always the argument in many theories. In the view of Utilitarianism, collective happiness should be in the most significant status. In order to achieve this aim, it is worthy to sacrifice the minoritys individual happiness. But whether that is the most efficient and effective way? And in such a circumstance, whether the individual happiness can be fulfilled? The essay is talking about that under the points of Utilitarianism; the social aim is to achieve a greatest happiness for a greatest number of people. And according to this guide, as long as the action can lead to a good outcome, this action should be agreed and protected, even that is an action of killing innocent people. However, to be a human being living in such a society; the individual happiness cannot be remained because of the demand from the whole society. On the other hand, the individual happiness is the personal business which did not related with the collective happiness according to Chuang Tzu. The changes happened in outside world, no matter good or bad, are just the nature course of development. The individual wills and power cannot change it at all. The theory of Utilitarianism is talking to achieve the collective happiness, while Chuang Tzu focused on the individual happiness. But both of them are too extremely to peruse the one and abandon the other one. However there is no an original contradiction between these two happiness. The crux in it is the different understanding of the concept of collective happiness as well as the freedom to choose a happy life for individuality. In summary, there is no conflict between the collective happiness and individual happiness, and the freedom to choose constitute a part of human happiness, which will in turn help construct a happy society. The case of two patients According to the points from John Harris (1975), let us support that organ transplant procedures have been perfected; in such circumstances if two dying patients could be saved by organ transplants then, and these two patients named Y needs a new heart and Z needs a new lung. If a doctor cannot save the patients because of no spare organs in stock, no one will blame the doctor. If there are no spare organs in stock and none otherwise available, the doctors have no choice; they cannot save their patients and so must let them die. In this case we would be disinclined to say that the doctors are in any sense the cause of their patients deaths. (Harris, 1975) But if a doctor didnt save the patients in the situation of that there are other organs available. Everyone will criticize the doctor for his activity just like he has shot the patients dead. If surgeons have the requisite organs in stock and no other needy patients, but nevertheless allow their patients to die, we would be inclined to say, and be justified in saying, that the patients died because the doctors refused to save them. (Harris, 1975) These situations always happen in reality; everyone will make decisions and make some judgments following the common sense. But supposing that patients Y and Z own a chance to argue for their lives, they insist that the doctor should kill another healthy people to get the new organs for them. Although obviously that breaks the law, it is really a reasonable account in the side of the patients. They point out that if just one healthy person were to be killed his organs could be removed and both of them be saved. We and the doctors would probably be alike in thinking that such a step, while technically possible, would be out the question. (Harris, 1975) In the whole process, all of the steps seem to be justifiable. But we can find the contradiction in the difference between killing and letting die. The analysis of this case from the view of utilitarianism There are three core ideas in the theory of utilitarianism; the first one is the consequentialism. According to this first core idea, consequences are the unique standard to determine whether the activities are right or wrong. Therefore, killing people will become an action can be considered for the correct reason. There are a great many people believe that whether an action is right or wrong depends upon its consequences. So what makes something like killing another person wrong is that it is an act with a very bad consequence. (Driver, 2006) Back to the case of those two patients, the doctor killing a healthy people for the reason to save another two persons. The purpose of killing is to save life, so that the action of killing people is totally right and necessary. And in the view of utilitarianism, it suggests that we should do the things to purchase the best consequence which will have the best effects for the most people in the collectivity. Following this logic, doctor should and must kill the third the one to maintain the lives of his two patients because the number of two is greater than one. Saving two lives is meaningful to lead a good consequence, and killing one people to save another two is worthy. On the other hand, the principle of utility from the view of Bentham is also the basic of the theory utilitarianism. And both law and the individuals actions should be scrutinized according to this principle. By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves of every action whatever, according to the tendency which it appears to have augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question; orà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦to