Importance of understanding personality in psychology

Importance of understanding personality in psychology In the field of psychology it is most important to understand the personality of an individual. Personality helps sum up the values, actions, perceptions and behaviour, these can differ from person to person. There are a number of theories that are being used to understand people and have been around for many years, the five Psychological concepts used are Behaviourist, Humanistic, Cognitive, Psychodynamic and the Biological psychology. This assignment will cover two of the five approaches; they are the Behaviourist and Humanistic approach. Behaviourists primarily focus on peoples observable behaviour, experiences and their learning process to understand individuals. According to behaviourists ones behaviour does not depend on what goes on inside the mind and also believe if asked about their feelings it is very likely they could be providing misleading information. They also trust that behaviour is learnt either by imitation of others or repeating behaviour that has brought an award or a punishment; peoples interaction with the environment. Operant and Classical conditioning is two theories within the behaviourist theory. Operant conditioning according B.F Skinner (1936) is a learning method that arises through rewarding or punishing one for their behaviour. Classical conditioning which was discovered by Ivan Pavlov (1903) is said to be a learning procedure that is raised by a natural stimulus and an environmental stimulus. Watson and Rayner (1920) did a controlled experiment and recorded on videotapes. Watson wanted to take Pavlovs research from animals and test it on humans. This experiment was called Little Albert. Albert was 9 months old when he was tested for reactions towards various stimulis that were presented to him. Albert was shown white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks, cotton wool, and burning newspapers. It was said he showed no fear towards the three animals. What Albert did respond negatively to was the loud noise that came from the hammer being struck against a steel bar, Albert cried when he heard it. When Albert was a little over 11months he was tested again in another controlled experiment, he was presented with a white rat and the steel bar was stuck by a hammer, this experiment was carried out 7 times over 7 weeks. When Albert was presented with a white rat, he would burst into tears not only that but Albert only had to see the white rat and he would show every sign of fear towards the white rat. Albert grew to fear the white rat, he also grew a fear for all fury things and the hammer was no longer needed to get Albert crying. (Watson, John B. Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14). This classically conditioned experiment was a great success as it proved to be right. Some may agree believe that the behaviourist approach is more accurate than the Humanistic approach as it is considered scientific, and there is data that is collected by the researchers that prove to be a success. This approach being classed as scientific tells us that many experiments have been carried out to prove the accuracy of the approach and it has a backbone and isnt just assumptions of what might be going on in the mind and how if influences our everyday behaviour. Pavlov showed existence of the behaviourist approach when he by accidently discovered that the dog produced more saliva when he saw the lab assistant because he had learnt to associate the lab assistant with food. Watson approved of Pavlovs observations and wanted to connect it to human psychology and did so by performing the Little Albert experiment (1920). This experiment being done successfully, may be classed as double confirmation to some as they may believe that human and animals are alike in some sense because they adapt to their environment and learn to behave according to that environment. The behaviourist theory could be classed as biased. For example Watson and Pavlov conducted their experiment in laboratory conditions which means the Independent variable (IV) was controlled and manipulated by the experimenter to measure the dependent variable (DV). The dependent variable may be accurately measured but its sense of realism has been taken away and very little free will is left. Humanistic psychology could also be referred to as the third force in psychology, its theories that conflict the Behaviourist theories. The humanistic perspectives are more concerned and are interested in how peoples behaviours can be influenced by a persons emotions and thoughts. How one feels and how others see an individual is what they believe shapes peoples behaviour, interested in what goes on internally rather than the external factors. Humanistic approach believes that personality is what shapes human behaviour and comparing it to animals is dehumanising as each individual is unique and does not go by animalistic urges. Each social interaction helps develop ones personality. Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are the main theorists who portray the Humanistic approach. Carl Rogers (1959) has claimed that the meaning of behaviour basically, is personal. One needs to feel appreciated and accepted by their environment and not only that but needs to be surround by people who they can talk to and would listen and understand them, he believed that if people arent surrounded by these social factors then relationships and healthy personalities will not develop. Satisfying yourself by achieving your personal goals, personal wishes and personal desires in life is where self-actualization takes place. He believes that a person can only do this when their ideal self and self imagine is congruent; the humanistic term for this is a fully functioning person. Abraham Maslow (1970) created a Hierarchy of needs pyramid which starts off with one needing to satisfy the lower needs before being able to achieve self actualization. The pyramid starts off with the basic needs such as physiological needs, safety needs, love and belongingness, Esteem needs, then goes on to the growth needs such as cognitive needs, aesthetic needs. Once these needs are seen to a person is able to realise the full potential and become everyone one can become. Behaviourist and humanist approach both recognise that humans nature to respond to whatever the situation whether it is internally or externally. Another similarity with the two approaches is they both take note of other individuals and ones experience and relation with them. They have more difference than similarities On one hand the Behaviourist approach does not see peoples ability to think but believe they have the ability to react, just like an animal. On the other hand, for the humanistic, peoples behaviour is believed to relay on being able to fulfil their needs and responsibilities, development of ones self and their self awareness. The behaviourists believe what shapes behaviour is ones response to natural stimulis and behaviour can be reshaped using Operant and Classical conditioning. As for the Humanistic beliefs ones behaviour is developed by their social interactions (Family, friends, environment and etc) Humanistic see an individual as unique, every person is unique and have their internal reasons for the behaviour, and do not believe that all behaviour is shaped by external factors; comes from within the mind.

