Theories

Ridgecrest School Dispute Initial Report Teachers’ Association 11/15/12 In order to maximize combined interests and reach the Pareto Efficient Frontier, our strategy is to build trust by sharing information about our interests and priorities. In addition, sharing information can help create a positive relationship with the Board of Education and can increase the chances that they will reciprocate that behavior by giving away information about their interests and priorities.

Given that many people are reluctant to share information with the other side, we also plan on asking the Board of Education many questions so that we can learn from what is not said as well as from what is said. Another strategy we will use to create value is to make multiple offers simultaneously because it helps to collect valuable information and it makes us appear more flexible. This is a particularly important strategy given that we can compromise on various issues if the other side is willing to offer us some concessions on other matters in return.

For instance, we would be willing to accept a formula in which any pay received for performing civic duty would be deducted from regular pay if the board is willing to meet our demands for salary acceptably (See planning document for what is acceptable). The cost-cutting strategy is useful in that it allows for one party to get what it wants while the other has the costs associated with its concession reduced or eliminated. This is a strategy we will use by proposing to the other side a budget that we have come up with that minimizes our concessions while still allowing them to get what they want (See attached Budget Proposal).

We have prepared this budget so that when the other side claims that there is no other way expenditures can be cut, we can show them an alternative solution. In addition, we also want to trade off differences in interests and priorities in order to create value. We plan on doing this by trading issues that are most important to us such as salary and workload for issues that are most important to the other side. We realize that this might be a problem if the interests that are most important to us are also most important to the other side.

But, there might be issues that are significantly more important in terms of other issues to one side than they are to the other side. Finally, we plan on searching for post-settlement settlements in order to look for an agreement that is better for both sides. Once we have created the most possible value that can be created, we will use strategies to claim value. First, we will open aggressively given that initial positions act as anchors and affect the perception of what outcomes are possible. We will do this by asking for more than our target (See planning document for target).

For example, we will ask for a $7,000 increase in salaries for lower levels and reduce the pupil/teacher ratio to 13:1. We realize that the other side will not agree to this, but it will still be helpful as an anchor. Another strategy we will use to claim value is to give credible reasons for our interests whenever possible (See Issues Analysis for several reasons). For instance, the reason we want an increase in salaries is because we have not had any salary increases in years and our workday is longer than the NJ average (See attached for NJ average). If we do not have a credible reason for an interest, then we will use a pseudo reason.

In addition, we will know what interests we are willing and not willing to give concessions on (See planning document for concessions). This is important given that there are so many issues in this negotiation that we can compromise on if the other side is willing to give us something else in return. Finally, we are prepared to make smaller concessions to indicate that we are reaching our bottom line without revealing our bottom line. This is always an important strategy because we want a deal that is close to our target, but are willing to accept any deal that is at or above our bottom line.

A3 Compare two theories of first/second language acquisition. The process by which humans acquire the capacity to distinguish properly as well as produce and use words to understand and communicate with others is known as first language acquisition. It focuses mainly on how infants pick up their native language, including syntax and some extensive vocabulary items, having so little input. We can distinguish many theoretical approaches towards the first language learning process.

Behaviourists, for instance, whose main motto is ‘Say what I say’ claim that learning of the language is the result of habit formation, imitation practice and feedback on success. Children naturally imitate what they hear in their environment, then if they receive positive reinforcement, they are able to form ‘habits’ of proper language use. On the other hand, a linguist Noam Chomsky holds that language development may be compared to the most basic biological functions such as an ability to walk as “every child will learn to walk as long as adequate nourishment and reasonable freedom of movement are provided” (Lightbown and Spada 1999:15).

Both theories emphasize the importance of the environment which plays a crucial role when stimulating child’s language development. Hence, in order to pick up the language in a proper way the child must be exposed to the language given. However, contradictory to the behaviourist theory, Chomsky claims that the language is, to some degree, confusing and the provided information is not sufficient for a child to learn the language only by imitating particular words and phrases.