promote or to oppose that happiness. (Driver, 2006) As the result, happiness or pleasure is the basic good in this theory, and it is also the intrinsic value; but what has intrinsic disvalue is pain-that is the basic bad. (Driver, 2006) And according the view from Bentham, the pleasure or happiness can be measured along with the following parameters: Purity (how much pain is accompanied by it); Intensity (degree of pleasure); Duration (how long it will last); Fruitfulness (ability to produce further pleasure); Likelihood of any act to produce it (probability of an actions bringing about the expected consequence.) (Driver, 2006) Back to the two patients case again, using the elements to calculate that whether it will lead to a pleasure or a pain. Purity Intensity: although one life will be lose in the process to save the two patients, but the pleasure of the two patients alive is great than the pain to lost one life. Whats more, saving the two lives, their lives will be extended by sacrificing the other one, and they can create more happiness and pleasure in the rest of lives, which is what they expect. Therefore the other elements are totally matched. Under the logic of utilitarianism, a doctor killing a healthy and innocent people to save his patients is the action can be calculated to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people and avoid the pain. We can treat this case happened in a society which just has four persons-the two patients, the doctor as well as the healthy and innocent people. However this situation can be extended to the real society. Support that the whole society is a big machine which was consisted of many different components. Once some components were destroyed, and sacrificed the other one can fix these problems, we should absolutely abandon this one to maintain the whole. That is the reason in the utilitarianism to scarify the minority to achieve the majoritys happiness or pleasure. That will also construct a good society as Bentham described. A good society is constructed according to the logic of utilitarianism The definition of a good society Human being always consider to build a good society in which each people can perform his/her strengths in a professional scope; and then the society will be developed and consolidated in a high degree cooperation. For instance, a man who has talent in learning and running, but his ability of learning is better than running, while he like running more than learning. As the result, in order to make the best effect to the society and earn the most for him, this man should stay in university to be a professor rather than take part in the Olympic Game to be an athlete. From the view of utilitarianism, that is the most efficient and effective way to fulfill the aim to build a good society. Because everyone in the society will have their own talent, as long as people can be in a status which is match with their strengths, that will make the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Otherwise, live in the circumstance like that; people can earn their most happiness or pleasure. Back to the choice of that man, if he prefers an athlete to a professor, that will diminish the positive effect to the society and go against the principle of utility. But there may be a contradiction between the individuals strength and the personal choice. Maybe someones favorites are not the things which he is good at. That is a dilemma for us-whether to choose the favorite or the strength? Following the logic of Utilitarianism, we should choose to develop in the scope of our strength rather than our favorite, because that will contribute to the collectivity, and construct a good society. The human being living in such a society Living in such a good society, everyone will have their own status, just like a component working in a big machine. Although it will make the machine work smoothly, it also makes the component lose its existence value. Because when there are some new or more valuable components appear, or other parts have some problems which need the component to scarify to fix, this single one will be put away. That will be ok in a machine, but talking about the reality, it will produce lots of social problems. Also use that man as an example; he is good at learning and running, and he should choose to be a professor because he is more talent in learning than running. In order to make the society gain the maximum happiness, he have to spent all his time in learning but not any other things. This is acceptable in Utilitarianism, as well as the view from consequentialism. Although it will lead to a good consequence, the individual engage in it will become a component working in the big machine which represents the collectivity, and lose his personality, but just passively contribute himself. Give an example about that, the man spent his life to study and finally became a professor to make a greatest happiness for the collectivity, but he know nothing except learning. If he is replaced by others or there is no need of professors for the further development, this man will be abandoned because of the principle of utility. Whats more, though this mans favorite is running, but for the purpose to achieve the aim of a good society, he have to choose to learn as his life career. And that is the individuals cost for the good society. But we have to ask whether that is the unique definition of a good society? And whether there