Analysis Of Jean Jacques Rousseau And Denis Diederot s...

Abstract This paper exams one of the prevailing themes of the role of nature in education, as depicted through the lens of Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s in Emile, or On Education, and Denis Diederot’s, Rameau’s Nephew. The misdirected view of women’s education and the over utilization of reason and logic to justify moral behavior neglects to see the multidisciplinary thought on education. My perspective offers insight into how there are several contradictions in the texts that highlight the importance of holistic education for men and women. Introduction One of the principal characteristics of Jean Jacques Rousseau and Denis Diederot is the recognition of nature’s role in education. They believed that a virtuous man is governed and directed by the laws of his own nature rather than those of social institutions. They both acknowledge that experience, failure, and catastrophes are a part of a larger purpose that is ultimately beneficial to man. Rousseau describes his methods in Emile, the story of a boy’s upbringing in natural state, and child-centered pedagogy. Diederot makes essentially the same point in Rameau’s Nephew, where a combative conversation depicts the negative effects of the social order as depicted by He, and how I’s thoughts concern his nature as a thinking being. The sentiment of nature as a significant participant in education resonates throughout the text, but neglects to include women as a beneficiary of said education or recognize society as a major

Behavioural Studies Free Essays

Self-Presentation, also known as Impression Management (IM) is primarily a goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. If a person tries to influence the perception of his image, this activity is called self-presentation. With regard to the self-monitoring, it is the extent to which people monitor and control their expressive behavior and self-presentation. We will write a custom essay sample on Behavioural Studies or any similar topic only for you Order Now High self-monitors exert more expressive control over their social behavior and tend to adapt their appearance and acts to specific circumstances. The situation is different with low self-monitors, who display less motivation towards improving their self-presentation. They act more naturally and are least bothered about their public image. This essay has been designed to establish a relationship between the self-presentation and self-monitoring. In the beginning both the concepts will be explained followed by an analysis of the relationship between them. What is Self-Presentation Self-presentation, also known as impression management is the process by which people attempt to manage or control the perception others form of them. There is often a tendency for people to try to present themselves so as to impress others in a socially desirable way. The theory of impression management states that any individual or organization must establish and maintain impressions that are congruent with the perceptions they want to convey to their publics. The impression management theory describes the methods through which people take actions to a create a public perception, in order to achieve their personal or organizational goals (â€Å"Impression Management† 2006, pars. 1-5). As with other cognitive processes, impression management has many possible conceptual dimensions (Dunegan 1993, pp. 491) and has been researched in relation to aggression, attitude change, attributions, social facilitation, and leadership. It is basically an intentional or un-intentional goal-directed approach to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. In short, we can say that if a person tries to influence the perception of his/her image, the activity is called self-presentation. What is Self-Monitoring In any scenario, people are generally motivated to behave appropriately and in a manner which is appealing to others. The theory of self-monitoring explains the extent to which people value, create, cultivate, and project social images and public appearance (Gangestad Snyder, 2000, p. 531). The level of control which the people apply is different from a person to person. Some people may not care much about the perception others make of them. They say what they believe. These people are included in the category of low self-monitors. On the other hand, high self-monitors, are likely to avoid talking about themselves as they really are, and use pretense and deception in their efforts to play to the crowd (Buss and Brigg 1984, p. 1310). In general, self-monitoring involves three major tendencies: †¢ The willingness to be the center of attention — a tendency to behave in outgoing, extraverted ways. †¢ Sensitivity to the reactions of others. †¢ Ability and willingness to adjust behavior to induce positive reactions in others. High and Low Self-Monitors As states earlier, some people are more sensitive to the image they form when in public. Such people are very self-conscious and like to ‘look good’ and will hence usually adapt well to differing social situations. These people are called the high self-monitors. The high self-monitors would observe people and note their response to different behaviors of other people. On the other hand, there are people are less concerned about what others think about them. They are termed as low self-monitors. Low self-monitors do not