The Parental Influence On Children Young People Essay

The Parental Influence On Children Young People Essay Though parental liability laws are creating a great deal of controversy, there is little doubt that parents exert a huge influence on children and their behaviour. One research proves that alcoholics were likely to have parents who were alcoholics, while domestic abusers were likely abused themselves as children. Academic and research literature contains a wealth of information tying parental influence to childrens behaviour. In the area of peer influence, for example, Chen et al (2007) note that, in a study among California and Wisconsin high school students, it was found that parental influence on peer affiliation still is significant even as parental involvement in adolescents lives diminishes. But it isnt only growing teens that respond to parental influences. Infants, even very young infants, respond to parental stress and react to it (Molfese et al, 2010). In fact, it has been revealed that parental stress and/or reaction can actually have an impact on vocabulary and cognitive development (Molfese et al, 2010). On the other side weve seen literature extolling the positive benefits of tools such as parental training on the success of children. For example, Sheely-Moore and Bratton (2010) discussed how a family-oriented, strengths-based approach toward working with lower-income African American families helped raise childrens grades while lowering school discipline problems. The authors in this study pointed to the need of positive parental involvement on childrens academic achievement and socio-economic development, though pointed out that parental involvement can be difficult for those who live in poverty (Sheely-Moore and Bratton, 2010). Furthermore, it has been proven that parental influence also has an influence on driving among their teenage offspring (Crawford-Faucker, 2009). According to the National Young Driver Survey (involving 5,665 students in grades 9 through 11) parenting styles had a definite impact on choices the young drivers made (Crawford-Faucker, 2009). The authoritative parenting style combining emotional support with clear rules and monitoring had a definite (and positive) influence on driving-related behaviours and other attitudes among adolescents (Crawford-Faucker, 2009). These teens had a lower crash risk, experienced fewer crashes as passengers and were twice as likely to wear seat belts as a driver (or passenger) then were teens with uninvolved parents (Crawford-Faucker, 2009). Furthermore, this group reported less alcohol use (Crawford-Faucker, 2009). But harsh verbal and physical discipline isnt necessary the way to go, either. McKee et al (2007) studied harsh verbal and physical discipline and child problem behaviours in a sample of 2,582 parents and their fifth and sixth grade children. The findings indicated that the harsh discipline was associated with child behaviour problems, with one dimension of positive parenting parental warmth helping to buffer children from the more detrimental influences of the harsher physical discipline (McKee et al, 2007). In this section that parents have a huge influence on their kids, whether those kids are tiny, helpless infants or defiant teenagers. Children tend to mimic their parents, for better or for worse. Some years ago, the organization Partnership for a Drug-Free America aired a series of advertisements showing a father breaking into his sons room, drug paraphernalia in his hands. Where did you get this? the father thunders. Where did you get this and how do you know about it?I know about it by watching you! the son cries out. I watched you do it! The point of the commercial, of course, is that children will take their cues from their parents. If parents act in a responsible manner and own up to a mistake or problem situation, children will take that same cue. If, however, parents are carelessness and put the blame on other people for their own mistakes, children will do the same things. Discussion The issue we need to address here, however, is that this is not necessarily a black or white scenario. Tyler et al (2000) point out that the parental liability laws, in which parents are charged with the crime committed by their offspring, could end up penalizing the poor. In a poor family, both parents might be working leaving their children to their own devices, simply because they cant afford child care. Furthermore, if a child is delinquent, poor people (at least, in theory) may not be able to afford counselling to find out the problem. Few people want their children to be delinquent (especially lower-income people). But then again, even among poor families, we find out that not all children are delinquent. What is the difference between the well-behaved children of poorer families and those who act out? One word: Parenting. Even if there isnt a male role model in the house, many times, the matriarch of the family takes a strict stance among her offspring, raising Cain if the offspring get into trouble. Furthermore, there are resources for