must be a contradiction between a good society and personal choice as well as individual development? Personal happiness in the view of individuality from Chuang Tzu Relative happiness and absolute happiness According to Chuang Tzus theory about individuality, happiness can be divided into two different concepts; the first one is relative happiness while the other one is absolute happiness. Relative happiness will come true when someone follows ones nature which is various from different individuals. This happiness is non-controllable because it depends on the circumstance which including nature environment as well as human condition. Therefore, each ones happiness is unique, no one should impose his or her likes and dislikes on others. Happiness is relative to the nature of each being: what may be happiness for the marquis is not the necessarily happiness for a bird; what is happiness for the duck is not happiness for the crane. (Imamichi, Wong, Liu, 1998) However there are many ways in which freedom can be obstructed, for the reason that ones happiness is not always within ones own control. On the other hand, although the relative happiness is out of individuals control, human being can also pursue the absolute happiness. The general conditions to achieve this goal is that we have proper understanding of the nature of things as well as unaffected by external things or changes as it not dependent upon them. In a word, that required us to follow the nature, but identify the nature firstly. There is another line of Taoist thought, however, which emphasizes the relativity of the nature of things and the identification of man with the universe. To achieve this identification, man needs knowledge and understanding of still a higher level, and the happiness resulting from this identification is really absolute happiness. (Fung, 1960) According to Chuang Tzu, there are two ways to achieve the absolute happiness, that is the forget(à ¥Ã‚ ¿Ã‹Å") and understand(à ¥Ã…’-), and that is also the attitude to the outside world. This attitude insists the external factors are not regarded as significant. As a result we will not be affected by the changes of the world. Furthermore, changes, good or bad from the outside society are accepted as part of the natural course of development, so that the individual activities and happiness will not and should not be affected by the outside society. He is absolutely happy, because he transcends the ordinary distinctions of things. He also transcends the distinction between the self and the world, the me and the non-me. Therefore he has no self.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦He may rule the whole world, but his rule consists of just leaving mankind alone, and letting everyone exercise his own natural ability fully and freely. (Fung, 1960) In conclusion, Chuang Tzus theory insists that happiness is totally an individual business. If someones happiness has to depend on something, thats just a relative happiness, because this man cannot control or change his own relative happiness. However, in a society, everything is related with the nature development, therefore, the absolute happiness just can come true in the condition of staying alone and living far away from the collectivity. A contradiction or a combination There is an obvious diversity between the ideas in Utilitarianism and Chuang Tzu. The theory of Utilitarianism focuses on the collective happiness which can be extended to the individual scope. While according to the view from Chuang Tzu, individual happiness will be achieved by personal choose, but no related with the collective happiness and the outside world changing. Use the man talented in learning and running to explain the difference between these two theories. On the basis of Utilitarianism, even this man prefer running to learning, he still should choose to learn to be a professor for the reason that this will make the a greatest happiness for the whole society. But it ignores his individual happiness. Besides, according to the principle from Chuang Tzu, this man should prefer to be an athlete because of his talent and interested. Even his choice will make less happiness for the society than to be a professor; he should persist in it as usual. Because no matter the society become good or bad is the nature development for individual, this should not and cannot be influenced by the personal choice, ever worse to scarify the personal happiness to satisfy the social development. The theory of Utilitarianism treats the individual happiness and the collective happiness is completely a contradiction, and requires one to scarify itself to realize the other one. But from the points of Chuang Tzu, actually there is no relationship between individual and collectivity; individual person should be loyal to his or her interest and happiness and let alone the social development which is just the nature course. The first theory treats the individual happiness and collective happiness is entirety. But the collective happiness should be put on a more important status, and the individual persons living in it is just in the status to cooperate and service for the whole society. There is a separation in the process, once there is an interest conflict between them; the individual will be given up for certain. And that is the opposing view from Chuang Tzu; individual person and collectivity is totally different and irrelevant. Although this