That is to say, the environment fails to provide all necessary information which the child needs. To sum up, the greatest difference between behaviourism and innatism is the opinion about child’s mind. Behaviourists claim that child should be, in some way, programmed by the environment, meaning child’s mind is a blank slate that has to be filled. However, Chomsky is of the opinion that every child comes to this world with a special ability to discover all language rules by itself. Bibliography: Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: OUP.

This article goes into detail about how the public believes that violent crime is a widespread national problem in the US despite the declining trends in crime. The authors have a hypothesis that fear of crime is in part a by-product of exposure to crime-saturated local television news.

Cultivation Theory is used to suggest that fear of crime is fueled in part by heavy exposure to violent dramatic programming on television. Exploration of a related hypothesis indicates that the Cultivation Theory’s predicted effects of television on the public are true. The authors use national surveys to support their research. 2. Lee, C. , & Niederdeppe, J. (2011). Genre-Specific Cultivation Effects: Lagged Associations Between Overall TV Viewing, Local TV News Viewing, and Fatalistic Beliefs About Cancer Prevention. Communication Research, 38, 731-753.

This article incorporates recent studies that have found that exposure to local television newscasts is associated with a variety of problematic “real-world” beliefs. These studies were controlled for a variety of demographic characteristics and media use variables. A two-wave national representative survey is analyzed to know the correlation between local TV news viewing and fatalistic beliefs about cancer. Analyses provide evidence that local TV news viewing predicts increased fatalistic beliefs about cancer. 3. Kahlor, L. , & Eastin, M. S. (2011).

Television’s Role in the Culture of Violence Toward Women: A Study of Television Viewing and the Cultivation of Rape Myth Acceptance in the United States. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55, 215-231 This article approaches cultivation from a feminist prospective that recognized television as a source of cultural norms embedded in a culture of violence towards women. Results show that general television consumption significantly relates to rape myth beliefs among men and women. Also, there is a negative relationship between crime-show viewing and rape myth cceptance. Crime-show viewing directly correlates to the overestimation of false rape accusations. 4. Morgan, M. , & Shanahan, J. (2010). The State of Cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 54, 337-355. This article investigates television’s contributions to viewers’ conceptions of social reality. This article reviews the history of cultivation theory and takes stock of recent trends within the field. Changing media is contributing to the future prospects for cultivation research. This article will mainly be used to introduce cultivation theory to the reader. . Appel, M. (2008). Fictional Narratives Cultivate Just-World Beliefs. Journal of Communication, 58, 62-83. This article identifies several misrepresentations on television and shows that the more television people watch, the more their beliefs correspond to the television world. Fictional narratives are believed to be powerful in changing audience beliefs. While local news is not fictional, many of the stories may not be local and can still change the beliefs of the local audience. The general amount of television viewing positively relates to mean-world and scary-world beliefs.

A Necessary, Modern Revision Aristotle studied and explained a wide range of subjects ranging from science to politics and is widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. One of his most important contributions to the study of humanities is his exploration and definition of moral virtue. In his book, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains different views about the nature of life in order to allow the reader to find what the main function of life is and how to successfully perform that function.

For example, Aristotle states in his first book, in article one, “every art and every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit is considered to aim at some good. ” Hence, Aristotle defines the “good” as that which all things should aim. However, what separates humans from other “things” is the fact that humans seek the good in order to achieve eudemonia, or happiness. In order to achieve this result, a human must function well, and would therefore be acting with rational activity.

So, if a person performs the function of rational activity well, they have acted with moral reasoning, acting virtuously to achieve eudemonia. In summary, Aristotle believes the good, or virtue, is in a human’s self-interest because of the results it produces. However, I strongly believe that, to classical philosophers, achieving virtue was a broader concept that its modern connotation suggests.

It is commonly known that certain theories can be considered obsolete over time if not restated in a modern day context, because as society advances, there is a need for theories and ideas to accommodate and make room for such changes in order to maintain their relevance So, in order to adapt Aristotle’s theory of the good, also known as Aristotle’s virtue theory, into modern day life, different theorists and philosophers became interested in reevaluating the theory and adding to it in order to achieve a successful and newer theory for humans to consider.