parents of lower income families to find help for their children if there are issues. Though going through governmental red tape can be a hassle to find a counsellor, a community agency or even religious organization official can be of great help in an area such as this. The point here is that there is really no excuse for the parent not to get help if the child acts out.What about if the childs mother is little more than a child herself? If this is a situation of a teenage mother who doesnt know how to parent, the situation changes a little, but not a whole lot. The teen mother still needs to be penalized, and then needs to be mandated to attend parenting classes. Failure to do so is the teen moms choice and if the teen mom doesnt attend classes, this tells the law enforcement officials that her defiance could be passed on to her children. Poverty isnt a good thing and it makes things very difficult, especially as it pertains to the parent-child relationship. But to use that excuse not to charge parents for a childs conduct is passing on responsibility. Such a situation may serve as a wake-up call for not only the child, but the parent who is involved with the childs upbringing. Conclusion Parenting is not an easy job and there is nothing more frustrating than hearing from the school or from the police that ones child is in trouble. Furthermore, there are those who point to the fact that trying to manage an unruly team is tough, and its not the parents responsibility if the teen gets into trouble.But this isnt true. Weve shown, through the literature, that parents have influence on their teenagers, even if their teenagers dont seem to be listening to them. Parents who keep lecturing to their kids about the evils of drugs and alcohol abuse are likely to have kids who grow up disdaining both of those substances. However, if kids see their parents freely addicted in alcohol (or drugs), the kids will ask themselves why not? and go ahead do the same thing. Parental liability laws arent meant to be malicious, nor are they meant to beat up on parents. What they are trying to do is to help parents teach their kids some responsibility. Even parents in poverty stricken families have a choice as to how they raise their kids. If they make the wrong choice, and the kids break laws as a result, the parents need to be held responsible.

A learning Machine

It is quite difficult to see the author’s main point in the sense that he simply discussed the findings of the five psychological scientists regarding their research on the neural plasticity of the brain. It appears that the author adapted the findings of the scientists which have served as the main point of the article.That is, based on the scientists’ findings the author depicted that the brain is â€Å"a learning machine† that it is capable to bend, stretched, expand, and specialize it self in order to respond to challenges. The author apparently believed that the topic was a breakthrough in scientific research regarding the human brain.The author made this clear citing the remark of one of the presenter; Nelson states, â€Å"Psychological sciences are on the point that it should become a big science. We should think about the way that chemistry became great sciences.The time of each person in his own lab may be over.†[1] As stated earlier, the authorâ €™s main point is to show that the human brain is capable of adjusting to the current challenges. The brain can be trained in order to become capable to cope up with the present challenges. It is true that the author described other people’s argument and he does have his own opinion. He simply cited the opinions of the five presenters and supports his main point by citing the remarks of the presenters regarding the topic.The information presented by the author is that the neural plasticity in able the brain to adapt to sort and interpret a huge variety of incoming data from the world. This finding was derived from an experiment on the adult monkey’s brain which concludes that human brain can be train to adapt new skills. The author says it is a breakthrough in scientific research of the human brain.What are the strong features of the author’s argument?Indeed, the author does not have his own argument, but the strong feature of the article is that it tells th e reader of what more the human brain is capable of.On the part of the writer, he simply presented the findings of the five scientists. However, the argument is definitely supported by solid data because they are based on actual experiment. Yes, the research appears to have been conducted properly because obviously, the writer validated all his information through the statement of the scientists which conducted the actual experiments regarding the topic. Regarding information, I do not think the author provided more than one side of the issue.The author simply presented what is necessary to give fair information. In my opinion, the weak feature of the article is its humanist notion. The article is not based on anecdote nor does it rely on isolated case study but on evolutionary principle. But