theory gives a specific definition about the individual happiness, it makes them separate from the whole society. And there is some objective voice for this theory. If an individual person lives outside the society, he or she will lose his or her social connection and social function. That makes the individual person cannot achieve his or her happiness without a specific social circumstances. Therefore, no matter describing these two kinds of happiness as a contradiction or treating them as two independent units, there is an alternative. But there is no original contradiction between two of them, the combination of them should be an appropriate way to be consider and achieve the win-win outcome. Conclusion Happiness cannot be calculated by adding the number of lives Happiness is the consequence what human being pursues for; but there is no a specific definition of happiness. In the case of those two patients, happiness means a greater number of lives and longer lives. As the result, it is worthy to sacrifice another one to save their lives. But that will bring out another problem. If these two patients are old people, even a successful organ transplant surgery can just give them a few years of life. And unfortunately, the doctor killed a young people to gain his organs. Whether it is still a happy ending of this case? It might of course be objected that it is likely that more old people will need transplants to prolong their lives than will the young, and so the scheme would inevitably lead to a society dominated by the old. (Harris, 1975) In the situation like that, the formula of happiness is not feasible. Although a greater number of lives will remain, there is another problem come along come with itwhether the number of lives will equal to the value which these lives can create? Does the productivity of elderly people correspond to the younger people? Obviously, human being cannot be measured by the value they create. No matter the number of life or the value of life can not represent the greatest happiness which the theory of Utilitarianism talking about. Because each people in the society are unique, the value of this life is incomparable. As the result, the happiness cannot be measured by the number of lives in a society. The freedom to choose constitutes a part of human happiness, which will in turn help construct a happy society. The freedom to choose is a part of personality as well as a part of individual happiness. In the case of those two patients, both the doctor and the innocent have no choice because of saving the two dying patients. That is the same with the talented man. Superficially the man has free choices, but under the requirement of a greatest happiness, actually this man can just choose to be a professor to create the most goods for the society. In a word, that is no choice. According to the view of the Chuang Tzu, the freedom of individual people should be protected because that did not relate to any other one or the outside world which is considered the nature course of development. Although both of the ideas from these two theories seem too extreme, they also can give us a concept about collective happiness and individual happiness. Thinking too much about the collective interest and happiness will make the individual lose their freedom to choose. This will construct a society in which the individual people have to shoulder a heavy burden, because he or she cannot freely plan his or her life, but have to follow the social demand. Or the people living in such a society will be the next one to be victims to sacrifice for the collective happiness that will make individual people live in a nervous circumstance. In addition, individual happiness cannot be achieved without interacting with others in the society. Because only in the society and the relationship among people can create the circumstance for the people to plan their lives and fulfill the individual happiness. There is no conflict between the individual happiness and the collective happiness The individual happiness and the collective happiness are closed connected; each of them cannot be come true without the other one. In general idea, a collective happiness is represented by the amount of wealthy and the quality of peoples life. But that is just one elements of happiness, the other one as well as the more significant one is the freedom choice of the individual person. Although the freedom choice of person may not maintain the wealthy of the whole society, it will guarantee the quality of life which has divers understanding of different people. Also using the talented man as an instance, if this man has the freedom to choose what he really wants but not to follow the demand of the society, this will lead him to reach the maximum individual happiness. If this man chooses to be an athlete and join in the Olympic Game, maybe he can never be a champion, but the process to achieve this dream is the greatest happiness for this man. Whats more, that is also the process to constitute the collective happiness. In a word, the freedom to choose and fulfill individual happiness can also construct a happiness society. The happiness here is so different from the general happiness. This happiness cannot be calculated by the number of lives and the amount of social wealthy, but was accumulated by the individual happiness. And that is also the most stable and developed happiness both to collectivity and individuality.