Comparison of Eastern and Western Philosophers

[Comparison of Eastern and Western Philosophers ] Comparison of Eastern and Western Philosophers I will compare the Western philosopher Socrates to the Eastern philosopher Lao Tzu. These two philosophers had some things in common with their ideas and philosophies that they pursued. Socrates was a western philosopher that lived in Athens Greece and Lao was thought to be from what is now known as the Hunan province of China. Socrates Socrates lived in Athens which was a city that taught it was better to solve problems through debate rather than violence. It was because of this environment he grew up in that he became a great debater and strived to discover something important, namely, the essential nature of knowledge, justice, beauty, goodness, and, especially, traits of good character such as courage (McGraw-Hill, pg. 37, 2008) . He believed that power was not attained through wealth or physical strength but rather it was achieved through discussion or debate. The Delphi Oracle is said to have pronounced Socrates the wisest of people. To Socrates this meant he was aware of his own ignorance not that he was the wisest man in the world. Socrates made many enemies after this because he set out to find a man wiser than him and exposed many of them as frauds this brought about his demise as he was sentenced to death for corrupting young men's minds. Even though it is said by Plato that he could have gotten out of prison he choose to remain there because by living in Athens he agreed to live by their laws. Lao Tzu Lao Tzu believed that it was not through intervention but rather through understanding of how it functions. He also believed that the foundation of life was through peace and not through strife. The wise ruler, Lao Tzu believed, understands that violence is a last resort and knows that it can often be avoided by anticipation, by reconciling potential enemies and resolving difficulties when they first arise. Lao also believed it was through deeds done for others and not doing just the things that benefited himself that would define a person. This thought is best supported by a quote from his views on virtue where he stated The superior man hoards nothing. The more he uses for the benefit of others, the more he possesses himself. The more he gives to his fellow men, the more he has of his own (McGraw-Hill, pg. 538, 2008). The absence of selfish desires is the secret to his virtue. What Socrates and Lao Tzu had in common Both Socrates and Lao Tzu thought that even the wisest of humans is still ignorant. Both held that to act on that ignorance under the pretense that it is knowledge is folly that leads not to progress and betterment within the individual and society but to the opposite effect( McGraw-Hill, pg. 536, 2008). Even though both Socrates and Lao Tzu believed in fighting for injustices. Both Socrates and Lao both believed that it is best to settle things through talking and that war should be a last resort because violence only causes more tension and a retaliatory type reactions. In conclusion we can see that there similarities and differences in how these philosophers went about getting their messages across to others Socrates was more open and engaging in his desire to find true knowledge and meaning and used his gift of debate to engage others to find a better solution. Where Lao believed in just letting things happen and unfold as they may and what happens is what is meant to happen. Both of these philosophers were alike in the fact that they both strongly believed in only using force as a last resort. As both of these types of philosophy's have many good points I am more proponed to agree with western philosophy because I think like Socrates it is important to stick to what one truly believes as long as it is not detrimental to anyone else. Because if one's life is going to have meaning then we have to stick to what we believe because at the end of the day what really matters is how we feel about ourselves. If we compromise what we believe because of how others see us then our lives mean nothing. There is a very good poem by an unknown author called The Man in the Mirror in this poem the author states that at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that we can look at ourselves in the mirror and like what we see. References Moore, B. N. ; Bruder, K. (2008). Philosophy: The power of ideas (7th ed. ). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Implied Warranties Case Study

