Margaret Mead and Rhonda Metraux discuss the varying effects of discipline in “Discipline- To What End?”, specifically when they state that, “There are… forms of discipline that may be self-defeating.” I understand this quote to mean discipline can lead to the opposite of the desired effect when improperly used. This can result from both over disciplining and using the wrong kind of regulation for a specific behavior. The possible outcomes from the wrong kind of discipline may lead to the child having problems with decision making and development of character, which may severely stunt his or her ability to function in the future. I agree that discipline can be psychologically contradictory to the intended goal as a result of either inappropriate
However, through working together, they were able to pool physical and financial resources to benefit both groups. It is through series of behavioral actions the two groups realized they could accomplish the super ordinate goals set before them. Groups were also formed in the case study where it was found that Mary and brother’s formed two group and gathered allies, the superordinate goal could be for both groups to work towards finding a solution on care that is in the best interest of Ms Koulias. Whilst Realistic group conflict theory is a start to understanding this conflict , Social identity theory (SIT) that evolved from RGCT would provide a deeper understanding of the conflict. Tajfel defined social identity as "that part of an individual 's self-concept which derives from his membership of a social group (or groups), together with the value and emotional significance attached to this" (p. 63) SIT leans towards a cognitive approach of in-group bias.
It creates the illusion of power as one has to achieve the expectations of their subordinates, therefore they do not have the freedom to do as they please; being the slaves of societal expectations. Also, if one wants to avoid humiliation, they’ll have to sacrifice their own morals to achieve these expectations. Power is a very dangerous thing, bringing benefits to themselves but also expectations of
Having an open mind is another characteristic people turn to when contemplating what an ideal person is. It shows that one is open to new ideas, suggestions and can see the opposing side of an argument. Appreciation is given to those with this trait because it is easier to reach agreements on important matters by both sides of the argument compromising. Machiavelli, on the other hand, prefers to be in control and tells people this in The Prince. Once again, he has a pessimistic outlook on what the optimal person is.
This fear is carried out to the point that they see certain freedoms as less and less important. While another group, feels as if political correctness is being forced and upon them and in relation to this they have begun to act out in frustration and anger. This has led this group to extol certain freedoms above that of other rights and individuals. The consequences of both of these groups will have lasting and
One may have done something about which one is truly ashamed or on the other hand be unfairly blaming oneself; one's self-assessment may have been realistic or unrealistic. We are at risk of losing hope when we dwell on the illusion that we will suffer a future of punishment and torment. Yet, let us realise that there are darker forces within the mind encouraging our self-condemnation and that we can gain some control over these. Just as we can receive creative inspiration from a higher source, so we are capable of receiving destructive impulses from a lower one. Our power over our
This dimension has a critique on the second, accusing it of being too qualified, thus still too close to behaviourism (Lukes 1974: 21). It also turns down the idea that there must be conflict in consequence of the exercise of power. It is possible for an actor to exercise power over another actor or individual by manipulating their desires and subjective interests. This means that power, as seen in this third dimension, can also be used to prevent conflict from happening. This results in latent conflict, where the subjective interests of the affected conflict with their real interests, even though they might not realise it (idem: 23-25).
“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” - Aung San Suu Kyi Power corrupts. After individuals come into a position of power, control becomes second nature to them. They find it excruciatingly strenuous to relinquish the authority they have. They find it onerous to “give away” the power that they hold on so endearingly to.
what she wanted. But she made the man do otherwise due to the incorrect way of exerting power. In persuasion, power and control of resources depend upon mutual influence within a group. Turner (2005) also identified “coercion” which is another form of power that depends on influence and authority, which leads to attitudinal change and also brings about resistance to the loss of freedom. This means that the source must have influence and authority over those that are willing to be its coercive agents.
The supposition of this would be a change of Nash equilibriums, one in pure and one in mixed; they are psychological Nash equilibria in the players' inner games. Consequently, making the players' utility levels subject to intrapersonal convictions may have an emotional effect on a game's hypothetical properties (Patokos, 2013). To reflect, Game Theory gives adjustments that rely on upon what the other player does and in addition what an individual accepts about themselves. In any case, to make Game Theory more sensible whilst additionally improving the theory's informative force, a singular's result in a game ought to incorporate second request convictions as well, such that the result ought to consider interpersonal