Mim Udovitch vs. Ken Jackson Essay - 1484 Words

Jaymin Patel English 099-02 Prof. Sheehan April 17, 2014 Mim Udovitch vs. Ken Jackson It seems like every young girl dreams of becoming a model these days. Every young girl has the desire to get thinner than other girls in order to look like models on T.V, magazines and so on. The New York Times publishes articles for the majority of the audience to read, which is mostly adults. Mim Udovitch’s article, â€Å"A Secret Society of the Starving† talks about two major eating disorders that are anorexia and bulimia within many girls. Udovitch reports stories about three girls that are going through these disorders or have gone through them. The three girls Udovitch includes are Claire, Chaos, and Futurebird. Ken Jackson’s interpretation of†¦show more content†¦The author is not even preventing from people having eating disorders or giving advice or suggestions. Mim Udovitch is just presenting the audience with facts and experiences from people suffering from anorexia or bulimia. The article is just making the problems of high fatal rates of men tal illness from people suffering from bulimia and anorexia obvious to the adults. The group of people that mainly read The New York Times is adults. Ken Jackson believes that The New York Times should be publishing articles about people who want help and methods of helping them. The true meaning behind the article is not being shown because the article is covered with facts and experiences. The author did not stress enough on improving the lives of many individuals suffering from eating disorders. Udovitch should be inspiring people with eating disorders to treat themselves and seek help. The New York Times published â€Å"A Secret Society of the Starving† to inform the readers about what bulimic and anorexic girls want, but this information does not help these girls in anyway. Girls with eating disorders are not seeking for any sort of help. Readers do not really care about this article unless if their child or children have some sort of eating disorder. Udovitch informs, â€Å"A site like Futurebirds, or like the message board of Chaoss, are designed with the best intentions. But as everybody knows, that is what the way into the city of

Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays

The relative role of nature versus nurture in the shaping of living systems is a central issue in many areas of biology. There are two schools of thought. One side would argue that all idiotypic specificities are encoded in the germline genes of the gonads, implying that antigenic experiences over eons of time have allowed the accumulation, by natural selection, of every conceivable antibody specificity. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now The alternative school argues that a collection of useful specificities are germline encoded (e.g., those specific for antigens endemic to the species), the rest arising by a somatic mutation (and selection) process during the life of the individual; the total repertoire is, therefore, generated and shaped during ontogeny. The nature-nurture debate has now shifted to specifying how much of the child traits can be attributed to heredity and how much to environment. An enormous amount of research has been generated by this question. Despite sophisticated research procedure, there is still no definite answer to the nature-nurture question. My stand is more related on the environment and experience’s contribution to a child’s development, as what the role of nurture was discussed and especially apparent in Piaget’s book the Moral Judgment of the Child (1965), where he asserted that many arguments and conflicts with peers are the key in stimulating development of more mature moral thinking (McCormick Pressley, 2006). On biology, I personally think that even if the child gets the best gene composition, his experiences would still stand out. These would teach him lessons in life that he would most likely use in his everyday life. Today, most developmental psychologists do not believe that development is primarily due to either nature (determined by biology) or nurture (determined by experience), Instead, there is clear understanding that development is due to both nature and nurture, both biology and experience. Biology provides a range of possibilities. Which of those possibilities is realized depends greatly on the experiences available in the environment. Consider that may seem a simple example. A child inherits genes providing him or her with a biological predisposition for being intelligent and smart than average. Whether this child achieves this biological potential depends upon environmental factors, such as the nutrition available and exposure to severe illness or disease (Vialle, Lysaght, Verenikina, 2005). References: McCormick, C. B., Pressley, M. (2006). Child and Adolescent Development for Educators. New York and London: Guilford Press. Vialle, W., Lysaght, P., Verenikina, I. (2005). Psychology for Educators. Australia: Thomson Learning Nelson.       How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Essay examples Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays The debate between what shapes who a person will become has been around as long as scientists have been around to contemplate it.   The biologists with their need to find a genetic link for everything use such genetic diseases as Down’s syndrome and Hemophilia to explain how nature develops the human adult.   