make any effort to exercise control over their expressive behavior. High and low self-monitors possess different qualities. They regulate their behaviour in public in different ways. High self-monitors would generally adjust their social behaviours according to situational cues, whereas low self-monitors regulate their social behaviours according to their dispositions. Low self-monitors usually conform their behavior to their internal beliefs. Another major difference between high and low self-monitors is that the low self-monitors would choose friends based upon their liking whereas, the selection criteria for friends is different in high self-monitors. The high self-monitors choose friends as activity partners for their leisure time based on the friends’ skill in the specific activity. Moreover, high self-monitors will be more concerned about the partner’s physical appearance than the personality (Snyder, Berscheid, Glick, 1985). Relationship Between Self-Presentation and Self-Monitoring Self-presentation and self-monitoring are inter-related terms. In simple words, self-presentation is the way one presents himself/herself and self-monitoring is the level of control exerted during the process of self-presentation. Accordingly, high and low self-monitors will have different degree of self-presentation. High self-monitors are more adoptable and would adjust their behaviors across situations because they are more sensitive to the expectation of others. Their style of self-presentation would generally be more appropriate and suiting to every scenario they confront (Snyder, 1974, p. 527). They would always ask themselves as to what does this situation want them to be (Snyder, 1987, p. 32). They will constantly observe before exposing themselves. They will not express their emotions unless they are sure of their appropriateness. The high self-monitors will exhibit relatively low behavioral consistency across situations. They would tend to make a different image or face which is superficial, but will be corresponding to the situation. On the other hand, low self-monitors would present themselves as natural as they are and will seldom make any conscious effort to conceal their inner sentiments. Their behavior will usually be consistent across situations. The low self-monitors’ expressive self-presentation will be articulated by their inner attitudes, dispositions, and values. Low self-monitors are not concerned about the â€Å"appropriateness of their self-presentation† (Snyder, 1974. p. 527). Another important aspect of the relationship between self-presentation and low self-monitors is that they are often described as individuals who lack self-presentation concerns. They will not make much effort in adjusting their behaviour in accordance with situational demands. Their self-presentation will be natural and least concerned with the expectations of others. On the contrary, high self-monitors would make all concerted efforts in controlling their behavioural patterns which are conflicting with the situations. They are the ones whose self-presenting will be much applauded and their personalities will usually be graded as sober and acceptable. In one experiment, Snyder (1974) found that professional stage actors scored higher than non-actors on measures of self-monitoring. Professional actors genuinely possess acting ability and control over their emotions, expression, and behaviour. They were able to adapt to changing situations adequately. Their self-presentation was therefore much more stable and suiting the environment. In another experiment on ordinary college students, high self-monitors were found to be better than the low self-monitors in expressing different emotions like anger, happiness, sadness, surprise, disgust, fear, and guilt. High self-monitors can even adapt to sudden changing moods. When high self-monitors were asked to act like an extraverted, friendly, and outgoing person and then suddenly to act like an introverted, withdrawn, and reserved person, high self-monitors adopted each role better than low self-monitors did (Lippa, 1976). Conclusion Self-presentation is how we tend to present ourselves. It is how we want people to look at us. The art of exercising control over our emotions, behaviour, and moods is basically the self-monitoring. Self-monitoring refers to a person’s ability to adjust his or her behaviour to external situational factors. Individuals high in self-monitoring show considerable adaptability in their behaviour. They can behave differently in varying situations. They are found to be much capable of presenting striking contradictions between the public persona and the private self. On the other hand, it becomes difficult for low self-monitors to disguise themselves this way (â€Å"Self-Monitoring Scale,† 2006). In nut shell, high self-monitors are more concerned about self-presentation than the low self-monitors. Bibliography Buss, A. H. , Briggs, S. R. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324. Dunegan, K. J. (1993, June). Framing Cognitive Modes, and Image Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 491. Gangestad, S. W. , M. Snyder (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and Reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. â€Å"Impression Management,† (2006). Wikipedia, viewed 30 August 2006, http://www. answers. com/self-presentation Lippa, R. (1976). Expressive control, expressive consistency, and the correspondence between expressive behavior and personality. Journal of Personality, 44, 541-559. â€Å"Self-Monitoring Scale. † (2006). Viewed 30 August 2006, http://pubpages. unh. edu/~ckb/SELFMON2. html Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 434-461. Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York, Freeman. Snyder, M. , Berscheid, E. , Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 , 1427-1439. How to cite Behavioural Studies, Papers