I want to discuss the most popular theories recreated from Aristotle’s virtue theory to prove that there is, in fact, a need to modernize and restate his original concept, there is not a need to disregard it or substantially add to it. I believe that his theory must simply be presented through a modern outlook to be used as a guideline as to how humans should act instead of a set group of rules that could possible contradict each other. There are many different theories to consider when trying to find the best adaptation of Aristotle’s virtue heory, they range from supplementary views to non-supplementary and non-criterialists. For example, Supplementalists such as James Rachels believe in supplementing Aristotle’s theory of the good with an independent theory of right action. Whereas, non-Supplementalists can be further split into criterialists such as Rosalind Hursthouse, who believes that happiness can be objective, and non-criterialists such as Julia Annas, who believes that virtue theory does not need any criteria of right action because a truly virtuous person would never get into a situation where a criteria of right action would be needed.

These theories differ on core principles and methods of adaptation, some even disagree with parts of Aristotle’s theory; however, they all have some form of agreement with respect to Aristotle’s theory of the good and can be used to enhance it for its adaptation into modern day context. After my evaluations of each philosopher’s view points, I have found the most practical and least contradicting theory in Julia Annas’ essay, “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing. ” Her essay delves into not only the original concept of Aristotle’s virtue theory, but also discusses the consequences of abiding by those guidelines in modern day.

Her theory allows Aristotle’s theory to remain intact, however she refreshes it to the modern connotation it needed to be more commonly accepted by today’s society. However, when looking at the other popular views, James Rachels’ provides a detailed argument vouching for his supplementalist view point on the theory of the good in his essay “The Ethics of Virtue. ” In his opinion, Aristotle’s theory shows an excellent motivation for moral action and gives us a better perspective of our decisions by enabling a different method of weighing our action.

Yet, he also states that through Aristotle’s theory alone, there would be no reason for individuals to think that characteristics are virtues rather than vices. For example, courage could be a vice because there is no basis for asserting that courage is a virtue. Second, he adds “it is difficult to see how unsupplemented virtue theory could handle cases of moral conflict” (Rachels 2). For example, honesty can conflict with kindness if a certain circumstance presents itself. According o Rachels, a purely virtue-based morality must always be incomplete, since it could not by itself explain why certain character traits are not morally good and therefore, humans could never decipher if they are truly acting virtuously and experiencing eudemonia. In order to make such a distinction between what is and is not morally good, he concludes that a combined approach, supplementing Aristotle’s theory with an independent theory of right action, such as Kantianism or Utilitarianism, will allow for an adequate moral philosophy in modern day.

However, there can be problems with supplementation because moral theories, such as Kantianism for example, suffer from the same problem of deciphering the conflict of virtues. Rachels evaluates a list of virtues such as benevolence, civility, fairness, justice and so on, describing them as traits of character that should be fostered in human beings. By doing so, he conveys to the reader the need for an independent theory of right action such as Kantianism to help distinguish whether or not it is a virtue or vice. However, he does not go into detail of the problems such independent theories of right action can run into.

Say Rachels wants to supplement the virtue theory with kantianism, and a person posses the virtue of honesty, however, if that person were to be conflicted by Nazis asking where hidden refugees are, that person would have to tell the truth because that is what the “categorical imperative” deems. Therefore, supplementing the virtue theory proves unnecessary and contradicting when trying to maintain using the virtue theory in modern day. Next, I chose to compare a theory opposing the supplementalist view such as the non-supplementalist view that Rosalind Hursthouse agrees with in her essay “Virtue Theory and Abortion. However, she also adds a criterialist view point in that “an action is right, if and only if, it is what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstance” (Hursthouse 225). In her paper, she primarily uses the example of abortion to demonstrate her criticism of the virtue theory and discuss what is needed to be applied to the theory for it to promote the correct virtuous answer in modern circumstances. She states that “virtue theory can’t get us anywhere in real moral issues because it’s bound to be all assertion and no argument Hursthouse 226),” therefore, she addresses the need for clear, virtuous guidance about what ought and ought not to be done when a person is stuck in a conflicting decision of virtues. In her example of a woman’s decision of whether or not to have an abortion, she emphasizes the necessity of that guidance. However, in the evaluation of Hursthouse’s paper, she states nine separate criticisms of virtue theory, demonstrating what she believes to be an inadequate grasp either of the structure of virtue theory or what would be involved in thinking about a real moral issue in its terms.