Erin :: essays research papers

She brought a small town to its feet and a huge company to its knees. In a world where heroes are often in short supply, the story of Erin Brockovich is an inspirational reminder of the power of the human spirit. Her passion, tenacity and steadfast desire to fight for the rights of the underdog defied the odds ... her victory made even more sweet by the fact that while helping others, she in turn helped herself. Erin Brockovich is a stirring, funny and unconventional drama based on true events, starring two-time Academy Award nominee Julia Roberts as the twice-divorced mother of three young children who sees an injustice, takes on the bad guy and wins. With no money, no job and no prospects on the horizon, Erin Brockovich (Roberts) is a woman in a tight spot. Following a car accident in which Erin is not at fault, she finds herself even worse off when her attorney fails to land her any kind of settlement. With nowhere else to turn, Erin pleads with her attorney Ed Masry (Albert Finney) to hire her at his law firm. It is there, while working, that Erin stumbles upon some medical records placed in real estate files. Confused, she begins to question the connection. She convinces Ed to allow her to investigate, where she discovers a cover-up involving contaminated water in a local community which is causing devastating illnesses among its residents. Although the local citizens are initially leery of becoming involved, Erin's persistence and the personal interest she takes in their lives makes them listen. A kindred spirit, Erin is one of them, and her ability to connect with them on their level makes them comfortable, ultimately earning their trust. Helping her out is her next door neighbor George (Aaron Eckhart), a Harley Davidson biker whose friendship and support allows her the time to pursue the case.

History of Costa Rica :: Culture Cultural History Essays

History of Costa Rica Human habitation can be traced back more than 10,000 years but it appears Costa Rica was sparsely populated and a relative backwater in the pre-Columbian era. There is little sign of major communities and none of the impressive stone architecture that characterized the more advanced civilizations of Mesoamerica to the north and the Andes to the south. When Columbus arrived near Lim ¢Ã‚ ¢n on September 18, 1502 on his third and last voyage to the Americas, there were probably no more than 20,000 indigenous inhabitants They lived in several autonomous tribes, all with distinct cultures and customs. Costa Rica's only major archaeological site is at Guayabo, 30 miles east of San Jos‚‚, where an ancient city, dating back to 1000 B.C. and though to have contained 10,000 people at its peak, is currently being excavated. Many interesting gold, jade and pottery artefacts have been found throughout the region and are on display in several museums in San Jose. The Indians gave Columbus gold and he returned to Europe with reports of a plentiful supply of the yellow metal. But the adventurers who arrived to cash in found only hostile Indians, swamps and disease for their trouble. Several early attempts to colonize the Atlantic coast failed for the same reasons and for almost half a century Costa Rica was passed over while colonization gathered pace in countries to the north and south. In 1562, the Spanish main's administrative center in Guatemala sent Juan Vasquez de Coronado to Costa Rica as governor and Cartago was established as the capital the following year. With no Indian slaves to work the land, the colonists were forced to work the land themselves, scratching out a meagre subsistence by tilling small plots. The impoverished colony grew slowly and was virtually ignored by the Spanish rulers in Guatemala. By the late 18th century, the settlements that would buela had been founded and exports of wheat and tobacco were making economic conditions somewhat better. Central America gained independence from Spain on September 15, 1821. The news reached Costa Rica a month after the event. The question of whether Costa Rica should join newly independent Mexico or join a new confederation of Central American states resulted in a bitter quarrel between the leaders of San Jose and their counterparts in Cartago and Heredia. A brief civil war in 1823 was won by San Jose and Costa Rica joined the confederation.

