Authority does not have to be an actual figure, but rather can be a set of rules or an institution. It plays a pivotal role in the decisions and influence of the general public. Zimbardo makes it clear how dangerous authority can be, because many people choose to blindly follow instructions regardless of whether or not their morals line up. It is described in depth as an almost brainwashing like phenomenon, where those under authority feel somewhat of an obligation to obey, simply because of their position. While this alone is interesting, an even more intriguing topic discussed in the book is the fact that not only do those under authority feel obligated to comply with their leader’s ideas and suggestions, but if the authority figures change from good to evil, their follows will most likely change as well.
Wallace argues that actual thinking and education involves gaining a conscious awareness, often that those around us are in reality just as important as we are. So while people are more likely to attribute behavior to another’s personality, especially if it’s negative, this is far from accurate. This is a big piece to Gilbert’s model if people do not use controlled think or thinking that is effortful, conscious, and intentional (textbook, p.65) to see someone’s situational attribution they are misinterpreting information. This occurs automatically and even involuntary, which is why Wallace referred to it as a default setting. However, even if initially people are making attributions to someone’s internal state, they can change this way of thinking and recognize outside situations.
“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth. Of course people have different values, morals, opinions, views, etc.
A discourse is comparable to what sociologists would call an ‘ideology’. It is composed of statements and/or beliefs that shape knowledge in the interest of one particular group. But, according to Foucault (in: Hall, 2006) a discourse is more appro-priate because an ‘ideology’ claims ‘truth’, which in turn can be falsified. But the social, po-litical and moral world seldom allows the formulation of ‘entirely’ true or
It is found that applying theory to practice may not always lead to the right conclusion, thus it establishes a precise approach to the social work process. The problem with choosing a particular point of view is that, whilst no particular theory is absolute, but when impartially applied, almost any can be used as theories as they are dynamic and always
Freedom, they believed, requires more than a tyrannical assertion of the self. It also demands an intelligent and pragmatic understanding of the relationship between self and society. In This Side of Paradise Fitzgerald, says Sklar, “succeeded in creating a new definition of individualism in contrast to the individualism of the genteel tradition; and it led, neither to despair nor to rebellion, but to an even more responsible commitment to a social order.” Amory’s character is known for being quite self-centered and individualistic and the necessity to find individualism is to take away his
The ability to think is an innate action that, for the most part, all people possess. Nonetheless, not everybody has the ability or knowledge of how to develop this quality into something greater and beneficial. Critical thinking is not inherent; rather the skills necessary to think analytically must be learned and practiced with an open mind. It involves listening with the intent of understanding others, drawing conclusions based on strong evidence and asking curiously about the situation. Not only must one be willing to evaluate a situation slowly and thoroughly, but one must also respect the views of others and accept the possibility of being wrong.
Popular culture has become so broad and intricate, that one theory simply will not do when analyzing it. Different objects and practices can be defined culturally, or through the everyday production of culture. Attempting to dissect it from one view would lead to a wrapped analysis because every component varies and often times, both theories are needed to obtain a pure conclusion. While the two theories are useful, when they are combined into the Popular Culture Studies Tradition, they are most efficient and ideal. Combining the two theories proves to be a substantial aid when digging into our culture.
In this paper, I am going to explore the concept of truth in the light of the Correspondence Theory by identifying its major strengths and weaknesses. The correspondence theory is the one that most people would more likely rely on or agree about, but it contains plenty of problems or non-answered questions. According to Pecorino (2000) “The theory is based on the belief that a proposition is true when it conforms to some fact or state of affairs. While this theory properly emphasizes the notion that propositions are true when they correspond to reality, its proponents often have difficulty explaining what facts are and how propositions are related to them.” What do you find appealing or discouraging about Coherence Theory? One of the main features of this theory is that "truth” consists
They’re more about fine-tuning the changes and implementations you’ve already worked out with them. Many clients don’t request the secondary services because they feel they’re unnecessary or they can meet those goals on their own. While these secondary objectives are significant and warrant further discussion, they’re outside the scope of this article. For now, we’ll cover the primary objectives, what they entail, and their importance to your project. Information Information is power.