She clearly makes the point that Aristotle’s theory of the good does not allow for a blatant answer in circumstances in which a person could either only do wrong or face the decision of acting for the good of human kind or for their own self interest. But, what she does not grasp is the simple fact that a virtuous person would never be in such situations to begin with, as Julia Annas later states. Hursthouse’s example of abortion becomes invalid with the realization that a virtuous person would not have irresponsible sex to land herself in a situation of whether or not to have an abortion.

She mostly disagrees with Aristotle’s overall concept; therefore, her need to recreate it in a more understandable method is diluted and consumed by her overall goal of asserting the need of a virtuous guidance for those stuck in unvirtuous situations. Julia Annas further addresses the contradictions Hursthouse makes in her essay “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Things,” in that she does not follow the criterialist belief that Hursthouse believes is necessary to make the virtuous decision.

As stated before, she uses the main contradiction that the circumstances where there is no right answer a virtuous person wouldn’t be in to begin with. Also, she believes that “we are not blank slates; we already have a firm views about right and wrong ways to act, worthy and unworthy ways to be (Annas 66),” and we become knowledgeable of what is right and wrong through a developmental process, not through some technical method of deciphering right from wrong. She believes that you become good at being virtuous the same way you become good in everything else, for example, in order be good at playing the piano, you must practice.

Her statements help relate Aristotle’s virtue theory to those confused about how to apply it in everyday life. She is providing the excuse of instinct and development for the vagueness of his original theory in order to make it more practical and achievable for those wanting to act with virtue. Overall, Annas proves her view deliberately and assertively throughout her paper. It becomes apparent that becoming a virtuous person requires a developmental process much like other activities in life.

Also, through defying other theories, such as Hursthouse’s, she shows how uncomplicated making a virtuous decision can be, instead of making such a decision seem unachievable and complicated in modern context. I agree with her statement that it is wrong to “force our everyday moral thoughts into a system of one-size-fits all kind, virtue ethics tells us to look elsewhere at what happens when we try to become a builder or pianist (Annas 73),” because I believe that is how I came to learn what was morally good, and how I am still learning what is right or wrong in today’s society.

She revives Aristotle’s virtue theory for modern day by allowing its original vagueness to remain intact and not trying to rewrite the theory’s initial context, while at the same time describing it as more of a guideline for humans to live by and a way to improve practical judgment in everyday life. In conclusion, Annas’ non-supplementalist, non-criterialist outlook on Aristotle’s virtue theory provokes thought and consideration, but also relates to a reader, because if looked at closely, the virtuous developmental process can be easily recognizable in any reader’s childhood.

Also, her analytical methods of revealing the problems in other theories help the reader to comprehend her theory easier. Annas leaves the reader stating “When it comes to working to find the right thing to do, we cannot shift the work to a theory, because we, unlike theories, are always learning, and so we are always learning and aspiring to do better (Annas 74). ” Overall, Annas provides the best adaptation to Aristotle’s theory of the good and provides a positive outlook on the methods of becoming virtuous without constraining the reader to believe that there is exact and deliberate steps a human must make in order to gain eudemonia.

Her revision allows Aristotle’s concept to live on into modern day, and thus provides a well-rounded and current guideline to the betterment of today’s society. Works Cited Annas, Julia. “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing. ” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (2004): 61-75. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. 325 B. C. Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Theory and Abortion. ” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20. 3 (1991): 223-246. Rachel, James. “The Ethics of Virtue. ” 1996. Norman R. Shultz. November 2010 <http://www. normanrschultz. org/Courses/Ethics/Rachels_virtueethics. pdf>.

