Explain how we think about the social world, our perception of the world, and how we view ourselves in the social environment. Draw in-depth conclusions about each of the topics.

Then, select and respond one (1) of the following in the discussion forum:

- List the two (2) major types of social cognition. Discuss the differences between them and give an example of each type.

- Explain how culture influences social thinking. Give an example of a culture that has shown to influence social thinking. It can be a personal experience or a general example. Provide a detailed explanation of how do you consider that the culture identified influences social thinking.

- Provide an in-depth explanation of how people use nonverbal cues to understand others. What are some examples of nonverbal cues?

- How do we determine why people do what they do? Provide an example of a time when you performed an academic or professional action to enable your academic or professional success. Were you successful? If not, what could you have done differently?

Please discuss your thoughts about your own spirituality and how you engage with this dimension of the human condition. What parallels do you see with the neolithic people who built stonehenge? Why do we as humans need to find meaning beyond our earthly existence?

What did you learn about conducting a Clinical Interview?

In what ways would you modify the Clinical Interview if you were conducting one with a 12-year old. Support your response with evidence from the literature.

Reconstruct the argument into the standard form of an argument by analogy [start by stating as precisely as possible the exact conclusion for which Thomson is arguing and then articulating, on the basis of the analogy given, how the two situations are similar (the similarity premise 1 is not given explicitly but you have to do this work), etc.]

Passage:

I think that ... the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly
fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn
is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest
to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise [we assume
that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception]. How, precisely, are we
supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible?
Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus
is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility
of abortion.... I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls
for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer
examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person
has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right
to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely
a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide
what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning
and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous, unconscious
violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society
of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
alone have the right blood to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night
the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be
used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital
now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would
never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is
plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine
months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can be safely unplugged
from you."

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would
be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?

What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist
plugged into you for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a
right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens
in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens
in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you
would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

do you agree/disagree with the accepted/assumed analogy - that the two cases are similar - and why?
Passage:
I think that ... the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly
fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn
is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest
to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise [we assume
that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception]. How, precisely, are we
supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible?
Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus
is a person, and hardly any time explaining the step from there to the impermissibility
of abortion.... I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls
for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer
examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception.
How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person
has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right
to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely
a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide
what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning
and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous, unconscious
violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society
of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
alone have the right blood to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night
the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be
used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital
now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would
never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is
plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine
months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can be safely unplugged
from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would
be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist
plugged into you for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a
right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens
in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens
in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you
would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

Discuss how class is represented in "Barn Burning," "Rectatif," and "The Displaced Person." You must have at least two quotes from each story. You need to have at least two quotes from the "Intersection" article. You will have a works cited page as well.

Barn Burning by Williams Faulkner

Rectatif by Toni Morrison

The Displaced Person by Flannery O'Connor

Intersection by Debra Henderson and Tickamyers

Do I need to post the articles. I listed the title of the article and the author.  

what are key strategies that a judge would utilize in order to reconcile the discrepancy in perception of the George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.

How should each organization measure the success of the programs?

How are public health program initiatives enhanced by private- and public-sector partnerships? Do you think a profit-oriented company working with a community-based, nonprofit organization to deliver a public health program is counter-intuitive?

What issues do you think the partners will face as they slowly roll out the Alliance on a nationwide basis?

As a result of watching the video: Everybody Rides the Carousel, select one scene of significance to you and discuss the scene from the perspective of at least two of the following theories: learning theory, cultural theory, social role theory, and systems theory. I was thinking about using the second scene ; erikson's stage autonomy versus shame, i'm just having a hard time adding in two theories to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKt7__yeszw - this is the video, its super long though

Do you think that illness/ disease is caused by social conditions/ society, or is something that is biological in nature? Why? 200 words

In Chapter 15, Matsumoto & Juang (2013) pose the following to us: How do the organizations to which you belong make decisions? Is it top-down, bottom-up, or something else? How does it compare to the Japanese system described in the text? What system would work best, and why?

Matsumoto & Juang (2013) pose the following question in this week's readings: Do you think gender roles are produced by gender stereotypes, or vice versa? Explore how gender stereotypes impact our culture today.

Name and describe the four steps involved in the scientific process.