The psychologists are never quite as absolute as the biologists and they have studies and Theorists such as B. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now F. Skinner to say that a person is only the result of how they are trained.   The reality of what shapes a person into the adult he becomes is actually a very well balanced blend of both. An adult person is made up of physical traits or characteristics, behaviors or habits and personality traits. Scientists and psychologists agree that physical traits and characteristics are almost entirely the result of genetics.   A person gets green eyes and blonde hair from a parent with green eyes and blonde hair.   If both parents are over six feet tall, the child will very likely be tall.   Additionally diseases such as Down’s syndrome, and color blindness are indisputably genetic.   Scientists have discovered specific genetic markers to identify how these traits and illnesses are acquired.   The debate comes in when the other aspects of a person’s make-up is questioned. When the origin of the way people act or behave is considered the debate begins to get very heated.   Most psychologists state that behavior is direct result of what people have learned during childhood.   The classical psychologists Skinner and Pavlov believed that every action a person made was learned.   They did experiments on animals to prove how stimulus affected and thus shaped behavior.   This attempts to dismiss serial killers as  simply having bad childhoods (Powell, 2008). When the histories of many of the worst serial killers are investigated however, some had abusive childhoods and others had very nurturing childhoods.   Some studies done in Russian orphanages showed that much of what people learn comes from nurture. In these studies, a number of children spent months or years with very limited human contact.   The result was a group of children, who could not speak or interact with others.   These studies indicate there is a combination of both nature and nurture in behavior. When personalities come into the picture, the studies of twins who were raised in separate homes become a factor.   One of these studies was that of Elyse Schein and her twin sister, who upon their reunion discovered that over fifty percent of their personalities were the direct results of nature (Richman, 2007). This explains that the makings of a serial killer have to be a combination of genetics and the way a person is raised.   The twins in the study had no knowledge the other existed, but discovered they had a number of commonalities. The result of the years of study and debate comes down to the fact that a person is shaped both by who they are related to and how they are raised.   Neither bad genes nor bad caregivers can be blamed entirely for the end results of how a person turns out as an adult there is no evidence that people are shaped entirely by either, but there is evidence that both play significant roles. Resources: Powell, Kimberly, â€Å"Nature vs. Nurture† (2008) About.com. Retrieved January 31, 2008 from: Nature vs. Nurture – How Heredity and Environment Shape Who We Are Richman, Joe. â€Å"Identical Strangers†. (2007) excerpt from book by Elyse Schein. Retrieved January 31, 2008 from: NPR: ‘Identical Strangers’ Explore Nature vs. Nurture How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Essay examples Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays FINAL PAPER: NATURE VS. NURTURE Bradley Duckworth 3/9/12 My thoughts on Nature vs. Nurture are very different from the secular world because the secular world doesn’t understand how a relationship with Jesus Christ can completely change a person. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now I believe my wife is a perfect person for the discussion of nature vs. nurture. I must begin with some history my wife. Erin never knew her biological father. She met her biological father for the first time just last year at the age of 33. As we get to know her biological father it seems the only similarities are a few facial features. My wife is much more a product of her step-dad who raised her in a Christian home. If my wife was not a Christian I suspect she might be more like her biological father, since he is not. So I guess my question in the nature vs. nurture debate would be how much does Christianity play into this? If you were to look at identical twins where one was raised in a Christian home and one in a non-Christian home how different would they be? Would they still have similarities? I think they would have certain similarities, but you simply can’t leave out Christianity in this debate, because Christ can completely transform an individual. If you leave religion out of it and take two people with the same genes and they are raised separately with the same worldview I believe they would have a tremendous amount in common if they were brought together later. I simply think it depends more on the culture, environment and worldview that the person is raised. That being said I guess I would say both if you consider God nature. If not, then I would say nurture because of the way our worldview and culture shapes us. Oops. I guess you simply can’t leave God out of the equation. God is our nature since all man is created in His image and as Christians he is our nurture in the way that he guides and directs our lives. I think the reason that so many people have