Sunday, December 29, 2019

The Glamorization of Mental Illness Among Teenagers

Maren Dennison Pd. 4 11/25/13 When visiting any well-known social network geared towards teens and adolescents, it takes but a few minutes to encounter a post that glorifies a disturbed mind. However, being mentally disturbed does not make a person beautiful. Many teens and adolescents believe that fabricating and self-diagnosing certain mental illnesses are a way to gain peer acceptance and to stand apart from the crowd. Although this belief may seem harmless, the glamorization of mental illnesses can create severe physical and emotional problems for teens. The most common mental issues that teens tend to glamorize are of self-mutilation, anxiety disorders, and depression. Self-mutilation includes an array of serious issues.†¦show more content†¦Throughout the teenage years, normal levels of anxiety naturally increase due to all of the pressures of growing up and fitting in. Because of the constant worries and fears that teens experience, many start to self-diagnose General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) . GAD disrupts one’s daily life by greatly magnifying normal worries and fears, typically about the future (26). Some researchers suggest that GAD runs in family members (28). This theory considers not only genetics, but also environment. Some children learn anxious behavior from their elders (28). However, in some cases, the reason for the development of GAD cannot be determined. Typically, when a teen claims to have GAD without showing any typical symptoms of the illness, that the teen may have self-diagnosed. Self-diagnosis of GAD can create many emotional and medical problems in adolescents. Brian Kennedy explains, â€Å"Students in medical school are famous for convincing themselves that they have the disorders they are studying. The same might easily happen to people reading about anxiety disorders - especially, perhaps, with GAD. Because everyone suffers from anxiety at some point, it would be easy to self - diagnose GAD. But diagnosing an anxiety disor der is a tricky science and must be left to those qualified to treat mental disorders† (70). Teens who claim to have GAD without a proper diagnosis must be taken to a professional immediately. In cases where a

Saturday, December 21, 2019

The Globalization of Financial Markets - Pros and Cons Term Paper

Essays on The Globalization of Financial Markets - Pros and Cons Term Paper The paper â€Å"The Globalization of Financial Markets - Pros and Cons" is a spectacular example of a term paper on macro microeconomics. To understand the financial crisis that have become such a common occurrence in the past decades, it best to understand what caused these crises which started in Thailand, engulfed Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea, and then continued to influence Russia, Brazil, and Argentina, and some would say now seems to been influencing financial actions in Europe? The Asian crisis was the outcome of a typical asset bubble--over-leverage and a boom-bust approach by investors. For instance, in 1996 the whole bank debt in East Asia was around $2.8 trillion, or 130% of gross domestic product; nearly double that from a decade before. By 1996, power for the median firm had arrived at 620% in South Korea, 340% in Thailand, and averaged 150% to 200% crossways other East Asian countries (Mcinish, 2000, 92-112, 326). This chaos was financed with wealth inflows fr om new countries, which rapidly flowed away at the start of 1997.In order to avoid a financial crisis, it is first critical to understand the ones that have occurred in the past. Forces should be in a place that would diminish the likelihood of such crises and diminish their crash when they do take place (Valdez, 2000, 62). Well-built financial systems perform as stabilizers when the domestic economy is worn out. But weak systems turn out to be magnifiers, making a terrible situation worse.AIM OF THE PAPERIn this paper, I shall provide a critical overview and reflection on the financial crisis. It is a known fact that financial crises have become more frequent in the last three decades as they were before the 1970s. In order to examine the reasons behind it, I will first look into the definition of the financial crisis and its categories along with its causes and preventive measures. After that, I will look into the details of the phenomenon of financial liberalization that, accordi ng to most analysts, is the root cause of the frequent financial crisis. I will look into why it causes the crisis.FINANCIAL CRISISA financial crisis occurs when the demand for money increases sharply as compared to the money supply. The financial crisis can take many forms which includeBanking crisisCurrency crisisCredit crunchExternal debt crisis (Markus, 2005, 77-81, 110-5)A financial crisis occurs when investors lose their confidence in the assets of that country and decide to stop or withdraw their money from that country. The best approach is to first examine briefly some forms of the financial crisis and their causes.CURRENCY CRISIS:Currency crisis occurs when the value of the currency is very unstable and people find it to be less reliable to serve as a medium of exchange. This type of crisis usually hits severely small open economies; large economies tend to handle this instability through their foreign reserves by decreasing the excessive demand for a currency in the marke t. (Ansoff, 1965, 62)THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN CAUSES OF SUCH CRISISThere are many models that explain the currency crisis phenomenon; we will look at some of them briefly:CANONICAL MODEL:The model starts with the premise that investors will hold an exhaustible resource if and only if they hope that its price would rise quickly enough to offer them a rate of return more than or equal to that on other assets. This is the fundamental logic for the famous Hotelling model of exhaustible resource pricing: the price of such a resource should rise overtime at the rate of interest, with the level of the price path determined by the requirement that the resource just be exhausted by the time the price has risen to the "stop point" at which there is no more demand. (Mcinish, 2000, 92-112, 26-8)