Strength

It is the most comprehensive administrative management theory Henri Fayol’s theory is extremely comprehensive as a way to deal with management techniques. It is also the most used because it has been proven to work. It’s being comprehensive as it covers just about anything one might need to do in a management position to ensure success.

Weaknesses

• It is still based on human application

The weaknesses to the theory are that it is still based on humans.As humans we are naturally going to make mistakes. The theory works on the basis of having harmony among people in which unity forms to create a strong management team. However, when mistakes are made it can undermine the entire strength of the team. Furthermore, if a person is found to be false and will not admit it, more problems can ensue. This is the same weaknesses of any system that relies on humans to be in control given various factors like personality and that mistakes can be made.

• Reliance on experience

Many of the writers in the management developed their ideas on the basis of their experiences as managers or consultants with only certain types of organizations. For instance, Fayol’s work came primarily from his experiences with large manufacturing firms that were experiencing stable environments. It may be unwise to generalize from those situations to others especially to young, high-technology firms of today that are confronted daily with changes in their competitors’ products.

• Untested assumptions

Many of the assumptions made by classical writers were based not on scientific tests but on value judgments that expressed what they believed to be proper life-styles, moral codes, and attitudes toward success. For instance, the classical approaches seem to view the life of a worker as beginning and ending at the plant door. Their basic assumption is that workers are primarily motivated by money and that they work only for more money.

They also assume that productivity is the best measure of how well a firm is performing. These assumptions fail to recognize that employees may have wants and needs unrelated to the workplace or may view their jobs only as a necessary evil

• Unintended consequences

Administrative management approaches aim at achieving high productivity, at making behaviors predictable, and at achieving fairness among workers and between managers and workers, yet they fail to recognize that several unintended consequences can occur in practice.

For instance, a heavy emphasis on rules and regulations may cause people to obey rules blindly without remembering their original intent. Oftentimes, since rules establish a minimum level of performance expected of employees, a minimum level is all they achieve. Perhaps much more could be achieved if the rules were not so explicit.

My take is that when he talks about “advantages and disadvantages of administrative management” he is talking very specifically about administrative rule making authority.

Most administrative agencies have little or no rule making authority (FBI, DOJ, BATF), these exercise purely executive power. Some have been given tightly constrained rule making authority.

A few, such as the EPA have been given fairly broad rule making authority. That can be come a problem.

“Again, the complexities of modern life that gave rise to the Los Angeles smog problem are well documented. The EPA and its regulations made my air healthier. I’d say that was being “reasonable”.”

Yes, they were being reasonable back then. The stopped being reasonable some time around the mid 1990s. The problem is when their manager’s salaries are determined by their budget and number of employees, how do you get them to recognize when it’s time to stop? How do you get them to admit that while yes, continuing to enforce the existing rules is important, there is, as with all things, a point of diminishing returns where each new rule does more harm than good.

Bedouins and the Dependency Theory. Theories of globalization fall into three categories; Modernization, dependency and the world systems theory. These theories each sprout out into more categories and they distinguish what or how a country or society has developed into. The modernization theory focuses on the culture and belief systems that are powered by globalization. This theory then takes off into five more stages known as the traditional stage, culture-change stage, take-off stage, self-sustained stage, and high economy stage.

These stages mainly focus on a few things such as tradition, culture, economy, advancement of education and technology, and also ones that produce the exported goods for other countries to import. Although some theories are open to change that is done gradually, some refuse to change and just stay the same without and further advancement. Although these theories are what distinguish a country and where it lays on the scale, it still does not mean it cannot further itself into something better throughout the world.

Anthropologist Donald Cole researched on the Bedouins who are groups of nomadic pastoralists. Al Murrah is the people Cole focused on, they are a small society that resided in the heart of the desert in the country of Saudi Arabia. They were based on caravan trade with relied on the care of camels and other animals. The Al Murrah society was a society based off itself, and other small societies around the desert. They relied on the commodities with oasis centres for dates, rice and bread. They had a military force and also raided others and committed warfare.