a hard time answering this is because they try to leave God out of it. According to the text Psychology: â€Å"The nature- nurture issue-the controversy over the relative contributions of biology and experience. The origins of this debate are ancient. Do our human traits develop through experience, or are we born with them? The Greek philosopher Plato (428-348 B. C. assumed that character and intelligence are largely inherited and that certain ideas are inborn. Aristotle (384-322 B. C. ) countered that there is nothing in the mind that does not first come in from the external world through the senses. † (Myers, P. 7) The debate about nature vs. nurture rose again in the 1600’s with John Locke and Rene’ Descartes. Locke was on the nurture side believing everyone had a blank slate, a nd Descartes was on the nature side believing we are simply a product of our descendants. We then jump ahead to Charles Darwin in the mid 1800’s who was on the nature side. He believed everything naturally evolved over time. So what is the answer? I took the following from Geneology. com â€Å"Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The â€Å"nature vs. nurture† debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of whom we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment. (Powel, 2012) We simply don’t have the answer except to say it’s the combination on nature and nurture that shape us. The Darwin theory lives on today in our nature vs. nurture debate. When it all comes down to it, in simple terms, we really have only two options. We either leave God (the creator) out of the picture and embrace the evolution theory that everything just naturally happened, or we embrace the truth of God and his Word. The nature vs. nurture debate will never be resolved apart from God. Things do naturally happen but only because God the creator is making things naturally happen. Nurture is part of our free will that God gave us and told us to rule over the earth and to populate the earth. As we populated the earth our cultures and habits, traditions evolved and developed. The result of who we are today does partially come from our ancestors; however apes are not our ancestors. Our ancestors are our grandparents, great grandparents and so on all the way back to Noah, Abraham, and Adam and Eve in the beginning. It’s strange to really think we have similar genes to Adam and Eve but not as strange to think we have the same genes as apes. God created apes and monkeys to remind us what we would be like if we were not humans with a soul, and were apart from Christ. Just as you can’t separate God from creation, neither can you separate nature from nurture it is both, not one or the other. References: 1) Myers, D. G. , 2010. Psychology. New York, NY. Worth Publishers 2) Powell, K. , 2012. Nature Vs. Nurture. , http://genealogy. about. com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture. htm How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Papers Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays Nature vs. Nurture As far as how an individual personality is biologically determined, no one really knows just in what manner it is accumulated. In an article conducted by John Hockett, he describes the differences as such; â€Å"Nature is a trait which does not change with age, while nurture is an influence, uncorrelated with nature and making for individual differences which change with the length over time or number of years through which it acts†. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now In other words, nature is permanent and nurture causes it to fluctuate (Hockett). Early childhood experiences are often linked with personality changes in people. This goes along with theories that maybe personality is only determined from your own experiences after you’re born. Many people also believe that personality is pre-determined by your biological make-up even before you are born. The truth in the matter is that your personality is made up by a combination of both nature(Biological Genotype) and nurture (your personal life experiences). There are many problems involving the nature vs. nurture debate. Related article: Nature or Nurture: The Case of the Boy Who Became a Girl Answer Key The idea that peoples personality/disition making is strictly biological at birth and cannot be changed throughout their life could be used to argue that people charged with major crimes should not be given the chance to be rehabilitated. This would be because we believe that people cannot change their moral being, even if put through helpful services. For people who believe that nurture (or your environment you are in growing up) is the only factors for personality development would have to argue that you are not born with your personality, that it is created from your own life expirience. This conclusion would make it very hard to show hereditary links between personality and mood disorders in family trees. I personally have heard of studies that show that there is a correlation between the two (nature nurture theories) In present day, most psychiatrists can agree that personality is shown in early development of children and that it can be srastically altered from tramatic childhood neglect fo expiriences. This proves that â€Å"nuture† is almost definitely involved in personality factors. Nature is the phrase that is used to describe any personality traits that are strictly up to your genetics. There