Friday, December 13, 2019

How Are Theories Formed Free Essays

What is a Theory? We often hear someone say â€Å"That’s just a theory† or on the contrary – â€Å"In theory and in practice, it always works. † This term may indeed hold in itself a somewhat ambiguous undertone, and lead to confusion and misuse. Let’s look at the origin of the word; according to an etymology dictionary, theory derives from the Greek â€Å"theoreo† which means ‘to look at’, ‘to observe’. We will write a custom essay sample on How Are Theories Formed? or any similar topic only for you Order Now The definition tells us that one must firstly observe a phenomenon so that a theory about a certain aspect of it could form. There are essentially three forms of theories, and although they are different, all of them have one thing in common – a theory is always born with observation. The first form is theory as a belief, found in humanities such as philosophy and arts – this type is a theory that can guide or predict certain behavior in a social situation. For example: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs or the Karl Marx Theory of Bureaucracy. This is when someone might say â€Å"That’s just a theory†. The second form of theory is used primarily as a possibility, in other words as a tentative insight into the natural world – for example, the most famous in this category would be the Evolution Theory or in physics a String Theory. Finally, the third form is the scientific theory, and according to www. wordnet. princeton. edu, it is â€Å"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. In order for a theory to be considered scientific, it needs to satisfy certain parameters, which distinguishes it from the other two forms. Firstly, a scientific theory will explain how nature works for example Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation, or Kinetic Theory of Gases, and it will do so with significant evidence – unlike in the other forms, a scientific theory is always well tested by numerous experiments. This leads to the n ext point – scientific theories are mathematical in nature, meaning they explain measurable phenomena, and not abstract concepts, such as the theories in the first category. Why did I state that String Theory and Evolution Theory are not scientific theories as opposed to Kinetic Theory of Gases? The answer lies in the hypothesis of these theories. A hypothesis is a proposal intended to explain certain observations, a prediction. It must be testable, meaning that whichever prediction you make, you need to be able to prove it works. It also must be falsifiable, meaning capable of being proven wrong. In both the String Theory and the Evolution Theory, the hypothesis fails, because you cannot possibly test them and also prove them wrong. These are the steps in the formation of a scientific theory: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis based on observation 3. Experiments 4. Evidence 5. Theory First form doesn’t make it to step 3 and second form doesn’t make it to step 4 – only scientific theories make it to step 5. The method outlined in these steps is called an inductive approach to science. It was introduced by Francis Bacon and he said that a scientist needs to erase what he knows in terms of science, and start with a clean slate, tabula rasa; his knowledge will be based on observation, lead to hypothesis, then to evidence (or lack thereof), then to theory and its generalization. The relationship between a theory and evidence is crucial – without evidence, there is no theory and no science, just random observations. To better demonstrate inductive method, let’s take Aristotle as an example. He observed dropping down two objects at the same time, and with numerous experiments he saw that objects which are heavier fall faster to the ground than lighter ones. So that was his theory, and it stayed that way until Galileo Galilei opposed it. This is what inductive method is about – you base your theory on observation and make it a scientific fact until something else contradicts it. It is similar to coming across mammals and saying all animals are warm blooded – until you come across a reptile. When Galileo objected to Aristotle’s theory, he said to forget inductive method and instead focus science on the deductive approach, an exact opposite. Instead a scientist would work from an already existing theory – an argument is that scientists make progress when they hold an idea in mind and then they go to observe and gather evidence for that idea/theory. Proponents of the deductive method assert that science makes progress through meta-theories, meaning that in place of one theory, another one will emerge. So when Galileo opposed Aristotle’s theory, he proposed that the different speeds of objects falling to the ground have nothing to do with their masses, but instead occur because of air resistance and acceleration due to a gravitational pull. He was right and Aristotle was wrong. Below is a summary of how evidence and a theory interact in their relation to each other. Evidence - theory (inductive) Theory - evidence (deductive) Meta-theory - theory - evidence (deductive) As mentioned throughout the paper, the validity of a theory and its worthiness depend primarily on the evidence and proof which is gathered after the theory has been stated. For example, the recent theory that all physical objects in the world and all living organisms are holograms is mind bending and would be a