generally, the author research is adequate as it is informative. The data presented was not misinterpreted nor the author tried to infer a causal connection from co-relational data.Comparison w as not possible rather the author corroborated the findings the scientists. Regarding other possible interpretations, this seems not possible as even the writer simply presented the opinion of the presenters. Nelson was careful not to make any unsubstantiated claims or has ignored other explanations as there was not such thing in the article.What have you learned in the course that supports arguments made by the author?I have learned from the course that the brain carries various cognitive activities and that it is a very complex information processor which process input information in many different levels of consciousness and unconsciousness. While this is a common knowledge, it clearly connects to the author’s argument that the brain is a learning machine.That is the brain is capable of adjusting, bending and acquiring skills. This argument is specifically noted by the author citing Michael Rutter of King’s college observation of the cognitive capability of Roman ch ildren form an adopted by UK families from an orphanage. Rutter noted the progress of the children who were all tested as mentally retarded upon their arrival, but after some years of living in above average environment, â€Å"they were nearly normal†[2].The thing that I have learned from the course that goes against the author’s argument is that the human brain distinctly set apart human’s from animals because of its capacity to adopt, to develop new skills, and bend stretched in order to respond to challenges. This kind of capability is so distinct from that of animals which attest that human beings are a special creation and not a product of evolution.This runs counter to the author’s argument which clearly adheres on the theory of evolution. Citing Gopnic, the author stated, â€Å"evolution requires that we discover new things about the works and use this knowledge to imagine new things, to change the world based on imaginings†[3] I could apply what I have leaned from this events first, locally by telling people who are struggling to cope with new challenge that they are capable of imagining a better situation and of turning it to reality.Second, nationally, I can write article which discussed on the capacity of human brain to cope and to adjust with new challenges which I will seek to publish on a national level. I understand that this is easier said than done but if this will help people to overcome their current difficult situation, then I will be willing to pursue it. Globally, this may sound impossible, but publishing an article of international circulation may be possibleSelect a concept from the article and connect it to or relate it to events happening in the world today.The concept I selected from the article is the concept that brain can be trained. The human brain can be trained to be skilled, can be trained to become sensitive and can be trained to adjust or stretched.   Today, the world is witnessing the ri se of new technology and the world is fast becoming technology drive.The need of new skills, new knowledge, and visions requires human being to respond by adapting to the new situation. In this new development, the ability of the brain to acquire new skills, to adapt to new situation, to cope with challenges, and the capability of the mind to be trained relates highly because the new knowledge demands new skills. In other words, training people for this type of knowledge is possible because of brains capability to adjust and to adopt.

Emotion and Stress – Does Guilt and Sympathy Affect Helping Behavior?

Helping behavior is perceived as socially acceptable and highly appreciated. Therefore, people tend to praise others when they have helped the needy. We used to think that only those people with positive personality, such as sensitive and kind, perform helping behaviors. Nevertheless, whether one acts good or not also greatly depends on his or her emotional states. Through this psychology project, I found that people are more likely to perform a helping behavior when they feel guilty or sympathetic. Emotion is an indispensable part of humanity. It is a way for people to understand what they feel towards events and people around.Unlike lower-order animals, emotion helps people to act like a human. Serial killers are emotionless. People with emotionless may probably feel nothing when they are hurting or harming others which are highly unacceptable in society. Since people tend to engage more when they are happy but withdraw from daily activities when they are upset, we can see that our behaviors are always determined by our emotions. Yet, people tend to perform more helping behaviors when they feel guilty or sympathetic. How do these negative emotions push people to help their neighbors?Guilt is an emotion that occurs when people believe that they have violated a moral standard while sympathy is the feeling of being sorry for somebody showing that people