are some studies that show biologically set in stone personalities. Some people have a natural dopamine deficiency that causes them to be more thrill seeking in order to get that missing void filled. You can test people average hormonal levels as well in order to determine how they might be influenced by genetic factors. Studies have shown that babies that have stressed out mothers while they are in the womb tend to be born showing more anxiety and stressfulness than those that were born from calmer mothers. Nurture refers to the personality traits that are obtained over a lifetime, or in other word things that are not genetically implanted in DNA. The famous and probably one of the first people to suggest this was the philosopher John Locke who came up with the idea that everyone is born with no knowledge or personality and every experience shapes them. This is called the â€Å"blank slate† theory. The problem with this theory is that it means that humans would have no instinctual knowledge and everything would be up to your own personal experience. Humans have the natural ability to have some things such as breathing and temperature regulation as instinct. To bring nature (genetics) together with nurture (environment) in the study of social development we will have to look at results of many social-development studies. According to Robert Plomin ; three examples are the newest ideas for developmental examinations of personality( Plomin). First, he claims that there are three key areas of social development; attachment, empathy, and social competence. He claims that â€Å"these suggest that genetic factors contribute to individual differences in social development† (Plumin). Second, research on widely used measures of social environment implicates a genetic contribution. Plumin believes that nature does have an effect on personality but his emphasis is on the rise of increasingly advanced technology being used to read genetic variation to determine personality traits. â€Å"It is predicted that behavioral genetic research will be conducted using DNA markers that assess genetic variation among individuals directly rather than resorting to indirect estimates based on twin and adoption methods. This will revolutionize behavioral genetic research and make it more accessible and applicable to developmentalists† (Plumin). As a first step in the direction of behavioral genetics, social developmentalists are encouraged to include siblings in their research. Plumin is a very good example of one of the many people who are still in the debate of Nature vs. nurture as far as personality goes. Works Cited Plomin, R. (1994). Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Development,  3(1), 37-53. doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1467-9507. 1994. tb00022. x Symonds, P. M. (1926). Nature vs. nurture. Journal of Educational Psychology,  17(7), 498-500. doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/h0067291 How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Essay examples Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays Nature vs. Nurture As far as how an individual personality is biologically determined, no one really knows just in what manner it is accumulated. In an article conducted by John Hockett, he describes the differences as such; â€Å"Nature is a trait which does not change with age, while nurture is an influence, uncorrelated with nature and making for individual differences which change with the length over time or number of years through which it acts†. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now In other words, nature is permanent and nurture causes it to fluctuate (Hockett). Early childhood experiences are often linked with personality changes in people. This goes along with theories that maybe personality is only determined from your own experiences after you’re born. Many people also believe that personality is pre-determined by your biological make-up even before you are born. The truth in the matter is that your personality is made up by a combination of both nature(Biological Genotype) and nurture (your personal life experiences). There are many problems involving the nature vs. nurture debate. The idea that peoples personality/disition making is strictly biological at birth and cannot be changed throughout their life could be used to argue that people charged with major crimes should not be given the chance to be rehabilitated. This would be because we believe that people cannot change their moral being, even if put through helpful services. For people who believe that nurture (or your environment you are in growing up) is the only factors for personality development would have to argue that you are not born with your personality, that it is created from your own life expirience. This conclusion would make it very hard to show hereditary links between personality and mood disorders in family trees. I personally have heard of studies that show that there is a correlation between the two (nature nurture theories) In present day, most psychiatrists can agree that personality is shown in early development of children and that it can be srastically altered from tramatic childhood neglect fo expiriences. This proves that â€Å"nuture† is almost definitely involved in personality factors. Nature is the phrase that is used to describe any personality traits that are strictly up to your genetics. There are some studies that show