tremendous breakthrough in the world of science had the hypothesis been testable. Just like with the Theory of Evolution and Theory of Creationism, the Theory of a Hologram World, remains a theory â€Å"yet to be proved right†. The issue here though is overwhelming – how much information and evidence does one theory require in order for it to become a law/fact of science? And even when it does become a law such as Law of Gravity or Law of Multiplication Table in mathematics, it exists only as far as contradictory evidence is not presented, because in science, observations take precedence over everything else. Scientists also know that in science, there is no certainty. Before 1800’s people thought they have sufficient evidence that the Earth was flat, it is funny to us now, but who knows maybe in three centuries down the road we will also be laughed at. Going back to the question of how much evidence is needed for a theory to become accepted as science – this has also to do with the way a theory is structured, worded. Again, its linked to mathematics and measurement – the more precise the theory is in terms of numbers, the easier it would be to measure it. The more vague and open to interpretation it is, the harder it would be to come to a conclusion. This is concerned with issues of metaphysical/ontological theories – examination of nature as a physical experience versus a mental, spiritual experience. Another very important issue arises from the question – who researches scientific theories? At the end of the day, science is researched by people, and written by people. When evaluating theories, one might question the bias factor and the personal interest factor in the developments of science. Enterprise and governmental politics may play a key role when time will come to take a closer look at a contentious theory. Part 2: Question 4 One of the most controversial issues is regarding the question whether psychology really can be encompassed as a science or not. Psychology means the study of the human mind, also the study of human behavior, and science in its simplest definition is the explaining of the world through empirical and numerical evidence. Science as a concept is very structured – because the very nature of things it looks at, can be researched and studied under laboratory, experimental conditions. Paul Lutus, in his article â€Å"Is Psychology a Science? † states, â€Å"We should determine whether psychology can be relied on to objectively support the social and legal policies that are based on it. In modern times, such a serious public burden can only be borne by a field that is based on reason, on science. † If psychology is in fact responsible for providing answers, what is the content of this science? Psychology differs from biology and neuroscience primarily because it is concerned with the study of the mind rather than the brain. It focuses on the study of concepts of perception, cognition, interpersonal relationships between people and what motivates individuals to behave the way they do. Psychology also aims at treating mental disorders and classifying abnormalities and ways to cure them. Psychology differs from other social sciences such as anthropology, economics and sociology due to experimentation and the primary focus on the individual, or on small groups of individuals, rather than society as a whole. The next question would be, what is the methodology applied in psychology as a science to research the content? As the object of interest in psychology is the human mind, the most effective way to gain insight would be to apply projective techniques to the subjects of research. Projective techniques involve asking subjects to interpret or fill in visual stimuli, complete sentences, or report what ssociations particular words bring to mind. The way the questions are structured, enables the patients to project their own personalities onto the stimulus, often revealing personal conflicts, motivations, coping styles, and other characteristics. The best known projective test is the Rorschach test, created in the 1920’s by a Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach (r orschach. org). It consists of a series of ten cards, each containing a complicated inkblot. Some are in black and white, some are in color – subjects are asked to describe what they see in each card. Another famous projective technique in its purest form was established by Sigmund Freud, called free association, where the subjects are told not to filter out anything that comes into their mind and speak it out freely, so that language and voice communication acts as a direct channel to what is going on inside a person’s head. Methodology applied in psychology, consists of essential three elements: research, diagnosis and therapy. Most importantly, in order for diagnosis and therapy to be meaningful, the research i. e. he experiments need to be conducted in a way that assumes minimal bias and maximum control of the variables. Psychology is excellent at describing phenomena, however it often cannot reliably explain these occurred phenomena; this is to be expected, after all the object of study is the most complex and genius creation in nature – the human mind. Works Cited Lutus, Paul. (2009, May 12) Is Psychology a Science? Retrieved from http://www. arachnoid. com/psy chology/index. html Online dictionary www. wordnet. princeton. edu/perl/webwn? s=theory www. rorschach. org How to cite How Are Theories Formed?, Papers