understand and care about somebody’s problem. They are both negative rather than positive emotions. People do not feel good when they are guilty or sympathetic towards somebody. Is that true people involve more in altruistic behaviors when they are guilty or sympathetic? There is an experiment conducted by Jean Decety (2009) who is a neuroscientist studying the relationship between guilt, sympathy and helping.He is a professor of Psychology at the University of Chigago and is specialized in affective neuroscience. In the study, student subjects are required to observe their coworkers receiving shock. Some of them are made to think they are responsible for the coworker’s suffering (guilt condition), while others merely observe the suffering (observer condition. There is also a group working with coworkers receiving no shock. Later the three groups are given opportunities to help a third party who is not in the original experiment.The result shows that subjects in the guilt and observer condition are more likely than the control group to give their helping hand to the third party. The finding suggests that the feeling of guilt and sympathy and the willingness in engaging in an altruistic act is highly correlated. Subjects are more willing to help others when they feel sorry for a third person even they do not responsible for their unfortunate. At the same time, altruism may aroused merely by witnessing one’s suffering. There are three reasons for people who feel guilty and sympathetic to engage in helping behaviors.Altruism is a form of disguised self-interest and helps i n mood management while restoring one’s self-image. People help others for their own benefits. It is always unpleasant to watch another organism suffer. When one empathizes because of their misfortune, strong negative emotion is arisen. People are actually seeking to alleviate the unpleasant feelings that their distress arouse in them. It is a kind of internal self-reward. This can reduce the negative feeling by saying they have at least done their part in helping the unfortunate. Therefore, altruism is the attempt to reduce the empathetic feeling that arises in people.Besides, people help others when they are guilty and sympathetic for mood management. Both guilt and sympathy are negative emotions which are unpleasant. Therefore, they can be reduced by performing a helpful act or any other positive means. In a study (Decety, 2009), subjects who had inflicted or witnessed an unfortunate situation received an unexpected monetary reward. The result shows that subjects who recei ved rewards are less likely than those who do not receive any and remain in bad mood in engaging helping behaviors. This indicates that helping is just one of the positive means which can uplift one’s emotion.People are motivated to engage in altruistic act in order to alleviate the negative emotion associated with guilt and sympathy. Apart from that, when people feel guilty, they have probably done something wrong and regret for their actions. For instance, students have cheated in an examination. Their self-images are broken due to the negative behaviors performed. They understand that their behaviors are unacceptable and they do not want to be perceived as bad. In order to restore the self-image in others’ eye, people will perform more pro-social behaviors.This is to prove that they are still the good guy. It seems to be upsetting that if humanity performs a helping behavior just for reforming their own self-image rather than from a genuine feeling of guilt in helpi ng others. Fortunately, it is not the case. Research suggests that unwitnessed transgression causes the same amount of donation as witnessed transgression. Therefore, it is acceptable to conclude that people perform altruistic act are at least partly caused by the feeling of guilt but not a need to repair their own self-image in others’ eye. Undoubtedly, there is a use for these findings.Since many charitable organizations know very well the psychology of human, many of the fund-raising activities we can see in daily lives make use of people’s empathy. It is common to see volunteers showing photos of the needy in the less-developed countries persuading pedestrians to donate money to them. Guilty may arises as people may recall they have wasted a lot of resources and sympathy may arises as living conditions in those less-developed countries are really poor. With the arousal of these negative emotions, people may therefore engage in altruism.It is true that one’s personality largely determines the likeliness in performing helping behaviors. Yet, our willingness in performing these behaviors also depends on the emotional states at that moment. The experiment done by professor, Jean Decety, proves that the feeling of guilt and sympathy can definitely facilitate altruistic behaviors. As a result, organizations may make use of this psychology as we know that even the meanest person may have the experience in helping others provided that they are at the right emotional state.

John Stuart Mill s Argument That Happiness Is The Only...