biologically set in stone personalities. Some people have a natural dopamine deficiency that causes them to be more thrill seeking in order to get that missing void filled. You can test people average hormonal levels as well in order to determine how they might be influenced by genetic factors. Studies have shown that babies that have stressed out mothers while they are in the womb tend to be born showing more anxiety and stressfulness than those that were born from calmer mothers. Nurture refers to the personality traits that are obtained over a lifetime, or in other word things that are not genetically implanted in DNA. The famous and probably one of the first people to suggest this was the philosopher John Locke who came up with the idea that everyone is born with no knowledge or personality and every experience shapes them. This is called the â€Å"blank slate† theory. The problem with this theory is that it means that humans would have no instinctual knowledge and everything would be up to your own personal experience. Humans have the natural ability to have some things such as breathing and temperature regulation as instinct. To bring nature (genetics) together with nurture (environment) in the study of social development we will have to look at results of many social-development studies. According to Robert Plomin ; three examples are the newest ideas for developmental examinations of personality( Plomin). First, he claims that there are three key areas of social development; attachment, empathy, and social competence. He claims that â€Å"these suggest that genetic factors contribute to individual differences in social development† (Plumin). Second, research on widely used measures of social environment implicates a genetic contribution. Plumin believes that nature does have an effect on personality but his emphasis is on the rise of increasingly advanced technology being used to read genetic variation to determine personality traits. â€Å"It is predicted that behavioral genetic research will be conducted using DNA markers that assess genetic variation among individuals directly rather than resorting to indirect estimates based on twin and adoption methods. This will revolutionize behavioral genetic research and make it more accessible and applicable to developmentalists† (Plumin). As a first step in the direction of behavioral genetics, social developmentalists are encouraged to include siblings in their research. Plumin is a very good example of one of the many people who are still in the debate of Nature vs. nurture as far as personality goes. Works Cited Plomin, R. (1994). Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Development,  3(1), 37-53. doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1111/j. 1467-9507. 1994. tb00022. x Symonds, P. M. (1926). Nature vs. nurture. Journal of Educational Psychology,  17(7), 498-500. doi: http://dx. doi. org/10. 1037/h0067291 How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Papers Nature vs. Nurture Free Essays There is no denying that both nature and nurture both play a part in who a person is. When it comes to genes and environment one of the two has a greater influence on a person. One’s nurture or environment has the most influence on who a person is and will become. We will write a custom essay sample on Nature vs. Nurture or any similar topic only for you Order Now The first reason environment has a greater influence is because education is a result to how someone thinks. The second reason environment has a greater influence on a person is because people around them reflect them as a person.The third reason why environment has a greater influence is because the location of someone affects their views. The first reason why nurture overrules nature in who a person is, is because intelligence is learned. No one has a dumb brain, just like no one has a genius brain. All humans have the same functioning brain, however not all brains receive the same information. The education a person is given does affect the way they think and the level of intelligence they have.Someone who goes to a scholarly private school is going to have a higher intellect level than someone who goes to a less fortunate public school. A person’s education affects their intelligence, beliefs, behaviors, and how they carry themselves as a whole. The second reason why nurture overrules nature in who someone is, is because people around them reflect them as a person. It’s only natural that people observe and learn from other people. These observations help to influence and develop their way of thinking and behaving.One’s social life amongst other experiences with people in their life influence how they act. Friends, family, and other figures rub off on a person, as the saying goes â€Å"you are who you surround yourself with. † The third reason nurture overrules nature in which a person is the location of someone affects their views. The actual environment someone lives in has a big impact towards their outlook on life. If someone is put in an environment in Afghanistan where the United States is constantly attacking, and they grow up to be a terrorist; what is to blame?It wasn’t in their genetics to kill or have hatred; their environments set their brains up to think that way. No matter where someone goes in life, the environment they grew up in will always remain a part of them. A Person’s experiences in their surroundings will affect their