The rich and powerful Saudi government then recruited Al Murrah males into the national guards work and then the leader of the Al Murrah, as known as the Emir, was recognized as the commander in chief of the small tribes for the national guards. The Saudis would then pay these commanders salary wages which they then would distribute to other tribes people. This then left the Al Murrah people dependent on the Saudi government. This type of works would be considered under the dependency theory. The modern state of Saudi Arabia has token its time by exploiting the small tribe of the Al Murrah by having them work for the National Guard for wages.

Saudi government took control over these people by having them always wanting more money and so they would recruit more and more emirs into the National Guard which thus left the Bedouins to be integrated into the nation states throughout the Arabian Peninsula. The dependency theory applies to the Bedouins because it is a larger group exploiting the smaller group into helping them. Although their lifestyles are different, they still accepted the change and still went on with it and now have discontinued existing in the deserts of Saudi Arabia.

According to Freud, there is no such thing as an accident, but rather an unconscious desire. Freud developed the theory of Bungled Actions as a method to explain when things happen that seem to be accidental but play right into what that person desires at the time. The desire may not even be a conscious or purposeful event, but can be something that is desired in the subconscious and the accident or bungled action provides a means to get that desire accomplished. One might consider these bungled actions to be a doorway into our unconsciousness.

In his essay “Bungled Actions”, Freud talks of cases where he saw the idea of a mistake or bungled action connecting to a deeper meaning. “Bungled actions can, of course, serve as whole number of other obscure purposes” (237). Freud talks about the idea of breaking things, harming oneself. The action of these things all are supposed to represent something that our unconscious wants to see happen. Numerous bungled actions were discussed throughout the reading which I would have never thought to be connected to one another.

Smashing or breaking things with some value, there were several stories in which people said to have broken something and it was connected to an event in their lives. Freud sees the breaking of something as a sacrifice. For instance, Freud himself once being clumsy sat down at his desk to write a letter and knocked over the ink pot over which sat on his desk. Earlier in the day, his sister had commented on how his ink stand didn’t match his table and how he should get another one. Based on his theory, he believes that the reason he unconsciously broke the ink pot is purely because in his mind his sister said he needed to get another one. Dropping, knocking over and breaking objects are acts which seem to be used very often to express unconscious trains of thought” (242) as we saw in the Freud’s mishap. The story in the reading goes to say that a young boy wasn’t happy with his nurses’ directions for him to spend the morning in bed. He got quite angry and threatened to kill himself. That evening the boy was showing his arm with the large bump and bruises on it and said “that was my attempt at suicide that I threatened this morning. In Freud’s eyes this child had unconsciously hit his arm because of his earlier comment. “Falling, stumbling, and slipping” aren’t always seen as “accidental miscarriages of motor activities” (243) because they always have a story behind them. Freud suggests that these things express sexual content. Believing Freud’s theory took some reading, after understanding the unconscious and the id, ego, and super ego I believe we all have an unconscious world hiding inside us waiting to “escape” through small mistakes or Freudian slips.

I personally have never thought about how the accidents or mistakes I make in my life are actions that happened to try and tell me something else, but if someone is daring enough to take a gander, why not. I feel that if people are more aware of this it might not happen as often but it doesn’t hurt to investigate the urges hiding within all of us. Just the other week I was talking to my parents about how I wanted to get a new laptop because my computer was getting old. I also thought how nice it would be to be able to take it to different places, such as school.

We were throwing the around and decided to wait until laptops were on sale right before September. My dad has been looking online for sales ever since. Just the other morning my dad needed to jump on the internet really quick before he went to work in the morning, I guess he was still half asleep and knocked a whole cup of hot coffee right on top of the computer. Needless to say we had to go out Saturday morning to buy me a new laptop; the coffee destroyed it! My dad’s subconscious really wanted to buy me a new laptop, I guess.