In this essay I am going to write about John Stuart Mill’s argument that happiness is the only intrinsic good. Mill’s proof focuses on defending utilitarianism, one of the most prominent works in moral philosophy and most prominent form of consequentialism as proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Mill defines the theory and provides his responses to common misconceptions people have surrounding it. Utility, the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that actions are right in that they generally promote happiness, and wrong as they produce the opposite of happiness. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, tends to focus on the general good and happiness of the world over individual pleasure. In this essay, I am going to argue for Mill’s argument that happiness is the only intrinsic good. In the first part of the essay, I am going to present John Stuart Mill’s point of view and defense of utilitarianism, and in the second part of the essay I am going to argue for it. I conclude my essay by formulating a basic summary of my argument supporting Mill’s proof that happiness is indeed the only intrinsic good. Part I The idea at the central to utilitarianism is that actions should increase the amount of happiness in the world. Mill was introduced to this doctrine rather early, and decided to dedicate his life to developing and further spreading it. Utilitarianism can be defined as â€Å"not so much an argument for the principle of utility as it is an argument for the claim thatShow MoreRelated Immanuel Kants Ethics Of Pure Duty and John Stuart Mills Utilitarian Ethics Of Justice2753 Words   |  12 PagesImmanuel Kants The Grounding For The Metaphysics of Morals and John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral traditions are formed. Immanuel Kant has presented one viewpoint in The Grounding For The Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his ability to reason. John Stuart Mill holds another opinion as presented in the book, Utilitarianism thatRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill s Utilitarian Ethics1795 Words   |  8 Pages John Stuart Mill s Utilitarian Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performedRead MoreThe Mill By John Stuart Mill1537 Words   |  7 PagesJohn Stuart Mill was a famous philosopher and historian. Jeremy Bentham who advocated for utilitarianism just like Mill influenced much of Mill’s works. Mill’s works were also greatly influenced by Jeremy Bentham’s brother, Samuel and Mill’s father, James. Mill had many early works prior to his writings on utilitarianism. Mill discusses how to determine right and wrong, but this seems to be an ongoing conflict. Mill believes that in order to prove goodness you must have ethical morals lined up inRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill s Utilitarianism1771 Words   |  8 Pages John Stuart Mill s Utilitarianism Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central component. Although, each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the common underlining theme is that of individuals striving to become better and think for themselves. Morality plays a big part in utilitarianism. Many philosophers have defined utilitarianism in a variety of different ways like Jeremy Bentham who believes an action is right if happiness is promoted and wrong if it reverse happiness, includingRead MoreArgument For Criticizing Utilitarianism And Deontology1138 Words   |  5 PagesSociety Instructor: Joseph John Argument for criticizing utilitarianism and deontology In this paper, I will discuss various ethical courses of action during ethical dilemmas. I will be examining how utilitarians and deontologists use different approaches to solve ethical dilemmas, by citing the text â€Å"Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues† and views of philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. Using these, I will develop an argument for why I think the mostRead MoreUtilitarianism : A Look At J.s1731 Words   |  7 PagesKevin Billings Canzanella PHL-202 2/7/15 Utilitarianism: A Look at J.S. Mill John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher in the 19th century whose views continue to change the world today. He was a proponent of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism and happiness. So in order to understand utilitarianism we must first understand what consequentialism is, and then understand how happiness is related. Consequentialism is a philosophical view in which morality means to produceRead MoreImmanuel Kant And The Categorical Imperative1437 Words   |  6 Pagesdeontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardlessRead MoreMoral Judgements Are Morally Wrong?2025 Words   |  9 Pagesthe most utility. This also means that actions need to present the most overall good for all and not just a single person. John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century British philosopher, would agree with the utilitarian approach by arguing that actions are deemed morally permissible if they will make more people happy than any other alternative course of action. In this paper, I will contrast Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill’s ethical theories, and then argue that Mill’s view of utilitarianism is theRead MoreWhat Has Posterity Ever Done For Me By Robert Heilbroner1626 Words   |  7 Pagesresponsibilities towards future generations in regards to preserving the planet. In this paper, I will present Heilbroner s arguments for posterity, in relation to how we treat our environment. In addition, I will compare two ethical theories, Kant s Categorical Imperative to Mill s theory of Utilitarianism. I will then argue as to why Utilitarianism is more plausible in respect to Heilbroner s environmental view on posterity. Furthermore, I will point out why Kantian theory does not at all support the ideaRead MoreBentham And Mill ( 1806-1873 ) And John Stuart Mill Essay1302 Words   |  6 Pagesimportant utilitarian’s in history are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Bentham and Mill were very important individuals when it came to philosophy. Their theories has had a major impact both on philosophical work and also an impact when it comes too economically, politically, and socially. Utilitarian’s are consequentialist individuals who believe that actions are right inasmuch as they promote happiness. But Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that