- Travis seems to have the strongest argument. I do not think that BNG assigned a lower employee to indicate they not appreciate Safeblend's way of taking advantage of insider information since they openly shared the info. I think that is only a signal sent to Safeblend indicating that competitors are offering the same alternative at a better price than that of Safeblend. - Since I only have 2 arguments to evaluate, I will give Don the weakest argument. Don, I think your argument is completely the opposite of what I think in that I think that Safeblend went above and beyond to make the delivery process smooth and had performed well on the field.
My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end” (95). Towards the end of the story, Equality realizes that he is free to feel any emotion he wants, and however extreme he wants to. He doesn’t need to have some reason to be happy, or some reason to not be happy, he can just be. Being happy without a reason isn’t a crime in the real world, but in Equality’s world, it was.
The parties are both willing to use their power to deceive and take advantage to pursue their personal goals. One can justify the means of using power based negotiation if the results are positive. Professionals can use power based negotiations in a many different situations. Positional bargaining starts with a solution. Each party takes a stance on what they expect out of the negotiation.
Everybody finally being equal means everybody being average. If there is no competition in life and everybody is equal then life would be considered boring and there would be no sense of fun for anyone in society. Kurt Vonnegut shows the only way everybody can be equal in society can be if non average people
I feel that if it’s your money others needs are not your concern, irrespective of their situation. The next application is sharing who it Benefits the most, applying that to monetary values in my view is impossible. It basically means you share with anyone that will benefit more than the other – material or psychological benefit. And the ones who believes their benefits is the greatest gets a piece. To me it seems completely irrational, and secondly I do not see the point of sharing if it’s your money.
Everyone is all for their own good right? On this part, the profit would be zero to zero. A benefit and a disadvantage cancels each other out, thus making a neutral. Even though Ethan would earn himself an enemy, he decided to help him. By doing this, Ethen showed Jullian that he was a nice and caring person.
All-in-all, individual plus-minus is a useless statistic. In no way does it measure a player 's individual contributions, which is essentially what player statistics should do. When put into context, plus-minus can measure the effectiveness of a team throughout a season. This is it 's only true use, though. Using plus-minus to evaluate individual players is incorrect and ineffective
We reassign their values to be for Ana: W: 8 X: 5 Y: 2 Z: 1 Choosing to confess ensures that a player will receive either A or C. Choosing to keep quiet in contrast ensures B or D. The number chosen to represent were chosen arbitrarily so that W>X>Y>Z, therefore confessing is always the better option. The use of this inequality stipulated, yields what is known as a "Nash Equilibrium," as existing in a game if both players are aware of the reward structure, each is knowledgeable of his or her opponent's options, and as a consequence makes a rational decision considering those options, there is always one decision that is better than the other. In the prisoner's dilemma in which W>X>Y>Z, both players confessing is a Nash Equilibrium as long as W exceeds X which will be proved
One way OT’s and OTA’s can use to solve dilemmas is to lis the Pros and Cons of the action, assign a quality value to each action (0-10), then base your decision on the action with the highest value. Another way dilemmas can be solved is to ask the following questions: who are the players in the dilemma? What other facts or information are needed? What actions may be taken? What are the possible consequences of each action?
This rational choice perspective focused on the hedonistic calculus which is the assumption that people are rational and will therefore make decisions in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain (Alexandra Lysova Lecture 3). From here, deterrence theory was born which then lead to Cornish and Clarkes rational choice theory. This new rational choice theory has many similarities with deterrence theory which is why many people refer to rational choice theory as the new model of deterrence (Tibbetts and Hemmens 2015). Cornish and Clarkes rational choice theory first developed from economists on the bases that all people are rational decision makers who will weigh the cost and benefits when it comes to committing a crime, does the reward outweigh the risk and possible punishment (Alexandra Lysova Lecture 3). The theory of rational choice also looks at the perceived risk of a crime vs. the actual risk that committing the crime will have.