Efficient Regulation Capital Market Theory - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Efficient Regulation Capital Market Theory. Answer: Introduction Griffiths decision to make use of another incumbent platform for his ticket inventory was motivated by two main goals: to acquire as many customers as possible and secondly to deliver the highest quality engagement as possible within his target market. On achieving the first objective, it would be easy for Griffith to attain the second goal since customers will be aware of this application and the decision will now be based on the latter competitive advantage of his app in the market environment. However, considering the fact that every choice has consequences, this choice by Griffith came along with its consequences, both Positive as well as negative. The incumbent and the Griffiths Gametime application performed a similar task and that was selling sports tickets. The fact that the incumbent application had its own customers, this acted as a great marketing opportunity for Gametime since almost all the people who accessed the incumbent application were potential customers , probably some would be attracted to this Gametime application and develop an interest hence shifting from incumbent application to Gametime.(Fischel Daniel., 76) Integrating this application under incumbent was a great opportunity to test its functionality since it allowed new users to interact with it. This came with some advantages also; firstly it was an opportunity to measure the users first impressions (Walker et al., 46). This was based on both the screenshot click testing and the screenshot timeout testing. Secondly, it was an opportunity to improve the architecture and get navigations right. Additionally, it acted as the bases to improve the application usability early on since it brought about insights on the reasons behind some of the users actions while interacting with the application (Dumas et al., 78). Lastly, it allowed for validations to improve on the earlier made decision designs. This was in regard to the prototypes ease of use and recommendations from the users. Capitalizing on the weakness of the incumbent Every mobile application has its own shortcomings which differ from one mobile application to another. Bearing this fact in mind, the incumbent application had its own disadvantages as outlined by Griffith; the incumbent mobile interface looked like a web version squashed onto the mobile phone. The Gametime having a good interface compared to the incumbent, probably would entice some users of the incumbent to shift and become users of the Gametime application (Dumas et al., 65). Additionally, since this application could only display the top best seats out of the many which the incumbent displayed, this acted as one of its main area to challenge the incumbent application which displayed all the tickets for the users to make the choice. Not all the users of the incumbent felt satisfaction out of the services offered by its application, this is because different users of an application will always have distinct challenges in interacting with a certain application. Considering this fact, some users would completely associate the Gametime application with the incumbent and end up stagnating in the perspective that the shortcomings of the incumbent application are as well the challenges to be faced in the Gametime application (Fox et al, 74). In order to be successful in any business venture there is always ups and downs and sacrificing for some time to reap largely at latter is a good approach in some scenarios. Since Griffiths Gametime was very new in the market and familiarizing people to it was one of his major goals, having a fully developed standalone version of this application in the market for free would have been a good idea (Fox et al., 87). Since at the start the customers would have been attracted by its free notion to make ticket purchases, this would have been a good opportunity to familiarize the consumers with this application. Off course, the advantages of this application such as responsiveness, usability and interactive user interfaces would have been experienced at this juncture of free trial. On expiry of this free trial, these advantages would prompt the users to adopt it. Works Cited Dumas, Joseph S., and Janice Redish. A practical guide to usability testing. Intellect books, 2013. Fischel, Daniel R. "Efficient capital market theory, the market for corporate control, and the regulation of cash tender offers." Tex. L. Rev. 57 (2014): 1. Walker, Miriam, Leila Takayama, and James A. Landay. "High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes." Proceedings of the human factors and economics society annual meeting. Vol. 46. No. 5. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2012. Fox, Justin, and Alan Sklar. The theory of rational market: history of risk, compensation, and misconception on Wall Street. New York: Harper Business, 2012.