personality, reactions, and behaviors towards other individuals. In conclusion, a person’s nurture or environment has the most influence on who they are and will become. The first reason environment has a greater influence is because education is a result to how someone thinks.The second reason environment has a greater influence on a person is because people around them reflect them as a person. The third reason why environment has a greater influence is because the location of someone affects their views. It is not being stated that genetics plays no role in a person’s behavior or personality, but in this essay it is being stated that a person’s experiences override their genetics to help the brain develop and create them as an individual, separate from their parents and relatives. How to cite Nature vs. Nurture, Papers

Pricing Orientation and Pricing Capabilities

Question: Discuss about the Pricing Orientation and Pricing Capabilities. Answer: Introduction: Product development, also sometimes termed as management of new product, is a sequence of steps including conceptualization, blueprint, expansion and marketing of newly formed goods and services (Fuller, 2016). Product developments main objective is to develop, preserve and augment the market share of a company by satisfying the demand of a consumer. Every product that comes out of the manufacturers house does not have that ability or features to attract consumers, so it is essential to identify the target market for a product or service, which is critical in defining the developmental process of a product. Influence of technology on services characteristics: Businesses have made good use of technology in reducing costs, improving the process of communication and reaching to consumers in a better way. Moreover, with help of technology companies make sure that there is no comprise in quality of any product. Technology also helps consumers in comparing two products having similar features. Services cannot be stored but technology has helped in depicting how it can be properly used and distributed among people. Marketing and managing intangible products are difficult as consumers cannot see or experience the hidden value associated with the. For example, the ability of a teacher to teach a student is impossible to evaluate as it also depends on the learning capability of students. Moreover, intangibility of products cannot be stored so that the same can be enjoyed over time. Product differentiation would work only when the premium price that is being charged by the company proves to be enough in casing the costs of focusing on the desired quality (Makadok Ross, 2013). The quality and design of the products should be such that can bring in returns, which needs to be above average. Market Oriented Pricing Decisions Market-based pricing approach can also be stated as competition based stratagem and through this pricing strategy, a company assesses the prices of related products on the market (Liozu Hinterhuber, 2013). It is significant in considering those products that are comparable with the ones being offered. It depends on the product, which has more or less the same features as that of its competitors. Depending on that, the company sets its prices higher or lower than the pricing of the competitor. For example, if a particular product has an extra-added feature over its rivals product, the company could settle on same pricing, thus making it an improved value or could even price it a bit higher for that supplementary feature. Non-Price competition: Non-price competition exists under oligopoly and monopolistic competition, where firms can be enormously competitive (Chie Chen, 2014). Non-price competition involves two phases: one that executes new facet of production and another that markets these transforms to public. Non-price competition exists where there is high quality products, enhanced observation of brands, various products for different demographics and improvement in tactics of sales. Consumers Association of Price with Quality: Organizations believe in positioning of price, which is based on assumption that buyers evaluate quality by price, especially under circumstances where decisions are complex in nature. Consumers at times become uncertainty relating to the quality of a product through which they assume that higher price specifies higher quality level. Prestige Pricing is used when buyers correlate an elevated price with advanced quality. In Prestige pricing, prices are set at a synthetically high point for provision of quality or prestige image. It has lower fixed costs as overall strategies facilitate a store in developing infrastructure and efficiencies in supply chain. Establishing repute for having everyday low prices, customers deduce the products quality. Consumers in need of higher quality products might not have the belief that those stores can deliver quality products. Reference: Chie, B. T., Chen, S. H. (2014).Non-Price Competition in a Modular Economy(No. 1401). ASSRU-Algorithmic Social Science Research Unit. Fuller, G. W. (2016).New food product development: from concept to marketplace. CRC Press. Liozu, S. M., Hinterhuber, A. (2013). Pricing orientation, pricing capabilities, and firm performance.Management Decision,51(3), 594-614. Makadok, R., Ross, D. G. (2013). Taking industry structuring seriously: A strategic perspective on product differentiation.Strategic Management Journal,34(5), 509-532.