Essay --

Gender Differences and the Brain Brandon Moore LTCY 199 November 21, 2013 As we all know the brain is one of the most amazing mysteries in the world; there is a lot to be discovered. This topic hits home for me because most of my life I have always wanted to know how is the brain any different between men and women. From the very beginning of life boys and girls are already different. The common topic of discussion is which gender’s brain matures faster. People often hear that girls mature much faster than boys. In fact this is not true; the genders don’t really play a part in the maturation process, because it is all about what you are exposed to in life. Although research has shown girls to have way more verbal skills through the preschool stages, but it then declines drastically around age seven . Girls have also been proven to do better than boys in reading and writing all the way through high school. Most of these studies were done in co-ed schools. Studies have shown that single gender schools are more helpful for both genders. The statistics were basically the same from these types of schools. I do think your brain matures faster based of the things you are exposed to. When these say research was done globally, the statistics varied, some siding with girls and some in favor with boys. So this proves, that there is a real gender difference, but there is not a proven gender maturation rate in the brain. Self-esteem is another big gender difference. It ties in with topics like emotions, coping, depression, and behavior. All through adolescence boys have been shown to have a greater self-esteem than girls. This means guys are less likely to become depressed over something. Research done by Reiko Miyamoto and Yoshiaki Kiku... ..., Szatkowskal, l., & Baron, J. (2012). Sex, Lies and fMRI Gender Differences in Neural Basis of Deception. Plos ONE, 7(8), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043076 Farace, E., & Alves, W. M. (2000). Do women fare worse: a metaanalysis of gender differences in traumatic brain injury outcome. Journal of Neurosurgery, 93(4), 539-545. Xu, J., Kobayashi, S., Yamaguchi, S., Iijima, K. I., Okada, K., & Yamashita, K. (2000). Gender effects on age-related changes in brain structure. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 21(1), 112-118. Schulte-RÃ ¼ther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Shah, N. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2008). Gender differences in brain networks supporting empathy. Neuroimage, 42(1), 393-403. Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the Eccles' expectancy-value model. Journal of applied sport psychology, 3(1), 7-35.

Children in Horror

With the release of Orphan upon us, it seems as good a time as any to consider the role that kids have played in the horror genre. Other groups have fairly consistent, even ritualized roles in films. Men as antagonists are usually the threat of aggressive male sexuality, wielding phallic weaponry and chasing down hapless female victims. Women are either the sexualized teenaged victim, the virginal survivor, or in some classic horror, the threat of female social and sexual empowerment to male hegemony. But children in horror movies have not had such a stable role.There are, however, three major trends in the way children fit into horror plots. We’ll call them â€Å"the silent witness,† â€Å"the creepy little kid,† and â€Å"the un-victim. † The silent witness is used most commonly in ghost films like The Messengers and Mirrors. These characters often don’t speak at all (perhaps due to some earlier trauma or developmental shortfall) or they only spea k in short, cryptic messages. The driving notion behind these characters is that in their innocence they don’t know to be scared of the ghosts and ghoulies, or in other cases, they retain some knowledge of trust or secret about life that we as adults have forgotten.Either way, these characters represent an almost covetous reverence for the ideal of childhood innocence. The sound of the child’s laughter is usually central to at least one scene, reminding us again of the child’s innocence, but also implying that the child is not alone. One of the most elegant, though not central, uses of this character type is in Close Encounters of the Third Kind in the scene when the child, Barry, goes missing. Of course everyone’s favorite use of children in horror movies is the creepy little kid.This is the category that Orphan falls under and also incorporates a lot of ghost films like The Grudge and The Unborn, but it can also include demon-child movies like The Omen. The protagonists of these films are often the parents, or adopted parents, of the creepy kid in question, and these films play subliminally on oedipal anxieties. In films where the kid is a ghost, it will sometimes be â€Å"the good ghost† who is trying to warn and protect the other characters. But even if the child ghost is not benevolent, it’s still usually not the embodiment of pure rage that ghosts of adult men tend to be.Instead, the threat they pose is usually more akin to a trapped animal, and often these characters are associated with a specific animal or take on animalistic traits. Whether alive or dead though, creepy little girls have become iconic within the horror genre. With sunken eyes, perfect hair, and always the same style of going-to-church dress, the image of the creepy little girl has become standardized, but the fact that it still remains creepy while being so familiar is a testament to its ability to strike a deep psychological chord with the aud