Implied Warranties Case Study Implied Warranties FACTS: Peter and Tanya Rothing operated Diamond R Stables near Belgrade, Montana, where they bred, trained and sold horses. Arnold Kallestad owns a ranch in Gallatin County, Montana, where he grows hay and grain, and raise Red Angus cattle. For more than twenty years, Kallestad has sold between 300 and 1,000 tons of hay annually, sometimes advertising it for sale in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. In 2001, the Rothing’s bought hay from Kallestad for $90 a ton.They received a delivery on April 23. In less than two weeks, at least nine of the Rothings’ horses exhibited symptoms of poisoning that was diagnosed as botulism. Before the outbreak was over, nineteen animals died. Robert Whitlock, associate professor of medicine and the director of the Botulism Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania concluded that the Kallestad’s hay was the source. The Rothing’s filed a suit in a Montana state court against Kalle stad, claiming in part, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.Kallestad asked the court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that, if botulism had been present, it had been in no way foreseeable. ISSUE: Should the court grant this request? Why or why not? [Rothing v. Kallestad, 337 Mont. 193. 159. P. 3d22 (2007)] DECISION: The court should not grant Kallestad’s request for dismissal because he breached his contract with the Rothings and failed to honor the implied warranty of merchantability. In addition, Kallestad should be ordered to reimburse or compensate the Rothings for the goods and products they’ve lost due to the defective product they received from Arnold Kallestad’s ranch.REASONS: From a personal standpoint, Arnold Kallestad may have not known the true conditions of the hay he sold to Peter and Tonya Rothing. For more than two decades Kallestad provided quality alfalfa hay at a competitive price. This, from what the facts tell us, is the fi rst major incident to occur within their business relationship. All the other purchases of hay were perfectly fine and free of disease and toxins. This isolated incident could be viewed as an unforeseeable accident. From a legal standpoint, Peter and Tonya Rothing have the law on their side.The Rothings claimed Kallestad breached the implied warranty of merchantability which is defined as â€Å"a warranty that goods being sold or lease are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are sold or leased, are properly packaged and labeled, and are of proper quality. The warranty automatically arises in every sale or lease of goods made by a merchant who deals in goods of the kind sold or leased† (Miller and Gaylord 360). The goods in question would be the alfalfa hay Kallestad harvested from his property annually.For the purpose of this case, goods are defined as â€Å"at  Ã‚ §Ã‚  Ã‚  30-2-105(1), MCA, to mean:  Ã‚  all things (including specially manufactured goo ds)  which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale  other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities †¦ and things in action† (asci. uvm. edu). Kallestad would be considered a merchant of these goods because he has sold 300 to 1,000 tons of hay every year and advertises his product in the local newspaper on a regular basis.Therefore, it is established In Arnold Kallestad’s testimony, he admitted the hay the Rothings received were second cuttings and properly treated and dried. He also admitted â€Å"the hay was exposed to moisture during the winter months and that, one winter, a ditch near the stacked hay overflowed causing water to go along the west side of the stack of hay and then onto the road† (asci. uvm. edu). During this possible exposure, the overflow of water could have contained toxins from the soil or standing water located on Arnold Kallestad’s ranch, and contaminated the hay sold to Peter and Tonya Rothing.According to the U. S. National Library of Medicine, â€Å"Clostridium botulinum  is found in soil and untreated water throughout the world† which may be where the botulism came from (nlm. nih. gov). As for the compensation for the goods and products lost due to the defective hay sold to the Rothings, Kallestad is held liable refunding all monies paid for the purchase of the hay. In addition to the refund, he must also remit monies for the clean-up of infected areas on Diamond R. Stables, veterinary bills for services rendered, and compensation for the 19 animals killed as a result of the hay infected with botulism. Botulism: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia. †Ã‚  U. S National Library of Medicine. Ed. Linda J. Vorvick, MD and Jatin M. Vyas, MD, PhD. U. S. National Library of Medicine, 24 Aug. 2011. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. . Miller, Roger LeRoy. , and Gaylord A. Jentz. Business Law Today: The Essentials: Text & Summarized Cases: E-commerce, Legal , Ethical, and International Environment. 9th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. â€Å"Rothing v. Kallestad. †Ã‚  Department of Animal Science (ASCI): University of Vermont. The University of Vermont. Web. 04 Mar. 2012. .

Whats the Meaning of A Priori in French

In English, this Latin expression is not often used, and means in theory. In French, À  Priori is used quite often. It has several meanings. À Prioris Meaning In French, à   priori means: in principle/if everything goes as planned/unless something changes Oà ¹ vas-tu pour les vacances? Where do you go for your vacation?À priori, je vais en Bretagne... mais ce nest pas encore sà »r. If everything goes as planned, Im going to Brittany, but its not certain yet. À priori, son examen sest bien passà ©.Unless something changes (unless we hear otherwise), his test went well. Tu aimes le canard ? Do you like duck?À priori, oui, mais je nen ai jamais mangà ©. In principle, yes, but Ive never had it. Note that there are no good synonyms for this expression in French, which makes it quite useful and used. Avoir Des À Priori Note that when written without an s à   priori means to have set opinions about something. Tu dois le rencontrer sans à   priori.You must meet him without set opinions ( with an open mind) Elle a des à   priori contre lui.She has set opinions about him. A synonym could be un prà ©jugà ©.