ience. In many ways the creepy little girl is the flip side of the silent witness character.Both imply that young children know more about their surroundings than they let on, but whereas the silent witness can’t communicate, the creepy little girl won’t, inevitably to nefarious ends. Where the silent witness represents the purity and innocence of childhood, the creepy little kid represents all the cruelty and selfishness that children are capable of. Finally, there is what I like to call the un-victim. These are the kids in movies who get chased by the bad guys, but everyone knows they’re going to live through the end of the film. Classic examples would be Tommy Jarvis in Friday the 13th Part IV, or Reggie in Part V.A more recent example would be the two kids in Signs. These kids are un-victims because they’re threatened through the entire movie, but never get killed off because killing a kid in a movie is going too far for most filmmakers (though appare ntly not for Lars Von Trier in Antichrist). As a result, these kids end up being a sort of safety blanket for the viewer. We know that they’re safe, and therefore we allow them to provide us some security and even the occasional moment of levity. For many horror fans though, these kids turn into an annoyance very quickly (Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds). This is of course not at all comprehensive.Films that break these molds are often far better off for it, as just in general movies that buck or reverse trends and stereotypes are usually more creative and better made movies. Plus, this summary does not include demonic pregnancy movies like Rosemary’s Baby, or movies aimed at children like Gremlins. And then there are a few movies that merge and meld these tropes together. Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining has not only the prototypical creepy little girls, but Danny Torrance incorporates all three character tropes. He is himself a creepy little kid at times, but at other times he acts as the silent witness.But then in the third act when the emphasis of the film begins to shift towards Jack’s insanity, Danny becomes an un-victim. So this is by no means a bible of children in horror movies, but it is an interesting topic to contemplate how children factor into a genre that is specifically meant to not be seen by them. Adults have always had a very interesting and compelling relationship with notions of childhood, and it’s certainly not insignificant that children, in one role or another, find their way so consistently into the horror genre, where all the fears and anxieties of the human psyche find their voice.

Hoovers policies and attitudes in the years 1929-33 Essay

Asses the view that Hoover’s policies and attitudes in the years 1929-33 merely prolonged the depression. President Herbert Hoover came in to power in America in 1928. He was a man with a strong belief and he believes in individualism and believed passionately in the values of hard work and enterprise. However, he came in power at a time where America was in an economic crisis, where unemployment was shooting up as well as inflation, America had entered a new era where inequality was increasing more than ever for example New York had one million unemployed whereas Ohio has 50% of the population unemployed, thus it was vital for Hoover’s policies to be adequate in order to restore prosperity. Source 7 clearly argues that Hoover’s attitudes and policies were inadequate and â€Å"failed again and again†. Similarly, source 8 believes that his faith in his own policies has only prolonged the depression even more, thus both sources have a clear consensus between them. On the other hand source 9 argues that a lot was actually done in order to get Americans back on their feet, thus Hoover’s attitudes and policies were good for America. However, it is clear that Hoover simply did not do enough in order to deal with this economic crisis as he was seen to be as a very â€Å"stubborn† person as source 7 argues and he simple could not read between the lines. Source 7 describes Hoover as a very stubborn person who â€Å"Remained convinced that he was right† Hoovers attitudes towards agriculture did not help American farmers at all. The agricultural marketing act was established in 1929 which artificially purchased farmers surpluses at prices above the market price. Hoover gave the Federal Farm Board $500M, yet Hoover still not think through exactly what he was doing. The agricultural market was in a significant decline in America during the 1930s and he only encouraged farmers to produce more as the Federal Reserve board was purchasing their surpluses. Furthermore, he was accused of throwing away tax payers money which was extremely regressive. Similarly, source 8 believes that Hoover undertook some â€Å"harmful policies† where he also â€Å"resisted congressional attempts to provide more substantial farm relief† this can be seen through the fact that instead of putting money into farmer’s pockets he actually took it away. Farming was seen as the backbone of the American economy and Hoovers Agricultural Marketing Act seemed like something that was rushed and never thought through which emphasises how Hoover simply lacked knowledge in many areas of the economy. Furthermore, he never thought about agricultural on an international level and the consequences his actions would have, thus his attitudes towards individualism was clearly not applicable to American society at that time as American clearly needed a Keynesian approach towards the economy where money would be significantly pumped in to the circulation of the economy. Source 8 also believes that the Hawley-Smoot Tariff was significantly damaging towards Americans â€Å"which he signed despite the advice of most economists†. This emphasises his attitudes towards his policies, he in his own â€Å"fantasy world† as source 7 also describes as he simple did not have any fixed approach towards fixing the damaged economy. Hoover did not realise exactly what was needed for the American economy as if he did, he would have realised that putting a 40% duty on agricultural products would not have stimulated the economy. This fantasy world consisted of just his own approach, which was not thought through, he believed just because he had a very hard work ethic meant that everyone else could have one too, however, this was not the case in America as Americans simply had no money in their pockets to start them off and they needed relief in order to get back on their feet again. Furthermore, his policies had a very short run effect as he believed by putting tariffs up it would help farmers gain more revenue. However, with agriculture being such a competitive market, it only led to retaliation as countries all across Europe could not afford high prices as they were in an economic crisis too. Furthermore, the Hawley-Smoot tariff resulted in the abandonment of free trade amongst European nations, thus it was extremely damaging for the agricultural market as they could not sell their surpluses and had to eventually dump their goods in different countries, therefore Hoover did pro long the depression. Furthermore, source 8 also argues that Hoovers approach towards unemployment was also not good enough as he â€Å"blocked direct aid to the unemployed†. This is because of his hands off approach attitude that he undertook during the 1930s was not radical enough and could be seen as taking things â€Å"too modestly† as source 8 states. The Emergency Committee for Employment aimed to help agencies provide relief of $500, however, due to his self-reliance attitude he did not allow direct federal relief. This clearly shows how Hoover was not thinking ahead and his attitudes were far behind time as he did not realise exactly how badly Americans needed the governments help and it was crucial to intervene in the economy as much as possible. However, Hoovers $500M was not large enough to help the millions of people in America who were unemployed and did not have the basic necessities in life, growth was literally not possible without the government intervening as GDP was getting lower and lower. However, taking into account that many countries were in a nation debt, it was obviously not possible for Hoover to magically get a large sum of money in order to give relief to firms and other sectors, thus there was actually a limited amount that Hoover could do even though he did have a hands off approach towards America. Source 9 completely contradicts source 8 and 7 as Leuchtenburg believes Hoover â€Å"Stepped up federal construction and urged state and local governments to accelerate spending† thus Hoover did make significant changes that did not pro long the depression. One of his most significant polices was the reconstruction finance corporation which was authorised to lend $1.5 billion to states to finance public works. Not only was this a very direct relief but it also had many benefits as it helped insurance companies as well as banks. One major aspect of the RFC was the fact that it lent 90% to small and medium banks, which was a turning point as rural small banks were hardly ever noticed and no other president intervened the way Hoover did and this contradicts Patterson’s view of Hoover having â€Å"minimal government intervention†, thus his lack of intervention may have been exaggerated by source 7 and 8. The â€Å"increased capital investment† as source 9 suggests also helped the economy as investment was a crucial part of GDP and investment would have allowed firms to innovate in America, thus Hoover had noticed the â€Å"grim reality† of the depression as he was doing what he could have in order to restore the economy. However, the RFC was only available to states that declared bankruptcy and they had to use the money to provide schemes which would earn money so that loans could be repaired and this perfectly fits in with Parrish’s view of how the â€Å"economic crisis required maximum cooperation† , which Hoover was not giving at that time as all banks and businesses needed some sort of relief which he was not doing. Furthermore, even if he was cooperated it was a little too late, thus Hoover did pro long the depression. Overall, it is clear the Hoover’s approaches were not good enough for American society in the 1930s and he did pro long the depression. One vital error that Hoover made was the fact that he was not helping the unemployed as much as he should have as in order to stimulate the economy, a wage was needed and with a wage tax could have been paid which could have been used to fund the public with goods. Therefore, if Hoover had considered getting people into work this would have automatically had a positive knock on effect. Furthermore, a hands off approach was not needed in times of the depression as Americans did not have money to get back on their feet as many banks were not giving out loans due to the effects that the boom period had on them, therefore a lot of intervention was needed. Thus, it is clear that Hoover did make big mistakes during the depression as he did not see the reality of it and did not try to tackle the main problems as he had no detailed plan.